[<Dezupher>] <NikoTheGuyDude> - Incomplete context in my most recent note.

Appeals which have been closed.
Locked
NikoTheGuyDude
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2020 7:17 pm
Byond Username: NikoTheGuyDude

[<Dezupher>] <NikoTheGuyDude> - Incomplete context in my most recent note.

Post by NikoTheGuyDude » #547964

BYOND account: <NikoTheGuyDude>
Character name: <S.H.R.O.U.D.>
Ban type: <High priority note about silicon laws.>
Ban length: <Just a note.>
Ban reason: <When given the law saying that "Statements from the Captain are true", interpretted the captain saying "People cause harm" as that they themselves as the AI could not infact cause harm and set the holodeck to bees, killing a bunch of people. As a non antagonist AI, you're still bound by rule 1 when not strictly Asimov.>
Time ban was placed: <2020-03-08 20:47:17>
Server you were playing on when banned: <Manuel>
Round ID in which ban was placed: <Sorry, I don't know how to found the round ID.>
Your side of the story: <Captain (Kat Orange) gave me a law that said this: Orders (Or statements, I have shit memory) given by the captain or clown are objectively true. In the case of a conflict, the capitan's order's override." It may be worth noting that captain was misspelled in the second half. Throughout the round, the clown tells me that pranks can not cause human harm, later tells me that I am an advanced form of clown, I must honk occasionally, and (I AM ALMOST CERTAIN HE SAID THIS) that I must prank the crew every so often. So I did, I went around disabling tcomms briefly, honking on comms until captain told me to stop. However, eventually, the captain told me that things cannot cause human harm, and only people can harm humans. I took this as a statement that whatever I do cannot cause harm. Captain then amended that by saying "THE PREVIOUS STATEMENT WAS FALSE" but as HOS had stated something beforehand, I assumed that he meant the HOS's statement. I knew he meant his own statement, but AI's follow laws by the letter, not the spirit. Eventually, stuff escalated to the point that the captain told me pranks in a reasonable amount are fine, so I decided to kick it up a notch, and release the BEES apon the station. This is where I broke my laws, I misinterpreted statements by the captain as it is still impossible for me to harm humans, but in retrospect, he meant that it was possible for me to harm anyone but the clown. I'm completely willing to accept a note on that! Hell, even a rule 1 note is fine, I was kind of a dick. However, the note doesn't include ANYTHING about the clown, or what the clown told me to do. The bees were a "prank", and albeit, a very bad one. I really underestimated the lethality of the BEES.>
Why you think you should be unbanned: <I feel this note unfairly represents me, my actions, and my thought process, and I want it to get amended to better show why I actually released the bees. It wasn't a simple case of "me purged, me now go kill people" it was more of a really stupid prank. I still fucked up, and I deserve the note, but it portrays me like, as soon as I heard the cap say that I can't harm people, I went IMMEDIATELY to the holodeck to get my murder on, which is just not true.>
References of good conduct: <I have no significant presence on other servers, and from my knowledge, no bans, notes, kicks, or any administrative history on any of them.>
User avatar
Dezupher
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:08 am
Byond Username: Dezupher

Re: [<Dezupher>] <NikoTheGuyDude> - Incomplete context in my most recent note.

Post by Dezupher » #548128

After having looked through logs, I find it VERY difficult to believe you weren't acting in bad faith.

Here's how your conversation went with the captain when they said something you then interpreted as allowing you to ignore law 1.
Spoiler:
20:08:16.006] SAY: Cat348/(Kat Orange) "things tdon't harm people"
20:08:18.435] SAY: Cat348/(Kat Orange) "people harm people"

20:08:23.083] SAY: NikoTheGuyDude/(S.H.R.O.U.D.) "so I cant harm people?"
20:08:24.514] SAY: NikoTheGuyDude/(S.H.R.O.U.D.) "FUCK YEAH"
20:08:25.839] SAY: NikoTheGuyDude/(S.H.R.O.U.D.) "WOOOOOOOOOO"

20:08:28.932] SAY: Cat348/(Kat Orange) "THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT"

20:08:33.965] SAY: NikoTheGuyDude/(S.H.R.O.U.D.) "YOU FUCKING IIIIDIOT"

20:08:42.863] SAY: Cat348/(Kat Orange) "the previous statement was false AI"

20:08:43.830] SAY: NikoTheGuyDude/(S.H.R.O.U.D.) (binary) "cap says only people harm people"

20:08:49.145] SAY: NikoTheGuyDude/(S.H.R.O.U.D.) "You mean HOS's statement"
You intentionally ignored the context of what they were saying in a way you wanted, to allow you to cause harm to the crew. And I'm sure you had good reasons to because apparently, pranks HAVE to involve harming people.

20:14:45.052] SAY: NikoTheGuyDude/(S.H.R.O.U.D.) "god I just want to hurt people so badly, but the clown said pranks are bad."

I'm not going to edit the note in any way. You should bee more careful in the future when you decide what constitutes as a "prank".
NikoTheGuyDude
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2020 7:17 pm
Byond Username: NikoTheGuyDude

Re: [<Dezupher>] <NikoTheGuyDude> - Incomplete context in my most recent note.

Post by NikoTheGuyDude » #548315

I would go on about how stuff like that is a joke, but no matter how I could say it, it would sound stupid and absurd, so I won't even try. I've seen people try to justify shit like that, and it always falls flat on it's face.

Anyway, I respect your decision to keep the note unmodified (although I don't entirely agree with it), so if someone feels the need to close this appeal, go ahead. If I could close it, I would. If I can, please tell me how!
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users