/tg/Station 13

Byond account and character name: HollaHollaFoADolla - Syndicat
Banning admin: Atlantaned
Ban type (What are you banned from?): Note
Ban reason and length: Warned - Was building a rage cage in the theatre for lizards, composed of a bunch of reflectors and emitters. Got at least one human seriously injured. They have been advised to make it safe before adding the dangerous bits.
Time ban was placed (including time zone): 2017-09-24 20:08:19 | Bagil | atlantaned
Server you were playing when banned (Sybil or Bagil): Bagil
Your side of the story: Made a rage cage for tribal lizard combat as borgo, got called away before I could finish it because there was mass human harm and the SM was gonna explode. It was behind a door and it was hard to run into unless you do it intentionally. Someone ran into it intentionally, probably to try to get in the middle. Also I think a traitor threw someone into it. I didn't know as to who or how they ran into it.
Why you think you should be unbanned:
It was very obvious and rather hard to run into unless you do it intentionally. If people self-harm themselves on intent it's generally not considered the fault of the AI/Borgs. If you run into a death machine you should not be surprised it crits you. It's at least a tile away from each door and it's not placed in some high traffic area. It was built in the bar side room.

peanut posting but since when has it been noteable for other people's stupidity

this whole noting people for rage cages and people eating floor pills is shit and a bad shift in policy

oranges wrote:peanut posting but since when has it been noteable for other people's stupidity

this whole noting people for rage cages and people eating floor pills is shit and a bad shift in policy

I do not understand what the server vision is behind such warnings. What is the endgame?

Setting up a bunch of emitters and reflectors isn't something an asimov borg should be doing. Or if they want to do it, make it safe first.

It sounds like he put it out of the way and was in the process of doing that before he had to go save the station (from something else completely unsafe we let borgs build every round).

I could see this maybe warranting a "hey be more careful next time please" after talking to him but it doesn't sound like malicious or super negligent behavior. I don't know why he needs a black mark over this

Also it's really fucking dumb to stand in the doorway of a rage cage watching the emitters be built, order the person building it to leave, and then immediately walk into it and die and complain it wasn't finished.

[20:03:10]SAY: Carlos Danger/Gouty : BORG (136,127,2)
[20:03:13]SAY: Carlos Danger/Gouty : GO AND FIX THE SM (136,127,2)

[20:03:17]ATTACK: NON-EXISTENT USER shot Carlos Danger(gouty) with The emitter beam (NEWHP: 69) (138,126,2)

[20:03:58]ADMINPRIVATE: Ticket #7: Gouty/(Carlos Danger): did that borg build that thing in the theatre that just crit me - heard by 2 non-AFK admins who have +BAN.

Yeah I was testing it at that point in time right before building the enclosure.
I never got to that because well shit happened and when I got back I ended up victim to my own contraption.

Speaking of emitters, that SM has emitters that will assblast you if you walk in front of the laser line too.
Now I could understand if I built this in the hallway, but it was in the bar backroom area on meta.

Turning off the emitters when leaving them half built would have helped, but it sounds like the hazard was out of the way. A bit of a odd one really, maybe the idea is to discourage borgs from making passive hazards around the station. I'd have to see the actual rage cage setup to judge it.

Gigapuddi420 wrote:Turning off the emitters when leaving them half built would have helped, but it sounds like the hazard was out of the way. A bit of a odd one really, maybe the idea is to discourage borgs from making passive hazards around the station. I'd have to see the actual rage cage setup to judge it.

Turning off the emitter wouldn't break the loop, only deflection or blocking it will.

Kor wrote:Also it's really fucking dumb to stand in the doorway of a rage cage watching the emitters be built, order the person building it to leave, and then immediately walk into it and die and complain it wasn't finished.

[20:03:10]SAY: Carlos Danger/Gouty : BORG (136,127,2)
[20:03:13]SAY: Carlos Danger/Gouty : GO AND FIX THE SM (136,127,2)

[20:03:17]ATTACK: NON-EXISTENT USER shot Carlos Danger(gouty) with The emitter beam (NEWHP: 69) (138,126,2)

[20:03:58]ADMINPRIVATE: Ticket #7: Gouty/(Carlos Danger): did that borg build that thing in the theatre that just crit me - heard by 2 non-AFK admins who have +BAN.

Please ban gouty, that's ban baiting

Did he just walk into an emitter beam and try to get someone banned

I don't think it's really fair to assume this was a plot to get the borg banned either. Wanting to investigate the flashy death machine is natural, and being annoyed that the death machine then (almost) killed you is natural. F5 is then the easiest and quickest way to vent annoyance.

Lazengann wrote:Did he just walk into an emitter beam and try to get someone banned

hanlon's razor

Qbopper wrote:

Lazengann wrote:Did he just walk into an emitter beam and try to get someone banned

hanlon's razor

You'd assume a game admin would know better.

i'll break it down

>be a person
>walking down the street
>you stumble across a man sewing together fuse for dynamite
>you punch the man square in the nose, he is dead
>you take his dynamite, with a incomplete fuse, proceed to light it, and it blows your arm off before you can throw it
>you then go to the police, and tell them that the man blew your arm off with dynamite
>the police then go to the deadmans corpse and stamp the following words on his forehead
>"HE DID A BAD"

>six months later
>the man is reincarnated
>goes to police station to have stamp removed
>"BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT MAKING A SHORT FUSED DYNAMITE WOULD HAVE BLEW HIS ARM OFF"



if at any moment in time, any of you think its okay to walk into something that you know is going to kill you, then try to blame someone else for it, you are the problem.

John_Oxford wrote:i'll break it down

>be a person
>walking down the street
>you stumble across a man sewing together fuse for dynamite
>you punch the man square in the nose, he is dead
>you take his dynamite, with a incomplete fuse, proceed to light it, and it blows your arm off before you can throw it
>you then go to the police, and tell them that the man blew your arm off with dynamite
>the police then go to the deadmans corpse and stamp the following words on his forehead
>"HE DID A BAD"

>six months later
>the man is reincarnated
>goes to police station to have stamp removed
>"BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT MAKING A SHORT FUSED DYNAMITE WOULD HAVE BLEW HIS ARM OFF"



if at any moment in time, any of you think its okay to walk into something that you know is going to kill you, then try to blame someone else for it, you are the problem.

If you still think you can compare space station 13 to real life after this post, you have problems

Kor wrote:I don't think it's really fair to assume this was a plot to get the borg banned either. Wanting to investigate the flashy death machine is natural, and being annoyed that the death machine then (almost) killed you is natural. F5 is then the easiest and quickest way to vent annoyance.

Are you saying an admin doesn't know that walking into an emitter will hurt them.

It was 4 seconds between him telling the borg to go away and him waking into the emitter.

It was 45 seconds between him ordering the borg to go away and him adminhelping about the borg being the cause of his demise.

Also unless there were more logs of him getting lasered
[20:03:58]ADMINPRIVATE: Ticket #7: Gouty/(Carlos Danger): did that borg build that thing in the theatre that just crit me - heard by 2 non-AFK admins who have +BAN.

[20:03:17]ATTACK: NON-EXISTENT USER shot Carlos Danger(gouty) with The emitter beam (NEWHP: 69) (138,126,2)

I only pasted it once because all the beams hit him at the same time (and I wanted to show that 7 seconds had elapsed between him talking in the door and then walking into the beams) but he did drop into crit

I didn't walk into the beams.

I went there because the SM was delaminating, I told the AI to order the borg to fix it, or told the borg over the radio I can't remember, and someone told me they were in the theatre so I went there, told them in person.

I was in the process of typing "and when you are done dismantle this unsafe shit", was 2 tiles away from it, and someone without help intent ran into me and pushed me into it.

I ahelped because should Asimov borgs be building harmful contraptions in public places? Especially when they have been ordered to fix a delaminating SM?

The reason for the delay between being put in crit and ahelping it was I wasn't actually sure if the borg had built it and wanted to check.

Why adminhelp the borg instead of the guy who pushed you into the beam though

Gouty wrote: I ahelped because should Asimov borgs be building harmful contraptions in public places?

Crux of the issue and why they were noted. The theater on Meta is not an "out of the way area". It was several emitter beams bouncing around, one tile away from two doors and opaque privacy windows.

I was under the impression that one of the engineers had built it, hence why I didn't get involved until Gouty pointed out that the borg was building it.

Gouty wrote:I didn't walk into the beams.

I went there because the SM was delaminating, I told the AI to order the borg to fix it, or told the borg over the radio I can't remember, and someone told me they were in the theatre so I went there, told them in person.

I was in the process of typing "and when you are done dismantle this unsafe shit", was 2 tiles away from it, and someone without help intent ran into me and pushed me into it.

I ahelped because should Asimov borgs be building harmful contraptions in public places? Especially when they have been ordered to fix a delaminating SM?

The reason for the delay between being put in crit and ahelping it was I wasn't actually sure if the borg had built it and wanted to check.

It was built before the SM went nuts. Also when you said it over the radio I already set up the SM and it was fixing itself and the people there were gonna keep a look on it.
When you ordered me again I went to check it out again but it was set up properly again and just needed its time to cool down. It was out of the danger zone, just heating causing it to delam a little further but it was cooling down rapidly.

tl;dr it was built before the SM delamed mostly, and I only started testing it after I set the SM to fix it self(coolant loop was set up wrong, easy fix). I got out of the way of the other people there and returned to what i was doing before. Then you ordered me again so I went to check on it again but it was pretty much fixed.
Also iirc there were multiple borgs that round, and iirc there were already borgs in engineering. Might be misremembering though.

Atlanta-Ned wrote: The theater on Meta is not an "out of the way area".

It's a backroom that usually doesn't see much traffic.

lntigracy wrote:Why adminhelp the borg instead of the guy who pushed you into the beam though

Because it seemed to me like your run of the mill accident, no malicious intent. It wasn't like they stood behind me and then pushed. Also it happened quick so I didn't register or catch a name, and it doesn't log who bumps into you.

AdAstraPerAspera wrote: It was built before the SM went nuts. Also when you said it over the radio I already set up the SM and it was fixing itself and the people there were gonna keep a look on it.
When you ordered me again I went to check it out again but it was set up properly again and just needed its time to cool down. It was out of the danger zone, just heating causing it to delam a little further but it was cooling down rapidly.

tl;dr it was built before the SM delamed mostly, and I only started testing it after I set the SM to fix it self(coolant loop was set up wrong, easy fix). I got out of the way of the other people there and returned to what i was doing before. Then you ordered me again so I went to check on it again but it was pretty much fixed.
Also iirc there were multiple borgs that round, and iirc there were already borgs in engineering. Might be misremembering though.

As far as I was aware you were the only borg. All I knew was the SM was still giving delamination warnings (normally when it is fixed the warnings stop very quickly) and had been for some time, and you were fannying around in the theatre building a deathtrap

AdAstraPerAspera wrote:
It's a backroom that usually doesn't see much traffic.

Except it drew quite a crowd, and it's public access

When you build a large, dangerous autism public in a public area, regardless of how off the wall it might be, people will still check it out.

I think it's worth noting that there's a distinction between an emitter trap and your above-average rage cage (electrified walls inside a protective, glassed-in area). As an asimov cyborg, you had every opportunity (and in fact a motive) to implement safeties _before_ you created the dangerous and deadly traps inside.

If you build things whose explicit intent is self-harm by individuals who intend to put themselves into that situation, then I'd argue that the onus is on you to take reasonable precautions to promote that the people who it impacts actually intend to self-harm.

I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with an asimov helping to build a rage cage, in and of itself, so long as it's a cyborg who's been instructed that someone wishes to commit self harm to _choose_ to follow the instruction to assist them in their willful self-harm, so long as it's made EXTREMELY clear what the risks are (maybe up to and including the borg babysitting it or, if they have to abandon it, disabling/blocking access to it) and it's understood between all relevant players that this is NOT a violation of laws (given existing precedent).

BUT in general, no, Asimovs shouldn't be be building death machines, and any death machines they DO build should be EXTREMELY limited to protect undesired injury.

In this particular instance I would have had to see it to get an idea of what was going on. You at least should have bolted the doors when you left. If the doors couldn't be bolted (i.e. a sliding glass door) an argument could be made by an observer that that's on you for not having sufficient safeties. But the argument could also be made that people shouldn't walk into emitters if they don't wanna get burned.

Note that I'm making a substantial allowance away from my base response to this because my desired response (and the way I'd interpret it if I was playing the Asimov) would usually be NO, I WILL NOT HELP YOU BUILD YOUR MURDER TRAP AND ASIMOVS NEVER SHOULD (though I have helped people do so in the past, to varying degrees of success). But again, different playstyles, and interpretation of precedents: self-harm's not harm, but make sure it's self-harm.

Oh this is a note appeal. I completely missed that.

You can ask for it to be reworded or I can close it. It was not made in error as you did the thing that's not ok.

Honestly it's worded nicely already but *shrug*

ExcessiveJMadison wrote:Oh this is a note appeal. I completely missed that.

You can ask for it to be reworded or I can close it. It was not made in error as you did the thing that's not ok.

Honestly it's worded nicely already but *shrug*

Seems disengenous to fault a player for a series of events ultimately out of their control, especially when the ahelper was the one urging them to drop the project before they could make it safe.

Yeah the Borg could have just not made it but giving them the black mark on their record for trying to do something fun when there wasn't any malicious intent behind it seems like a misuse of the system in this gamer's humble opinion.

Feels like an unwinnable situation where you either ignore a law 2 order to make the cage safe or you chance potential harm (which brings into the whole "borgs and AIs acting omnipotent/prescient" shit). The thing with the latter option is that one would generally hope people would avoid the lasers and that going near the cage is at that point simply asking for trouble.

The alternative is not building it at all, but that seems like robbing the whole game of a little bit of fun because people can't face the fact that sometimes, shit happens and it's out of everyone's control.

ExcessiveJMadison wrote:Oh this is a note appeal. I completely missed that.

You can ask for it to be reworded or I can close it. It was not made in error as you did the thing that's not ok.

Honestly it's worded nicely already but *shrug*

So it's not OK to deal with the SM exploding over my autism project and it's not ok to get banbaited?

What is wrong with you?

iamgoofball wrote:

ExcessiveJMadison wrote:Oh this is a note appeal. I completely missed that.

You can ask for it to be reworded or I can close it. It was not made in error as you did the thing that's not ok.

Honestly it's worded nicely already but *shrug*

So it's not OK to deal with the SM exploding over my autism project and it's not ok to get banbaited?

What is wrong with you?

Don't cherrypick if you're going to peanut post.

As I previously stated, the note was issued because they built an incredibly harmful contraption in a public place, without any safeguards.

Quite frankly if you see an emitter and walk in front of the thing right after telling the borg working on the project to fuck off, you shouldn't be protected by admins.

This was banbaiting, plain and simple. How do you not see this?

He wasn't forced to walk in. He wasn't told to walk in by the borg or by the admins or by the heads. He walked in on his own accord.

After telling the person working on the project "PLS GO AWAY RIGHT NOW LAW 2 ;_;"

I'd argue this is the same issue as floor pills.

if I leave a pill labeled "floor pill" on the floor in maint, and someone eats it, and dies from a drug overdose, should I get punished for someone not having the common sense to not eat sketchy pills off the floor?

captain sawrge wrote: Seems disengenous to fault a player for a series of events ultimately out of their control, especially when the ahelper was the one urging them to drop the project before they could make it safe.

Yeah the Borg could have just not made it but giving them the black mark on their record for trying to do something fun when there wasn't any malicious intent behind it seems like a misuse of the system in this gamer's humble opinion.

Feels like an unwinnable situation where you either ignore a law 2 order to make the cage safe or you chance potential harm (which brings into the whole "borgs and AIs acting omnipotent/prescient" shit). The thing with the latter option is that one would generally hope people would avoid the lasers and that going near the cage is at that point simply asking for trouble.

The alternative is not building it at all, but that seems like robbing the whole game of a little bit of fun because people can't face the fact that sometimes, shit happens and it's out of everyone's control.

It wasn't out of their control though, they can build the project and THEN add emitters. They could have turned off the emitters. As Asimov, it's THEIR responsibility to pad the walls out of fear of harming humans. That's literally what you sign up for as roundstart silicons.

They weren't even punished, They were told to "make it safe before adding the dangerous bits" and this was recorded.

Please stop making notes scary and instead encourage people to simply take a different approach to the situation in a way that would not get them the note. In this case, building the safeguards prior or simply not going the job that requires you to never hurt humans.

I mean I also hate to be a stickler but really the alternative to not building it at all also works because you CHOSE to be a borg and when doing so you know your default law is Asimov and that you have to uphold this lawset. The BEST alternative is to simply go engineer and not have to tackle the nuances of silicon laws if you want to make a dangerous project. If he was a normal engineer I would probably lol at gouty like I usually do with his F1s :^)

iamgoofball wrote:So it's not OK to deal with the SM exploding over my autism project and it's not ok to get banbaited?

What is wrong with you?

I'm not sure what you mean.

I am a firm believer that if you are experimenting with the SM as an engineer then fucking up and having it explode is part of the design of the engine and I should not ban for that (that's not to say purposefully sabotaging it as nonantag is ok).

The banbaiting, if it was truly banbaiting, should be handled separately. This is not a ban appeal so the person lost no time over it, this is a note appeal and the note coincides with what he did which WAS wrong, and he was asked to be more thoughtful in the future to avoid this situation. As I said above, stop making notes scary. Regardless of Gouty being there, the person should still be made aware that they should prioritize safety as an asimov silicon.

I wouldn't even be mentioning this however if this was not the protocol for appealing notes. See Below

Note Appealing and Resolved Appeals wrote:Do not appeal things you later explained or apologized for. While you may have been pardoned for the ban these kinds of things stay in your notes so we know if it happens again in the future that it isn't the first time. It will be that much harder to apologize for and claim it was a mistake or lapse in judgement the next time it happens. That's intentional. Just because you admitted you were wrong and got off the ban doesn't mean we expunge things from your record.

Again, you can appeal things that are in your note history that are mistakes. Things you made up for or were pardoned for still stay on your record.

I'm assuming that since headmins have not amended it then it's still in effect.

iamgoofball wrote:I'd argue this is the same issue as floor pills.

if I leave a pill labeled "floor pill" on the floor in maint, and someone eats it, and dies from a drug overdose, should I get punished for someone not having the common sense to not eat sketchy pills off the floor?

If you were an asimov borg when you made the pills, yes.

I mean there are two core interpretations here:

1) It's fun and nobody got hurt until someone walked into the shit; I guess more precautions should be taken next time!
2) ...but, asimov borgs probably shouldn't, _in general,_ be in the business of building deathtraps to begin with.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive, and since this is a note, my personal judgment on this would be to make a note, but make it gentle, something like 'Advised the player to be more careful as an Asimov cyborg in designing self-harm systems for willing participants, and ensure that only willing participants are affected.'

Which, frankly? Is pretty much what the note already says.

I did turn off the emitter unless it didn't take after the test, but turning off the loop doesn't break the emitter loop. Which i wanted to break but I got ordered away before I could.

Cobby it really isn't your place to decide what is and is not ultimately wrong and yet you seem to be attempting to moderate this thread as though such a judgment has already been made.

The only headmin response to this thread thus far has generally disapproved of the note so the threats to close the thread and talk of this being an invalid appeal seem a little petty.

Again, I am happy to reword it in a way that fairly and accurately represents the situation to the benefit of the person being noted.

As LiterallyHitlerAdmin however the policy is you cannot appeal the removal of notes UNLESS a mistake was made (for instance, someone got a note recently because they killed someone as an anomaly slime. I explained this was ok and the note was removed because it was made in error). This note does not fall into that category.

AdAstraPerAspera wrote:I did turn off the emitter unless it didn't take after the test, but turning off the loop doesn't break the emitter loop. Which i wanted to break but I got ordered away before I could.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I'll edit the note then, post it here, and let you decide if that's fair.

captain sawrge wrote:Cobby it really isn't your place to decide what is and is not ultimately wrong and yet you seem to be attempting to moderate this thread as though such a judgment has already been made.

The only headmin response to this thread thus far has generally disapproved of the note so the threats to close the thread and talk of this being an invalid appeal seem a little petty.

It isn't my place, I'm simply enforcing the standards set [or well not changed] by headmins. The headmins have yet to change note appeal policy after several of these "I did the thing but is it /really/ worth noting" threads so I'm assuming that it's on purpose.

If they don't like the policy then they should change it, as they have full authority to do. That's why they exist.

ExcessiveJMadison wrote:I'll edit the note then, post it here, and let you decide if that's fair.

The Note: Revised wrote:Built a rage cage for nonhumans as an asimov borg. During testing of the cage which involved emitters and reflectors, some emitter beams were kept in the loop and caused injury to a human. Things happen so in the future just try to add more safeguards since human safety should be your #1 priority as an asimov borg.

^ ayy ayy?

He got law two'd. Why would we punish him with a note for obeying his law 2 order to get away?

This guy was banbaiting. He would of ahelped law 2 violation if the borg tried to tell him to fuck off until he made the setup safe.

Quite frankly, this was self harm. Self harm isnt a law 1 violation, otherwise I'd get to walk up to the captain's office and go "LAW 1 AI OPEN OR I KILL MYSELF".

gouty didnt walk in they were pushed

Wyzack wrote:gouty didnt walk in they were pushed

Do you have logs of this occuring?

I dont fucking know dude its just what was said earlier in the thread, i dont have a stake in this. I think maybe people bumping in to you isnt logged anyways

Non-help intent passive bumps aren't logged.

Then it cannot be proven, especially since the evidence points to a banbait suicide already.

I think at this point most of the arguments which are relevant to a note appeal about an Asimov cyborg building an emitter/reflector death fence in the unbolted, unlocked side room of the metastation bar have been made, the note has been updated by an admin, and we should wait for a headmin or the original poster to respond with additional direction.

iamgoofball wrote:He wasn't forced to walk in.

He literally was you fucking illiterate. He got pushed by someone.

If the borg made the contraption in the bar backroom on meta that's sufficient consideration for asimov laws when making a dangerous autism project. Same deal with electrified rage cages in the box bar. Yes it's dangerous if someone walks into it but it's separate enough from major public passage ways where you could reasonably say the intent was to make something to specifically cause harm or griff instead of be a project. Bars are also traditionally common places for autism projects to take place anyway, they're usually empty spaces that still see enough traffic to make building it lively.

imblyings wrote:If the borg made the contraption in the bar backroom on meta that's sufficient consideration for asimov laws when making a dangerous autism project. Same deal with electrified rage cages in the box bar. Yes it's dangerous if someone walks into it but it's separate enough from major public passage ways where you could reasonably say the intent was to make something to specifically cause harm or griff instead of be a project. Bars are also traditionally common places for autism projects to take place anyway, they're usually empty spaces that still see enough traffic to make building it lively.

Does this mean the note can be removed since there was no ill intent and there was reasonable out of the way location for this contraption?

the only reservation I have is in the back of my mind I have a feeling what I said can be loopholed by some cunt but yes the note can be removed

I deleted it because I've been outranked but I think this is a mistake and a slippery slope in allowing people to appeal notes where they did the thing despite the policy explicitly saying you should only appeal when the note is factually incorrect or misleading.

The argument is not that they did the thing, it is that the thing they did should not be discouraged by ooc means and was not a transgression