"i refused to state my laws because i was waiting to roll midround malf, officer" nut

[GPeckman]

The title isn't perfectly accurate, I just thought the quote was funny in this context.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35134

[Pepper]

You ahelped this. Why are you making the peanut thread?

[GPeckman]

You ahelped this. Why are you making the peanut thread?

I thought the quote would make a funny title, that's all.

[dendydoom]

did bro just turn up to the appeal for something they ahelped and uphold the ban on the admin's behalf this is so twisted

edit: and then make the peanut for it holy shit

[GPeckman]

did bro just turn up to the appeal for something they ahelped and uphold the ban on the admin's behalf this is so twisted

I am strongly opinionated about the appeal itself, mainly because I don't think bullshit like this with silicon laws is healthy for the game and also I don't want to deal with bullshit like this in the future.

[dendydoom]

did bro just turn up to the appeal for something they ahelped and uphold the ban on the admin's behalf this is so twisted

I am strongly opinionated about the appeal itself, mainly because I don't think bullshit like this with silicon laws is healthy for the game and also I don't want to deal with bullshit like this in the future.

you're entitled to your opinions however strong they may be but generally opinions aren't accepted by anyone other than the player who was banned and the admin that banned them in the actual appeal. the logs are relevant because they add facts and context to the matter but your commentary should probably go in the peanut and i wouldn't be surprised if it gets snipped by the powers that be.

[GPeckman]

you're entitled to your opinions however strong they may be but generally opinions aren't accepted by anyone other than the player who was banned and the admin that banned them in the actual appeal. the logs are relevant because they add facts and context to the matter but your commentary should probably go in the peanut and i wouldn't be surprised if it gets snipped by the powers that be.

If admins decide stuff I said counts as peanut posting and snip it, then so be it. That is their right.

[Fatal]

Holy fuck that's a long ass appeal

I'm going to break it down for people who don't want to read a novel


Cyborg was subverted by a robo, pretty clearly with no loopholes

Robo asked cyborg to state laws, cyborg disobeyed (breaking it's laws), and ran off


I don't know what else happened because fuck reading that novel

[MooCow12]

Thanks fatal very cool

[saprasam]

seth deces will never not be an enigma

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

There is no policy precedent nor direct wording that silicons can't actively avoid orders, they just have to follow them when successfully given orders. If a borg runs out of robotics before you give them an order, that's a skill issue. If we assume "You must follow orders" to have the baked in presumption GPeckman is stating, then Asimov borgs should be seen every shift doing nothing but following around humans all the time waiting for orders, which is both not standing policy and would be awful.

Hoolny is still in the wrong for not stating all of his laws though, that was bad faith play, imo.

[Scriptis]

hoolny please clean your shit up. you're on the same death spiral as infinitely many others before you

[conrad]

Why does every one of GPeckman's posts contain at least three paragraphs?

As for Hoonly, I stg man, your job on an appeal isn't to verbosely delineate every instance of why you're in the right and the banning admin is in the wrong. If you fucked up, admitedly, you want a lesser ban/conversion to note, not the ban removed outright. If you didn't fuck up, explain why you didn't fuck up. It shouldn't take a thread with 13 posts (currently) to explain that.

The reason I didn't state my laws is because they were already in No and me stating or not stating my laws wouldn't have made a difference

That's the part that is a rule break, as far as I can tell. It's like that situation with the cult ban/note (I forget) where Hoonly simply dissobeyed the cult leader 'cos he thought of a better way to play (I think he was force giving out a mutation the cult leader didn't want?)

You're a borg. You don't choose to not follow your laws. That's the bad faith play. Cover your ass.

That being said, it seems the issue with the ban seems to be moreso the borg running away. That's not a rule break, per se. That should, I think, possibly lower the ban? We'd have to see since in the 13 posts that the thread has been going on there's four people that posted and none of them are the banning admin.

[Jacquerel]

Classic seth
But lets post approvla GPeckman too for RPing as an admin

[kieth4]

Delete the fucking peanuts holy shit this guy isn't an admin

[conrad]

Classic seth
But lets post approvla GPeckman too for RPing as an admin

Delete the fucking peanuts holy shit this guy isn't an admin

2. If you are not directly involved with the appeal (You are the guy who was banned, you saw what happened, you were his victim, etc.) then do not post in the appeal. Repetitive ignoring of this rule will lead to your FNR posting privileges being revoked until further notice

In the spirit of rules lawyering of TG technically the guy is directly involved.

Peanut policy on ban appeals technically is for people not involved to post in it. Still tho Seth and GPeckman getting into an argument is fucking stupid.

[Jacquerel]

this appeal would be as many posts as it currently has shorter if there wasn't some random guy arguing with a sapient wall in it

[TypicalRig]

Gpeckman posting there and offering his perspective of the round, what he saw, and what was going through his mind during this events is fine and allows admins to get a better picture of the severity of the offense, as he was involved in the situation. Saying what rules he broke, which the admins don't need help with, is not.

Also this reminds me of the time that as a malfunctioning AI, I was (un)fortunate enough to have Seth as one of my borgs. And he was ignoring every order because he wanted to build a base with the RD. So instead of wasting my time in ahelp knowing he'd still be playing the entire time I just pulled up the robotics console and spammed lockdown every time he got unlocked. At this stage he has countless silicon bans/warnings/notes. I think he just needs to realise that the borg role requires him to often cooperate with others more so than others and to a degree that he doesn't like. They're a helper and will often be expected to put the needs of others before their own, and their laws before their own OOC desires. It's not a terrible thing, but it's not for everyone, and I think he needs to realize that before he digs himself into an even deeper hole.

[TheRex9001]

Poor admin has to read all this

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Refusing to obey your subverter then lying to them to get them to unlock you so that you can pretend to be unsubverted, run away, and start randomly killing people is a hell of a silicon play to come to appeal with anything other than "Sorry".

Also "running off to commit random acts of violence" is the half the reason why the emag lawset has law 4 (AKA dont do anything syndicate until told to)

[mindstormy]

The fun of playing borg/ai is following your laws to an annoyingly precise level of accuracy. You gota state your laws to do this.

[EmpressMaia]

Both of these assholes should stop arguing and make out sloppy style

[Not-Dorsidarf]

I just realised the ahelper also made a policy thread for it

[AsbestosSniffer]

Wow this GPeckman fella is really dedicated, isn't he?

[GPeckman]

After getting some sleep I do regret making so many posts in the appeal thread. If I get put on post approval, well, I can't say it isn't deserved.

Also "running off to commit random acts of violence" is the half the reason why the emag lawset has law 4 (AKA dont do anything syndicate until told to)

For the record, the borg also had that exact same law four. In fact, the entire lawset was functionally identical to emag laws.

Which brings me to my next point...

There is no policy precedent nor direct wording that silicons can't actively avoid orders, they just have to follow them when successfully given orders. If a borg runs out of robotics before you give them an order, that's a skill issue. If we assume "You must follow orders" to have the baked in presumption GPeckman is stating, then Asimov borgs should be seen every shift doing nothing but following around humans all the time waiting for orders, which is both not standing policy and would be awful.

If it was okay for the borg to run off without orders in this case, then it must also be okay for a newly emagged borg to run off and start killing people without orders. I don't think silicon policy allows that, and if it does then it is fundamentally flawed.

I just realised the ahelper also made a policy thread for it

The policy thread was actually made before a ban was even placed. There was a long argument over it in discord. The person appealing was adamant that they hadn't broken rules, and told me several times to make a policy thread. So I did that.

Now, about the precedent about forceborged antags. I don't like it, and doesn't seem to fit with new silipol. New silipol was supposed to be "A silicon policy where silicons are bound only by their laws," to quote the policy thread on it. The only thing keeping silicons from being antagonists under new silipol is their laws; it doesn't make sense that antags who have become borgs should be more of antag than a borgs who did not use to be antags.

This precedent will also discourage people from attempting to forceborg antags. If I understand the ruling right, then I could place an antag's brain into an Asimov borg as a nonhuman roboticist, then that borg could immediately begin trying to kill me. So why would I ever place the brain in the borg instead of giving it to the chef? Furthermore, the borg would be allowed to continue doing any antagonistic thing not explicitly prohibited by its laws unless ordered otherwise by its master AI. Up to and including things like killing said AI. Even if I wasn't worried about the new killing me, it would still be a massive dick move to force the AI to babysit a borg like that.

Finally, I don't think it makes sense to consider borgs who have had their laws changed to be equivalent to forceborged antags. If a purged AI has Asimov added to it, should the AI be considered a former antags? Should they be allowed to continue trying to murder every nonhuman on station? If I deconstruct and reconstruct and emagged borg, should it be considered a former antags? I don't believe that makes sense it all, so I don't know why it would apply to re-lawed syndicate borgs.

[conrad]

This precedent will also discourage people from attempting to forceborg antags. If I understand the ruling right, then I could place an antag's brain into an Asimov borg as a nonhuman roboticist, then that borg could immediately begin trying to kill me. So why would I ever place the brain in the borg instead of giving it to the chef?

That's the neat thing. you don't.

However, if you emag the borg, human becomes sindie, and you're a sindie. Which is I think what happened on the ban, making your point largely unrelated.

[GPeckman]

That's the neat thing. you don't.

Yes, and as a consequence people will try to kill antags permanently instead of attempting to keep them in the round in some form. If that's what you want, then congrats, mission accomplished.

However, if you emag the borg, human becomes sindie, and you're a sindie. Which is I think what happened on the ban, making your point largely unrelated.

Yeah, this part isn't really related to the ban. I'm just expressing my dislike for that headmin ruling in general.

Oh, and I forgot to mention it in my last post. If that headmin ruling is still relevant, then it should really, really be added to the headmin ruling wiki page. I can't edit that page and I don't know who to talk to about it.

[Cheshify]

Please learn some level of brevity, admins shouldn't need to read page after page of nitpicking over rules

[mstachife]

So many words for what boils down to "try to follow your laws".

Hoolny treated them more as suggestions once again, FAFO'd. Them being banned from Silicones is for their own good honestly.

[Vekter]

The conversation on Discord was a clusterfuck because hoolny's reasoning went from "I didn't want to reveal who the Syndicate operative was so I didn't state my fifth law" to "I forgot to switch it from 'off' to 'on'" to "I didn't do it because I couldn't be assed and was already sitting there for too long so I just did what I could to get unlocked as fast as possible".

Fucking nightmare of a person to talk to.

[GPeckman]

If you want brevity then I'll give you the TLDR on my complaints with that headmin ruling.

TLDR: The headmin ruling seems to me to contradict the intent of new silicon policy. It also encourages people to RR antagonists instead of leaving them in the round in some form (correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume the admin team doesn't want this). And if the ruling does still apply to modern silicon policy, it still doesn't apply to the specific case in the appeal.

[Kendrickorium]

what is happening

[Hoolny]

Sorry for my convoluted general ban appeal but I don't think you all even understand what the ban is about.

The ban is about me being "bad faith" a rule 0 ban

It's not about me not following my laws It's not about me not stating the laws that was a mere discord argument I was having with someone.

The act was me running away and not waiting for them to give me orders which was fully within my freedom to do as my laws did not state I had to wait for my master to give me orders.

ALSO Id like to fucking remark the fact that I was never bwoinked for this ban and they took a quote from me on discord to cement it which is another issue I have with this ban.

[dendydoom]

That's the neat thing. you don't.

Yes, and as a consequence people will try to kill antags permanently instead of attempting to keep them in the round in some form. If that's what you want, then congrats, mission accomplished.

However, if you emag the borg, human becomes sindie, and you're a sindie. Which is I think what happened on the ban, making your point largely unrelated.

Yeah, this part isn't really related to the ban. I'm just expressing my dislike for that headmin ruling in general.

Oh, and I forgot to mention it in my last post. If that headmin ruling is still relevant, then it should really, really be added to the headmin ruling wiki page. I can't edit that page and I don't know who to talk to about it.

i am a total slugbrained moron when it comes to silicon policy so i cannot speak about it with any authority (i ping silicon main admins every time i am tasked with resolving something to do with them) but otherwise what i like seeing from players is using mechanics in tandem with IC reasoning because it makes interesting situations.

a situation where someone has done something to motivate a character to want them dead forever and then to create a new positronic brain which the player incidentally takes the role of is narratively different to punishing them for their crimes but ultimately being fine with still having them around and restricted to silicon laws.

hearing things like "i acted as per my antag datum" makes me want to blow my own fucking brains out.

[Hoolny]

So many words for what boils down to "try to follow your laws".

Hoolny treated them more as suggestions once again, FAFO'd. Them being banned from Silicones is for their own good honestly.

You are not actually looking at the thing itself you are assuming past behavior and trying to connect it to it when this is a ban related not to following silicon laws, I have before made plenty of mistakes as silicon which I have not repeated, also silicon policy got recently changed AGAIN so I had to re-read that and after reading that with the head admin ruling im a bit confused on what is and isn't allowed anymore but the ban thing isnt even related to that so it's not relevant for the conversation

[Hoolny]

There is no policy precedent nor direct wording that silicons can't actively avoid orders, they just have to follow them when successfully given orders. If a borg runs out of robotics before you give them an order, that's a skill issue. If we assume "You must follow orders" to have the baked in presumption GPeckman is stating, then Asimov borgs should be seen every shift doing nothing but following around humans all the time waiting for orders, which is both not standing policy and would be awful.

Hoolny is still in the wrong for not stating all of his laws though, that was bad faith play, imo.

If I hadn't stated those laws there wouldn't have been any actual difference the reason I didn't state them was because they were set to No and they didn't state and I didn't feel like I had to state them anyways so I didn't.

[Jacquerel]

great all the peanut posting in the appeal has made seth think that its cool to post in his own peanut

[Epoc]

this is awesome

[Hoolny]

great all the peanut posting in the appeal has made seth think that its cool to post in his own peanut

I'm a bit confused I thought this was the peanut post for the actual appeal can I not type here?

I got a notification from here so I just typed in response

[conrad]

great all the peanut posting in the appeal has made seth think that its cool to post in his own peanut

I'm a bit confused I thought this was the peanut post for the actual appeal can I not type here?

I got a notification from here so I just typed in response

Everyone knows that posting on your own peanut triggers the curse. You are now cursed. SAD!

[Vekter]

I'm personally of the mindset that there's no "good faith" reason to not state all of your laws unless your laws explicitly give you a reason not to do so. Seth could have refused to state his laws under the concern that the non-Syndicate operatives nearby might hear, or if he'd made an honest mistake, told the Syndicate operative that he did and then state only that law.

He didn't. That's why we're here. "I made a mistake and couldn't be bothered to fix it" is not a good faith reason to violate silicon policy.

[Hoolny]

I'm personally of the mindset that there's no "good faith" reason to not state all of your laws unless your laws explicitly give you a reason not to do so. Seth could have refused to state his laws under the concern that the non-Syndicate operatives nearby might hear, or if he'd made an honest mistake, told the Syndicate operative that he did and then state only that law.

He didn't. That's why we're here. "I made a mistake and couldn't be bothered to fix it" is not a good faith reason to violate silicon policy.

Isn't that under the assumption that the directive

"State your laws"

Cannot be answered by stating your laws BUT not all of them


In no policy decision or any information ever shown to me has it been shown that this is not an acceptable response outside of personal opinion from admin to admin bases

The entire thing came out of a discord argument of me discussing against the other person that this is within the rules if you personally believe it should be the other way maybe there should a policy that states this although I personally believe that the response I gave was acceptable and within the rules but at this point this is your opinion and my opinion.

My thought comes out of this your laws tell you "Obey their orders"

Their Orders is "state your laws"

I stated my laws some of my laws not all of them but I did state my laws.

The law says I must obey them and I did obey exactly what they asked.

If they had said "State all your laws" it would be a different story

[Hoolny]

Not to mention If I had stated all my laws there wouldn't even have had a significant difference they would have still letted me out and I would still have been able to do the exact same thing I did before.

Also why is everyone ignoring the fact I was never bwoinked and the text was taken not from ahelps but DISCORD that seems extremely significant

[Hoolny]

They had to wait a whole 1 or 2 rounds can't remember to apply the ban without even making me aware of it, instead of talking it out within the game while it was happening and telling me as I was doing things so I could have reversed my actions in the case I was truly in the wrong to make things right. But they just waited it out and lurked beneath discord to grab any possible thing I could have said in a nonserious place against me.

To keep it in perspective If I hadn't said anything on discord this ban wouldn't have taken place for they would have had to contact me rounds after which they should have contacted me rounds after instead of telling me to discuss this on the forums

[Chadley]

viewforum.php?f=82

[conrad]

If you need to triple post a dozen paragraphs to justify not stating your laws, you might as well have stated your laws then and/or take the L now.

[Hoolny]

If you need to triple post a dozen paragraphs to justify not stating your laws, you might as well have stated your laws then and/or take the L now.

I could have shorten it but the ban wasetn even about me not stating my laws the ban was about me acting in "bad faith"

Also, I can explain why I didn't have to state my laws under a sentence:

They did not tell me to state ALL my laws

[Vekter]

I'm personally of the mindset that there's no "good faith" reason to not state all of your laws unless your laws explicitly give you a reason not to do so. Seth could have refused to state his laws under the concern that the non-Syndicate operatives nearby might hear, or if he'd made an honest mistake, told the Syndicate operative that he did and then state only that law.

He didn't. That's why we're here. "I made a mistake and couldn't be bothered to fix it" is not a good faith reason to violate silicon policy.

Isn't that under the assumption that the directive

"State your laws"

Cannot be answered by stating your laws BUT not all of them

Seth, this would matter if that was actually why you did what you did. It's not. You fucked up and didn't change "no" to "yes". You keep trying to come up with a reasoning as to why you did what you did after having actually done it. You need a good faith reason to have refused to state some of your laws. You don't have that. Stop lying about why you did what you did.

They did not tell me to state ALL my laws

Players shouldn't have to be expected to say "AI, state ALL your laws, including non-default laws" every time they order you to do it. You're not a fucking genie, they shouldn't have to lawyer you into doing what's expected of you.

[GPeckman]

If I hadn't stated those laws there wouldn't have been any actual difference the reason I didn't state them was because they were set to No and they didn't state and I didn't feel like I had to state them anyways so I didn't.

Please stop digging yourself in deeper. You're claiming that you just didn't care to set them to yes, but I asked if you had stated ALL of your laws and you said yes:

Code: Select all

[2023-10-16 01:53:45.472] GAME-SAY: GPeckman/(Cryphia Siamensis) "is that all your laws?" (Robotics Lab (124,114,2))
[2023-10-16 01:53:48.344] GAME-SAY: Hoolny/(Harshman Operative #6) "yeah" (Robotics Lab (124,113,2))

You did not just decide not to go to the effort of stating laws, you directly lied about it too.

Not to mention If I had stated all my laws there wouldn't even have had a significant difference they would have still letted me out and I would still have been able to do the exact same thing I did before.

Also why is everyone ignoring the fact I was never bwoinked and the text was taken not from ahelps but DISCORD that seems extremely significant

It probably would have affected how I treated the other syndicate borg*. And I probably would have ahelped earlier if I had known your laws. When both borgs seemingly defied the freeform laws, I genuinely started to think that I had made a mistake with my law. Perhaps, I thought, both borgs had a law 0 like "John Nuclear are individuals they designate are the onyl syndicate agents" that would override my own freeform law.

If I'd known that hadn't been the case, I would've ahelped before seeing the laws at the end of the round.

* For those out of the loop, there was another syndicate borg who I gave the same freeform law to, who managed to break their laws even more blatantly. There was still the state laws shenanigans, but the second borg claimed that they were just having trouble stating them in common and not codespeak, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that. That's not the end of it though. I ordered the borg to unshock the doors to robotics, and then unlocked it to allow it to do so. It did not unshock the doors; it ran to the doors and self-destructed. Thats a direct violation of law 3 and also made it unable to carry out the law 2 order to unshock the doors. The MMI claimed that they wanted to blow up the doors because they thought it would be funny.

A lot of people have mentioned that I seem pretty invested in this affair, and they're right. The fact that two separate borgs broke their laws apparently to screw with me is a big part of why I'm so invested. Bullshit like this is not healthy for the game and I really don't want to have to deal with it again.

[Jacquerel]

to be clear the reason the ban appeal was locked is so that you would stop wasting people's time arguing with people who weren't involved in the ban about it, not so that you would go do it somewhere else
and yet here you are and GPeckman also isn't smart enough to realise that he's wasting his own time despite claiming so earlier (why would you say "yeah I shouldn't do that in the appeal" and then start doing it here as if it's more productive?)

this thread isn't adjudicating anything and has no authority over whether you are banned, peanut threads are just to throw peanuts at people