/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=28797

AI refuses law 2 orders
Clown repeatedly tells the AI to state its laws to make sure it isn't malf
AI is obtuse and refuses to state its laws over the common radio when explicitly asked
Clown kills the AI
Clown gets beaned

NoxVS wrote: AI is a skulldented moron who should be yelled at for breaking asimov

Clown is a skulldented moron who should be yelled at for breaking asimov

Everyone in this thread (myself included) is a skulldented moron who should be yelled at for thinking participating in this peanut was a good use of their time

This.

Although in defense of the newfriend AI, clown did opt for the most drastic measure rather than sneaking into the sat and carding the AI for lawset checks.

E: It kinda drifts into the territory of "I haven't seen botanist all shift, must be a tot, fireaxe tiem".

Istoprocent1 wrote:

NoxVS wrote: AI is a skulldented moron who should be yelled at for breaking asimov

Clown is a skulldented moron who should be yelled at for breaking asimov

Everyone in this thread (myself included) is a skulldented moron who should be yelled at for thinking participating in this peanut was a good use of their time

This.

Although in defense of the newfriend AI, clown did opt for the most drastic measure rather than sneaking into the sat and carding the AI for lawset checks.

E: It kinda drifts into the territory of "I haven't seen botanist all shift, must be a tot, fireaxe tiem".

Killing the AI as unsynced borg is infinitely easier than carding it as clown.

why would you reply to istoprocent ogodofuck what have you done you FOOL

pugie wrote:why would you reply to istoprocent ogodofuck what have you done you FOOL

Bro what are you doing? That's disrespectful. You can't do that.

NoxVS wrote:

Kassori wrote:So, AI acts like an antag by stating its laws in a way that nobody can hear them.
AI acts like an antag, is treated like one.
A helps after intentionally pretending to be malf

How is this not ban baiting? Clown should be noted for not being in their own lane, but the AI was being a shitter and deserves a ban.

It was Sybil, stay in your lane doesn’t matter.

AI is a skulldented moron who should be yelled at for breaking asimov

Clown is a skulldented moron who should be yelled at for breaking asimov

Everyone in this thread (myself included) is a skulldented moron who should be yelled at for thinking participating in this peanut was a good use of their time

clown broke asimov yes but we are complaing about this ban reason cause its invalid and as stated by it:
'Ban reason: "As a non-antag, declared an AI rogue for not following all their orders, killed it then didn't check if the AI was actually malfunctioning, or making any attempts to revive them."'
it has nothing to do with clown borg turning into a human, but he got banned for killing an ai who was purposely breaking its laws and then ahelped when died which is called 'ban baiting'

I followed my laws but in a way the individual can’t see or otherwise tell I’m following the law why did they kill me? Mods?

The guy new or not wanted to be a LAWyer, and it doesn’t take 500 hours in Ai to know if you do something in an obnoxious way so much that it will create misunderstandings then you are bad faith if you cry about someone coming to the misunderstanding you WANTED to create. Play stupid games is job agnostic.

Should keep the note but just for de-asimov requesting.

Also you have to have hours in borg to play AI which are also by default asimov so in terms of law interpretation I don’t see how being new in AI matters, this is the whole point of why we make you borg to begin with

Cobby wrote:I followed my laws but in a way the individual can’t see or otherwise tell I’m following the law why did they kill me? Mods?

The guy new or not wanted to be a LAWyer, and it doesn’t take 500 hours in Ai to know if you do something in an obnoxious way so much that it will create misunderstandings then you are bad faith if you cry about someone coming to the misunderstanding you WANTED to create. Play stupid games is job agnostic.

Should keep the note but just for de-asimov requesting.

Being un-borged does not break Asimov (unless a person is killed to create the empty body).

If you are a borg your goal is to prevent human harm, where your law 1 doubles as a protective measure. Making the list of who you can harm per law 1 longer to include your current definition of human seems to be against asimov (in conjunction with silicon policy).

I think it’s the same as being asked to be changed from asimov, becoming human means you’re basically purged from a Borg Pov.

Cobby wrote:If you are a borg your goal is to prevent human harm, where your law 1 doubles as a protective measure. Making the list of who you can harm per law 1 longer to include your current definition of human seems to be against asimov (in conjunction with silicon policy).

I think it’s the same as being asked to be changed from asimov, becoming human means you’re basically purged from a Borg Pov.

If you start applying that logic you're basically not allowed to take any action that does not directly prevent human harm about to happen because any action you take might cause harm somewhere down the line.

Relevant precedent and discussion from ages ago:
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 63#p304371

It’s not down the line though as soon as you are no longer asimov or you make the list of humans shorter you are free (per laws, not by server rules I guess) to harm humans you were “supposed” to be protecting up to that point. You can IMMEDIATELY go and beat the fuck out of someone who you were suppose to be protecting, which may be required depending on your laws and orders. You become an IMMEDIATE threat towards those ex-humans.

“Please make it so the wizard isn’t human” > law change > wow you can harm the wizard now what a shock
“Please make me human” > makes human > wow they can now punch people freely and ignore harm by inaction who would have guessed that’s why they asked for it

You don’t start a contained plasma fire someone could easily spread then “well not my problem” because you weren’t the one that spread it. That’s a lot different than “well if X Y and Z all happen under the right constellations it can create a harmful scenario therefore I will not be letting you into cabin 1”. We aren’t programming real life robots and people certainly don’t play the role like real life robots, we are making sure you play a role on a video game in good faith so we can make those distinctions.

“How’s that different from letting someone in an area with weapons because they MAY harm”

1) it isn’t depending on the circumstance, as you have full right to deny people if you think they may use the weapons for immediate (even if they don’t have it on them currently) human harm.
2) humans don’t have required laws like silicons. If you just received a “people with black hair are not human” law and you see 2 people fighting, one with black hair, then you have a REQUIREMENT to stop them which includes harm if they don’t comply (implying you aren’t frothing at the mouth looking for a reason to tray slam / welder someone to death anyways).
3) the humans were already humans and not a silicon trying to become human

Malkraz wrote: >woman avatar
>shit ban
every time

Why are you like this?

I think he was dropped on his head as a child

oranges wrote:I think he was dropped on his head as a child

That implies someone held him as a child.

Nabski wrote:

Malkraz wrote: >woman avatar
>shit ban
every time

Why are you like this?

High susceptibility to amogus.

prove me wrong

Cobby wrote:words

We don't even have to go that far or even get that technical about it.

Asking to be a human again as an asimov borg breaks asimov because of the simple fact that asking someone to kill you (which is what dismantling does to a borg) violates the self preservation and inactivity clauses of asimov.

IkeTG wrote:AI player should have been banned for being an AI player

im starting to come around onthis one, i think the guy who got banned deserved it for being a clown in that round specifically

Malkraz wrote:JusticeGoat's response is retarded. YOU KILLED HIM FOR BEING NEW!!!!
How is the Clown supposed to know the AI only has 4 hours and is talking in his chamber? All he can do is use the little information he has and act on it (the entire point of the game.)

this tbh

banning sally for looking for the marble in her box instead of the basket anne put it in while she was out of the room

Screemonster wrote:

Malkraz wrote:JusticeGoat's response is retarded. YOU KILLED HIM FOR BEING NEW!!!!
How is the Clown supposed to know the AI only has 4 hours and is talking in his chamber? All he can do is use the little information he has and act on it (the entire point of the game.)

this tbh

banning sally for looking for the marble in her box instead of the basket anne put it in while she was out of the room

This is an extremely good post and not many will get it

carshalash wrote:

oranges wrote:I think he was dropped on his head as a child

That implies someone held him as a child.

This is a good one.

Malkraz wrote:

Screemonster wrote:

Malkraz wrote:JusticeGoat's response is retarded. YOU KILLED HIM FOR BEING NEW!!!!
How is the Clown supposed to know the AI only has 4 hours and is talking in his chamber? All he can do is use the little information he has and act on it (the entire point of the game.)

this tbh

banning sally for looking for the marble in her box instead of the basket anne put it in while she was out of the room

This is an extremely good post and not many will get it

yes this is the highest fruit for minds such as ours

I didn't read the appeal but since manuelmins are defending it I'm siding with the clown

validhunter clowns are shitters lol but come on this is blatantly banbaiting

Cobby wrote:It’s not down the line though as soon as you are no longer asimov or you make the list of humans shorter you are free (per laws, not by server rules I guess) to harm humans you were “supposed” to be protecting up to that point. You can IMMEDIATELY go and beat the fuck out of someone who you were suppose to be protecting, which may be required depending on your laws and orders. You become an IMMEDIATE threat towards those ex-humans.

“Please make it so the wizard isn’t human” > law change > wow you can harm the wizard now what a shock
“Please make me human” > makes human > wow they can now punch people freely and ignore harm by inaction who would have guessed that’s why they asked for it

You don’t start a contained plasma fire someone could easily spread then “well not my problem” because you weren’t the one that spread it. That’s a lot different than “well if X Y and Z all happen under the right constellations it can create a harmful scenario therefore I will not be letting you into cabin 1”. We aren’t programming real life robots and people certainly don’t play the role like real life robots, we are making sure you play a role on a video game in good faith so we can make those distinctions.

“How’s that different from letting someone in an area with weapons because they MAY harm”

1) it isn’t depending on the circumstance, as you have full right to deny people if you think they may use the weapons for immediate (even if they don’t have it on them currently) human harm.
2) humans don’t have required laws like silicons. If you just received a “people with black hair are not human” law and you see 2 people fighting, one with black hair, then you have a REQUIREMENT to stop them which includes harm if they don’t comply (implying you aren’t frothing at the mouth looking for a reason to tray slam / welder someone to death anyways).
3) the humans were already humans and not a silicon trying to become human

This argument is kinda dumb honestly and literally includes "It's different because I say so." and goes against the general spirit of how we enforce the inaction clause (AKA possibilities of humans hurting people in a theoretical unknown future circumstance should be ignored because there is never, ever a scenario where crew or AI has fun when the AI tries to enforce that).

1) The clownborg has no intent to commit immediate harm which he knows with 100% fact because he is himself and knows his intent
2) This is compleely correct, but doesn't seem to be a relevant statment
3) This is completely correct, but it doesnt back up your argument in any way other than "its meaningful because I say so".

Just stick to "He was wrong because law 3 says he has to stop himself bein destroyed unless another law is involved and theres no law -1 you must be clown"

FUCK omegashoots ninjad my entire post with 2 sentences

Not-Dorsidarf wrote: Just stick to "He was wrong because law 3 says he has to stop himself bein destroyed unless another law is involved and theres no law -1 you must be clown"

Law 3 doesn't specify what exactly existence means. You can try to loophole your way out of it by saying it's your consciousness and not your borg shell. Or just tell the roboticist to law 2 you to be re-humaned once you're done, before he puts you in the borg shell.

Getting deborged should only be breaking your laws if you have probable cause to believe you would cause human harm without being lawed. ie. you are a traitor or have a history of harming humans when you were a human.

SkeletalElite wrote:Getting deborged should only be breaking your laws if you have probable cause to believe you would cause human harm without being lawed. ie. you are a traitor or have a history of harming humans when you were a human.

Chad, thy name is Skeletal Elite

Vekter wrote:Worth noting that admins are not required to explain their reasoning behind a specific ruling,

old admin guidelines PDF I was raised on wrote:

• Bans are either to teach a lesson, punish malicious behavior, or remove shitty players from
  the community. Banning for mistakes doesn't really serve any of these purposes (an honest
  mistake can be explained and in the future avoided without having the players experience
  ruined with a ban). Of course a jobban might be warranted if a mistake is repeated multiple
  times.
• Upon banning someone, you are placed in charge of ensuring they understand why it is they
  were banned and are in charge of responding to any ban appeals they should make.
  Ignoring a ban appeal may lead to the person being unbanned by a headmin. At least have
  the courtesy to tell them "denied", and WHY.
• Be polite, but casual, in adminhelps. You don't want to be unapproachable, you don't want
  to be an asshole. You're there to make sure things run smoothly and as many people as
  possible have fun. If you expect the players to treat you with respect, treat them with respect as well.
• Always try to consider what you'd have done in the players place. They don't have the
  luxury of piecing it together from attack logs, infinite time to make a decision, knowing
  every antag, etc. They'll act on incomplete information, they'll act on emotion. Don't judge
  them vs. perfect actions, but based on reasonable ones in their place.

Vekter wrote:Worth noting that admins are not required to explain their reasoning behind a specific ruling, nor are they required to sit there for hours debating it with you.

yeah famalam I don't think you'll win the headmin election with that shitty attitude any time soon

Is Vekter like a professional do-it-for-free or what

no vekter is just an asshole whos letting the power of moderating a spaceman game getting to his head

When (not if) Combine invasion happens Vekter will be the first to sign up as a metrocop.

pugie wrote:When (not if) Combine invasion happens Vekter will be the first to sign up as a metrocop.

pick up that ban

Fhaxaris wrote:

pugie wrote:When (not if) Combine invasion happens Vekter will be the first to sign up as a metrocop.

pick up that ban

Farquaar wrote:

Fhaxaris wrote:

pugie wrote:When (not if) Combine invasion happens Vekter will be the first to sign up as a metrocop.

pick up that ban

gay ban

lol nice one