[DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Appeals which have been closed.

Moderators: In-Game Head Admins, In-Game Admin, In-Game Game Master

ChemicalRascal
 
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:00 pm
Byond Username: ChemicalRascal

[DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby ChemicalRascal » Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:57 pm #405289

Byond account and character name: ChemicalRascal, as Ave Maria
Banning admin: DaxYeen
Ban type (What are you banned from?): AI, Cyborg, pAI jobbans
Ban reason and length: "The reason is: Locked the captain in depowered rooms, ignored law 2 orders because the captain said he would telebaton people non-harmfully. https://i.imgur.com/MBWvpmO.png This jobban will be lifted in 10080 minutes."
Time ban was placed (including time zone): ~23:40 UTC, 29th of April
Server you were playing when banned (Sybil or Bagil): Bagil

Your side of the story:
Captain announced at roundstart, unbidden, that they were going to knock out anyone unimplanted that was going to approach them: https://puu.sh/AcXpt/33e15cc940.png After asking the Captain to promise to myself, the AI, to not do this, they refused to make such a promise, but instead hunted myself, the AI, with zeal.

Why you think you should be unbanned:
It isn't unreasonable to view "I am going to knock people out" as an announcement of intent to harm, especially given a telebaton doesn't knock people out -- the only way for the Captain to knock people out using their round-start kit is to put them into crit. Locking the Captain in a room to prevent people from getting to them, and thus prevent them from harming people, isn't unreasonable. This belief of their intent to do harm was further cemented in place when they hunted the AI (and eventually killed them), rather than make a simple promise otherwise. That's all I ever asked from the Captain -- assurance that they weren't going to cause harm.

Silicone Policy allows AIs and Cyborgs to take actions to prevent harm given probable cause. I felt that the above actions were probable cause enough to lock the Captain down for a moment in order to attain a promise from them to not cause harm -- a lockdown they were always able to escape, and did, given they had the hand teleporter. While my actions are certainly on the zealous side of AI play, they aren't uncommon, and it hasn't justified a seven-day ban in the past.



User avatar
Dax Dupont
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:07 pm
Location: Belgium
Byond Username: DaxYeen
Github Username: DaxDupont

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby Dax Dupont » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:17 am #405299

He clearly was telling you that no he did mean his baton.

Image

Even after he gave you that information you persisted and persisted, got the borg to move you out of the core as he tried to card you to make sure you weren't as rogue as you were acting.

You also vaguely threatened the captain for using said handtele.

How many times does he need to state he's not gonna cause harm and he's specifically talking about his telebaton?

I could at least 3 lines there that state he's not gonna cause harm and you're claiming he wouldn't make a promise.

Even the code states that the baton knocks people out/down.
https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/ ... #L141-L142
target.visible_message("<span class ='danger'>[user] has knocked down [target] with [src]!</span>", \
"<span class ='userdanger'>[user] has knocked down [target] with [src]!</span>")


While indeed your actions have not lead to a jobban in the past, they have now and a week is the standard length for job bans.

I need to stress the fact that captain made clear several times he wasn't going to harm people and you just ignored his promises and statements based on something that already borders on flimsy argumentation.
Last edited by Dax Dupont on Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ChemicalRascal
 
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:00 pm
Byond Username: ChemicalRascal

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby ChemicalRascal » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:33 am #405302

The Captain never expressed that he was going to card me. At no point did he say he was going to grab a card. Indeed, the Captain never did card me, even after he killed me, at which point he had ample opportunity.

By the time the Captain even mentioned his telebaton, he had begun what I've affectionately come to remember as the hunt. If he had, at any point, clearly expressed that he wasn't planning on knocking anyone out, then everything would have been fine, but as you can see from what he said above, well, he never did.

As far as I can remember, I never threatened the captain for using his hand teleporter. I might have said something about it, but the AI can't cause harm to human beings, so actually threatening one doesn't make any sense.

As far as I know, the AI isn't aware of the code of tgstation. When someone says to someone else "I'm gonna knock your teeth out!", the AI doesn't think, "Hey, he means no harm, because humans don't have teeth in this video game". He said he was going to knock people out, the only way he can do that is by causing harm, and it isn't unreasonable for an AI to view that as harm regardless. In the past, as an AI, I've been praised for following decidedly unfun instructions to kill the entire station in a malicious-compliance manner by attempting to induce depression, even though there wasn't a depression mechanic in the game at the time and there hasn't been a suicide compulsion mechanic in the game at any point -- in literally no other admin interaction I've ever had or seen has an admin ever referred to the gamecode as something the AI should base their judgement on. Or, indeed, any game action at all, AI or not.

In short, no, the Captain did not give me the promise I asked for, and was actively hunting me, the Captain never attempted to card me at all, even after I *died*, opting instead to engage in a long, drawn-out chase in Lavaland base which they sabered me, and had plenty of opportunity to instead card me but simply didn't, the AI isn't aware of gamecode and IMO can't be asked to make judgements based thereon, and the idea of the AI threatening the Captain is nonsensical.

User avatar
Dax Dupont
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:07 pm
Location: Belgium
Byond Username: DaxYeen
Github Username: DaxDupont

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby Dax Dupont » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:37 am #405305

What part of "not harming them" does not fulfill your desire for him committing to a non harmful approach.

Did the captain state he meant using his baton nonharmfully yes or no?

ChemicalRascal
 
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:00 pm
Byond Username: ChemicalRascal

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby ChemicalRascal » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:40 am #405306

By the time he said "not harming them", he was well into the process of trying to kill me. Given that context, one is surely excused for not taking people at their word, especially when they are busy scrambling to get a borg to evac them.

EDIT: To clarify, though, at that point, I would have taken a promise if it was given as a promise. But they never did that. They jumped immediately to Must-Apply-Saber-To-AI's-Face mode.

User avatar
Dax Dupont
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:07 pm
Location: Belgium
Byond Username: DaxYeen
Github Username: DaxDupont

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby Dax Dupont » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:44 am #405308

He made these statements right after you started locking him down, the bottom there is the start of his chat logs. I doubt he got far in those 30 seconds.

ChemicalRascal
 
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:00 pm
Byond Username: ChemicalRascal

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby ChemicalRascal » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:45 am #405309

They didn't, no, they never made the promise I asked for. Can you pull up the timestamp of the first time I asked for a promise, over Command radio?

User avatar
Dax Dupont
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:07 pm
Location: Belgium
Byond Username: DaxYeen
Github Username: DaxDupont

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby Dax Dupont » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:48 am #405310

Either way this thread is going circular, I've made my point.

I don't feel like I should lift this ban, I might lower it if you show understanding that what you did was in error.

I'll get the lines tomorrow when I have time tomorrow evening.

ChemicalRascal
 
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:00 pm
Byond Username: ChemicalRascal

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby ChemicalRascal » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:00 am #405315

In that case, allow me to explain the exact details of what happened from my point of view, over the first minute or so.

While in the Cap's Quarters, the Captain made the knock-out announcement. I immediately locked them down in first their bedroom, and then their office when they escaped into that via door remote. They'd kitted themselves out entirely, grabbed the hand teleporter, and what-not. During this time, I asked over command chat for their promise.

They then headed to the HoP's office. Their route went via the Bridge, and then they sat at the desk and manned it before I hit the power -- it appeared that there was no HoP at roundstart, regardless, folks were asking for the Captain to serve as HoP. When I hit the power in the HoP's office, they left the HoP's office via the Bridge door, which was still open. I believe I restored power to the HoP's office, but I can't quite remember.

They then went to the teleporter room, presumably to teleport onto the Minisat. I proceeded to lock the door -- unfortunately trapping a chemist in there with them, but hey, we can only do our best -- and hit the APC. That was when they started talking. They never said anything about their telebaton until they'd been locked into the teleporter room, and at no point did I see them pick up a card during their runabout.

And, again, at no point during the entire yakkedy-sax runaround did they ever make any sort of promise to me that they wouldn't cause harm. I don't feel like what I did was in error, and indeed, I'd repeat those actions at any time, though with the addition of immediately calling a borg to evac me rather than waiting for the Captain to reach the satellite. I thoroughly believe that my actions are entirely in line with both silicone policy and how zealous Asimovs are generally played. Make no mistake -- I'm not asking for you to lift this ban, I'm asking for the attention of other, non-trial admins.

User avatar
Gigapuddi420
 
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 8:08 am
Location: Dorms
Byond Username: Gigapuddi420

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby Gigapuddi420 » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:34 am #405324

So to sum up what happened: Captain declares he will knockout unimplanted people. You decide based on his current equipment he will do this harmfully and decide to lock him down and ignore all law 2 requests to remove the lock down. The Captain decides to just escape on his own and even clarifies what he originally meant in his announcement. You take his reluctance to cooperate with you as bad faith and continue to impede him until you are eventually killed for it.

The problem and reason for you ban seems pretty clear when you take it all into account. You went out of your way to antagonize a Captain over a dumb announcement that didn't explicitely say it would harm people. You had to make actual leaps of logic to assume he would harm 'oh he doesn't have the tools to knock people unconcious, so he must intend to hurt them'.

This is exactly the kind of thing 'Server Rule 1: Don't be a dick' is about. After he cleared up what he meant it should have been a clear sign to back off, instead it just comes across as the silicon player being a dick intentionally to continue a conflict. Delete this post if you don't think it's helpful, but seems like this thread is going around in circles over the Captain responding to a antagonistic AI. Immediately jumping to locking someone down never goes well, especially if it's over a ambiguous announcement that you could have talked about.

ChemicalRascal
 
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:00 pm
Byond Username: ChemicalRascal

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby ChemicalRascal » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:58 am #405331

What you've laid out here ignores that I was actively trying to resolve the situation by asking the Captain to make that promise. It isn't a leap of logic to view knocking people out as harmful, because it is harmful, and in that context his announcement was explicitly the Captain saying he intended to harm people. Silicone Policy explicitly establishes that Law 1 overrides Law 2 orders, including in the case of future harm, given AIs are permitted under Asimov to lock folks out of harmful areas. It establishes the concepts of future harm and probable cause.

(EDIT: Not to mention that it isn't unreasonable to assume bad faith in this situation. As you can see from the logs, the Captain was declaring me rogue before any attempts to clarify the announcement -- which under Silicone Protection 1, is itself a violation of Server Rule 1. While I generally think it's pretty unreasonable to just immediately go to ahelp after someone says "sillycones are rouge!", I generally consider that a strong indicator of bad faith, as based on the way that part of Silicone Policy is worded.)

Again, please don't ignore that I was attempting to resolve the situation by asking the Captain to give their word.

User avatar
Arianya
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:27 am
Byond Username: Arianya

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby Arianya » Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:08 am #405360

Generally speaking, AI policy rulings in the past have leaned away from allowing AIs to just lock someone down indefinitely, even if they're known to be harmful (See the textbook example of locking down security because they executed a prisoner). While you could argue the request for a promise precluded an "indefinite" lockdown, this doesn't really get covered in any of our policy because generally speaking a human-harm threat remains such regardless of any promise/oath/whatever.

Harm in the past has been pretty strictly defined as actual human harm, i.e. something which causes damage within game terms, which is part of the reason why AIs and borgs have medical HUDs. The telebaton, love it or hate it is not a harm risk even on repeated usage.

You have to bear in mind that roleplay and gameplay have to sit in balance of one another, and while "the AI locks down the captain for threatening harm" might be justifiable under roleplay, it's not fun or engaging from a gameplay point of view.

Side note, but unless it's changed recently the hand teleporter still has a risk of spacing someone using it, whereas walking out the door doesn't.

User avatar
Dax Dupont
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:07 pm
Location: Belgium
Byond Username: DaxYeen
Github Username: DaxDupont

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby Dax Dupont » Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:38 am #405390

I'd like to add when I told him in apms that telebatons don't harm I got the reply of:
Concussions still harm

Were you considering using the baton nonharmfully, as stated in the apm, to be harm still?

ChemicalRascal
 
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:00 pm
Byond Username: ChemicalRascal

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby ChemicalRascal » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:21 pm #405413

Well yes, because to knock someone out using the telebaton -- by hitting them into crit, concussing them, which is the only way you can do that -- is harmful. Hitting them otherwise just stuns them. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could have been in that discussion, but I was more than a little bit salty at having just been murdered. The entire experience wasn't fun, to put it one way, I try not to get murdered for shits and giggles.

To respond to Arianya -- The Captain has both shockproof gloves (as last I recall) and, when I locked them in the teleporter room, access to a toolbox. As the AI, I simply can't lock down someone indefinitely in that situation without, well, harming them. I strongly believe that my request for a promise did, indeed, preclude the idea that I was imprisoning the Captain to anything more than the degree of a slight inconvenience -- and that I was actively trying to resolve the situation by repeatedly asking for that promise and trying to engage the Captain with dialogue, which he didn't bother to respond to before declaring me rogue and starting the hunt, to my mind precludes Server Rule 1. I wasn't being a dick here, I was just asking the dude for a simple promise. The way silicone policy is written makes it clear that future harm, probable cause, and probable intent all matter.

That said, if I'm somehow wrong there, you may as well make the jobban permanent, because this sort of behaviour isn't something that I'm particularly keen to avoid. Having an Asimov occasionally go full zealot is something that, to my experience, is one of the things that makes TG station great. Frustrating in the moment, sure, and it should be strictly limited to when there aren't any obvious threats going down -- zealot Asimovs during nuke ops is inappropriate -- but it is one of the few ways that silicons can actually engage in a spot of creativity, and reminds folks that Law 1 exists. In much the same way as zealot HoSes arresting folks for public nudity and other minor infractions is frustrating in the moment, but is both entirely reasonable and relevant to the tone of SS13.

User avatar
Arianya
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:27 am
Byond Username: Arianya

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby Arianya » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:06 pm #405419

I'm gonna restrain myself to one more response because this isn't really the place or the time to be discussing AI policy, but there are several things wrong here:

ChemicalRascal wrote:Well yes, because to knock someone out using the telebaton -- by hitting them into crit, concussing them, which is the only way you can do that -- is harmful.


This kind of reductio ad absurdum pedantry is the kind of thing that will not only make other players dread having you as AI, but will get you in trouble with admins for leaps of logic.

The entire experience wasn't fun, to put it one way, I try not to get murdered for shits and giggles.


But you were happy to imprison a player and otherwise be a "zealot" for shits and giggles. I largely disagree with killing AIs for non-malf law related issues, but you kind of merited it in this instance.

To respond to Arianya -- The Captain has both shockproof gloves (as last I recall) and, when I locked them in the teleporter room, access to a toolbox. As the AI, I simply can't lock down someone indefinitely in that situation without, well, harming them. I strongly believe that my request for a promise did, indeed, preclude the idea that I was imprisoning the Captain to anything more than the degree of a slight inconvenience


The fact that the captain had the means to escape, either manually or via "promising" aren't really relevant here. Your actions ran completely contradictory to AI policy for these kind of things. You might have a leg to stand on if the captain had just murdered someone on cam or otherwise been more extreme in his actions but so far you've bolted him down and browbeat him about promising not to human harm (and by the sounds of it, not taking "I didn't mean it that way AI" as sufficient) on solely grounds of verbal pedantry.

and that I was actively trying to resolve the situation by repeatedly asking for that promise and trying to engage the Captain with dialogue, which he didn't bother to respond to before declaring me rogue and starting the hunt, to my mind precludes Server Rule 1. I wasn't being a dick here, I was just asking the dude for a simple promise. The way silicone policy is written makes it clear that future harm, probable cause, and probable intent all matter.


Of course future harm, probable cause and probable intent all matter, but you don't get to pick and choose those as suits you when you decide to be a zealot. You, the player, decided that knock out in this instance was sufficient risk to necessitate an immediate lock down and continued lock down until the Captain "promised". This is certainly pushing on Rule 1 infringement, even if it wasn't a pretty direct violation of AI policy as currently operated re: locking down crew.

That said, if I'm somehow wrong there, you may as well make the jobban permanent, because this sort of behaviour isn't something that I'm particularly keen to avoid. Having an Asimov occasionally go full zealot is something that, to my experience, is one of the things that makes TG station great. Frustrating in the moment, sure, and it should be strictly limited to when there aren't any obvious threats going down -- zealot Asimovs during nuke ops is inappropriate -- but it is one of the few ways that silicons can actually engage in a spot of creativity, and reminds folks that Law 1 exists. In much the same way as zealot HoSes arresting folks for public nudity and other minor infractions is frustrating in the moment, but is both entirely reasonable and relevant to the tone of SS13.


Going full "zealot"/pedant as AI is not really enjoyable for anyone, from the borgs who have to enforce your will to the humans who have to interact with you. Law interpretation/enforcement is of course part of the fun of silicon roles but you should always use Rule 1 as a guide in these matters, and ask yourself "Am I being a dick?". As I mentioned previously, roleplay and gameplay need to balance out, and while "AI gets mad at command staff for mentioning knocking out" might make for a good short story, it doesn't make for good gameplay when you're bolting down doors and whining about promises.

ChemicalRascal
 
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:00 pm
Byond Username: ChemicalRascal

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby ChemicalRascal » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:18 pm #405427

And again, I don't feel like intending to lock the Captain behind a door for all of five seconds is being a dick. When they decided to escalate things by coming after me, my choice of response was to evacuate via borg -- to run away. That's not being a dick, it's the exact opposite. This was a conflict that I was actively, for its entirety, I was trying to de-escalate and bring to a simple, peaceful resolution.

If I had set the foyer turrets to kill, instead of stunning, while a borg pulled me out -- and, notably, did so gladly -- I would understand your point. But what you're saying only makes sense if you assume the Captain was stuck in the teleporter room for five minutes and otherwise entirely peaceful, and I was actively egging him to violence. That's not the case, it couldn't be further from the case. I made a reasonable request, and the Captain flew off the handle.

PostThis post was deleted by CitrusGender on Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:51 pm.
Reason: Peanut

User avatar
Dax Dupont
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:07 pm
Location: Belgium
Byond Username: DaxYeen
Github Username: DaxDupont

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby Dax Dupont » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:44 pm #405438

ChemicalRascal wrote:By the time he said "not harming them", he was well into the process of trying to kill me. Given that context, one is surely excused for not taking people at their word, especially when they are busy scrambling to get a borg to evac them.

EDIT: To clarify, though, at that point, I would have taken a promise if it was given as a promise. But they never did that. They jumped immediately to Must-Apply-Saber-To-AI's-Face mode.


Also this is extreme cherry picking and I figured I'd highlight this.

You don't accept his word because he's not trustworthy in your eyes due the situation.
Yet you would've accepted his word because it's trustworth in your eyes.

He already clarified he was not gonna harm people, and you more or less ignored him because he didn't say the magic word(pinky swear/promise).

Anyways, I am going to stop responding till one of the headmins has time to review the situation as with any appeal.

ChemicalRascal
 
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:00 pm
Byond Username: ChemicalRascal

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby ChemicalRascal » Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:39 pm #405460

Dax Dupont wrote:
ChemicalRascal wrote:By the time he said "not harming them", he was well into the process of trying to kill me. Given that context, one is surely excused for not taking people at their word, especially when they are busy scrambling to get a borg to evac them.

EDIT: To clarify, though, at that point, I would have taken a promise if it was given as a promise. But they never did that. They jumped immediately to Must-Apply-Saber-To-AI's-Face mode.


Also this is extreme cherry picking and I figured I'd highlight this.


It's not, it's responding to your specific complaints, and I'm trying to make clear something that I don't think you grasped when you slapped the ban on.

Dax Dupont wrote:You don't accept his word because he's not trustworthy in your eyes due the situation.
Yet you would've accepted his word because it's trustworth in your eyes.

He already clarified he was not gonna harm people, and you more or less ignored him because he didn't say the magic word(pinky swear/promise).

Anyways, I am going to stop responding till one of the headmins has time to review the situation as with any appeal.


I didn't accept his clarifications because the Captain was immediately in kill-the-AI mode. After five seconds of being in a room without the lights on. In that context, when someone bumrushes the AI, I felt it wasn't unreasonable to accept anything but a promise. They immediately flipped out, but making a promise is an active action that shows they can de-escalate. That, compared to yelling "Didn't mean it! Now hold still while I kill you" colours your opinion of someone's character much more favorably.

And again, the Captain was locked down for an exceedingly short length of time. We're talking seconds. Wouldn't have been more than twenty. The way you've portrayed this makes it sound like I had him locked in a cage for five minutes and whinged over the radio the entire time, trying to rules-lawyer a specific sequence of words from his mouth. The reality is that after those twenty seconds, he spent a minute gearing up, relatively unmolested, and then chased me down like a dog, while I actively merely attempted to escape his most unreasonable anger.

And I don't even know how to begin to respond to you, cmspano, I don't think trying to cause offense like that is even remotely warranted. Regardless, I'm sorry that you misunderstand the situation so.

PostThis post was deleted by CitrusGender on Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:51 pm.
Reason: Peanut

PostThis post was deleted by CitrusGender on Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:51 pm.
Reason: Peanut

User avatar
Dax Dupont
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:07 pm
Location: Belgium
Byond Username: DaxYeen
Github Username: DaxDupont

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby Dax Dupont » Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:47 pm #405532

I am going to lock this thread because of the peanut posting till a headmin is here to respond.

User avatar
CitrusGender
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 8:34 pm
Byond Username: CitrusGender
Github Username: CitrusGender

Re: [DaxYeen] Ave Maria -- A Zealous AI

Postby CitrusGender » Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:18 pm #405533

There has to be a line drawn in the sand before we can come to the conclusion that we can imprison for a period of time. While there is some value in having a zealous A.I. who does not follow the commands of humans when there are some threats of harm, I do not feel like the situation posed is one of those things. Ariaya is right in their comparison about people being locked down not being good for gameplay, but I would take it even a step further to say that it is similar to the fact that we require a certain amount of evidence before people can be put in perma. There also is the question of whether or not the A.I. is allowed to protect future harm which Dax sent me a good precedent from PKP in a previous term:

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=11563#p304371

PKPenguin321 wrote:Prioritizing "potential future law violations" is a fucking terrible idea, since it makes silicons able to handwave basically any law two request with "yeah but if i let you in there you might potentially attack somebody inside, law 1 violation!!!"


Perhaps I would have been a bit more lenient with the ban though, I do not see this as something that is indicative of a major overarching problem but more an accidental cross into a gray area that went a little bit too far. There is definitely some value to the zealous gameplay style of an A.I. that takes law one way too seriously: but I would recommend that players substantiate their claims before immediately going to take someone out of the round for a period of time.

Edit: Though, I do want to stress that this type of behavior is rather toxic if you're going to spend all this time arguing with the admins. An admin is there to help you and, although I understand that admins may be accusatory at times, this does not seem to be one of those instances. Saying stuff like this:

ChemicalRascal wrote:Make no mistake -- I'm not asking for you to lift this ban, I'm asking for the attention of other, non-trial admins.


Isn't going to help your case much.



As such, this appeal is denied.
Image
thanks to ninjanomnom for making my signature


Return to Resolved Appeals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users