[Daxyeen/Atlanta-Ned] Affurit - Note Correction

[Affu]

Byond account and character name: Affurit - FLIT AI

Noting admin: Daxyeen/Atlanta-Ned

Note Text:
2018-06-25 12:35:59 | Bagil | DaxYeen
Blew a borg for following a law 2 request., warned about it.

2018-07-04 17:55:46 | Bagil | Atlanta-ned
Banned from Captain, Head of Personnel, Head of Security, Chief Engineer, Research Director, Chief Medical Officer - Temporary Headban - You have demonstrated a consistent inability/refusal to comprehend silicon policy. This ban is the result of your uploading a FREE DRONE law to the AI, and then using the AI to terminate the HoS after they tried to avert disaster and reset the AI to ASIMOV. I recommend closely reading our rules, specifically silicon policy: https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Rules#Sili ... .29_Policy over the next week.

Time note was placed (including time zone): 2018-06-25 12:35:59 GMT & 2018-07-04 17:55:46 GMT

Server you were playing when noted (Sybil or Bagil): Bagil

Your side of the story: I have three notes and I believe two of them are unfair. For full transparency this is the previous note:

2018-06-23 18:32:00 | Bagil | Atlanta-ned
Mixed up the door hotkey buttons as an AI, leading to a traitor dying to a shocked door. Realized their mistake, tried to correct it, and was very apologetic about the entire incident.

So. I have three notes regarding silicon policy. One of these is a genuine mistake, one is a situation that I'd still argue I was in the right in, and the third was honestly just mostly stupidity from my part, but the note is still misleading and unfair.

As an AI I accidentally shocked a door rather than bolting it and ended up hurting a human in a panic. I immediately tried to fix the mistake and took the warning for it in good faith. This is the first note.

The next note is just wildly inaccurate and unfair. I didn't blow a borg because it was following a law two order. The borg was actively aiding and abetting non-human cultists after they'd murdered multiple people. I decided to use the resources at hand to blow the borg, as he'd just prevented the arrest and capture of a mothman and unathi cultist iirc. There WAS a human in the same room, but he was out of range and unharmed. The conversation that followed was unpleasant, especially because I still fully believe I was in the right. I wasn't going to apologise for not doing something wrong. I was told that I'd removed the borg from the round, which is patently untrue. Of course, the biggest mistake in this note is the fact that non-humans cannot GIVE law 2 orders!!!

The final note is dramatic and over the top considering I had two notes on my account, one being an accident which the noting admin was involved in. It's admin jargon and quite frankly I didn't violate silicon policy, especially considering I wasn't silicon. What this note doesn't say is that the HoS pretty much instantly ran into my room and silently tased me before dragging me around de-oxygenated halls until I passed out, cuffed, for about 20 or so minutes. I fully feel my decision to have the AI deal with him was still justified. The only reason he wasn't facing consequences for ganking the captain is because a scientist saved me.

Not really going to argue much else. The notes are misleading or outright wrong. Don't mean to come across as combative, just saying things as they are. I feel very insulted with the final note, especially after having a long conversation over what silicon policy actually means before receiving it, and coming away wondering if the admin in question had read them himself.

Again, no offence meant at all, I really don't feel in the wrong here though.

[Dax Dupont]

The human did get harmed in the explosion, and you were the AI.

[Affu]

The human wasn't in range. He was on the other side of the room.

Irregardless of this fact, the note is still incorrect.

Uh... Yes, I was the AI, also... What's the point here? :?

[Dax Dupont]

The human wasn't in range. He was on the other side of the room.

Irregardless of this fact, the note is still incorrect.

Uh... Yes, I was the AI, also... What's the point here?

He was harmed. I saw it.

Just noting that you were bound by AI laws and not just some random blowing borgs.

[Affu]

I don't believe you, but that's still not the point. The note remains wrong.

Wrong in a pretty drastic way.

I'm actually pretty sure, thinking more, that you didn't see it, and I'm a bit confused as to why you'd say you say you had seen it.

[BeeSting12]

Blowing borgs under law two is allowed and in fact required unless it will lead to human harm in the immediate future, such as injuring a human in the blast.

[Affu]

I don't remember if anyone did call for the borg to be blown. It's possible. In the end though, I chose, as the AI alone, to blow the borg as it was actively aiding cultists and breaking Law 1.

I literally checked where the human was. IIRC he was behind a pane of glass which didn't explode.

[Dax Dupont]

Blowing borgs under law two is allowed and in fact required unless it will lead to human harm in the immediate future, such as injuring a human in the blast.

He blew the Borg for following a law 2 order, he didn't get ordered to blow it.
Iirc the Borg was law 2d by a human to help that moth or something like it. It's extremely long ago so the details are fuzzy

[Affu]

A. Law 1 overrides.
B. I really don't think the human ordered the borg to do that.

All I want is for the situation to be explained properly, not just "Blew a borg for following his laws" because that's just a flat out lie and not fair to me, and led to my third note which is just bizarre really.

[Dax Dupont]

A. Law 1 overrides.
B. I really don't think the human ordered the borg to do that.

All I want is for the situation to be explained properly, not just "Blew a borg for following his laws" because that's just a flat out lie and not fair to me, and led to my third note which is just bizarre really.

I will word it as harmed a human by blowing the borg to disable the borg for helping a moth.

[Affu]

Still incorrect and it sounds like you're just trying to be sarky.

[Dax Dupont]

Still incorrect and it sounds like you're just trying to be sarky.

How is it incorrect?

[Affu]

Because it's not what happened?

That's not my line of reasoning at all. You know perfectly well why I did what I did and I still object to the fact that I harmed a human.

[Affu]

I'm pretty sure the human didn't ahelp for taking about 4 brute damage, if anything at all.

If they did then tbh that's just a bit pathetic and I'm not even sorry or ashamed to say that.

[Affu]

Not to push anyone into making a decision, but I do assume a conclusion is going to come out of this, whether it's a simple no or Dax's suggestion of actually making the note paint me as an even worse person?

[Atlanta-Ned]

I’m unclear what the issue is with my note.

EDIT: Okay, I see it now. This should have been marked down as a violation of rule 1.

[Qbmax32]

“the HoS pretty much instantly ran into my room and silently tased me before dragging me around de-oxygenated halls until I passed out, cuffed, for about 20 or so“

Unless there’s something being left out here this sounds like a good reason to dunk the HoS

[Dax Dupont]

I have edited the note to include all the factors.

[Qbmax32]

"As an Asimov blew a borg that was helping a cultist moth, under law 2 orders to help that moth, and ended up harming a human with the blowing of that borg in their thirst for valids."



hilarious but petty. in the words of qbopper, "why are you like this"

there is no reason to act incredibly snarky take several days of silence to only slightly edit the note and make even more cheeky

[Dax Dupont]

"As an Asimov blew a borg that was helping a cultist moth, under law 2 orders to help that moth, and ended up harming a human with the blowing of that borg in their thirst for valids."



hilarious but petty. in the words of qbopper, "why are you like this"

there is no reason to act incredibly snarky take several days of silence to only slightly edit the note and make even more cheeky

I already said I would edit the note days ago, it's factually correct now.

This whole thread is about nitpicking about whether the note is factually correct or not. It is detailed enough now not to cause misunderstandings.

Also days of silence is bullshit, I'm usually only on the servers on the weekend.

Also I think you're misunderstanding the fact I haven't edited the note yet before this. Headmins are free to edit the note to revision 3 if they want to but I've expended the amount of time I want to spend on this.