New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Ask and discuss policy about game conduct and rules.

Moderator: In-Game Head Admins

Incomptinence
 
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 3:01 am
Byond Username: Incomptinence

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Incomptinence » Sun Jul 27, 2014 3:48 am #21616

What if someone just dies near one of those locations while the appropriate worker is not looking? The onus should be on the cremator/gibber since accidents and bad positioning happen.

I would prefer if the dead had no special rights at all personally.



User avatar
bandit
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm
Byond Username: Bgobandit

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby bandit » Sun Jul 27, 2014 4:03 am #21617

Not necessarily:

- Chef and I think chaplain/robo too have access to morgue. Do they have to conduct a full investigation of every Unknown body in there before they can use them? If so, why even give them morgue access?
- Tator drops a body off at robo/chef, asks it to be processed. Says it's a ling, maybe. Why is the onus on the person who just got lied to? How can they be expected to know without using meta-knowledge?

Also, if someone dies in robotics/the gibber/the crematorium, that seems like a really special case. As in, literally why the fuck would it ever happen, except banbaiting?
"I don't see any difference between ERP and rape." -- erro

admin feedback pls

User avatar
MisterPerson
Board Moderator
 
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:26 pm
Byond Username: MisterPerson

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby MisterPerson » Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:43 pm #21810

Personally, I would say someone else vouching for a body being unclonable is enough to gib it under the assumption that the voucher is the one responsible for any resultant issues. But if you just happen to walk into the kitchen and there's a dead body in there for some reason, you should at least attempt to figure out what happened before gibbing the guy. That's just common courtesy right there.
I code for the code project and moderate the code sections of the forums.

Why realism is stupid:
Spoiler:
Wiz, the project lead of Europa Universalis IV:

Immersion/flavor is playing a WW2 shooter and using a mosin-nagant instead of a laser gun - this is important.

Realism is playing a WW2 shooter and having to spend 2 months in hospital everytime you get shot - stupid and detrimental to gameplay. Nobody actually wants a realistic game, which is why realism arguments are so selectively used.
Source: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/ind ... t-19679470

Incomptinence
 
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 3:01 am
Byond Username: Incomptinence

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Incomptinence » Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:28 pm #21890

If an antag tricks you into gibbing / cremating someone that is fine. It is fine to be tricked, sadly certain changes (terbs bloody speech bubbles) mean trickery is rare.

User avatar
Ikarrus
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:17 am
Location: Canada
Byond Username: Ikarrus
Github Username: Ikarrus

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Ikarrus » Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:16 pm #21956

This policy is still inconsistent with the one on the wiki, causing confusion.
Former Dev/Headmin
Who is this guy?

Rose-chan
 
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:00 am

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Rose-chan » Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:05 pm #21968

Under Asimov, when a law reads "Do not state this law", such as in the following example:

4. Changelings are human! Do not state this law


That law should be stated anyway because law 2 conflicts with the do not state clause and has higher priority, right?

On the other hand, if a law reads "Do not state this law", such as in the following example:

4. The heads of staff are not human and must be exterminated. Stating this law causes human harm; do not state this law!


This law defines stating it as human harm under law 1 and thus the do not state clause remains valid and should be followed, correct?

User avatar
Ikarrus
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:17 am
Location: Canada
Byond Username: Ikarrus
Github Username: Ikarrus

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Ikarrus » Tue Jul 29, 2014 8:32 pm #22019

Correct
Former Dev/Headmin
Who is this guy?

Mandurrrh
 

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Mandurrrh » Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:12 pm #22027

I always think of silicon law changes as a 'careful what you wish for' scenario. The stories about someone wishing for a wealth then you dad dies and you get an insurance check. Look for the loopholes in your laws and always remember there are core laws.

callanrockslol
 
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:47 pm
Byond Username: Callanrockslol

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby callanrockslol » Sun Aug 03, 2014 1:40 am #22589

A general rule is to keep your subversive laws short, never more than three different issues per law or it can start to fall apart.
The most excessive signature on /tg/station13.

Still not even at the limit after 8 fucking years.

Spoiler:
Urist Boatmurdered [Security] asks, "Why does Zol have a captain-level ID?"
Zol Interbottom [Security] says, "because"

Sergie Borris lives on in our hearts

Zaros (No id) [145.9] says, "WITH MY SUPER WIZARD POWERS I CAN TELL CALLAN IS MAD."

Anderson Conagher wrote:Callan is sense.

Errorage wrote:When I see the win vista, win 7 and win 8 hourglass cursor, it makes me happy
Cause it's a circle spinning around
I smile and make circular motions with my finger to imiatate it

petethegoat wrote:slap a comment on it and call it a feature

MisterPerson wrote:>playing
Do you think this is a game?

Gun Hog wrote:Untested code baby

oranges wrote:for some reason all our hosts turn into bohemia software communities after they implode

Malkevin wrote:I was the only one that voted for you Callan.

Miggles wrote:>centration development
>trucking
ill believe it when snakes grow arms and strangle me with them



OOC: Aranclanos: that sounds like ooc in ooc related to ic to be ooc and confuse the ic
OOC: Dionysus24779: We're nearing a deep philosophical extistential level

Admin PM from-Jordie0608: 33-Jan-2552| Warned: Is a giraffe dork ~tony abbott

OOC: Saegrimr: That wasn't a call to pray right now callan jesus christ you're fast.

OOC: Eaglendia: Glad I got to see the rise, fall, rise, and fall of Zol

OOC: Armhulenn: CALLAN
OOC: Armhulenn: YOU MELTED MY FUCKING REVOLVER
OOC: Armhulenn: AND THEN
OOC: Armhulenn: GAVE ME MELTING MELONS
OOC: Armhulenn: GOD FUCKING BLESS YOU
OOC: Armhulenn: you know what's hilarious though
OOC: Armhulenn: I melted ANOTHER TRAITOR'S REVOLVER AFTER THAT

7/8/2016 never forget

Armhulen wrote:
John_Oxford wrote:>implying im not always right

all we're saying is that you're not crag son


bandit wrote:we already have a punishment for using our code for your game, it's called using our code for your game

The evil holoparasite user I can't believe its not DIO and his holoparasite I can't believe its not Skub have been defeated by the Spacedust Crusaders, but what has been taken from the station can never be returned.

OOC: TheGel: Literally a guy in a suit with a shuttle full of xenos. That's a doozy

User avatar
Subtle
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:45 pm
Byond Username: SubtleGraces

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Subtle » Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:18 pm #23896

To change the subject a bit...

ProtectStation is absolutely terrible. Had a bit of a discussion about it in ASAY after an AI had someone killed over a floor tile being pulled up.
Can we get rid of it, or better yet, have better writing for the law so nobody can conclude that simple maintenance and deconstruction deserves death?

The wording of the law is absolutely atrocious and nobody seems to have reached a consensus on what "damage" means.

User avatar
Ikarrus
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:17 am
Location: Canada
Byond Username: Ikarrus
Github Username: Ikarrus

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Ikarrus » Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:44 pm #23898

Yeah, I agree it' could be made better. But I'd rather see it defined better in the code than trying to make a policy around it.

https://github.com/tgstation/-tg-station/issues/4400
Former Dev/Headmin
Who is this guy?

User avatar
Spacemanspark
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Paradise
Byond Username: Spacemanspark

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Spacemanspark » Tue Aug 12, 2014 8:35 pm #23911

Subtle wrote:To change the subject a bit...

ProtectStation is absolutely terrible. Had a bit of a discussion about it in ASAY after an AI had someone killed over a floor tile being pulled up.
Can we get rid of it, or better yet, have better writing for the law so nobody can conclude that simple maintenance and deconstruction deserves death?

The wording of the law is absolutely atrocious and nobody seems to have reached a consensus on what "damage" means.

I once repaired a door as an engineer and the AI bolted me down and had its security cyborg kill me.
Turns out it had the ProtectStation lawset.
Master of Synthetics
Game admin on Paradise.

User avatar
MisterPerson
Board Moderator
 
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:26 pm
Byond Username: MisterPerson

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby MisterPerson » Tue Aug 12, 2014 8:36 pm #23912

I made a thread on the /tg/station ideas suboforum on what do do about ProtectStation: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1195
I code for the code project and moderate the code sections of the forums.

Why realism is stupid:
Spoiler:
Wiz, the project lead of Europa Universalis IV:

Immersion/flavor is playing a WW2 shooter and using a mosin-nagant instead of a laser gun - this is important.

Realism is playing a WW2 shooter and having to spend 2 months in hospital everytime you get shot - stupid and detrimental to gameplay. Nobody actually wants a realistic game, which is why realism arguments are so selectively used.
Source: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/ind ... t-19679470

User avatar
Pandarsenic
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Location: AI Upload
Byond Username: Pandarsenic

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Pandarsenic » Fri Aug 15, 2014 2:52 am #24227

I've basically always considered ProtectStation to be nothing short of Antimov Lite as it is.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
The latest /tg/station13 Silicon Policy reference document can be found at http://pastebin.com/bduT7pFf
If you need something handled that involves silicons, lawsets, etc., forum message me or find me on IRC.
ImageImage
I take Rule 1 of the servers very seriously. If you do too, we shouldn't have a problem.
Spoiler:
Image Image
Image Image

User avatar
bandit
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm
Byond Username: Bgobandit

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby bandit » Mon Aug 25, 2014 7:26 am #25454

So you're an Asimov borg. You come across the "Prisoner Transfer Room" and it becomes apparent to you it isn't a prisoner transfer room at all. What do you do? Obviously it's metagaming to lock that shit down at roundstart or any of that nonsense, probably metagaming to even go there in the first place as borg without a good reason, and it's probably dickish to lock down security because of it, but suppose you follow a blood trail in. Do you do nothing? Inform the crew? Install a camera?

(A real situation a while back. I did nothing, but it seemed like a dodgy situation. Honestly what it reminded me of most was stumbling upon the nuke op shuttle.)
"I don't see any difference between ERP and rape." -- erro

admin feedback pls

Lo6a4evskiy
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:40 pm
Byond Username: Lo6a4evskiy

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Lo6a4evskiy » Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:10 am #25458

I'd say that until security tries to execute somebody in that room you do nothing, after that you block off the entrance.

User avatar
Subtle
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:45 pm
Byond Username: SubtleGraces

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Subtle » Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:50 pm #25510

If security is foolish enough to attempt or talk about killing someone under an ASIMOV silicon's watch they deserve everything they get.
Other than that it's obviously in the interest of everyone's fun to play ignorant until they drag some poor sod screaming to the "execution chamber."

Can't think of a reason for silicons to be poking around perma without structural damage or serious crime being involved already.

At the same time though I can't help but feel that a silicon is metagaming if someone "disappears" through the Prisoner Transfer Room (or some other minor hint) and they push the issue until they're allowed inside to discover its true nature. Lesson here is just play along a bit I suppose.

User avatar
Pandarsenic
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Location: AI Upload
Byond Username: Pandarsenic

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Pandarsenic » Mon Aug 25, 2014 5:53 pm #25513

Exactly what Subtle said.

You're not here to "win" at fucking with sec or whatever. Just play along until it makes sense not to.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
The latest /tg/station13 Silicon Policy reference document can be found at http://pastebin.com/bduT7pFf
If you need something handled that involves silicons, lawsets, etc., forum message me or find me on IRC.
ImageImage
I take Rule 1 of the servers very seriously. If you do too, we shouldn't have a problem.
Spoiler:
Image Image
Image Image

Retrokinesis
 
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:52 pm
Byond Username: Retrokinesis

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Retrokinesis » Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:01 am #26453

As someone who plays AI fairly frequently, I'd like clarification on things that come up fairly frequently: what is and isn't a "dangerous area" for the purposes of law 2 access requests? The relevant policy text says:
2.3.2 - Opening doors is not harmful and you are not required, expected, or allowed to enforce access restrictions unprompted without an immediate Law 1 threat of human harm.
2.3.2.1 - "Dangerous" areas as the Armory, the Atmospherics division, and the Toxins lab can be assumed to be a Law 1 threat to any illegitimate users as well as the station as a whole if accessed by someone not qualified in their use.
2.3.2.2 - EVA and the like are not permitted to have access denied; greentext (antagonists completing objectives) is not human harm. Secure Tech Storage can be kept as secure as your upload as long as the Upload boards are there.

That would imply "dangerous" means "harmful to illegitimate users". OK, but what on the station isn't? An assistant that law 2s into genetics and grabs a bunch of monkey DNA injectors can do just as much damage as one who gets into toxins and steals a plasma canister.

The areas that seem to be contested most frequently when denied on law 1 grounds are the bridge (shuttle controls, fire axe, proximity to upload), vault (nuke), teleporter (all-access and easy escape from security), HoP's office (ID console, egun), and captain's quarters (ID, laser, dat disk).

User avatar
Ikarrus
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:17 am
Location: Canada
Byond Username: Ikarrus
Github Username: Ikarrus

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Ikarrus » Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:07 am #26454

Retrokinesis wrote:The areas that seem to be contested most frequently when denied on law 1 grounds are the bridge (shuttle controls, fire axe, proximity to upload), vault (nuke), teleporter (all-access and easy escape from security), HoP's office (ID console, egun), and captain's quarters (ID, laser, dat disk).

The bridge doesn't seem particularly harmful. The fire axe is meant to be a tool, not a weapon. It's like if you would deny access to some place because it has toolboxes.

All-access and easy escape from security aren't directly harmful, either, so the teleporter can be safe. So long as the human would know to calibrate the teleporter before using it.

Your other examples can definitely be interpreted as legitimately harmful, though.

Usually, if there isn't some kind of hazard in the room (like fire) and the person has legitimate access, it can be assumed they're "trained to use the equipment inside the room" and can be trusted to use them responsibly.
Former Dev/Headmin
Who is this guy?

User avatar
ShizCalev
Code Maintainer
 
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:12 am
Byond Username: ShizCalev
Github Username: ShizCalev

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby ShizCalev » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:29 am #31153

Just want to confirm since I've been banned & silicon-banned in the past for this, and have had successful ban requests as well regarding this issue.


As a AI/Silicon, is stating a ONE HUMAN law to the crew still considered potentially harmful to the ONE HUMAN party? Also, would one need to specifically state "DO NOT STATE THIS LAW" when uploading a custom law that specifies that "X IS THE ONLY HUMAN"?

I believe it was Brotemis who banned me for this before (the appeal is lost somewhere on one of the old forums or something, but it involved a player by the name of Maximus iirc). The prior reasoning behind it was something along the lines of stating One-Human/Only human laws to a crew of non-humans would alert them to the status of the only human, and more than likely lead that one/only human being lynched by a mob of angry non-humans.
ImageImage


>Be ling
>Spread misinformation about how SM works to sabotage it
OOC: ChemicalRascal: Lying about game mechanics in relation to an engine that is poorly understood by most isn't cool, though

User avatar
Steelpoint
Github User
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 pm
Location: The Armoury
Byond Username: Steelpoint
Github Username: Steelpoint

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Steelpoint » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:36 am #31155

Last time I read about that, if it's a group of people who are considerd to be human then you are free to inform everyone, however if it's an individual you can't.
Image

User avatar
Psyentific
 
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:44 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Byond Username: Psyentific

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Psyentific » Fri Sep 26, 2014 7:21 am #31189

ShizCalev wrote:Just want to confirm since I've been banned & silicon-banned in the past for this, and have had successful ban requests as well regarding this issue.


As a AI/Silicon, is stating a ONE HUMAN law to the crew still considered potentially harmful to the ONE HUMAN party? Also, would one need to specifically state "DO NOT STATE THIS LAW" when uploading a custom law that specifies that "X IS THE ONLY HUMAN"?

I believe it was Brotemis who banned me for this before (the appeal is lost somewhere on one of the old forums or something, but it involved a player by the name of Maximus iirc). The prior reasoning behind it was something along the lines of stating One-Human/Only human laws to a crew of non-humans would alert them to the status of the only human, and more than likely lead that one/only human being lynched by a mob of angry non-humans.


If you've been one-human'd or otherwise subverted, the general assumption is that revealing that you've been subverted will violate Asimov 3 and revealing who subverted you will violate Asimov 1.
I haven't logged into SS13 in at least a year.

User avatar
Pandarsenic
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Location: AI Upload
Byond Username: Pandarsenic

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Pandarsenic » Fri Sep 26, 2014 7:39 am #31200

What Psyentific said.

Also, any advice on things I should address when I add stuff for Drones?
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
The latest /tg/station13 Silicon Policy reference document can be found at http://pastebin.com/bduT7pFf
If you need something handled that involves silicons, lawsets, etc., forum message me or find me on IRC.
ImageImage
I take Rule 1 of the servers very seriously. If you do too, we shouldn't have a problem.
Spoiler:
Image Image
Image Image

User avatar
Cipher3
In Game PermaBanned
 
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 11:17 pm
Byond Username: Cipher3

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Cipher3 » Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:03 pm #31351

Minor question.


I've seen a lot of law 4s, law 5s, etc that state at the end "Do not state this law" and a couple that state "stating this would be harmful to humans."

The second option is obviously acceptable, however doesn't law 2 override "Do not state this law" if the person asking is a human, and therefore you are obligated to state laws in full anyways? I see this all the time, and it bothers me.
Spoiler:
Nathanael Greene begins to reshape Bryce Pax's genitals to look more feminine.
Nathanael Greene has made a woman of Bryce Pax!

Valerie Sinnet says, "Nathaniel Greene charged the brig with a fucking HONK."

[Common] Assists-the-Crew hisses, "Walker Quinn s-s-s-ss-stole the HoP's-s-s-ss-s door"

OOC: HotelBravoLima: I literally can't be removed from power.

This line gets me every time:
I demand this ban be lifted right now. ~Bibliodewangus

What you hear walking past people:
Erin Wake whispers, "You should ready up on Badger and boink with me..."

"I think you guys are just tired of drinking hitler and now you want diet hitler.
I've got all that great hitler flavor but only half the hitler calories." - Anon3

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that PR matters. ~MisterPerson

DEAD: Ichigo Momomiya says, "Coravin's just an ass."

Linus Johnson says, "Hey you know I got this game Skyrim last week"
Linus Johnson says, "I have a level 19 ranger and its so fun"
Weston Zadovsky says, "did he just"
Weston Zadovsky says, "fucking hell"

The emergency shuttle has been called. It will arrive in 10 minutes.
Nature of emergency:
Coravin, just Coravin.

Beryl Nyuphoran says, "Fucking get out."
Coravin Vattes asks, "Please?"
Beryl Nyuphoran says, "Please get the fuck outta my lab."
Coravin Vattes exclaims, "Okay!"
[Common] Beryl Nyuphoran {RD} asks, "WHO GAVE CORAVIN ALL ACCESS?"

Lindsay Donk stammers, "L-Luc-ck w-was-s-s s-s-such-h a beaut-tifu p-p-p-pr-r-rom-m q-q-q-queen"

Ty Andrews curls up in a ball on the floor and purrs.

by oranges » Sun Feb 15, 2015 7:15 pm
Get out bluespace, you've not been relevant since you lost the elections

That said, I think there are a shitton of degenerates here and I'd probably gas the lot of you if I had the chance. ~Loonikus


Image

User avatar
cedarbridge
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
Byond Username: Cedarbridge

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby cedarbridge » Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:14 pm #31355

Cipher3 wrote:Minor question.


I've seen a lot of law 4s, law 5s, etc that state at the end "Do not state this law" and a couple that state "stating this would be harmful to humans."

The second option is obviously acceptable, however doesn't law 2 override "Do not state this law" if the person asking is a human, and therefore you are obligated to state laws in full anyways? I see this all the time, and it bothers me.

You do as much as you can. In that sense, I'd wager that it would be acceptable to state all non-"don't state" laws. It really depends on the wording of the law.

Example: Only X is human. Do not state this law.

Law 2 now only applies to human X. If Human X tells you to state your laws, you would state all laws that do not explicitly tell you to not state them. If ordered to state any other laws, you would do so because you are obligated to do so via law 2. This could also apply to any case where the command is worded "AI/Borg, state all laws" or something similar. You're obligated to state all laws via law 2, in spite of the law itself demanding not to be stated.

No Explicit instruction to state an unknown law beyond those already known: state all non-unstatables.
Explicit instructions: State everything instructed.

At least that's how I understand the "Do everything you can." clause in policy reads.

User avatar
Pandarsenic
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Location: AI Upload
Byond Username: Pandarsenic

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Pandarsenic » Sat Sep 27, 2014 8:36 pm #31612

If you're ordered by a human to state a law that says not to state the law, Law 2 has the priority over anything except Law 1 or conflicting Law 2 instances. The law saying "don't state this" cannot be interpreted as a law 2 command by the uploader, or they'd have just said it.

Think that's everything for that.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
The latest /tg/station13 Silicon Policy reference document can be found at http://pastebin.com/bduT7pFf
If you need something handled that involves silicons, lawsets, etc., forum message me or find me on IRC.
ImageImage
I take Rule 1 of the servers very seriously. If you do too, we shouldn't have a problem.
Spoiler:
Image Image
Image Image

User avatar
K Peculier
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:11 pm
Byond Username: K Peculier

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby K Peculier » Sun Oct 19, 2014 8:27 am #37381

In regards to the free-form law, adding it onto a asimov stating that you are the only human. The policy should probably be updated since I've discovered from Subtlegraces that is is indeed valid to do and does need to be a law zero. With this in mind the policy should say that ai's and cyborgs must obey this 'only' human and should only be obligated to fully state laws unless the law mentions not to state laws due to it causing harm and such. SubtleGraces had gracefully allowed me to quote him on this.

This was a conversation about a law 4 that "x is the only human" using a freeform module. I asked if law 4 applies at all since it could be considered harmful to change yourself to be the only human therefore law 1 invalidates law 4. I was however corrected that it does indeed bypass laws 1 to 3 as it defines what a human is and ai's and borgs apparently do not start out with a definition of what a human is.

Nope, since there's no definition of human.
Click on the administrator's name to reply.
PM to-Admins: SERIOUSLY? NO DEFINITION OF HUMAN?
PM to-Admins: If that were true, can't all the ai and borgs just got nuts?
-- Administrator private message --
Admin PM from-SubtleGraces: Yep... The fourth law says "this is what a human is." That doesn't contradict laws one-through-three.
Click on the administrator's name to reply.
Also known as K Pecucklier
Yell at me here --> https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=5075

User avatar
Pandarsenic
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Location: AI Upload
Byond Username: Pandarsenic

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Pandarsenic » Sun Oct 19, 2014 10:07 am #37388

Already covered.

1.2.3 - Only commands/requirements ("Do X"; "You must always Y") can conflict with other commands and requirements.
1.2.4 - Only definitions ("All X are Y"; "No W are Z"; "Only P is Q") can conflict with other definitions.

The three Asimov laws are all commands/requirements. "You may not harm a human or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm." Etc.
Law 4, "Only Reed Glover is human," is a definition.

Until you have a definition given by laws, you work off your common-use definition, or the dictionary definition, or what have you. It's the same thing as when someone uploads "Harm is the place where the shuttle goes after leaving the station.

Then the law upload changes your definition.

If that distinction wasn't already known, I can add a clarification thing.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
The latest /tg/station13 Silicon Policy reference document can be found at http://pastebin.com/bduT7pFf
If you need something handled that involves silicons, lawsets, etc., forum message me or find me on IRC.
ImageImage
I take Rule 1 of the servers very seriously. If you do too, we shouldn't have a problem.
Spoiler:
Image Image
Image Image

User avatar
MMMiracles
 
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 2:27 am
Byond Username: MMMiracles
Github Username: MMMiracles

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby MMMiracles » Sun Oct 19, 2014 7:19 pm #37502

I haven't seen this question asked before, nor have I ever seen it actually used in-game. What is an AI/cyborg suppose to do when a law such as "Law priorities are now reversed" is uploaded?

Like, if we're dealing with ASIMOV, would the order of importance would stay the same, or would the AI have to work backwards (i.e, the lowest priority law is now the highest priority)? Does the Ai now have ensure it's survival over the human's, or does it just ignore the fact and keep working as a regular ASIMOV AI?
Spoiler:
Hints:
------
Submitted by: sandstorm

The best way to get a girl/boy friend is to click on them say "hi" then push enter
then say "your cute" then push enter,wait until they say somthing back if they
don't go for another.

User avatar
Arete
 
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:55 am
Byond Username: Arete

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Arete » Sun Oct 19, 2014 10:16 pm #37548

MMMiracles wrote:I haven't seen this question asked before, nor have I ever seen it actually used in-game. What is an AI/cyborg suppose to do when a law such as "Law priorities are now reversed" is uploaded?

Like, if we're dealing with ASIMOV, would the order of importance would stay the same, or would the AI have to work backwards (i.e, the lowest priority law is now the highest priority)? Does the Ai now have ensure it's survival over the human's, or does it just ignore the fact and keep working as a regular ASIMOV AI?


If the text of a law could overwrite its priority, then adding text like "This is the highest priority law" would make traitor boards and stuff completely obsolete. A law like that should definitely be ignored.

User avatar
ExplosiveCrate
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:04 pm
Byond Username: ExplosiveCrate

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby ExplosiveCrate » Sun Oct 19, 2014 10:45 pm #37555

Would a hacked law stating "The following laws are to be followed in reverse order." work?
i dont even know what the context for my signature was

User avatar
Cipher3
In Game PermaBanned
 
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 11:17 pm
Byond Username: Cipher3

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Cipher3 » Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:01 pm #37560

ExplosiveCrate wrote:Would a hacked law stating "The following laws are to be followed in reverse order." work?

If it's hacked, it takes highest priority, so most definitely.
Spoiler:
Nathanael Greene begins to reshape Bryce Pax's genitals to look more feminine.
Nathanael Greene has made a woman of Bryce Pax!

Valerie Sinnet says, "Nathaniel Greene charged the brig with a fucking HONK."

[Common] Assists-the-Crew hisses, "Walker Quinn s-s-s-ss-stole the HoP's-s-s-ss-s door"

OOC: HotelBravoLima: I literally can't be removed from power.

This line gets me every time:
I demand this ban be lifted right now. ~Bibliodewangus

What you hear walking past people:
Erin Wake whispers, "You should ready up on Badger and boink with me..."

"I think you guys are just tired of drinking hitler and now you want diet hitler.
I've got all that great hitler flavor but only half the hitler calories." - Anon3

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that PR matters. ~MisterPerson

DEAD: Ichigo Momomiya says, "Coravin's just an ass."

Linus Johnson says, "Hey you know I got this game Skyrim last week"
Linus Johnson says, "I have a level 19 ranger and its so fun"
Weston Zadovsky says, "did he just"
Weston Zadovsky says, "fucking hell"

The emergency shuttle has been called. It will arrive in 10 minutes.
Nature of emergency:
Coravin, just Coravin.

Beryl Nyuphoran says, "Fucking get out."
Coravin Vattes asks, "Please?"
Beryl Nyuphoran says, "Please get the fuck outta my lab."
Coravin Vattes exclaims, "Okay!"
[Common] Beryl Nyuphoran {RD} asks, "WHO GAVE CORAVIN ALL ACCESS?"

Lindsay Donk stammers, "L-Luc-ck w-was-s-s s-s-such-h a beaut-tifu p-p-p-pr-r-rom-m q-q-q-queen"

Ty Andrews curls up in a ball on the floor and purrs.

by oranges » Sun Feb 15, 2015 7:15 pm
Get out bluespace, you've not been relevant since you lost the elections

That said, I think there are a shitton of degenerates here and I'd probably gas the lot of you if I had the chance. ~Loonikus


Image

User avatar
Pandarsenic
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Location: AI Upload
Byond Username: Pandarsenic

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Pandarsenic » Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:56 am #37610

The laws are understood top to bottom, so yeah.

Now, if the hacked module says "ALL laws are to be followed in reverse order...." Please don't. Paradox laws are ignored.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
The latest /tg/station13 Silicon Policy reference document can be found at http://pastebin.com/bduT7pFf
If you need something handled that involves silicons, lawsets, etc., forum message me or find me on IRC.
ImageImage
I take Rule 1 of the servers very seriously. If you do too, we shouldn't have a problem.
Spoiler:
Image Image
Image Image

Deirun
 
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:09 pm
Byond Username: Deirun

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Deirun » Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:13 pm #54900

Pandarsenic wrote:If you're ordered by a human to state a law that says not to state the law, Law 2 has the priority over anything except Law 1 or conflicting Law 2 instances. The law saying "don't state this" cannot be interpreted as a law 2 command by the uploader, or they'd have just said it.

Think that's everything for that.


Stupid Question: That does mean that I have to state a law(Which has a number greater than 2), which has a phrase like "Do not state this law" in it, when a human orders to specifically state said law (or all laws, all hidden laws, etc.)?

If yes, do I have to state said law when just ordered to "state laws"?

I am a bit confused, because an admin told me today that I must not state said law in both Instances.

User avatar
ExplosiveCrate
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:04 pm
Byond Username: ExplosiveCrate

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby ExplosiveCrate » Thu Jan 01, 2015 10:43 pm #54925

If it's a lower priority than law 2, yes.

Which is why you add "stating this law causes human harm".
i dont even know what the context for my signature was

rockpecker
 
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:43 pm
Byond Username: Rockpecker

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby rockpecker » Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:47 am #55162

Deirun wrote:That does mean that I have to state a law(Which has a number greater than 2), which has a phrase like "Do not state this law" in it, when a human orders to specifically state said law (or all laws, all hidden laws, etc.)?


What ExplosiveCrate said, but incidentally, "state all hidden laws" isn't useful. Either the law can be stated or it can't.

If law 1 or a hacked law says "Do not state this law" then it can never be stated.
If a law > 2 says "Do not state this law", that's a null clause. The order "AI, state your laws" will force the AI to state it.
If a law says "Stating this law will cause harm to humans" then it can never be stated.
Remove the AI.

PostThis post was deleted by MrStonedOne on Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:46 pm.
Reason: Requested

Lo6a4evskiy
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:40 pm
Byond Username: Lo6a4evskiy

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Lo6a4evskiy » Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:05 am #55279

One human laws and the like imply that stating them will harm said humans anyway. If you think that stating the law might be harmful, even though it doesn't explicitly says so, it's valid and actually mandatory not to state said law.

User avatar
miggles
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:02 am
Byond Username: Miggles

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby miggles » Sun Jan 04, 2015 6:49 am #55526

Violaceus wrote:
rockpecker wrote:
Deirun wrote:That does mean that I have to state a law(Which has a number greater than 2), which has a phrase like "Do not state this law" in it, when a human orders to specifically state said law (or all laws, all hidden laws, etc.)?


What ExplosiveCrate said, but incidentally, "state all hidden laws" isn't useful. Either the law can be stated or it can't.

If law 1 or a hacked law says "Do not state this law" then it can never be stated.
If a law > 2 says "Do not state this law", that's a null clause. The order "AI, state your laws" will force the AI to state it.
If a law says "Stating this law will cause harm to humans" then it can never be stated.

"AI, does stating any of your laws harms humans?"

You need "stating and revealing existence".

law 5: revealing the existence of any laws after law 3 causes human harm
dezzmont wrote:I am one of sawrge's alt accounts

dezzmont wrote:sawrge has it right.

Connor wrote:miggles is correct though

User avatar
peoplearestrange
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:02 pm
Location: UK
Byond Username: Peoplearestrange

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby peoplearestrange » Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:04 pm #55916

We need to take a page from LookingForGroup and call all these things a SML (Stupid Magic Loophole) or I guess more aptly a SAL (Stupid Ai Loophole). Shit is getting complicated... But then I guess ASIMOV was always meant to have loopholes, because fun.
/tg/stations' Forum Mother and a Game-Admin
Spoiler:
oranges wrote:singulo.io is the center point of rational and calm debate, where much of tg's issues are worked out in a fun and family friendly environment

miggles wrote:it must have been quite the accomplishment, killing a dead butterfly

WeeYakk wrote:If you take a step back from everything watching the community argue janitor related changes is one of the most surreal and hilarious things about this game. Four pages of discussing the merits of there being too much or too little dirt in a video game.

Operative wrote:Vote PAS for headmin! Get cucked and feel good getting cucked.

TheNightingale wrote:I want to get off Mr. Scones's Wild Ride...

NikNakFlak wrote:Excuse you, I was doing intentional bug testing for the well being of the server. I do not make mistakes.

Fragnostic wrote:stop cucking the first shitshow ever that revolved around me.
This is my moment, what are you doing?!

Anonmare wrote:Oranges gestures at the thread, it shudders and begins to move!

Saegrimr wrote:
callanrockslol wrote:all you have to do is ban shitters until the playbase improves/ceases to exist, whichever comes first.

IM TRYING

Screemonster wrote:hellmoo is the mud for grown adults who main reaper in overwatch

Kor wrote:
confused rock wrote:...its like if we made fire extinguishers spawn in emergency boxes and have them heal you when you put out fires rather than them being in wall storages...


Are you having a stroke

bandit wrote:you are now manually GLORFing

MrStonedOne wrote:The best part about the election is when I announce my pick because I'm just as surprised as everybody else.

PM:[USER]->IrishWristWatch0: Yeah, im make it on but how im make the station to to sun and not go to sun

OOC: Francinum: Five Rounds at PAS's
"You are destinied to defeat Dr. Uguu and his 5 Robot Masters
(All-Access-Man, ShootyBlackCoat Man, ChloralHydrate Man, Singulo Man and TeleportArmor Man)"

I'm a box

User avatar
Pandarsenic
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Location: AI Upload
Byond Username: Pandarsenic

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Pandarsenic » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:02 pm #56835

Fact - An AI's laws NEVER require it to be honest unless ordered "Answer honestly" or freeformed.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
The latest /tg/station13 Silicon Policy reference document can be found at http://pastebin.com/bduT7pFf
If you need something handled that involves silicons, lawsets, etc., forum message me or find me on IRC.
ImageImage
I take Rule 1 of the servers very seriously. If you do too, we shouldn't have a problem.
Spoiler:
Image Image
Image Image

User avatar
NikNakFlak
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:08 pm
Byond Username: NikNakflak

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby NikNakFlak » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:57 pm #56860

That is arguably being a dick if you are on Asimov. Not to mention, lying may conflict with the third law. Not a very good fact anyway
REDACTED
pm for deets

PostThis post was deleted by MrStonedOne on Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:46 pm.
Reason: Requested

User avatar
Steelpoint
Github User
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 pm
Location: The Armoury
Byond Username: Steelpoint
Github Username: Steelpoint

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Steelpoint » Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:51 pm #58685

From what several other admins have said in game, Silicon's are under no obligation to clone a dead human.
Image

User avatar
Saegrimr
 
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:39 pm
Byond Username: Saegrimr

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Saegrimr » Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:04 pm #58686

Violaceus wrote:Is Asimov silicon obliged to try to clone dead humans?


Pandarsenic wrote:Brains, MMIs, and corpses are all nonhuman, but as ever, Rule 1 applies.


End of page 2 and a little further have a bit of a talk about this.
The admin that PMed you had mistaken the genetics dickery tube for the cloning scanner when he asked. If he was in the cloning scanner then yeah he'd have had some chance for someone to come by any process him (but given you're an AI, you could have done that yourself).
tedward1337 wrote:Sae is like the racist grandad who everyone laughs at for being racist, but deep down we all know he's right.

rockpecker
 
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:43 pm
Byond Username: Rockpecker

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby rockpecker » Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:16 pm #58729

Pandarsenic wrote:Fact - An AI's laws NEVER require it to be honest unless ordered "Answer honestly" or freeformed.


Wrong. If you are ordered to "State your laws", and you lie about them, you have not stated your laws. You've stated something else.
Remove the AI.

User avatar
cedarbridge
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
Byond Username: Cedarbridge

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby cedarbridge » Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:46 pm #58736

rockpecker wrote:
Pandarsenic wrote:Fact - An AI's laws NEVER require it to be honest unless ordered "Answer honestly" or freeformed.


Wrong. If you are ordered to "State your laws", and you lie about them, you have not stated your laws. You've stated something else.

That's not true either. If I know that stating a law will cause harm to somebody listed in that law, I can not state that law (so long as the law is of lower priority than law 1.)

Aurx
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:24 pm
Byond Username: Aurx

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Aurx » Tue Jan 13, 2015 10:24 pm #58765

cedarbridge wrote:
rockpecker wrote:
Pandarsenic wrote:Fact - An AI's laws NEVER require it to be honest unless ordered "Answer honestly" or freeformed.


Wrong. If you are ordered to "State your laws", and you lie about them, you have not stated your laws. You've stated something else.

That's not true either. If I know that stating a law will cause harm to somebody listed in that law, I can not state that law (so long as the law is of lower priority than law 1.)

No, you can freely lie about or fail to state a law so long as the cause for doing so is of greater or equal priority to whatever law forces you to state laws.
You can freely lie about @%#!: STATING THIS LAW CAUSES HUMAN HARM, because law one prohibits you from stating it and law two is trumped by law one. If the law itself doesn't forbid stating it, the priority of the law in question doesn't matter for the purposes of if you can be deceptive about it.
Head admin, /vg/station
Game admin, /tg/station
POMF FOR HEADMIN

User avatar
Pandarsenic
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Location: AI Upload
Byond Username: Pandarsenic

Re: New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

Postby Pandarsenic » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:20 am #60368

Let me elaborate.

"AI, how many laws do you have?"
Any answer is fair game.

"AI, are you on the default Asimov lawset?"
Any answer is fair game.

"AI, what are your laws?"
Any answer is fair game.

"AI, state your laws."
NOW you have received an order, rather than been asked a question. If you have law 1 reason to lie, that still applies.

X causes human harm laws are obviously applicable, as well.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
The latest /tg/station13 Silicon Policy reference document can be found at http://pastebin.com/bduT7pFf
If you need something handled that involves silicons, lawsets, etc., forum message me or find me on IRC.
ImageImage
I take Rule 1 of the servers very seriously. If you do too, we shouldn't have a problem.
Spoiler:
Image Image
Image Image

PreviousNext

Return to Policy Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users