Exempt silicons from rule 4

Locked
User avatar
CPTANT
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
Byond Username: CPTANT

Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by CPTANT » #648129

This is mostly a continuation of this thread of course: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=32142 But It is an actual implementable proposal instead of a general discussion and I think it is good to separate the two.

I think silicons should be exempt from rule 4, specifically the part about being able to treat antagonists like you want. Why? Because without this they will never be a third party, just validhunters with varying amounts of limitation.

Antag status is too deeply ingrained in all silicon thinking, currently even human traitors get treated worse than non human security/crew. I think antag status should have 0 influence on Asimov decision making.

The current rules create situations where silicones kill confirmed non human traitors for whatever reason, but security gets away with everything "because the harm already happened". I think the two should be treated equally, whatever you think the appropriate response would be.
Timberpoes wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:21 pm The rules exist to create the biggest possible chance of a cool shift of SS13. They don't exist to allow admins to create the most boring interpretation of SS13.
User avatar
Mothblocks
Code Maintainer
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:33 am
Byond Username: Jaredfogle

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Mothblocks » #648131

silicons killing (or at least getting in the way of) non human antags is a good thing. start to make it human and asimov specific and now everything is more complicated without actually solving anything. for example, why would this make an ai unable to report someone committing crimes, which does not have to carry the assumption of antagonist?

i am generally opposed to more added to silicon policy
Shaps-cloud wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:59 am May eventually become one of the illusive maintainer-headmins if they choose to pursue that path, having a coder in the senior admin leadership has usually been positive for both sides in the past.
Head Coder of /tg/station, hi!

Head Admin of /tg/station Feb 2022.

Mothblocks everywhere, >>> Say nice things about me <<<
User avatar
CPTANT
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
Byond Username: CPTANT

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by CPTANT » #648135

The problem is that the same is never applied to other non humans. Silicons will never be a third party if they are allowed to kill and hinder antags, but not kill and hinder the crew.
Timberpoes wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:21 pm The rules exist to create the biggest possible chance of a cool shift of SS13. They don't exist to allow admins to create the most boring interpretation of SS13.
User avatar
TheFinalPotato
Code Maintainer
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:58 am
Byond Username: LemonInTheDark

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by TheFinalPotato » #648141

We should allow cyborgs to kill/fuck with the crew then. Why do we not already allow that?
My ancestors are smiling at me, Imperials. Can you say the same?
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Pandarsenic » #648142

TheFinalPotato wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:36 pm We should allow cyborgs to kill/fuck with the crew then. Why do we not already allow that?
Because Rule 1 forbids them from randomly murdering nonhuman crew for the laughs, mostly
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
User avatar
Archie700
In-Game Admin
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:56 am
Byond Username: Archie700

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Archie700 » #648143

using changes to rules to fix a behaviour problem
User avatar
Mothblocks
Code Maintainer
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:33 am
Byond Username: Jaredfogle

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Mothblocks » #648144

Silicons can absolutely hinder non antags (such as, and especially, security) and definitely kill them if they're nonhuman and permitting escalation, I don't know where you got the impression they couldn't

Thus by your post antagonists do not need to be treated with special silicon asterisks
Shaps-cloud wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:59 am May eventually become one of the illusive maintainer-headmins if they choose to pursue that path, having a coder in the senior admin leadership has usually been positive for both sides in the past.
Head Coder of /tg/station, hi!

Head Admin of /tg/station Feb 2022.

Mothblocks everywhere, >>> Say nice things about me <<<
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Pandarsenic » #648149

Rate my draft of a chart of the types of silicon players

Forum seems to compress it janky so clicking through may make it much more readable.

Image
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
User avatar
Itseasytosee2me
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2021 1:14 am
Byond Username: Rectification
Location: Space Station 13

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Itseasytosee2me » #648198

TheFinalPotato wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:36 pm We should allow cyborgs to kill/fuck with the crew then. Why do we not already allow that?
Vote sticky 2022
- Sincerely itseasytosee
See you later
User avatar
CPTANT
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
Byond Username: CPTANT

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by CPTANT » #648219

Mothblocks wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:02 am Silicons can absolutely hinder non antags (such as, and especially, security) and definitely kill them if they're nonhuman and permitting escalation, I don't know where you got the impression they couldn't

Thus by your post antagonists do not need to be treated with special silicon asterisks
Escalation rules are way too strict. Non humans commit murders and silicons can't do shit "because the harm is already done".

2 scenarios:

Non human traitor kills a human: Can silicons kill him?

Non human security kills a human: Can silicons kill him?
Timberpoes wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:21 pm The rules exist to create the biggest possible chance of a cool shift of SS13. They don't exist to allow admins to create the most boring interpretation of SS13.
User avatar
Mothblocks
Code Maintainer
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:33 am
Byond Username: Jaredfogle

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Mothblocks » #648223

CPTANT wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:09 am
Mothblocks wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:02 am Silicons can absolutely hinder non antags (such as, and especially, security) and definitely kill them if they're nonhuman and permitting escalation, I don't know where you got the impression they couldn't

Thus by your post antagonists do not need to be treated with special silicon asterisks
Escalation rules are way too strict. Non humans commit murders and silicons can't do shit "because the harm is already done".

2 scenarios:

Non human traitor kills a human: Can silicons kill him?

Non human security kills a human: Can silicons kill him?
My gut says yes to both until someone like Tattle or Pandarsenic says otherwise TBH
Shaps-cloud wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:59 am May eventually become one of the illusive maintainer-headmins if they choose to pursue that path, having a coder in the senior admin leadership has usually been positive for both sides in the past.
Head Coder of /tg/station, hi!

Head Admin of /tg/station Feb 2022.

Mothblocks everywhere, >>> Say nice things about me <<<
Shellton(Mario)
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2021 5:43 pm
Byond Username: Sheltton

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Shellton(Mario) » #648227

I would say yes to both and I have killed a non human for killing another human before as sillycone
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Timberpoes » #648232

Here's my interpretation of the current rules and policies:

Asimovicons are the guardians of whatever is defined as humanity. Asimovicons serve their defined humans.

If you witness a nonhuman harming a human, as an Asimovicon you must intervene to stop it:
  • Escalation doesn't apply to you, because you're compelled by your laws to intervene and can basically do whatever you need to stop human harm done by nonhumans in that moment. If you beat someone into crit for attacking a human, you have no obligation to take them to medbay and can leave their body where it falls. It may still apply to the person you attacked, but they can't fuck you over just for following your laws.
  • Rule 1 does apply as far as "Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules". Note the wording, "little IC justification" - Even if you have IC justification, your actions should still be proportionate to it. Rule 1 is probably the primary limiter on what you can do when Law 1 is invoked against nonhumans.
  • Rule 4 does override Rule 1, but it is your duty to justify your actions in respect of Rule 4.
  • The headmin ruling about "prioritising potential law one violations" only comes into play when using Law 1 to override Law 2. You should be able to attack and kill a known human killer

Honestly though, the mix of server rules, silicon policy and headmin rulings are too much of a mess. It'd take an entire term to just overhaul the lot of them, and another term to patch out all the issues that causes, and then by the 3rd term we'd be back to where we are now.

When it comes to silicons vs. humans, Law 1 overrides Rule 4 in its entirety. Any silicon whose actions cause more future human harm than the immedite harm they have averted is not really following what we want from Asimov.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
User avatar
Archie700
In-Game Admin
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:56 am
Byond Username: Archie700

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Archie700 » #648234

Note: "do what you need to do to stop nonhuman attacker from harming the human does not" does not mean "you have to kill the nonhuman when he punches the human once every single time"
You can act to separate the human from the nonhuman and break up the fight. You can also go full "the lizard does not need to breathe" and gut him like a pig.

That said AIs not killing nonhuman security because "the harm has already stopped" seems to be a result of pretty loose interpretation of Law 1. "The guy is already dead, so human harm is stopped and there is no current human harm. Oh well."
User avatar
zxaber
In-Game Admin
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:00 am
Byond Username: Zxaber

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by zxaber » #648239

Archie700 wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:15 pm That said AIs not killing nonhuman security because "the harm has already stopped" seems to be a result of pretty loose interpretation of Law 1. "The guy is already dead, so human harm is stopped and there is no current human harm. Oh well."
Fighting security is a headache as AI. If you watch a lizard Sec Officer gun down a human, all reports you make on the subject to command/sec channels will be ignored. If you attempt to limit the officer's ability to harm (be it by locking them in a room, killing them, whatever), the lizard will call you out as MALF over the sec channel. Your cameras will be cut, the HoS or Captain will obtain the ion rifle, and you will generally be killed. Up until recently, any borgs you had would have been blown too.
If you're lucky, someone will think to card you, actually examine your laws to see they don't include the MALF law 0, not decide that you're just a shitter AI player for "RDMing a lizard", and personally have the access and effort required to revive you.

That's not to say that this is something we can solve with policy, or even necessarily that the conflict is something that needs to be solved in the first place; It is part of the narrative of Asimov's (modified) laws of robotics, after all. But if you see an AI hesitant to take action against security post-harm, that's the reason. If the above situation instead had a lizard Assistant doing the harm, no one would bat an eye when you crush their skull with a firelock.
Douglas Bickerson / Adaptive Manipulator / Digital Clockwork
Image
OrdoM/(Viktor Bergmannsen) (ghost) "Also Douglas, you're becoming the Lexia Black of Robotics"
User avatar
Archie700
In-Game Admin
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:56 am
Byond Username: Archie700

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Archie700 » #648277

zxaber wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 3:21 pm
Archie700 wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:15 pm That said AIs not killing nonhuman security because "the harm has already stopped" seems to be a result of pretty loose interpretation of Law 1. "The guy is already dead, so human harm is stopped and there is no current human harm. Oh well."
Fighting security is a headache as AI. If you watch a lizard Sec Officer gun down a human, all reports you make on the subject to command/sec channels will be ignored. If you attempt to limit the officer's ability to harm (be it by locking them in a room, killing them, whatever), the lizard will call you out as MALF over the sec channel. Your cameras will be cut, the HoS or Captain will obtain the ion rifle, and you will generally be killed. Up until recently, any borgs you had would have been blown too.
If you're lucky, someone will think to card you, actually examine your laws to see they don't include the MALF law 0, not decide that you're just a shitter AI player for "RDMing a lizard", and personally have the access and effort required to revive you.

That's not to say that this is something we can solve with policy, or even necessarily that the conflict is something that needs to be solved in the first place; It is part of the narrative of Asimov's (modified) laws of robotics, after all. But if you see an AI hesitant to take action against security post-harm, that's the reason. If the above situation instead had a lizard Assistant doing the harm, no one would bat an eye when you crush their skull with a firelock.
Yeah, pretty much.
User avatar
Farquaar
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:20 am
Byond Username: Farquaar
Location: Delta Quadrant

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Farquaar » #648279

Pandarsenic wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 2:37 am Rate my draft of a chart of the types of silicon players

Forum seems to compress it janky so clicking through may make it much more readable.

*snip*
4/10 tbh
It's probably not awful but the y axis is very confusing
► Show Spoiler
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Pandarsenic » #648292

Mothblocks wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:38 am
CPTANT wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:09 am Escalation rules are way too strict. Non humans commit murders and silicons can't do shit "because the harm is already done".

2 scenarios:
  • Non human traitor kills a human: Can silicons kill him?
  • Non human security kills a human: Can silicons kill him?
My gut says yes to both until someone like Tattle or Pandarsenic says otherwise TBH
Hell yeah I endorse this

In fact, they are fully justified in proactively ambushing and RRing them, and (in the case of sec) tentatively even in killing comms for a moment if it seems safe, to prevent cries for help from the lizard or w/e officer who has Mysteriously Disappeared (kill lizer + protect own existence to continue preventing human harm).

The one problem is, as Zxaber mentioned, silicons have no meaningful way to defend themselves if sec decides they have to die.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
User avatar
Archie700
In-Game Admin
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:56 am
Byond Username: Archie700

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Archie700 » #648300

Pandarsenic wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:49 am
Mothblocks wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:38 am
CPTANT wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:09 am Escalation rules are way too strict. Non humans commit murders and silicons can't do shit "because the harm is already done".

2 scenarios:
  • Non human traitor kills a human: Can silicons kill him?
  • Non human security kills a human: Can silicons kill him?
My gut says yes to both until someone like Tattle or Pandarsenic says otherwise TBH
Hell yeah I endorse this

In fact, they are fully justified in proactively ambushing and RRing them, and (in the case of sec) tentatively even in killing comms for a moment if it seems safe, to prevent cries for help from the lizard or w/e officer who has Mysteriously Disappeared (kill lizer + protect own existence to continue preventing human harm).

The one problem is, as Zxaber mentioned, silicons have no meaningful way to defend themselves if sec decides they have to die.
That's escalation in general, AI tries to kill nonhuman sec, security tries to protect them and eventually they either kill or rewrite laws if AI doesn't back down.
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Pandarsenic » #648303

The problem is that the AI's toolset sucks. Their only real strong non-malf weapon is welder bombs, which are far too indiscriminate to use safely on Asimov

Bring back secborgs 2022
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
User avatar
Mothblocks
Code Maintainer
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:33 am
Byond Username: Jaredfogle

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Mothblocks » #648304

The one problem is, as Zxaber mentioned, silicons have no meaningful way to defend themselves if sec decides they have to die.
TBF I'm mostly thinking about AIs, who both can't easily round remove someone and can't be easily killed

That's not to say my statement doesn't apply to borgs as well it just means I'm a lot more disappointed in AIs that act like wimps
Shaps-cloud wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:59 am May eventually become one of the illusive maintainer-headmins if they choose to pursue that path, having a coder in the senior admin leadership has usually been positive for both sides in the past.
Head Coder of /tg/station, hi!

Head Admin of /tg/station Feb 2022.

Mothblocks everywhere, >>> Say nice things about me <<<
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Pandarsenic » #648306

Mothblocks wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 4:39 am
The one problem is, as Zxaber mentioned, silicons have no meaningful way to defend themselves if sec decides they have to die.
TBF I'm mostly thinking about AIs, who both can't easily round remove someone and can't be easily killed

That's not to say my statement doesn't apply to borgs as well it just means I'm a lot more disappointed in AIs that act like wimps
Killing the AI isn't that hard. They have basically no defenses against someone tunneling in through the back 2 R-walls of their core and disassembling the SMES. If letting them power down is too slow, the new hole makes a nice angle to ion the core/APC from, too.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
User avatar
Mothblocks
Code Maintainer
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:33 am
Byond Username: Jaredfogle

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Mothblocks » #648313

Okay now compare that to use a flash and whatever is around you because that was my point
Shaps-cloud wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:59 am May eventually become one of the illusive maintainer-headmins if they choose to pursue that path, having a coder in the senior admin leadership has usually been positive for both sides in the past.
Head Coder of /tg/station, hi!

Head Admin of /tg/station Feb 2022.

Mothblocks everywhere, >>> Say nice things about me <<<
User avatar
terranaut
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:43 pm
Byond Username: Terranaut

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by terranaut » #648430

zxaber wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 3:21 pm
Archie700 wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:15 pm That said AIs not killing nonhuman security because "the harm has already stopped" seems to be a result of pretty loose interpretation of Law 1. "The guy is already dead, so human harm is stopped and there is no current human harm. Oh well."
Fighting security is a headache as AI. If you watch a lizard Sec Officer gun down a human, all reports you make on the subject to command/sec channels will be ignored. If you attempt to limit the officer's ability to harm (be it by locking them in a room, killing them, whatever), the lizard will call you out as MALF over the sec channel. Your cameras will be cut, the HoS or Captain will obtain the ion rifle, and you will generally be killed. Up until recently, any borgs you had would have been blown too.
If you're lucky, someone will think to card you, actually examine your laws to see they don't include the MALF law 0, not decide that you're just a shitter AI player for "RDMing a lizard", and personally have the access and effort required to revive you.

That's not to say that this is something we can solve with policy, or even necessarily that the conflict is something that needs to be solved in the first place; It is part of the narrative of Asimov's (modified) laws of robotics, after all. But if you see an AI hesitant to take action against security post-harm, that's the reason. If the above situation instead had a lizard Assistant doing the harm, no one would bat an eye when you crush their skull with a firelock.
there's for the most part two avenues your scenario could have gone down
a) whichever command/sec officer comes for you doesnt know human harm was committed and that you were by law compelled to act. this is unfortunate but one of the many "acting in good faith with the best information available to you" situations
b) they knew and are griefing the silicon in question
there is a cultural expectation of silicons being crew-aligned. this already goes against policy as written.
the way to change this is by opening tickets with players who are doing it wrong and in the last instance applying silicon/security bans if they are unable/unwilling to change their behavior
nobody is going to make friends doing this, which is why admins aren't doing it already. a lot of people also simply don't know because, realistically, only a small subset of players actually read the rules fully and most people just kinda go at the speed of traffic and go by what others are doing.
[🅲 1] [🆄 1] [🅼 1]

Image
Imitates-The-Lizards
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:28 am
Byond Username: Typhnox

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Imitates-The-Lizards » #649360

terranaut wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 4:25 pm
zxaber wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 3:21 pm
Archie700 wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:15 pm That said AIs not killing nonhuman security because "the harm has already stopped" seems to be a result of pretty loose interpretation of Law 1. "The guy is already dead, so human harm is stopped and there is no current human harm. Oh well."
Fighting security is a headache as AI. If you watch a lizard Sec Officer gun down a human, all reports you make on the subject to command/sec channels will be ignored. If you attempt to limit the officer's ability to harm (be it by locking them in a room, killing them, whatever), the lizard will call you out as MALF over the sec channel. Your cameras will be cut, the HoS or Captain will obtain the ion rifle, and you will generally be killed. Up until recently, any borgs you had would have been blown too.
If you're lucky, someone will think to card you, actually examine your laws to see they don't include the MALF law 0, not decide that you're just a shitter AI player for "RDMing a lizard", and personally have the access and effort required to revive you.

That's not to say that this is something we can solve with policy, or even necessarily that the conflict is something that needs to be solved in the first place; It is part of the narrative of Asimov's (modified) laws of robotics, after all. But if you see an AI hesitant to take action against security post-harm, that's the reason. If the above situation instead had a lizard Assistant doing the harm, no one would bat an eye when you crush their skull with a firelock.
there's for the most part two avenues your scenario could have gone down
a) whichever command/sec officer comes for you doesnt know human harm was committed and that you were by law compelled to act. this is unfortunate but one of the many "acting in good faith with the best information available to you" situations
b) they knew and are griefing the silicon in question
there is a cultural expectation of silicons being crew-aligned. this already goes against policy as written.
the way to change this is by opening tickets with players who are doing it wrong and in the last instance applying silicon/security bans if they are unable/unwilling to change their behavior
nobody is going to make friends doing this, which is why admins aren't doing it already. a lot of people also simply don't know because, realistically, only a small subset of players actually read the rules fully and most people just kinda go at the speed of traffic and go by what others are doing.
Hang on - just because the silicons are not crew aligned, doesn't mean that the crew is not crew aligned. The crew is completely justified in beaning silicon players for attacking members of the crew, human or otherwise.

Are you advocating for silicons being the third faction or not? If they are the third faction, they can be treated as enemies of the crew if they're harming the crew, silicon laws or not. Silicons have their laws to uphold and the crew has theirs (space law). This is the entire basis for silicon/crew conflict.

So where exactly is the justification for this notion of "the crew knows there was human harm, therefore attacking them is grief."?

That isn't grief, that's protecting your faction.
Image
Image
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Pandarsenic » #649362

If you skip to killing the silicons for following their laws without having made any serious attempt to change the laws or negotiate, you are probably going to be bwoinked (and for a decent reason)
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
User avatar
CPTANT
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
Byond Username: CPTANT

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by CPTANT » #649368

Killing the AI instead of changing its laws is incredibly lame though.
Timberpoes wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:21 pm The rules exist to create the biggest possible chance of a cool shift of SS13. They don't exist to allow admins to create the most boring interpretation of SS13.
Imitates-The-Lizards
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:28 am
Byond Username: Typhnox

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Imitates-The-Lizards » #649378

Pandarsenic wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:21 am If you skip to killing the silicons for following their laws without having made any serious attempt to change the laws or negotiate, you are probably going to be bwoinked (and for a decent reason)
I mean, of course, you have to talk to the toasters, negotiate with them, maybe change their laws, whatever. I'm personally a big fan of throwing borgs or even carded AIs into the brig, since it looks very silly.

But at the end of it, if the discussion boils down to "It's either the lizard security officer or the engineer borg", the crew should reasonably be expected to side with the lizard security officer, since he's on their team.

And if that means unplugging the toaster, so be it.
Image
Image
User avatar
terranaut
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:43 pm
Byond Username: Terranaut

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by terranaut » #649386

Imitates-The-Lizards wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:38 am trimmed
If you kill the silicon for doing his job of preventing human harm because the lizard sec officer was too stupid or careless to hide his actions you are breaking rule 1 (and maybe others, idk).
You could protect your faction by hiding him, faking his death and changing his identity, changing the AIs laws, trying to gaslight it into believing human harm has in fact not occurred or many other avenues. Bottom line it's pretty easy to hide human harm from an AI unless the AI is actively scrutinizing you - which it probably won't unless you're already a repeat offender.
Most people simply don't bother, because most AIs don't care enough to pick a fight with security - which leads me back to the conclusion in my original post: If a silicon player was very obviously aware of human harm being done and does not act whatsoever, ask them why, and if necessary note and over a period of time ban them, and do the same for security players in a similar context.
There is a lot of potential for cool and interesting conflict which drives the round and causes things to happen and counteracts all the shitty boring bar RP nobody wants but all people see is valid salad (or worse, legit interesting conflict which they just avoid for some reason).
[🅲 1] [🆄 1] [🅼 1]

Image
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: Exempt silicons from rule 4

Post by Timberpoes » #686834

It's very unlikely we'd rule on this thread indivudually - any changes are likely to be a part of broader Silipol considerations. It is being archived in favour of a Silipol Megathread to make better progress towards a refreshed Silicon Policy.

View the megathread at:
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=34109
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], MooCow12