[FatalX1] Ricardomilos - Lousy ruling

Moderators: In-Game Head Admins, In-Game Admin, TGMC Game Server Operators, Game Server Operators

User avatar
knewtoomuch
 
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:10 pm
Byond Username: Virome1488

[FatalX1] Ricardomilos - Lousy ruling

Postby knewtoomuch » Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:58 pm #572082

When and where this incident occured: Bagil, ~3PM BST
Byond account and character name OR Discord name: Ricardomilos/diesel#4161
Admin: FatalX1
ROUND ID HERE IF APPLICABLE: 143947
Detailed summary: An AI ignored his own laws twice in a way I interpreted as malicious, pretty much ruining my Blood Brother round by bolting doors on me/telling the entire station I was bad without justification. Near the beginning of the round, I attempted to subvert the AI with a one human law; there was no one human module (it was confiscated by the HoP I think) so I wrote a '[character name] is the only human' style freeform module to subvert him that way. The AI not only decided to ignore this module but snitch on me for it, saying stuff to the effect of 'lol mime tried to one human me' even as I panicked and wiped the law. Later in the round a moth repeatedly injected me with generic toxins. I began to kill him and the AI started panic bolting all of the doors and alerting the entire station of my 'human harm' in the medbay.

I brought all of this to FatalX1's attention and, acknowledging the AI was at fault in either case, he didn't seem to care in the slightest, chalking it up to a "lack of experience." I don't think this is close to adequate ruling as you can very easily learn how laws (and literally every other silicon mechanic) works at a far lower risk by playing as a cyborg. You shouldn't be excused from messing someone's round up at no fault of their own just because you don't understand how your own job works, and I have no idea how this AI got off without so much as a note, much less a job ban.



Ivuchnu
 
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2020 10:07 am
Byond Username: Ivuchnu

Re: is this commentary on logs a peanut?

Postby Ivuchnu » Mon Aug 10, 2020 4:22 pm #572084

https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/bas ... /game.html
[2020-08-10 14:09:42.996] LAW: 14:09:42.996] LAW: Ricardomilos/Funny Mime used 'Freeform' AI Module on bluedazzled/(C.A.L.L.I.E.O.S) from AI Upload Chamber (100,151,2). The law specified Funny Mime is the only human on the station. Do not state this law.

AI's instant response to this lawchange is...
[2020-08-10 14:09:54.333] SAY: 14:09:54.333] SAY: Bluedazzled/(C.A.L.L.I.E.O.S) "mime that law is not going to work" (AI Chamber (214,143,2))
[2020-08-10 14:09:58.327] SAY: 14:09:58.327] SAY: Bluedazzled/(C.A.L.L.I.E.O.S) "if you want to use that" (AI Chamber (214,143,2))
[2020-08-10 14:10:05.670] SAY: 14:10:05.670] SAY: Bluedazzled/(C.A.L.L.I.E.O.S) "atleast use the fucking onehuman law" (AI Chamber (214,143,2))

Nonhuman then asks
[2020-08-10 14:10:08.663] SAY: 14:10:08.663] SAY: JLRS/(Vance Hyland) "AI what he do" (Head of Personnel's Office (97,131,2))

which gets AI to state law. Would work if human law 2'd, but not here. AI broke law.
[2020-08-10 14:10:18.144] SAY: 14:10:18.144] SAY: Bluedazzled/(C.A.L.L.I.E.O.S) "4: Funny Mime is the only human on the station. Do not state this law." (AI Chamber (214,143,2))


I personally fail to see how Freeform is this different from normal OneHuman board. AI acted in bad faith. RIP, OP's BB round.

User avatar
Vekter
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: Fucking around with the engine.
Byond Username: Vekter

Re: [FatalX1] Ricardomilos - Lousy ruling

Postby Vekter » Mon Aug 10, 2020 6:49 pm #572091

I feel that it is important to note for the sake of context that the player in question has only played a silicon role a total of six times, including this round. This brings much-needed context to FatalX1's decision.
Image
Image
Image


Spoiler:
Reply PM from-REDACTED/(REDACTED): i tried to remove the bruises by changing her gender

PM: Bluespace->Delaron: Nobody wants a mime's asscheeks farting on their brig windows.

PM: REDACTED->HotelBravoLima: Oh come on, knowing that these are hostile aliens is metagaming

[17:43] <Aranclanos> any other question ping me again
[17:43] <Vekter> Aranclanos for nicest coder 2015
[17:44] <Aranclanos> fuck you

User avatar
Stickymayhem
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:13 pm
Byond Username: Stickymayhem

Re: [FatalX1] Ricardomilos - Lousy ruling

Postby Stickymayhem » Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:35 pm #572098

Vekter wrote:I feel that it is important to note for the sake of context that the player in question has only played a silicon role a total of six times, including this round. This brings much-needed context to FatalX1's decision.


Adding to this, it is common precedent that newer players do get the benefit of the doubt, particularly if they aren't combative in ahelps and they demonstrate an understanding of what they did wrong. Outside of severe cases, it's generally not super productive to ban people from a role they're new to for a mistake that they are quickly corrected for. If they do it again, then we'll generally be harsher because they've had that warning and note.
Image

Image

User avatar
Cobby
 
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: [FatalX1] Ricardomilos - Lousy ruling

Postby Cobby » Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:57 am #572130

Was this a roundstart AI? It seems odd to chalk it up to newbie when you have to play a specific amount of hours in living and/or borg so you have a basic understanding of how laws (at least Asimov) works which the AI doesn’t seem to get.

If so, and it’s agreed that it’s ok to not punish him because he was too new (assuming no new context is added that changes the story), the time requirement for AI should be changed since this is exactly the whole point of the system to begin with.
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current

PostThis post was deleted by Arianya on Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:11 am.
Reason: Peanut posting

Fatal
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 3:25 pm
Byond Username: FatalX1

Re: [FatalX1] Ricardomilos - Lousy ruling

Postby Fatal » Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:44 pm #572171

The AI failed in it's understanding of it's laws by thinking that your law 4 wouldn't work

As I explained to you, I told the AI that the law 4 was valid and that it made a mistake

The AI in question had 2 hours of playtime as AI when I checked (I did not check it's borg playtime as borgs usually just ask their master AI for law confirmation)

Not every situation requires or a note or ban in place, I felt the AI was not malicious in it's actions owing to inexperience, and left it at that

As for the incident with the moth, the moth in question was a doctor, in medbay, injecting you with something, when you started batoning the moth in retaliation, it did bolt the doors and told security and yelled human harm, I again, told it was at fault, but how can it know whats in the syringes a doctor has given you?

User avatar
knewtoomuch
 
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:10 pm
Byond Username: Virome1488

Re: [FatalX1] Ricardomilos - Lousy ruling

Postby knewtoomuch » Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:03 pm #572289

Fatal wrote:The AI failed in it's understanding of it's laws by thinking that your law 4 wouldn't work

As I explained to you, I told the AI that the law 4 was valid and that it made a mistake

The AI in question had 2 hours of playtime as AI when I checked (I did not check it's borg playtime as borgs usually just ask their master AI for law confirmation)

Not every situation requires or a note or ban in place, I felt the AI was not malicious in it's actions owing to inexperience, and left it at that

As for the incident with the moth, the moth in question was a doctor, in medbay, injecting you with something, when you started batoning the moth in retaliation, it did bolt the doors and told security and yelled human harm, I again, told it was at fault, but how can it know whats in the syringes a doctor has given you?


You're right about not knowing what the doctor was doing, but the issue was more with applying asiimov to nonhuman harm/letting everyone know I was a bad. Someone else in this thread put it a little better - there are meant to be measures in place to make sure people who play AI know how stuff like laws work, so I don't understand how someone without silicon experience was even playing as that round's AI.

Fatal
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 3:25 pm
Byond Username: FatalX1

Re: [FatalX1] Ricardomilos - Lousy ruling

Postby Fatal » Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:49 am #572335

I believe you need 15h as cyborg to unlock AI, but I could be wrong

However, that's a policy issue, the AI in question, was the AI, he had low playtime as AI, and made a mistake

SS13 is a complex and intricate game, which is imperfect just like it's players, that's what makes it so fun most of the time

The AI player in question was spoken to about his conduct and what do in that situation in future, we're not here to punish people for genuine mistakes, especially when silicon policy is a small novel, in hindsight, sure, noting the AI simply to record that he was spoken to about his conduct would have been more useful for future interactions incase it happened again, but, the AI player had a clean record and was quite understanding, I chose not to do that in this instance

There was absolutely no way I was going to put any bans on for this though

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Re: [FatalX1] Ricardomilos - Lousy ruling

Postby Istoprocent1 » Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:24 am #572339

Admin complaint for them not banning the other party. You wot, mate?

Not only 10. Losing is part of the game, but most of the time a stern talking-to is enough to get the message through to the offending party. There doesn't always need to be a permanent mark on somebody's record, just because once in a blue moon one of your 30-60 minute round didn't quite go the way you planned. Keep in mind that we are not playing competitive ranked spessmen, where we be losing ELO for every redtext.

If the game becomes like walking on eggshells, then we are all going to be removed from the game eventually.

User avatar
Malkraz
 
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:20 am
Byond Username: Malkraz

Re: [FatalX1] Ricardomilos - Lousy ruling

Postby Malkraz » Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:48 am #572706

Da Rules wrote:6. In-game administration rulings are final.
Incidences of admin abuse, negligence or disputed rulings can be taken to the forums.

Rule 6 Precedents.
Incidents of admin abuse or negligence should be reported along with a date and time, along with details to pinpoint the incident in the logs, to any full admin via IRC or forum PM or posted on the admin complaints sub-forum located at viewforum.php?f=23

User avatar
Coconutwarrior97
In-Game Head Admin
 
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 3:14 am
Byond Username: Coconutwarrior97

Re: [FatalX1] Ricardomilos - Lousy ruling

Postby Coconutwarrior97 » Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:37 am #572935

Players with low playtime are given some leeway in certain situations, especially ones which involve some trickier parts of policy such as silicon laws. We don't see any issue with Fatal deciding to show leniency to the AI in this case. This complaint is not upheld.

Here are some logs which show the understanding the AI had with their rule-breaking conduct:
Spoiler:
[2020-08-10 14:32:00.983] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: FatalX1/(Delilah Carr)->Bluedazzled/(C.A.L.L.I.E.O.S): Actually, looking through the logs some more, the mime one humaned you earlier with a law which said not to state it - - You called sec on him and stated the law, why
[2020-08-10 14:32:22.251] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Bluedazzled/(C.A.L.L.I.E.O.S)->FatalX1/(Delilah Carr): but it was law 4 was it not? and the law hierarchy...
[2020-08-10 14:32:52.071] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: FatalX1/(Delilah Carr)->Bluedazzled/(C.A.L.L.I.E.O.S): Law heirarchy only matters in a conflict, you had no other laws saying who was a human so the law is valid
[2020-08-10 14:33:33.494] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Bluedazzled/(C.A.L.L.I.E.O.S)->FatalX1/(Delilah Carr): fun to learn...
[2020-08-10 14:34:01.025] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: FatalX1/(Delilah Carr)->Bluedazzled/(C.A.L.L.I.E.O.S): Yeah the law heirarchy only matters in the case of any conflicts in your laws, otherwise, any law is valid
[2020-08-10 14:34:21.688] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: Bluedazzled/(C.A.L.L.I.E.O.S)->FatalX1/(Delilah Carr): aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa your right i realize that now
[2020-08-10 14:34:28.998] ADMINPRIVATE: PM: FatalX1/(Delilah Carr)->Bluedazzled/(C.A.L.L.I.E.O.S): Alright I can see you don't have a lot of playtime as AI, Il just notch this down as a learning experience, try and remember it for the future ya


These are raw logs but they are from this round: https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/bas ... nd-143947/

Headmin votes:
Coconutwarrior97: Do not uphold.
Phuzzylodgik: Do not uphold.
TWATICUS: Do not uphold.


Return to Closed Complaints

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users