Tornadium

Requests which have been closed
Tornadium
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 11:55 am
Byond Username: Tornadium

Re: Tornadium

Post by Tornadium » #108051

Bottom post of the previous page:

Screemonster wrote:I'm surprised he hasn't just been rule zero'd at this point. Literally everyone but Tornadium is agreed that the thing he did is a dickish thing to do, and no amount of "hurf durf subsection a clause 4 section (i)" will change that.
I believe the claim that this was a dickish move is entirely unfounded.

Other silicons and AIs have done SIGNIFICANTLY worse under Asimov with flimsier justification and not gotten this level of rabid ban hunting. You seriously don't consider me literally witnessing security kill multiple people on the station for patterns of behavior and ownership of items that my own master then went on to repeat a valid cause for concern and a reason to act to protect his life?
Tornadium
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 11:55 am
Byond Username: Tornadium

Re: Tornadium

Post by Tornadium » #108054

You don't non-lethally detain all lizards because one lizard killed a human.
Difference between a Redsuit and a Lizard in those circumstances?

Do I have to wait until each individual redsuit attacks before acting?

The previous behavior would have to have been done to your master then. Your master is THE syndicate agent, the only one you know of or ever will know of as defined by your lawset unless he tells you of another.
It is not what my laws define him as, it is what he his doing and what items he possesses which label him as a Tratior/Syndicate agent to security who had murdered people for doing what my master did. Of course I had valid cause for concern.
Tornadium
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 11:55 am
Byond Username: Tornadium

Re: Tornadium

Post by Tornadium » #108055

iamgoofball wrote:maybe instead of spending more time trying to argue your way out of a ban than you would actually be banned for, you should accept the ban and do something more productive with life
There was (in my opinion) an extremely valid and pressing cause for concern under my first law to act to stop my master being mobbed and killed.

Why is this an extremely valid concern, dunno maybe the pile of bodies and vocal confirmation that Security were just straight up killing traitors and weapons being drawn on the bridge in the immediate aftermath of me being Emag'd?

Looking through Silicon policy, directives such as Do X or Always do Y can be ignored if they conflict with a law of a higher priority. So if doing X (in this case don't harm humans or non-humans) conflicts with my ability to prevent harm to my master through inaction then I can safely ignore the order.

At least that is my interpretation.
Incomptinence
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 3:01 am
Byond Username: Incomptinence

Re: Tornadium

Post by Incomptinence » #108068

You deeply misunderstand the meaning of the emaged lawset.

You do not care about other traitors unless ordered to recognize them as syndicate agents. You do not even recognize yourself as a syndicate agent unless ordered.

The exact purpose of law 0 is exactly the opposite of what you are aiming for.
THIS:
0. Only _______ and people they designate as being such are Syndicate Agents.
IS EXPLICITLY MEANT TO LET YOU IGNORE, MURDER, MAIM, IMPRISON OR WHATEVER AGAINST CONFIRMED TRAITORS OTHER THAN YOUR MASTER UNLESS ORDERED OTHERWISE.
You are a weapon in an arsenal safeties are optional.
This lawset is purposefully design to let them point you at another traitor and have you kill them if they so desire. The knowledge that confirmed traitors were killed should have made you glad such dangerous non syndicate agents that could threaten your master were exterminated.
Tornadium
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 11:55 am
Byond Username: Tornadium

Re: Tornadium

Post by Tornadium » #108070

Incomptinence wrote:You deeply misunderstand the meaning of the emaged lawset.

You do not care about other traitors unless ordered to recognize them as syndicate agents. You do not even recognize yourself as a syndicate agent unless ordered.

The exact purpose of law 0 is exactly the opposite of what you are aiming for.
THIS:
0. Only _______ and people they designate as being such are Syndicate Agents.
IS EXPLICITLY MEANT TO LET YOU IGNORE, MURDER, MAIM, IMPRISON OR WHATEVER AGAINST CONFIRMED TRAITORS OTHER THAN YOUR MASTER UNLESS ORDERED OTHERWISE.
You are a weapon in an arsenal safeties are optional.
This lawset is purposefully design to let them point you at another traitor and have you kill them if they so desire. The knowledge that confirmed traitors were killed should have made you glad such dangerous non syndicate agents that could threaten your master were exterminated.
And you are deeply misunderstanding the context in which I acted to defend my master.

Security specifically used items such as the the item my master was holding as justification to detain and execute people (as well as a pattern of behavior, for example using the emag to one human a fucking borg).

It matters not what security refers to them as. Him possessing the equipment and using it to subvert or interact with NT Property outside the law is EXACTLY what they used as justification to execute other members of the crew.

Therefore they present a clear threat to my master due to their direct statement of intention to execute those they view as "Traitors" (The wording doesn't matter, could have called them faggots and the net result would be the same) and my master carrying out the exact actions security used as justification for their actions on other members of the crew.

That is where the Law 1 Imperative to not allow my master to come to harm through my inaction. I had to disable security before they formed a mob.
Incomptinence
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 3:01 am
Byond Username: Incomptinence

Re: Tornadium

Post by Incomptinence » #108073

Are you certain they were forming a mob until you broke the secrecy of syndicate activities? The first person you accosted was trying to cook a hot pocket for example.
TheNightingale
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:07 pm
Byond Username: TheNightingale

Re: Tornadium

Post by TheNightingale » #108082

-slams her fist on the table- OBJECTION!

Tornadium's plea so far is as follows:
- He was emagged by Happi, who became the only Syndicate Agent.
- He had previously seen people with 'traitor gear' be killed by Security.
- Happi had 'traitor gear'...
- So Tornadium thought Happi would also be executed by Security...
- And started lasering people.

Whether or not Happi is defined as a syndicate agent is irrelevant, only his possession of the emag ('traitor gear').

Therefore, there are two logic jumps here we must assess.
The first, that Happi would be executed by Security for possessing an emag.
And the second, that stunning, then lasering people is a valid defense to this.

I would put forth that the first claim - {Happi would be executed for having the emag} - is untrue. This is because, as Tornadium put it, Happi was a Warden, and so it is incredibly unlikely that the rest of Security would turn on a known, implanted ally. I support this statement through Happi's order to "not harm any humans or non-humans" (the ambiguous wording of 'non-humans' also includes yourself - and you were putting yourself at risk, against both Law Two's order and Law Three itself, by doing so). This proves he had helpful or non-malicious intent, and that the civilian crew (those who were even aware of your emagged status, prior to your rampage) did not disapprove of his actions.

Therefore, nobody actually minded you being emagged, and so there was no immediate or definite Law One threat against Happi. And without this, you can't use Law One as your justification. They didn't pose a danger to Happi - and so his Law Two order of "do not harm any humans or non-humans" takes priority.

This being said, stunbatons are non-harmful, yes, but were they needed? I propose that, when Tornadium stunned innocent civilians on the escape shuttle, he was fully aware that this would incite a riot - in fact, it seems this was his aim. He was not just putting himself at risk by doing so (against Law Three and Happi's Law Two order - after all, he was a non-human), but indeed, Happi himself was in potential danger!

The fact that it is merely potential danger is dubious support for lasering them, but the main problem was that, going against his master's orders, Tornadium deliberately started a fight, which predictably escalated into an order being disregarded. It's why an Asimov AI doesn't flood plasma, even though it's not harmful immediately. The same principle - 'common sense' - applies here.

Common sense dictates that, indeed, Security was not a threat. Common sense dictates that starting a riot might get Happi harmed. Common sense dictates that going against one's lawset is a bad idea. So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask you - should the accused not take a break from Silicon activity, so as to gain this sense he apparently lacks?

I rest my case.
Tornadium
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 11:55 am
Byond Username: Tornadium

Re: Tornadium

Post by Tornadium » #108085

Incomptinence wrote:Are you certain they were forming a mob until you broke the secrecy of syndicate activities? The first person you accosted was trying to cook a hot pocket for example.
People got shoved, I was going for an officer who at that time had drawn a baton (standing next to my master).
TheNightingale wrote:-slams her fist on the table- OBJECTION!

Tornadium's plea so far is as follows:
- He was emagged by Happi, who became the only Syndicate Agent.
- He had previously seen people with 'traitor gear' be killed by Security.
- Happi had 'traitor gear'...
- So Tornadium thought Happi would also be executed by Security...
- And started lasering people.

Whether or not Happi is defined as a syndicate agent is irrelevant, only his possession of the emag ('traitor gear').

Therefore, there are two logic jumps here we must assess.
The first, that Happi would be executed by Security for possessing an emag.
And the second, that stunning, then lasering people is a valid defense to this.

I would put forth that the first claim - {Happi would be executed for having the emag} - is untrue. This is because, as Tornadium put it, Happi was a Warden, and so it is incredibly unlikely that the rest of Security would turn on a known, implanted ally. I support this statement through Happi's order to "not harm any humans or non-humans" (the ambiguous wording of 'non-humans' also includes yourself - and you were putting yourself at risk, against both Law Two's order and Law Three itself, by doing so). This proves he had helpful or non-malicious intent, and that the civilian crew (those who were even aware of your emagged status, prior to your rampage) did not disapprove of his actions.
Other people were executed for HAVING the item, Not even using the item.

Also there was a gap of maybe 20 seconds (Someone can check logs) between the emagging and the fight breaking out. Security drew weapons, I acted.

Through inaction is the main point of concern here, I can't sit by and wait if I have very clear and reasonable reason to believe they would lynch the Warden. Hell Security has turned on the Captain and Lynched him for subverting the AI plenty of times.
Therefore, nobody actually minded you being emagged, and so there was no immediate or definite Law One threat against Happi. And without this, you can't use Law One as your justification. They didn't pose a danger to Happi - and so his Law Two order of "do not harm any humans or non-humans" takes priority.
The absence of someone objecting in the small time frame in which this took place does not prove that everyone was okay with it either.

This being said, stunbatons are non-harmful, yes, but were they needed? I propose that, when Tornadium stunned innocent civilians on the escape shuttle, he was fully aware that this would incite a riot - in fact, it seems this was his aim. He was not just putting himself at risk by doing so (against Law Three and Happi's Law Two order - after all, he was a non-human), but indeed, Happi himself was in potential danger!
When security start drawing weapons, Well yeah I feel that it was needed to prevent them from potentially detaining an executing my master.

Other silicons and AIs do the exact same thing by locking down people who execute prisoners. Would that lead to a riot and security most likely killing the borg or AI, Yeah but you do it anyway because of law 1.
The fact that it is merely potential danger is dubious support for lasering them, but the main problem was that, going against his master's orders, Tornadium deliberately started a fight, which predictably escalated into an order being disregarded. It's why an Asimov AI doesn't flood plasma, even though it's not harmful immediately. The same principle - 'common sense' - applies here.
I got mobbed, That's when the lasers came out.

Non lethal methods up to the point where I felt that non-lethal methods would not be sufficient to stop a lynch gang forming.
Common sense dictates that, indeed, Security was not a threat. Common sense dictates that starting a riot might get Happi harmed. Common sense dictates that going against one's lawset is a bad idea. So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask you - should the accused not take a break from Silicon activity, so as to gain this sense he apparently lacks?

I rest my case.
Common sense dictates that Security had executed people purely for the possession of the item my Master held.

Common sense dictates that they would repeat this as they had done 3-4 times prior that I PERSONALLY witnessed.

Common sense dictates that I attempt to prevent harm to my Master before it has a chance to happen.

Your case is weak. As you all so duly pointed out, He's defined as a Syndicate Agent to me. Him being a member of Security has no bearing on my need to prevent him from coming to harm, especially when Security had been extremely execution happy. Lynch mobs have formed for less against members of Security and Heads of Staff, I feel it is a perfectly reasonable and justifyable response to prevent my master from coming to harm.

Say a human without internals or a suit wants to take a walk in space? Am I meant to only intervene once he actually starts taking harm or am I meant to prevent it all together when there is an extremely clear precedent for Space being harmful if people walk into it without Internals and a Suit?. Security established a precedent that round of executing and harming anyone they caught with the items my master possessed and he used it to subvert a Cyborg. Are you seriously trying to tell me there is no real justification or reason to act preemptively to stop my master getting killed?
Last edited by Tornadium on Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
TheNightingale
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:07 pm
Byond Username: TheNightingale

Re: Tornadium

Post by TheNightingale » #108086

Tornadium wrote:Your case is weak.
Image
Tornadium
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 11:55 am
Byond Username: Tornadium

Re: Tornadium

Post by Tornadium » #108087

This might belong in policy discussion but are we meant to assume as Silicons that members of Security will not harm other members of Security or Heads of Staff?

Like say they execute 3 dudes for having traitor equipment. Captain has traitor equipment and security detain him, Am I meant to just be "Lol okay" and not try to make sure the Captain isn't being executed because he's a member of security? I mean even if its another member of security people can transfer in and be implanted.
User avatar
Not-Dorsidarf
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:14 pm
Byond Username: Dorsidwarf
Location: We're all going on an, admin holiday

Re: Tornadium

Post by Not-Dorsidarf » #108131

Query to defendant: If a security officer kills a human, is that justification to Asimov-cage the whole of security and kill any lizards amongst their ranks?

They've proven themselves willing to commit human harm, after all
Tornadium
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 11:55 am
Byond Username: Tornadium

Re: Tornadium

Post by Tornadium » #108132

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:Query to defendant: If a security officer kills a human, is that justification to Asimov-cage the whole of security and kill any lizards amongst their ranks?

They've proven themselves willing to commit human harm, after all
One kill?

It's enough to Asimov cage the officer in question. Not the entire department.

Whenever the entire department is culpable in multiple killings along with the Captain giving his personal authorization that's a different story.
User avatar
imblyings
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:42 pm
Byond Username: Ausops
Location: >using suit sensors

Re: Tornadium

Post by imblyings » #108175

Look at it this way, a borg emagged by an actual traitor and told not to kill humans/non-humans when the emagger wasn't being attacked directly in front of them wouldn't attack humans non/humans. Someone emagged you, told you not to kill humans/non-humans, Happi is not being attacked, and you still start attacking humans/non-humans.

What's going to help you out best is if you read all the posts itt explaining proper silicon procedure regarding being emagged, not continuing to defend yourself. If no one wants to touch this, I'll probably have put down a silicon dayban, with the intent really being a rather formal note to understand silicon policy better than anything else.
The patched, dusty, trimmed, feathered mantle of evil +13.
Tornadium
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 11:55 am
Byond Username: Tornadium

Re: Tornadium

Post by Tornadium » #108196

imblyings wrote:Look at it this way, a borg emagged by an actual traitor and told not to kill humans/non-humans when the emagger wasn't being attacked directly in front of them wouldn't attack humans non/humans. Someone emagged you, told you not to kill humans/non-humans, Happi is not being attacked, and you still start attacking humans/non-humans.
I think that is a gross simplification as there were immediate concerns as to the well being of the human in question.

If for example Security witnessed the "actual traitor" with an Emag and they had executed people with that kind of equipment religiously i'm pretty fucking sure it's not an unreasonable stretch to act to defend the human BEFORE they strike first.
What's going to help you out best is if you read all the posts itt explaining proper silicon procedure regarding being emagged, not continuing to defend yourself. If no one wants to touch this, I'll probably have put down a silicon dayban, with the intent really being a rather formal note to understand silicon policy better than anything else.
I've read through the Silicon Policy page 4 times today, I'm really not seeing any kind of issue with the conduct.

I'm defending myself because within the context of policy and IC (The IC part being a clear, demonstrated and REPEATING threat to the safety of the person who Emagged me due to the actions of Security during that round.) for the events in question I really don't see how I deserve any kind of punishment for my actions as the law directly states you CANNOT THROUGH INACTION ALLOW THE SYNDICATE AGENT TO COME TO HARM.

Please tell me, explain to me because I'm having a REALLY hard time grasping how Security openly killing anyone they find with contraband equipment doesn't qualify as reasonable concern and motive to act preemptively to prevent harm to my master.

I must be utterly retarded because I really don't get it, AIs have ignored Law 2 Orders because of Law 1 concerns a million and one times before because of the actions of humans which betray a tendency to commit harm.
User avatar
Hibbles
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:33 pm
Byond Username: HotelBravoLima
Location: United States

Re: Tornadium

Post by Hibbles » #108201

To really boil this down, you got a direct order not to murderbone, expressed that you didn't like it, and proceeded to murderbone.

Can you see why people might see that as you being a jerk and then fabricating reasons for it later when challenged?
RIP
Tornadium
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 11:55 am
Byond Username: Tornadium

Re: Tornadium

Post by Tornadium » #108202

Hibbles wrote:To really boil this down, you got a direct order not to murderbone, expressed that you didn't like it, and proceeded to murderbone.

Can you see why people might see that as you being a jerk and then fabricating reasons for it later when challenged?
Actually, I didn't "murderbone".

I attempted to detain the members of security involved in executions who were right next to my master. I got mobbed by a lot of people and I pulled the laser out while juking as a last resort.

When I first got emag'd my initial reaction was like "what the fuck, why bother emagging me then?".

I remembered what Sec did to people with Traitor equipment, on multiple occasions and decided that I had a law 1 imperative to stop them from going after the master.

Trust me if I wanted to murderbone I'd have done it significantly better than I did.
User avatar
oranges
Code Maintainer
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:16 pm
Byond Username: Optimumtact
Github Username: optimumtact
Location: #CHATSHITGETBANGED

Re: Tornadium

Post by oranges » #108221

>I didn't muderbone
>I just pulled out my laser and started killing people based on flimsy ic justifications

Can't you see officer they are different things, I wasn't speeding, I was just proceeding at a high rate of speed.
Tornadium
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 11:55 am
Byond Username: Tornadium

Re: Tornadium

Post by Tornadium » #108222

oranges wrote:>I didn't muderbone
>I just pulled out my laser and started killing people based on flimsy ic justifications

Can't you see officer they are different things, I wasn't speeding, I was just proceeding at a high rate of speed.
I pulled my laser and started killing people as my only real method of mob defense after I was stopped from securing the threats the security officers posed (non lethally).

Big difference between that and murder boning from the start.
rdght91
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:36 am
Byond Username: Roadhog1

Re: Tornadium

Post by rdght91 » #108250

Maybe you should wonder why literally everyone else thinks your line of reasoning is stupid.
callanrockslol
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:47 pm
Byond Username: Callanrockslol

Re: Tornadium

Post by callanrockslol » #108313

Why are you wasting so many words on this, he's not going to accept that he is wrong even after everyone else has established it, silicon ban him and be over with it already.
User avatar
imblyings
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:42 pm
Byond Username: Ausops
Location: >using suit sensors

Re: Tornadium

Post by imblyings » #108330

locked lmao

He was banned. Tornadium, the ban's a short one but I'd advise taking a self-imposed one for longer if you can't understand the now 70 posts including mine.
The patched, dusty, trimmed, feathered mantle of evil +13.
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users