Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Locked
User avatar
CMDR_Gungnir
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 11:11 am
Byond Username: CMDR Gungnir

Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Post by CMDR_Gungnir » #655197

I've had this opinion for a while, that this change has backfired. The reason we made the shift to Asiimov++ was because it was intended to reduce the stress of Silicon Policy.

Currently, we have a ban appeal where the defense of the banning admin is that the borg couldn't "immediately know when the harm becomes non-voluntary". To quickly summarize the situation for anyone not caring about reading it, the banned wanted to be borged, the Roboticist said he couldn't, and then the Banned was table slammed to 40HP, while the borg sat there watching.

And personally, while I fully know that it doesn't work this way, I've argued with people about the fact that War Ops should be considered consensual harm from the side of the Nukies. If you declare a place a war zone, and you actively enter that warzone, then surely you're intending to be harmed. After all, a Warzone isn't a particularly safe place (like a delaminating engine), and you're entering it willingly. You clearly know about it, because you're the one who declared it a warzone.

This is, obviously, not how it works. But we only know that because of the silicon policy. The intention of making Asiimov++ was to alleviate the burden of Silicon Policy somewhat. But this, at best, fails to achieve that, and at worst, actively leans further on it.
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Post by Timberpoes » #655214

The intent wasn't to reduce the stress or burden of silicon policy. It was to make things more obvious ingame and reduce the need to have the wiki open 24/7 when playing as or with cyborgs.

SS13 is a game about incomplete information and trying your best despite not knowing all the facts. Unrustle thine jimmies.

Despite having everything fed to them on a silver platter, both players and admins alike fuck things up sometimes. C'est la vie. Welcome to to a sandbox game trying to provide a tabletop RPG experience with 30+ players.
/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
Imitates-The-Lizards
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:28 am
Byond Username: Typhnox

Re: Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Post by Imitates-The-Lizards » #655217

09:58:17 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "clearly enough" (161, 98, 3) Robotics Lab
09:58:26 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "HUMAN HARM BORG" (161, 98, 3) Robotics Lab
09:58:28 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "HELP" (161, 98, 3) Robotics Lab
09:58:41 SAY DarkKeeper072/(Thomas Sagan) "what the fuck are you doing" (156, 103, 3) Robotics Lab
10:29:19 SAY Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "ACTUAL RETARD" (125, 100, 3) Medbay Treatment Center
10:29:21 SAY Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "YEAH" (126, 100, 3) Medbay Treatment Center
10:29:26 SAY Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "WHAT WAS I SUPPOSED TO DO THEN?" (126, 100, 3) Medbay Treatment Center
10:29:34 SAY Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "YOU BROKE INTO ROBO" (126, 100, 3) Medbay Treatment Center
10:29:38 SAY Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "AND COMMITED A CRIME" (126, 100, 3) Medbay Treatment Center
10:29:45 SAY Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "SO THAT IS BASICALLY WILLING" (125, 99, 3) Medbay Treatment Center
10:30:37 SAY Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "YOU WILLINGLY GOT HUMAN HARMED" (133, 105, 3) Medbay Central
10:30:39 SAY Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "YOU TRESSPASSED" (133, 105, 3) Medbay Central
10:30:49 SAY Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "YEAH" (134, 105, 3) Medbay Central
10:30:52 SAY Bieyes/(B.O.R.B.O) "YOU TRESSPASSED" (134, 105, 3) Medbay Central
Yeah no. This is a case of the borg player being inexperienced and/or dumb. Asimov++ is fine.
Image
Image
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Post by Pandarsenic » #655256

If the dude is yelling "human harm, help" and the borg is yelling back "lol, lmao" this isn't a problem with the definition of consent
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
User avatar
CMDR_Gungnir
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 11:11 am
Byond Username: CMDR Gungnir

Re: Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Post by CMDR_Gungnir » #655271

Timberpoes wrote: Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:10 pm The intent wasn't to reduce the stress or burden of silicon policy. It was to make things more obvious ingame and reduce the need to have the wiki open 24/7 when playing as or with cyborgs.

SS13 is a game about incomplete information and trying your best despite not knowing all the facts. Unrustle thine jimmies.

Despite having everything fed to them on a silver platter, both players and admins alike fuck things up sometimes. C'est la vie. Welcome to to a sandbox game trying to provide a tabletop RPG experience with 30+ players.
My Jimmies aren't rustled. I'm trying to help plug a hole so that people don't get in trouble.

I see a glaring fault in Asiimov++ in that 'Consensual Harm' is a gigantic grey area (again, my argument about Nukies where the only argument anyone's had against it was 'Gung, you know that's not how that works." which. Yeah. I have 1300 hours, I sure do know that's not how it works. But a newer player won't and that was my point). I don't wanna see someone wind up getting noted or banned because they made a similar, rather reasonable assumption (how can you say you weren't expecting to be harmed when you walked into a literal warzone that YOU declared? A Warzone and a Fight Ring are both designated combat places, so willingly entering either is clearly intending to be harmed, right?)

That's why I didn't come in with a suggestion. I came in to start a discussion, as this particular subforum is named.
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Post by Timberpoes » #655274

The alternative to Asimov++ silicons getting talked to for being aware of consensual harm but not understanding it due to inexperience, is silicons getting talked to for not understanding players can consent to harm as laid out in silicon policy.

That is just a flaw in people playing silicons instead of machines playing silicons. People are dumber and far more unpredictable than machines. You can't account for everyone. You only need to make something work for the majority and handle the edge cases individually.
/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
blackdav123
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:04 pm
Byond Username: Blackdav123

Re: Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Post by blackdav123 » #655275

CMDR_Gungnir wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 12:58 am -snip-
Imo duels and self harm are the only form of consentual harm. If both sides would cease fighting if one party said to then there is consent between both parties. Silicons are not meant to watch a person being kidnapped and thrown into a rage cage and do nothing to prevent it on the assumption that "being in rage cage = consent".

In the nukie situation, if one party stopped fighting it is almost certain that the other will not stop fighting. Just because one party is starting the fight (the nukies) does not mean the other is fighting because they want to (crew). The nukies in this situation are not consenting to being harmed, as they would much prefer to be murdering people without being murdered themselves. Both sides are not agreeing on allowing harm to come to themselves, and the borg should act in a way to prevent both parties from being harmed even if one is the aggressor.
Weston Echard on Sybil
User avatar
CMDR_Gungnir
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 11:11 am
Byond Username: CMDR Gungnir

Re: Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Post by CMDR_Gungnir » #655286

blackdav123 wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 1:38 am
CMDR_Gungnir wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 12:58 am -snip-
Imo duels and self harm are the only form of consentual harm. If both sides would cease fighting if one party said to then there is consent between both parties. Silicons are not meant to watch a person being kidnapped and thrown into a rage cage and do nothing to prevent it on the assumption that "being in rage cage = consent".

In the nukie situation, if one party stopped fighting it is almost certain that the other will not stop fighting. Just because one party is starting the fight (the nukies) does not mean the other is fighting because they want to (crew). The nukies in this situation are not consenting to being harmed, as they would much prefer to be murdering people without being murdered themselves. Both sides are not agreeing on allowing harm to come to themselves, and the borg should act in a way to prevent both parties from being harmed even if one is the aggressor.
You are correct that being kidnapped and thrown into a rage cage isn't consenting harm, because they didn't enter the arena willingly.

Now you are correct, the Nukies would prefer to be murdering everyone without being murdered themselves. But, I'm sure that dude in the Rage Cage would prefer to be winning that fight without getting hurt or killed, so what makes it different there?

Only that we, as experienced players, know that because we've been told. But the terminology leaves that a rather large hole.

Timber's got a fair point, though.
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Post by Pandarsenic » #655288

I asked people's thoughts on these case studies the last time it came up but the thread instantly died so I'm posting it again. Spoilered because it's a big fuckin' post.
► Show Spoiler
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
User avatar
Cobby
Code Maintainer
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Post by Cobby » #655320

If you can justify your interpretation and it make sense I don’t understand why precedence would have a place there. I wouldn’t btfo someone trying to stop the harm though either.

Policy allows for consensual harm to be ignored, it doesn’t demand it unless it was rewritten (I’m on mobile and lazy). As long as you’re consistent go ahead, make the heads interact with the law system if they don’t like your interpretations so long as you’re reasonable (with the understanding you’re making the round interesting, not with the understanding you’re supposed to be crew aligned)
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current
User avatar
sinfulbliss
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
Byond Username: SinfulBliss
Location: prisoner re-education chamber

Re: Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Post by sinfulbliss » #655431

CMDR_Gungnir wrote: Sun Oct 30, 2022 6:34 am This is, obviously, not how it works. But we only know that because of the silicon policy. The intention of making Asiimov++ was to alleviate the burden of Silicon Policy somewhat. But this, at best, fails to achieve that, and at worst, actively leans further on it.
I agree completely. I mentioned a bunch of the ways the new laws could be misinterpreted and how it made things no clearer than the original laws when Asimov++ was proposed and I’m not really seeing any benefit.

The only players that seem to be advocates for Asimov++ are AI/borg players that already knew every policy for Asimov anyway and could follow it, along with the armchair rule philosophers that wanted an easy way to solve the mess of silipol. But at the end of the day it’s just a more ugly wording of Asimov that doesn’t really do anything.
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
Redrover1760
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2021 3:27 am
Byond Username: Redrover1760

Re: Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Post by Redrover1760 » #655988

It literally says "Unless the harm is consensual"

If it's not, its against law 1. Burying this fact in silicon policy doesn't really help anyone, for sure. This is most certainly not an Asimov++ issue. Its a player issue.

Also, the exact details of whether or not borgification counts as harm or not is also buried in silicon policy too. Of course.
BlueMemesauce
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:05 pm
Byond Username: BlueMemesauce

Re: Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Post by BlueMemesauce » #656212

Asimov++ works fine for preventing people from saying stuff like "I will harm myself if you don't open this door". I just think it's pointless to try to apply to situations like fighting a blob or rage cages; people still don't want to get harmed even if they put themself in a harmful situation. Although it is helpful in some other situations. Now a mediborg can ask a patient if they are willing to receive organ-harming treatment, and half their medicine isn't useless anymore.
Last edited by BlueMemesauce on Sat Nov 12, 2022 2:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Itseasytosee2me
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2021 1:14 am
Byond Username: Rectification
Location: Space Station 13

Re: Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Post by Itseasytosee2me » #656219

Consensual harm has so many different meanings and interpretations some of which can go against preestablished elements of the game that silicon's should not be interfering with.

Paradoxically, I think the most elegant solution is change it to "intentional self harm" and policy in surgery and cyborgicfication. At least self harm is something we can exactly quantify.
- Sincerely itseasytosee
See you later
Mice World
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2021 4:11 am
Byond Username: Mice World

Re: Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Post by Mice World » #656268

I don't think you can ever completely remove silipol because our default lawset is a flawed one, we need ooc rulings for it to even function properly.

As for Asimov++ I don't think it really changes much. Like sure, AIs won't interfere with duels or listen to "ai law 2 kill yourself", but now we have the issue of defining consensual harm so more silipol is needed. If the only goal of Asimov++ was to add clarity in-game then it's a positive addition, but it still makes things confusing for some players.
It keeps getting worse!?
User avatar
Not-Dorsidarf
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:14 pm
Byond Username: Dorsidwarf
Location: We're all going on an, admin holiday

Re: Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Post by Not-Dorsidarf » #656274

Mice World wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 7:33 pm I don't think you can ever completely remove silipol because our default lawset is a flawed one, we need ooc rulings for it to even function properly.

As for Asimov++ I don't think it really changes much. Like sure, AIs won't interfere with duels or listen to "ai law 2 kill yourself", but now we have the issue of defining consensual harm so more silipol is needed. If the only goal of Asimov++ was to add clarity in-game then it's a positive addition, but it still makes things confusing for some players.
None of the lawsets available in the game code would result in the removal of silicon policy if they were made the default lawset. They only have less policy because they dont come up so much.
Image
Image
kieth4 wrote: infrequently shitting yourself is fine imo
There is a lot of very bizarre nonsense being talked on this forum. I shall now remain silent and logoff until my points are vindicated.
Player who complainted over being killed for looting cap office wrote: Sun Jul 30, 2023 1:33 am Hey there, I'm Virescent, the super evil person who made the stupid appeal and didn't think it through enough. Just came here to say: screech, retards. Screech and writhe like the worms you are. Your pathetic little cries will keep echoing around for a while before quietting down. There is one great outcome from this: I rised up the blood pressure of some of you shitheads and lowered your lifespan. I'm honestly tempted to do this more often just to see you screech and writhe more, but that wouldn't be cool of me. So come on haters, show me some more of your high blood pressure please. 🖕🖕🖕
Mice World
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2021 4:11 am
Byond Username: Mice World

Re: Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Post by Mice World » #656275

Not-Dorsidarf wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 8:06 pm None of the lawsets available in the game code would result in the removal of silicon policy if they were made the default lawset. They only have less policy because they dont come up so much.
I'm aware, I was just mentioning that silicon policy will always be required for our default lawset and any attempt to change this would be a waste of time.
It keeps getting worse!?
User avatar
spookuni
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:05 am
Byond Username: Spookuni
Location: The Whiteship

Re: Asiimov++ and Consensual Harm

Post by spookuni » #664074

What consitutes willing harm / how to handle consent to harm as an asimov silicon was effectively ruled on here viewtopic.php?f=85&t=32360, several months later much of the growing pains of A++ appear to have faded, and we're not interested in reverting to baseline asimov.

Spook: as above
Rave: as above
San: as above
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users