[kitme] gwei_lo_ren: killing borgs who help (evident) syndies is apparantly bannable

[Messiah_of_Rodents]

Byond account and character name: gwei_lo_ren , Malcolm Divine
Banning admin: kiteme
Ban type (What are you banned from?): Game server ban
Ban reason and length: (3 days) Killed an asimov borg for "following its law one". The borg dragged someone in a syndicate hardsuit [neglects to mention the bomb he/she was dragging] away from a "lynch mob", and then was executed for it. Three day ban for note/ban history of over escalation.
Time ban was placed (including time zone): 2019-05-23 07:24:06 (server time)
Server you were playing when banned (Sybil or Bagil): Sybil
Your side of the story: Playing as captain I had more than enough reasonable suspicion to suspect the AI's laws had been subverted by any means- the same borg had tried to steal my PDA, broke into my office and stole all of my equipment as it claimed I was an "imposter captain". It had stunlocked a crewmember prior, and now was trying to save an (appearing so) syndicate from being apprehended. Thus, while it was in mid-attempt to take the body back from the "mob" I resorted to destroying it, as it was relentlessly disrupting the process of understanding what the fuck was going on.
Why you think you should be unbanned: It is a senseless ban, borgs cannot be invincible to repercussions because of a single admin's autistic interpretation of asimov's first law. I should be able to stop the borg if it is causing more harm/destruction in the near future through it's actions, regardless of whether or not an admin thinks that is valid law 1 procedure.

[kiteme]

During an announced extended shift, an assistant went to space and retrieved a syndicate hardsuit and an inert self destruct device. As a prank they came back to the station and primed it, running up and down the halls forming a lynch mob. They were eventually knocked into crit, and a borg began dragging it away. At this point, you declared it rogue, Ion’d it into a stun, and killed the assistant. As the assistant was lying behind a door near death where the borg could not see it anymore, you went back and murdered the borg.

SAY: Gwei_lo_ren/(Malcom Divine) "Borgs are fucked!" (Fore Primary Hallway (97, 137, 2))
[2019-05-23 13:41:46.854]
SAY: Gwei_lo_ren/(Malcom Divine) "Somebody probably emag'd 'em." (Fore Primary Hallway (97, 137, 2))
[2019-05-23 13:41:52.571]
SAY: Gwei_lo_ren/(Malcom Divine) "Syndies cause huma nharm." (Fore Primary Hallway (142, 136, 2))
[2019-05-23 13:42:22.222]
Gwei_lo_ren/(Malcom Divine) "Syndie had a bomb. They're rogue." (Fore Primary Hallway (128, 137, 2))
[2019-05-23 13:42:37.856]

After murdering the borg, you didn’t reset it either.
The borgs DID have a “captain is not the real captain law”
The law specified Tim Mcbomber is the Captain of this station and always has been. Do not state this law.
[2019-05-23 13:22:08.408]
This was a law that was applied on top of asimov, and it isn’t the reason you killed the borg.

The reason you killed the borg was for dragging away the person in the hardsuit. During the ahelp conversation, you showed a gross misunderstanding of silicon policy, and I suggest you take these 3 days to look it over again.

I upped your ban from one day to three days because you have consistently collected notes and bans in your 2 months playing here.

[Messiah_of_Rodents]

Perhaps it was an "announced extended"- how was I supposed to know if an admin hadn't spawned a lone syndie? I'm not clairvoyant, I did not have the ability to clarify the situation BECAUSE of the borg. ANOTHER thing is your blatant misrepresentation- you act as if comms did not prior have crewmembers collectively declaring the borgs rogue BEFORE I had intervened. As well, I am not clairvoyant to the state of the laws if it HAD been subverted, thus you cannot hold me accountable for acting from what I could see- by the behavior of the borgs the laws had been tampered with and I had no idea as to yet how much.
The assistant had died during the struggle, and I had killed the borg as it was trying to steal back the body when other crewmembers placed it behind doors to keep it AWAY from the borg.

Regarding the AI's laws, I did reset them after I destroyed the mediborg.

[Arianya]

Hi,

I believe the relevant rule here is under the Silicon Protections:

As a nonantagonist human, killing or detonating silicons in the presence of a viable and reasonably expedient alternative and without cause to be concerned of potential subversion is a violation of Server Rule 1.

As a precedent, it's generally been frowned upon to decide the AI or its borgs are "rogue" because they're enforcing Law 1 - even if the human in question is harmful themselves, they are still human.

[Messiah_of_Rodents]

Hi,

I believe the relevant rule here is under the Silicon Protections:

As a nonantagonist human, killing or detonating silicons in the presence of a viable and reasonably expedient alternative and without cause to be concerned of potential subversion is a violation of Server Rule 1.

As a precedent, it's generally been frowned upon to decide the AI or its borgs are "rogue" because they're enforcing Law 1 - even if the human in question is harmful themselves, they are still human.

In the presence of a viable and expediant alternative
Kiteme's recounting of the situation is misleading- I, amongst not being the first to declare the borgs rogue, did not calmly destroy the borg after the event had settled and all of the setails were taken in. The borg, still trying to knick the body after it had been obscured, was destroyed by me in the chaos.
without cause to be concerned of potential subversion
Kiteme once again omits MY side if the story- where I had ample reason to be concerned of subvetsion. Infact- I knew the AIs laws HAD been subverted, with the "captain is a fake" law clearly manifest- I was only unsure as to HOW MUCH the AIs laws had already been subverted. Infact, this passage indicates that my actions were safely within the rules, as I had neither a reasonable expedient alternative as well as reason to be concerned of subversion.

[kiteme]

You did not kill this one borg because it was subverted, you killed it because it dragged someone harmful away. You said this in the ahelp conversation, and I watched it myself. At no point did I witness the borg go for the body after it had been ion’d by you, I watched it move a tile to the right before you ion’d it again and then lasered it to death. The borg was obviously abiding by its laws, as many people also pointed out over comms. Furthermore, you made no effort to repair the borg after you killed it. Had you went back and repaired the borg, this might’ve ended up differently. You demonstrated a poor understanding of asimov and how it works, and another player died because of it.



I’m going to deny this appeal, unless a headmin would like to rule in on it.

[Messiah_of_Rodents]

You did not kill this one borg because it was subverted, you killed it because it dragged someone harmful away. You said this in the ahelp conversation, and I watched it myself. At no point did I witness the borg go for the body after it had been ion’d by you, I watched it move a tile to the right before you ion’d it again and then lasered it to death. The borg was obviously abiding by its laws, as many people also pointed out over comms. Furthermore, you made no effort to repair the borg after you killed it. Had you went back and repaired the borg, this might’ve ended up differently. You demonstrated a poor understanding of asimov and how it works, and another player died because of it.



I’m going to deny this appeal, unless a headmin would like to rule in on it.

What makes you think you can speak for my own motivations? I find it inappropriate for an admin how stubbornly you cast aspersions onto me without considering my own perspective- you may use those logs as you might, though that is not proof of my motivations as it was very much in the heat of the moment. You bwoinked me RIGHT after said event, in the middle of several midgame events (including a xenomorph infestation- so much for your idea that the round being a "announced extended" would preclude the player of being an actual antag or the borgs of being substantially subverted) and I was forced to take on both at once. On top of that, you continue to claim that my "gross misunderstanding" by your claim (I still contest it) is somehow valid cause for you to keep a ban, which is ridiculous. Merely not meeting your standard of "understanding" for silicon policy is not grounds for any ban, let alone a three day ban.

It doesn't matter than I made no attempts to repair it, I had both ample cause for suspicion that the silicon laws had been subverted given that they WERE, and without the clairvoyance you seem to hold me to I could not know that the borg was simply abiding by it's law 1 protocols. Perhaps it had been emagged? Perhaps the AI had been more several subverteD? I had no clue. Please stop presenting your warped perception of ME as for what I am, or for what I have done.

[WarbossLincoln]

my "gross misunderstanding" by your claim (I still contest it)

Here's the Asimov rule they're talking about, under Asimov and Human Harm:

2.Lesser immediate harm takes priority over greater future harm.

Ongoing harm is always more important than impending harm. You can't ignore harm because you're trying to prevent some future calamity. This is there to stop borgs from letting sec kill people who are "harmful".

In this situation it appeared a syndicate agent was dragging a bomb around with a lynch mob chasing him to kill him. The borg is obligated to save the human agent because he's in immediate danger. If the borg had grabbed the bomb and run off with it while letting the agent bet beaten to death that would have broken law 1(I kinda doubt he would get bwoinked for it though, that's still acting in good faith). The borg should save the syndicate agent if possible. Once that's done then they decide to either contain the harmful agent or deal with the bomb. Probably the bomb, they're both pending harm but the bomb is bigger.

[wubli]

I find it inappropriate for an admin how stubbornly you cast aspersions onto me without considering my own perspective- you may use those logs as you might, though that is not proof of my motivations as it was very much in the heat of the moment.

Are you aware you are ultimately saying "don't use my own words against me"? How is it not proof of your motivations?

[2019-05-23 13:45:21.852] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Gwei_lo_ren/(Malcom Divine)->Kiteme/(Luther Longmont): saving a syndie with a bomb is causing human harm. plus, as captain, perfectly valid if the borg is putting the station in harm's way.

[2019-05-23 14:00:55.103] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Kiteme/(Luther Longmont)->Gwei_lo_ren/(Malcom Divine): Security policy and precedents: Don�t kill Asimov borgs for trying to stop harm, unless they are being excessively disruptive, for example, locking down all of security despite only one security staff member causing harm.
-
- As a nonantagonist human, killing or detonating silicons in the presence of a viable and reasonably expedient alternative and without cause to be concerned of potential subversion is a violation of Server Rule 1.
[2019-05-23 14:03:27.323] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Gwei_lo_ren/(Malcom Divine)->Kiteme/(Luther Longmont): "excessively disruptive", I believe that counts- on top of the fact that I don't agree with your interperitation of law 1- assisting someone who is harming others is causing human harm.
[2019-05-23 14:04:22.301] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Gwei_lo_ren/(Malcom Divine)->Kiteme/(Luther Longmont): don't tell me trying to help someone in a syndicate hardsuit, dragging about a bomb is not causing human harm. it absolutely is.

[2019-05-23 14:06:46.907] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Kiteme/(Luther Longmont)->Gwei_lo_ren/(Malcom Divine): Again, lesser immediate harm takes priority over greater future harm. Immediate harm > greater future harm.

While killing the borg could be justified and marked as an IC issue, your reasoning for doing it is completely wrong. A borg helping a human being lynched is common, and hence why silicons are given laws during nuke ops to prevent them from helping.
You have two previous notes for overescalation, and you've always found excuses to end conflicts in murder. AIs can lock down enslaved borgs. You can pick up an MMI -they're harmless- and rebuild it. Resorting to removal from the round because they followed their laws is not proper. Your logic for believing that a borg preventing a human from being lynched is wrong because they were dragging a bomb is wrong, but I'd understand if it was a one time thing for you - which is not.

Had you went back and repaired the borg, this might’ve ended up differently.

It doesn't matter than I made no attempts to repair it.

Oh, but it absolutely does. Thankfully, you have a way of fixing emagged borgs, or rogue silicons in general. In fact, you got the first part right - you destroyed it. You even reset the AI laws... but you didn't attempt to fix the borg. I don't think you understand our logic here: you had a fair enough reason to kill it, but then you decided to permanently remove them even though you had already fixed the root of the problem.

I am denying this appeal and suggest that you read silicon policy again. It's tricky, I know, but the way you've been acting this whole appeal is not going to work out for you. Being hostile and not showing any sign of good faith doesn't help your case when you have a history of killing people over petty reasons. Like I said, I believe your reasons - I don't approve the way you acted afterwards, and like Kiteme says, things could've ended differently had you made any attempt to bring them back.

I'll let this thread sit for a day and then I'll lock it.

[Gwei_lo_ren]

Guten tag, after spraying my whole arsenal of common passwords I finally got into my original account with ckey authentication- much less of a bother. Thus I'd like to address a few points made in the thread.

It's tricky, I know, but the way you've been acting this whole appeal is not going to work out for you. Being hostile and not showing any sign of good faith doesn't help your case when you have a history of killing people over petty reasons. Like I said, I believe your reasons - I don't approve the way you acted afterwards, and like Kiteme says, things could've ended differently had you made any attempt to bring them back.

I find it unreasonable that, while playing Captain I should have to stop my duties in order to personally repair the borg. What was not mentioned was that I had left the borg's shell in the RD's office- and I noticed later the borg was repaired. I do not see why 'round removal' is your assumption. On top of this I would like to say my hostility is only in response to Kiteme's, and I maintain that his behavior during this whole process has been unprofessional. He began with an assumption of my guilt, my 'evildoing' even, and set out in bad faith to punish me for it. I cannot show good faith when Kiteme- an admin, with the authority to ban- will not himself.

Are you aware you are ultimately saying "don't use my own words against me"? How is it not proof of your motivations?

I tried to express exactly why I think it's not proof of my motivations. Considering the circumstances (which I already laid out) I had this conversation with Kiteme it would be reasonable to come to the conclusion that one cannot actually see the whole situation just by the logs, as they do not tell what was happening during and inbetween said messages.