Immediate harm and the education chamber

[Mice World]

Last round I played as HoS I had a flesh heretic captured in the education chamber. He offered to tell me the name of another heretic he was working with in exchange for his life. I was hashing out a deal with him when suddenly an engiborg comes in and takes him away. I give chase while trying to tell the borg to stop, it ignores me and says that by me having him in the education chamber, I was immediately harmful as it assumed I was going to execute the heretic.

Is this a valid?

The rules say:

Intent to cause immediate harm can be considered immediate harm.

The rules aren't really clear on what counts as "Immediate" harm. For the record, I didn't have a weapon or a lethal injection in my hand. It also, to my knowledge, didn't overhear me talking about executing them.

Sorry if the answer is obvious. I think I'm fairly good with silicon policy but it's little things like this that make me doubt myself.

EDIT: After looking at the logs for this round it seems like an Ion law removed the borg's law two, so that's why it wasn't listening to me. The borg also mentioned that because someone else wanted to execute the heretic in medbay it had just reason to assume I was going to execute him when he was found in the "death harm kill dead harm harm chamber". I honestly think the immediate harm rule might need to be a little more clear, because it doesn't seem like the borg was trying to act in bad faith.

[SkeletalElite]

The education chamber is called the education chamber and has no camera in it for a reason.
The AI cannot assume that you are doing something harmful just because you took someone in there.

[Turbonerd]

Ahelp it.

[Mice World]

Ahelp it.

I did at the time but the round is over so not much I can do. As I said in my edit, I don't think the borg was trying to act in bad faith.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Seems pretty obvious to me - you were in the education chamber, not the execution chamber. Borg had no standing.

[CPTANT]

I always thought this was just a roleplay suggestion, not a rule.

Rule 2 state it pretty explicitely:
I.e. metagaming. This especially refers to communication between players outside of the game via things like Discord, known as metacomms. Characters are otherwise allowed to know everything about ingame mechanics or antagonists,

[Itseasytosee2me]

Firstly, its called the prisoner transfer chamber.
Secondly:

Why the caginess? A normal Asimov-lawset AI is required by its laws to stop any harm, even if it's being directed at the most murderboning antagonist. The smarty-pants of Nanotrasen have thus come up with a brilliant plan of telling a small white lie to the AI to commit one harm to save dozens of lives from further harm. Nevertheless, expect AIs and cyborgs to make it their round's goal to "accidentally" discover the purpose of this room (note, this is meta and frowned upon by admins).

[Farquaar]

By default, silicons don't know the harmful purpose of the reeducation chamber unless you go out of your way to prove it to them. There's a reason there aren't any cameras in there.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

The entire purpose of the "prisoner transfer chamber" is to reduce silicon-on-security violence by having an innocuous place to conduct executions without upsetting the AI by doing it on-camera or in a room called "Execution"

[CMDR_Gungnir]

It is strictly a fact that silicons are not allowed to know that is the execution room unless they've been told that round.

I thiiiink a mid-round MMI'd cyborg is allowed to know, though? But they can't just tell the AI immediately on being borged "by the way the prisoner transfer room is an execution chamber" because that'd be a Dick Move. Basically, Silicons shouldn't know unless they're told and they shouldn't be told unless it's relevant. Now, a Human being taken in there screaming that they're going to be executed can have a 'borg show up and watch, probably.

[Mice World]

Firstly, its called the prisoner transfer chamber.
Secondly:

Why the caginess? A normal Asimov-lawset AI is required by its laws to stop any harm, even if it's being directed at the most murderboning antagonist. The smarty-pants of Nanotrasen have thus come up with a brilliant plan of telling a small white lie to the AI to commit one harm to save dozens of lives from further harm. Nevertheless, expect AIs and cyborgs to make it their round's goal to "accidentally" discover the purpose of this room (note, this is meta and frowned upon by admins).

This should probably be in silicon policy and not tucked away in the map's wiki page.

[Kendrickorium]

its a good reason why anyone playing silicon should be whitelisted

[datorangebottle]

it's supposed to be a protected room for a reason. if the HoS/sec are playing in good faith and not brutally executing people in the middle of the brig, the AI/borgs shouldn't be going into the re-education chamber. Note: someone hollering on the radio that they're going to be executed is a valid reason to have a borg tag along. Take away their radio before they figure out they're gonna be executed or it's absolutely a skill issue.

[SkeletalElite]

it's supposed to be a protected room for a reason. if the HoS/sec are playing in good faith and not brutally executing people in the middle of the brig, the AI/borgs shouldn't be going into the re-education chamber. Note: someone hollering on the radio that they're going to be executed is a valid reason to have a borg tag along. Take away their radio before they figure out they're gonna be executed or it's absolutely a skill issue.

Except there's a roughly 50/50 chance the person you arrested will scream over common "AI HELP HUMAN HARM BEING EXECUTED" regardless of what you arrested them for or whether you hurt them or not, so you should probably ignore that too.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

it's supposed to be a protected room for a reason. if the HoS/sec are playing in good faith and not brutally executing people in the middle of the brig, the AI/borgs shouldn't be going into the re-education chamber. Note: someone hollering on the radio that they're going to be executed is a valid reason to have a borg tag along. Take away their radio before they figure out they're gonna be executed or it's absolutely a skill issue.

Except there's a roughly 50/50 chance the person you arrested will scream over common "AI HELP HUMAN HARM BEING EXECUTED" regardless of what you arrested them for or whether you hurt them or not, so you should probably ignore that too.

I miss the old headmin ruling that if you claimed sec was beating/executing you, they immediately got a free pass to do that to you.

[Timberpoes]

I miss the old headmin ruling that if you claimed sec was beating/executing you, they immediately got a free pass to do that to you.

That sounds based. If this was 6 months ago I'd've voted to bring that back.

[Tearling]

I miss the old headmin ruling that if you claimed sec was beating/executing you, they immediately got a free pass to do that to you.

That sounds based. If this was 6 months ago I'd've voted to bring that back.

Imagine how easy it would be for a misunderstanding to occur when one sec off actually does beat you, then another comes around the corner and hears you saying that, then takes that as a chance to beat you into crit.

[Farquaar]

Imagine how easy it would be for a misunderstanding to occur when one sec off actually does beat you, then another comes around the corner and hears you saying that, then takes that as a chance to beat you into crit.

Let's say accuser is saying that security officer A is beating him.

If security officer B turned the corner and started beating the accuser, he would be in the wrong because he wouldn't know if the accusation was true or not.

If security officer B was with security officer A and knew the accuser was lying, he'd be free to join in on the retribution.

[Timberpoes]

A child crying wolf becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy as an administrative stance would make security less tiresome.

[datorangebottle]

Except there's a roughly 50/50 chance the person you arrested will scream over common "AI HELP HUMAN HARM BEING EXECUTED" regardless of what you arrested them for or whether you hurt them or not, so you should probably ignore that too.

So... you just
A) don't immediately execute them
B) take their radio off right then and there because they're being small children
C) hold them for a while until the AI has something better to do than watch some small child throw a tantrum in the permabrig
D) finally execute them IN the execution chamber, assuming it's something they deserve.
honestly I don't play sec often, but when I do I tend to gulag people that cry wolf instead of just brigging them. 50/50 chance they'll ghost or suicide instead of doing their 500 point sentence or trying to escape.

[Kendrickorium]

Except there's a roughly 50/50 chance the person you arrested will scream over common "AI HELP HUMAN HARM BEING EXECUTED" regardless of what you arrested them for or whether you hurt them or not, so you should probably ignore that too.

So... you just
A) don't immediately execute them
B) take their radio off right then and there because they're being small children
C) hold them for a while until the AI has something better to do than watch some small child throw a tantrum in the permabrig
D) finally execute them IN the execution chamber, assuming it's something they deserve.
honestly I don't play sec often, but when I do I tend to gulag people that cry wolf instead of just brigging them. 50/50 chance they'll ghost or suicide instead of doing their 500 point sentence or trying to escape.

why give them 500 points when all you need is 30

[datorangebottle]

why give them 500 points when all you need is 30

Because if they do put in a good-faith effort to do the gulag I want the station to get more than 30 glass out of it.

[Pandarsenic]

I miss the old headmin ruling that if you claimed sec was beating/executing you, they immediately got a free pass to do that to you.

It's not too late for us to resurrect it

(Also, the Prisoner Transfer/Education chambers are very explicitly not meant to be metagamed. If Security isn't giving you a ton of reasons to look at it, and you're not doing something like looking for a missing sec member or prisoner, don't dick around in those places.)

[Kendrickorium]

I miss the old headmin ruling that if you claimed sec was beating/executing you, they immediately got a free pass to do that to you.

It's not too late for us to resurrect it

(Also, the Prisoner Transfer/Education chambers are very explicitly not meant to be metagamed. If Security isn't giving you a ton of reasons to look at it, and you're not doing something like looking for a missing sec member or prisoner, don't dick around in those places.)

if i'm the captain, and someone screams over comms that i'm executing them when ive shown absolutely no inclination to do so, i will:

1. if they had previously done something that would likely get them permad or executed, execute them on the fucking spot by removing their head
2. tiders get gulagged for maximum points

screaming that shit over comms is the top of the ultra childish "COME HELP ME SOMEONE BECAUSE I FUCKED UP AND IM ABOUT TO BE PUNISHED FOR IT" chart. honestly, i think whoever screams that shit should be banned a couple hours unless you are antag. it can potentially create a whole slew of problems, along the same lines of faking a revolution.

[Drag]

100% would have slapped the Borg from just what I'm reading alone, if you're ever unsure about something I encourage you to ahelp before the round ends

[Misdoubtful]

The more people do this sort of thing the less people will actually consider it might be real when the changeling sec officer is slurping on their gene smoothie.

[Tearling]

Imagine how easy it would be for a misunderstanding to occur when one sec off actually does beat you, then another comes around the corner and hears you saying that, then takes that as a chance to beat you into crit.

Let's say accuser is saying that security officer A is beating him.

If security officer B turned the corner and started beating the accuser, he would be in the wrong because he wouldn't know if the accusation was true or not.

If security officer B was with security officer A and knew the accuser was lying, he'd be free to join in on the retribution.

It'd be very hard to prove what security officer B knew, unless he admits it himself or he has to interact with something that leaves a trace in the logs before he turns the corner.
In the example you give, lets say the accuser is lying. How does Security Officer B know the accuser is lying if he's around the corner, and how can an admin prove what he does/doesn't know?
It becomes more obvious if the accuser is telling the truth, but it's still a mess of a situation.

It gets even worst considering execution. Lets say a security officer mentions executing a prisoner, the prisoner overhears, and tells the AI. Then the HoS hears about it, says he never intended to okay the execution, but because he's now allowed to execute him from a rules standpoint he decides to do it.

Who did something wrong in this situation? The security officer for raising the idea, knowing he didn't have the authority to do it? The prisoner for rightfully raising the subject to the AI? Or the HoS who had no intention of executing the prisoner before he was essentially given a free pass to execute them by the crying sheep rule?

[Farquaar]

It'd be very hard to prove what security officer B knew, unless he admits it himself or he has to interact with something that leaves a trace in the logs before he turns the corner.
In the example you give, lets say the accuser is lying. How does Security Officer B know the accuser is lying if he's around the corner, and how can an admin prove what he does/doesn't know?
It becomes more obvious if the accuser is telling the truth, but it's still a mess of a situation.

It'd be the same with every other situation in the game where players are expected to act on incomplete information. We have plenty of rulings on whether it's reasonable to assume someone is an antag, is suspicious enough to warrant a search, is dangerous enough to warrant a lethal response, etc.

Just apply common sense. If security officer B had good reason to believe that the accuser was lying (i.e. he can see the accuser is sitting comfy bucklecuffed to a chair with barely any bruises), then he can go ahead and commence the beatdown because he knows the accused is obviously lying. If he doesn't have a good reason to believe the accuser is lying and he ends up administering a bad beatdown/execution, then he's on the hook for it.

You don't have to be a mind-reader. Just treat it like any other issue involving player knowledge or suspicion.

[Tearling]

It'd be very hard to prove what security officer B knew, unless he admits it himself or he has to interact with something that leaves a trace in the logs before he turns the corner.
In the example you give, lets say the accuser is lying. How does Security Officer B know the accuser is lying if he's around the corner, and how can an admin prove what he does/doesn't know?
It becomes more obvious if the accuser is telling the truth, but it's still a mess of a situation.

It'd be the same with every other situation in the game where players are expected to act on incomplete information. We have plenty of rulings on whether it's reasonable to assume someone is an antag, is suspicious enough to warrant a search, is dangerous enough to warrant a lethal response, etc.

You don't have to be a mind-reader. Just treat it like any other issue involving player knowledge or suspicion.

You didn't actually answer the question for the execution situation.

Just apply common sense. If security officer B had good reason to believe that the accuser was lying (i.e. he can see the accuser is sitting comfy bucklecuffed to a chair with barely any bruises), then he can go ahead and commence the beatdown because he knows the accused is obviously lying. If he doesn't have a good reason to believe the accuser is lying and he ends up administering a bad beatdown/execution, then he's on the hook for it.

In this example you give... the accuser was beaten. As you put it, he barely had any bruises, which means he did have a few. You just gave a prime example for why this ruling would be stupid without even intentionally doing so.

[Farquaar]

You didn't actually answer the question for the execution situation.

If I tell a prisoner I intend to execute them, and they tell the AI that I intend to execute them, then the prisoner isn't lying. If you're going to jump to execution by claiming they weren't being truthful, you better have a good reason to suspect otherwise. Again, common sense that we apply in literally every other in-game situation where incomplete information may be at play.

Just apply common sense. If security officer B had good reason to believe that the accuser was lying (i.e. he can see the accuser is sitting comfy bucklecuffed to a chair with barely any bruises), then he can go ahead and commence the beatdown because he knows the accused is obviously lying. If he doesn't have a good reason to believe the accuser is lying and he ends up administering a bad beatdown/execution, then he's on the hook for it.

In this example you give... the accuser was beaten. As you put it, he barely had any bruises, which means he did have a few. You just gave a prime example for why this ruling would be stupid without even intentionally doing so.

"HELP HELP SECURITY IS BEATING ME HELP" does not result in a few minor bruises. If you start screaming about security brutalizing you so people will rush to your aid, you better have injuries worse than a stubbed toe.

[Tearling]

If I tell a prisoner I intend to execute them, and they tell the AI that I intend to execute them, then the prisoner isn't lying. If you're going to jump to execution by claiming they weren't being truthful, you better have a good reason to suspect otherwise. Again, common sense that we apply in literally every other in-game situation where incomplete information may be at play.

You still didn't answer the question...

"HELP HELP SECURITY IS BEATING ME HELP" does not result in a few minor bruises. If you start screaming about security brutalizing you so people will rush to your aid, you better have injuries worse than a stubbed toe.

It... can. Actually, yes, it can. Security punching a prisoner a few times is a beating. If you're handcuffed and can't fight back, it makes perfect sense to call for help when you're being... well... beaten by security.

It's a bit silly to imagine seeing a guy who was punched a couple times by security calling for help, then going "He didn't get beaten up enough to justify calling for help" so you use that justification to beat him up further. I can only imagine the field day certain admins would have with a situation like this.

[Farquaar]

1. I did answer your question. If you believe I didn't, then you're free to rephrase it.
2. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. If you believe that everyone who sees a crewman with 3 brute damage has good reason to believe that said crewman was the victim of a recent, savage beating, then I don't know what to tell you.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

It'd be very hard to prove what security officer B knew, unless he admits it himself or he has to interact with something that leaves a trace in the logs before he turns the corner.
In the example you give, lets say the accuser is lying. How does Security Officer B know the accuser is lying if he's around the corner, and how can an admin prove what he does/doesn't know?
It becomes more obvious if the accuser is telling the truth, but it's still a mess of a situation.

It'd be the same with every other situation in the game where players are expected to act on incomplete information. We have plenty of rulings on whether it's reasonable to assume someone is an antag, is suspicious enough to warrant a search, is dangerous enough to warrant a lethal response, etc.

Just apply common sense. If security officer B had good reason to believe that the accuser was lying (i.e. he can see the accuser is sitting comfy bucklecuffed to a chair with barely any bruises), then he can go ahead and commence the beatdown because he knows the accused is obviously lying. If he doesn't have a good reason to believe the accuser is lying and he ends up administering a bad beatdown/execution, then he's on the hook for it.

You don't have to be a mind-reader. Just treat it like any other issue involving player knowledge or suspicion.

But what about the RP point of view? Being baton'd isn't going to do any damage unless they harmbaton, but if they just regular-baton it won't leave any marks. But the restrained prisoner isn't going to enjoy this. So they call for help that Security is abusing them. People come look, they're uninjured. "AHA! THEY'RE NOW VALID!!!"

It's a stupid idea.