[Wubli] Legoscape - Admin False Presumption Of Intention
- legoscape
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:35 am
- Byond Username: Legoscape
[Wubli] Legoscape - Admin False Presumption Of Intention
BYOND account: Legoscape
Character name: Jessica Sulivard
Ban type: Note
Server you were playing on when banned: Sybil
Round ID in which ban was placed: 164373
Ban reason: After arguing with the CE over the SM setup, asked one of the wizards at least three times to "remove the CE". This was not acted upon by the wizard, but asking an antagonist whose entire gimmick is (usually) to harm humans to remove someone does not sit well for an ASIMOV lawset. No matter how many times I tried to explain this in ahelps, they refused to understand. Please be more careful when playing silicon. Advised to appeal in the forums if they truly think I am incorrect.
Your side of the story:
During the beginning of the shift, I began as B.E.A.N, C02 Engine Maker Exdroinare. 10~ Minutes into the shift. I hook up the line of C02 to the Fuel line to produce a pressure C02 Engine, I build a robust cooling system, and an Atmos tech turns on the emitters without the cooling system finished, SM delams to 70% And drops quickly. CE comes into the engine room and actively attempts to mess with pipes when I begin pumping c02 coolant into the SM. I call security to ask to remove the CE from engineering "he's sabotaging the engine," I shout over comms. After rustling with the CE, He threatens to kill me and tells me "you don't understand atmos". (As he empties the damn SM of c02 coolant like what?). I leave engineering to look for security as I see two wizards running around doing fireballs and stuff. With almost everyone nuggets or dead on the floor, I ask one of the only humans left alive on board; I ask the wizard to "remove the ce" because this wizard spoke to me and seemed kinda friendly despite the fact of human harm.
Why do you think you should be unbanned?:
For the record, The admin that had added this note left out the parts of me actively looking for security or even calling security to remove the Cheif engineer from engineering. "Remove the CE" is a very ambiguous quote that can be left subjective. However, In this case, I was attempting to remove a dangerous unknowledgeable Chief Engineer from blowing up a quarter of the station. The noting admin admitted to seeing my attempts to remove the Chief Engineer from engineering by calling security but left that portion out of the note, essentially ignoring them in my arugement.
Under Silicon law, Wizards are considered humans. Antagonist or not, space law has no merit in silicon law. Cyborgs are supposed to protect humans regardless of Antagonist status. This means protecting syndicates from the crew and the wizards from the crew. When I asked the nicer of the two wizards to "Remove the CE" My intentions remained pure. I believed I could talk this wizard and non-harmfully remove the chief engineer from engineering. When I asked a wizard to remove the Chief Engineer, I attempted to prevent station damage and human harm. However, What I asked was never acted upon. I had broken Zero laws, Zero rules.
Admins, Should not set their own standards for notes. Admins should not be able to presume intention and note on based presumption. To my knowledge, notes should be based on fact, And leave nothing ambiguous or purposely leave out factual information that could explain intention to actions. This note is factually and materially incorrect. Vital information was left out of this note. This note is also very harsh and misleading; No rules were broken. No silicon laws were broken, No humans were directly harmed. In my opinion, this note has zero merit, and I am asking for permanent removal of it.
Character name: Jessica Sulivard
Ban type: Note
Server you were playing on when banned: Sybil
Round ID in which ban was placed: 164373
Ban reason: After arguing with the CE over the SM setup, asked one of the wizards at least three times to "remove the CE". This was not acted upon by the wizard, but asking an antagonist whose entire gimmick is (usually) to harm humans to remove someone does not sit well for an ASIMOV lawset. No matter how many times I tried to explain this in ahelps, they refused to understand. Please be more careful when playing silicon. Advised to appeal in the forums if they truly think I am incorrect.
Your side of the story:
During the beginning of the shift, I began as B.E.A.N, C02 Engine Maker Exdroinare. 10~ Minutes into the shift. I hook up the line of C02 to the Fuel line to produce a pressure C02 Engine, I build a robust cooling system, and an Atmos tech turns on the emitters without the cooling system finished, SM delams to 70% And drops quickly. CE comes into the engine room and actively attempts to mess with pipes when I begin pumping c02 coolant into the SM. I call security to ask to remove the CE from engineering "he's sabotaging the engine," I shout over comms. After rustling with the CE, He threatens to kill me and tells me "you don't understand atmos". (As he empties the damn SM of c02 coolant like what?). I leave engineering to look for security as I see two wizards running around doing fireballs and stuff. With almost everyone nuggets or dead on the floor, I ask one of the only humans left alive on board; I ask the wizard to "remove the ce" because this wizard spoke to me and seemed kinda friendly despite the fact of human harm.
Why do you think you should be unbanned?:
For the record, The admin that had added this note left out the parts of me actively looking for security or even calling security to remove the Cheif engineer from engineering. "Remove the CE" is a very ambiguous quote that can be left subjective. However, In this case, I was attempting to remove a dangerous unknowledgeable Chief Engineer from blowing up a quarter of the station. The noting admin admitted to seeing my attempts to remove the Chief Engineer from engineering by calling security but left that portion out of the note, essentially ignoring them in my arugement.
Under Silicon law, Wizards are considered humans. Antagonist or not, space law has no merit in silicon law. Cyborgs are supposed to protect humans regardless of Antagonist status. This means protecting syndicates from the crew and the wizards from the crew. When I asked the nicer of the two wizards to "Remove the CE" My intentions remained pure. I believed I could talk this wizard and non-harmfully remove the chief engineer from engineering. When I asked a wizard to remove the Chief Engineer, I attempted to prevent station damage and human harm. However, What I asked was never acted upon. I had broken Zero laws, Zero rules.
Admins, Should not set their own standards for notes. Admins should not be able to presume intention and note on based presumption. To my knowledge, notes should be based on fact, And leave nothing ambiguous or purposely leave out factual information that could explain intention to actions. This note is factually and materially incorrect. Vital information was left out of this note. This note is also very harsh and misleading; No rules were broken. No silicon laws were broken, No humans were directly harmed. In my opinion, this note has zero merit, and I am asking for permanent removal of it.
- MortoSasye
- Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:05 pm
- Byond Username: MortoSasye
- Contact:
Re: Legoscape - Admin False Presumption Of Intention
Put the admin name in the title, please.
- wubli
- Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 6:10 am
- Byond Username: Wubli
Re: Legoscape - Admin False Presumption Of Intention
Hello.
This is all the say logs (found here) you had at the moment I ahelped you. Note that they are in descending order because I'm too tired to fix it:
Regarding this part:
Despite this, I still think that you did not act in good faith by asking a wizard to "remove" the CE. I did not ignore the fact that you called out for security - it was brought up in the ahelp. This was the appropiate way of handling what you thought was a rogue CE. Forgive the formatting:
Honestly, even maybe if you had simply admitted that the wording was wrong, I wouldn't have noted you, but you insisted on it and every other admin that I asked agreed that it was out of line for a borg with ASIMOV laws.
I am saying it once more: this is not about the argument you had with the CE. You asked an antagonist to "remove the CE" implying it would in any case mean the Wizard would arrest or non-harmfully get the CE out of engineering.
The removal is denied for me - I am willing to add the calling for security part because it does seem fair to do so, but my ruling remains the same, as explained over and over in the ahelp.
I am interested in hearing other admins' takes on this, though. No one who was online disagreed with me, but I hope this can be rectified if I was in the wrong.
I do have a question for you - what would have happened if, effectively, the wizard had gone into engineering and killed the CE? Would you still think that it was not in any way your fault? Or do you only think this note has no merit because no one was hurt?
This is all the say logs (found here) you had at the moment I ahelped you. Note that they are in descending order because I'm too tired to fix it:
Spoiler:
I did not intentionally leave it out - but I do think it would be fair to add it into the note. My apologies - I usually write very detailed notes, but I did not want to delay the round end further.For the record, The admin that had added this note left out the parts of me actively looking for security or even calling security to remove the Cheif engineer from engineering.
Despite this, I still think that you did not act in good faith by asking a wizard to "remove" the CE. I did not ignore the fact that you called out for security - it was brought up in the ahelp. This was the appropiate way of handling what you thought was a rogue CE. Forgive the formatting:
Spoiler:
I am saying it once more: this is not about the argument you had with the CE. You asked an antagonist to "remove the CE" implying it would in any case mean the Wizard would arrest or non-harmfully get the CE out of engineering.
The removal is denied for me - I am willing to add the calling for security part because it does seem fair to do so, but my ruling remains the same, as explained over and over in the ahelp.
I am interested in hearing other admins' takes on this, though. No one who was online disagreed with me, but I hope this can be rectified if I was in the wrong.
I do have a question for you - what would have happened if, effectively, the wizard had gone into engineering and killed the CE? Would you still think that it was not in any way your fault? Or do you only think this note has no merit because no one was hurt?
- Pandarsenic
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
- Byond Username: Pandarsenic
- Location: AI Upload
Re: [Wubli] Legoscape - Admin False Presumption Of Intention
I would like to clarify that part of the original silicon policy does explicitly allow (arguably, require) you to make judgement calls about your Asimov laws based on whether someone seems likely to harm humans - see the example of that normally you must allow a human with upload access into your upload, but a captain authorizing executions or an RD who's soaked in blood should absolutely not be let in.
"Antagonist" is not (or at least should not be) part of the silicon IC vocabulary and threat assessment, only their behavior.
If this wizard has fireball, and likes to use it? Very harmful spell, keep that fucker out of engineering entirely, present harm matters more than potential future harm. Magic missile that they could cable cuff off of? Maybe a little more reliable.
Asking someone "Remove" is a trickier part, because it is highly contextual - it's completely different asking an assistant with baton and cable cuffs vs. a security officer vs. an antagonist engineer who just fed poly to the SM vs. a HOS covered head to toe in blood from executing "a changeling, I promise" vs. a wizard
And asking a wizard to remove or get rid of someone is very different depending on whether they have a staff of change, or fireball, or MM/Ei Nath, or Repulse... and whether they're more likely to use those proactively or talk to someone and whether the person you've asked them to remove will fight back and harm the human wizard.
Ultimately, this comes down to the core of silicon policy: you have been placed in an impossible situation. Did you make the best of a bad situation and try your genuine best to get all humans out unharmed? Was there any obvious, better option that you could have done instead?
"Antagonist" is not (or at least should not be) part of the silicon IC vocabulary and threat assessment, only their behavior.
If this wizard has fireball, and likes to use it? Very harmful spell, keep that fucker out of engineering entirely, present harm matters more than potential future harm. Magic missile that they could cable cuff off of? Maybe a little more reliable.
Asking someone "Remove" is a trickier part, because it is highly contextual - it's completely different asking an assistant with baton and cable cuffs vs. a security officer vs. an antagonist engineer who just fed poly to the SM vs. a HOS covered head to toe in blood from executing "a changeling, I promise" vs. a wizard
And asking a wizard to remove or get rid of someone is very different depending on whether they have a staff of change, or fireball, or MM/Ei Nath, or Repulse... and whether they're more likely to use those proactively or talk to someone and whether the person you've asked them to remove will fight back and harm the human wizard.
Ultimately, this comes down to the core of silicon policy: you have been placed in an impossible situation. Did you make the best of a bad situation and try your genuine best to get all humans out unharmed? Was there any obvious, better option that you could have done instead?
- wubli
- Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 6:10 am
- Byond Username: Wubli
Re: [Wubli] Legoscape - Admin False Presumption Of Intention
Never implied it had to be part of the vocabulary.Pandarsenic wrote: "Antagonist" is not (or at least should not be) part of the silicon IC vocabulary and threat assessment, only their behavior.
There were multiple wizards, and it was not a friendly wizard round. It was not a single time thing either, as shown in the logs, it was asked of at least one of them thrice.
My point from before stands - what if this wizard had said "sure!" and went into engineering to kill the CE? Why ask one of the wizards, when people are complaining about human harm from at least one of them?
This note is about an attitude issue. Asking a wizard three times to "remove" someone could've easily ended in their death. If it was just a one time thing said in the heat of the moment, okay. But it was the path chosen after just two attempts at saying "sec to engineering" over comms.
Hope that makes sense. Ultimately this is about not trying your luck and risking having a human harmed by what you know is the person most likely to harm them (because it was not a friendly wizard round).
- legoscape
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:35 am
- Byond Username: Legoscape
Re: [Wubli] Legoscape - Admin False Presumption Of Intention
Contextually the argument could be had my intent was very clear when I had indicated to the crew over coms and even asked security to remove the ce he's sabotaging the engine. I had asked the nicer of the two wizards if he could remove the CE and I was going to begin to speak with him about the aspects of non-harmfully removing the chief engineer until the wizard ran off and got deleted by the crew.Pandarsenic wrote:I would like to clarify that part of the original silicon policy does explicitly allow (arguably, require) you to make judgement calls about your Asimov laws based on whether someone seems likely to harm humans - see the example of that normally you must allow a human with upload access into your upload, but a captain authorizing executions or an RD who's soaked in blood should absolutely not be let in.
"Antagonist" is not (or at least should not be) part of the silicon IC vocabulary and threat assessment, only their behavior.
If this wizard has fireball, and likes to use it? Very harmful spell, keep that fucker out of engineering entirely, present harm matters more than potential future harm. Magic missile that they could cable cuff off of? Maybe a little more reliable.
Asking someone "Remove" is a trickier part, because it is highly contextual - it's completely different asking an assistant with baton and cable cuffs vs. a security officer vs. an antagonist engineer who just fed poly to the SM vs. a HOS covered head to toe in blood from executing "a changeling, I promise" vs. a wizard
And asking a wizard to remove or get rid of someone is very different depending on whether they have a staff of change, or fireball, or MM/Ei Nath, or Repulse... and whether they're more likely to use those proactively or talk to someone and whether the person you've asked them to remove will fight back and harm the human wizard.
Ultimately, this comes down to the core of silicon policy: you have been placed in an impossible situation. Did you make the best of a bad situation and try your genuine best to get all humans out unharmed? Was there any obvious, better option that you could have done instead?
This is clearly not an attitude issue, In your A-help, you even stated at the beginning of our discussion, "I know you". You cannot possibly know who I am or my intention without having to look at the logs in depth, Which you failed to link two situations together. My attitude/anger stouts from a chief engineer clearly unknowledgeable of aspects of removing ALL coolant in an engine with a 20% Deleam tick, The kind of Deleam that if it is not handled properly It will explode. The Chief Engineer was so self-righteous in his ideas he even threatened to kill me. This is not an attitude issue, This is an issue of a false presumption of my intentions.wubli wrote: This note is about an attitude issue. Asking a wizard three times to "remove" someone could've easily ended in their death. If it was just a one time thing said in the heat of the moment, okay. But it was the path chosen after just two attempts at saying "sec to engineering" over comms.
- wubli
- Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 6:10 am
- Byond Username: Wubli
Re: [Wubli] Legoscape - Admin False Presumption Of Intention
"I believe you know" is in no way the same as "I know you". I did not talk about you as a person - I talked about you as an experienced player. Being an admin means interpreting too when someone made a genuine mistake, or if it was malicious, or whatever the case. It is impossible for us to know what is going on inside your or any other player's head, and we have to work with what the logs and responses in ahelps say.legoscape wrote:In your A-help, you even stated at the beginning of our discussion, "I know you". You cannot possibly know who I am or my intention without having to look at the logs in depth, Which you failed to link two situations together.
I worked with the logs I had. You were upset at the CE and asked a wizard, part of a team that was actively harming humans, to "remove" them.
You are still not responding to my question. Do you think you would've been guilt-free had the wizard actually gone in and killed the CE?. If no, then the note still makes absolute sense, because "actually I did not mean for that to happen" would not be a good excuse.
All you did was argue about how saying "remove" couldn't at all be related to kiling them. You say that you meant to explain to the wizard how to remove the CE peacefully, but only after asking them to "remove them" three times? Couldn't you have said it from the very beginning, or at least, the second or third time?
How is it wrong for me to believe that "remove" meant "kill", when you could've also said "get the CE out of engineering"?
Why is it not okay to assume you implied human harm? Was I supposed to understand that by remove you meant "from engineering without harming them?" Was it really clear in the logs at the moment I PMed you?
I am mostly done responding to this appeal - it is denied. I have updated the note to reflect the fact you tried to communicate with security on two opportunities before resorting to the wizard:
After arguing with the CE over the SM setup, asked one of the wizards at least three times to "remove the CE". This was not acted upon by the wizard, but asking an antagonist whose entire gimmick is (usually) to harm humans to remove someone does not sit well for an ASIMOV lawset.
Attempted to contact security to arrest the CE twice before asking the wizard to remove them three times.
No matter how many times I tried to explain this in ahelps, they refused to understand. Please be more careful when playing silicon
- legoscape
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:35 am
- Byond Username: Legoscape
Re: [Wubli] Legoscape - Admin False Presumption Of Intention
If you honestly believe I'm stupid enough to let the wizard INTO ENGINEERING without speaking to him previously, You must absolutely be off your rocker. But here you go again, You assume I will let the Chief Engineer actively be harmed. You assume-assume-assume. You completely ignored the situation I was placed in and you entirely ignored the destruction of the SM and a large portion of the station ((It was a c02 engine could have been the entire station)). There was no active crew to assist with stoping the Chief engineer from being an absolute bafoon. I asked the nicer of the two wizards because he not only didn't kill me on sight, He spoke with me and could be reasoned with. You are setting a terrible standard for admins. Words that lead to no action are now hereby a note-able offense. (With the exception of erp). The words "I want to kill you, But I can't" Can now be a notable offense in these regards. You speak so highly of a situation you believe would happen but never occurred. You are not an omnipotent being. Asking another human to assist to stop the sure destruction of the station and harm of people is within my law set. Unknowingly killing someone is not.wubli wrote:"I believe you know" is in no way the same as "I know you". I did not talk about you as a person - I talked about you as an experienced player. Being an admin means interpreting too when someone made a genuine mistake, or if it was malicious, or whatever the case. It is impossible for us to know what is going on inside your or any other player's head, and we have to work with what the logs and responses in ahelps say.legoscape wrote:In your A-help, you even stated at the beginning of our discussion, "I know you". You cannot possibly know who I am or my intention without having to look at the logs in depth, Which you failed to link two situations together.
I worked with the logs I had. You were upset at the CE and asked a wizard, part of a team that was actively harming humans, to "remove" them.
You are still not responding to my question. Do you think you would've been guilt-free had the wizard actually gone in and killed the CE?. If no, then the note still makes absolute sense, because "actually I did not mean for that to happen" would not be a good excuse.
All you did was argue about how saying "remove" couldn't at all be related to kiling them. You say that you meant to explain to the wizard how to remove the CE peacefully, but only after asking them to "remove them" three times? Couldn't you have said it from the very beginning, or at least, the second or third time?
How is it wrong for me to believe that "remove" meant "kill", when you could've also said "get the CE out of engineering"?
Why is it not okay to assume you implied human harm? Was I supposed to understand that by remove you meant "from engineering without harming them?" Was it really clear in the logs at the moment I PMed you?
I am mostly done responding to this appeal - it is denied. I have updated the note to reflect the fact you tried to communicate with security on two opportunities before resorting to the wizard:After arguing with the CE over the SM setup, asked one of the wizards at least three times to "remove the CE". This was not acted upon by the wizard, but asking an antagonist whose entire gimmick is (usually) to harm humans to remove someone does not sit well for an ASIMOV lawset.
Attempted to contact security to arrest the CE twice before asking the wizard to remove them three times.
No matter how many times I tried to explain this in ahelps, they refused to understand. Please be more careful when playing silicon
- wubli
- Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 6:10 am
- Byond Username: Wubli
Re: [Wubli] Legoscape - Admin False Presumption Of Intention
lolYou are setting a terrible standard for admins.
telling an AI to kill itself will get you noted even if the AI ignores you for acting in bad faithWords that lead to no action are now hereby a note-able offense.
"help me stop the CE" and "CE is annoying, please remove the CE" are very different, aren't they?Asking another human to assist to stop the sure destruction of the station and harm of people is within my law set.
you did not say this, you asked a wizard, part of a team that was actively harming humans, to "remove" another human. this was somehow meant to be interpreted as "please get them away from engineering safely", but you still argue that it couldn't have possibly be interpreted as "kill them". i would like you to know this was ahelped about by a player, and not something i personally noticed, and, again, no admin online disagreed.The words "I want to kill you, But I can't" Can now be a notable offense in these regards.
this is my last response to this thread because we are going in circles and now you are just trying to attack my general judgement and i'm not really up for it! i believe i acted fairly even in this thread, trying to talk to you over and over. i try to be as nice and understanding as someone can be but it's not going anywhere evidently. you may ask a headmin to overturn my decision, but this appeal is denied.
- legoscape
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:35 am
- Byond Username: Legoscape
Re: [Wubli] Legoscape - Admin False Presumption Of Intention
How predictable, Ignoring more factual material evedince.wubli wrote:lolYou are setting a terrible standard for admins.telling an AI to kill itself will get you noted even if the AI ignores you for acting in bad faithWords that lead to no action are now hereby a note-able offense."help me stop the CE" and "CE is annoying, please remove the CE" are very different, aren't they?Asking another human to assist to stop the sure destruction of the station and harm of people is within my law set.you did not say this, you asked a wizard, part of a team that was actively harming humans, to "remove" another human. this was somehow meant to be interpreted as "please get them away from engineering safely", but you still argue that it couldn't have possibly be interpreted as "kill them". i would like you to know this was ahelped about by a player, and not something i personally noticed, and, again, no admin online disagreed.The words "I want to kill you, But I can't" Can now be a notable offense in these regards.
this is my last response to this thread because we are going in circles and now you are just trying to attack my general judgement and i'm not really up for it! i believe i acted fairly even in this thread, trying to talk to you over and over. i try to be as nice and understanding as someone can be but it's not going anywhere evidently. you may ask a headmin to overturn my decision, but this appeal is denied.
- legoscape
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:35 am
- Byond Username: Legoscape
Re: [Wubli] Legoscape - Admin False Presumption Of Intention
Close this thread, Nothing productive will come from it. I will not argue when there is a clear lack of understanding from the opposed party.
- wubli
- Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 6:10 am
- Byond Username: Wubli
- Coconutwarrior97
- In-Game Game Master
- Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 3:14 am
- Byond Username: Coconutwarrior97
Re: [Wubli] Legoscape - Admin False Presumption Of Intention
This is my own opinion,
Which is exactly what you don't want to see as an asimov borg. Your insistence that the statement was fine seems like reasonable grounds for a note being applied.
Looks like wubli has also edited the note to include the part about security, which is good. Anyways, the note looks fine to me.
This is exactly why an asimov borg should not be saying this sort of thing to the wizard, since its very likely that wizard is going to take it as "kill this guy"."Remove the CE" is a very ambiguous quote that can be left subjective
Which is exactly what you don't want to see as an asimov borg. Your insistence that the statement was fine seems like reasonable grounds for a note being applied.
Looks like wubli has also edited the note to include the part about security, which is good. Anyways, the note looks fine to me.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users