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

[GPeckman]

Bottom post of the previous page:

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

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35134

[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

[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

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.

I am not arguing for the fact that was the reason I did it I'm arguing for the fact that even though that was my intention and I accidentally fucked up I still acted within the rules consciously or not I did not break them.

I may have lied on the discord to formula a point in an argument but I DID NOT lie against an admin under an ahelp or a play where lying was not acceptable this happened in discord and it shouldn't have been taken into the ahelp

[Hoolny]

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

I know but I'm talking here for the same reason I was discussing them in discord I fully believe that when someone that has authority over you as a borg tells you to state your laws unless they specify how or which laws to state you are fully within your right to take their directives literally and state your laws as you please for that is simply a player freedom

[Hoolny]

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.

My laws do not say I have to tell you the truth my laws said I had to protect you from dying and follow your orders

A question isn't an order

I don't know why you have the perspective that borgs should always stay loyal to you and have no general will but little to no borg plays like this you simply got outplayed and braught this upon administration when it shouldn't have I perfectly followed my laws and did as I knew it was fully within the rules to do as a nuclear operative agent

[Hoolny]

This is an entire IC issue that could have easily been solved within the round itself but the banning admin decided it was a good idea to take a discord conversation as enough evidence to make a judgment without even informing the banned person of it during most of the process

[TheRex9001]

Quad post....

[Hoolny]

It has been way to tiring for me to think I'm interpreting silicon policy perfectly to finally get it right and then for it to be changed to be more vague I want to note out so it dosen't put me in a bad situation since I was recently perma banned and I don't want that note to be used against me I'm simply gona self ban myself from silicon roles its like stepping on egg shells

[Vekter]

How hard is it to just say "I fucked up, I won't do it again?". Local human completely incapable of taking the L.

[Hoolny]

How hard is it to just say "I fucked up, I won't do it again?". Local human completely incapable of taking the L.

And what let myself get perma banned of silicon when I believe I was playing within the rules?

[zergking]

Perma bans aren't perma, it's just an extended break. Take the L, wait a few months, appeal it with good behavior.

[Hoolny]

Perma bans aren't perma, it's just an extended break. Take the L, wait a few months, appeal it with good behavior.

What are the downsides of fitting for what you think is fair in your situation?

refraining from the banning admin from reading an argument by someone

In one instance I can say "Alright I'm wrong I shouldn't have done that" waits it out

In another instant I can say "I think I was following the rules" waits it out or possibly gets unbanned now

One option clearly has more upsides than the other one

Especially for me as I like to argue about policy since I care about the current state of the game to be as fair as possible to player freedoms one of those freedoms is silicons being able to follow their laws in an appropriate way that gives them leeway int doing stuff by technicality.

If I just stay silent and agree with this then it might become a standard and I don't want other people to get prosecuted for doing this kind of stuff for I see it fully fair within the game boundaries

[mindstormy]

Perma bans aren't perma, it's just an extended break. Take the L, wait a few months, appeal it with good behavior.

[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.

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

Bro just follow your laws. When your one human asks you to state your laws just state all your laws.

That's it. The policy will never change that one simple concept.

And for extra - staying out of trouble advice ask them if they want anything before fucking off somewhere. If they don't or don't respond after a bit then fuck off somewhere.

[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

Bro just follow your laws. When your one human asks you to state your laws just state all your laws.

That's it. The policy will never change that one simple concept.

The thing is that there is NO policy about this nowhere does it say when someone asks your laws that you need to state ALL of them thats a simple assumption you are making.

My point is that I and any future borgs that do this are perfectly following their laws by doing exactly what I did

[DaydreamIQ]

You could write a Tolkien Novel with the amount of arguing going on here fr. Just don't be a dick when you play silicon, I know that's a really high bar for tg players but cmon

[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

Bro just follow your laws. When your one human asks you to state your laws just state all your laws.

That's it. The policy will never change that one simple concept.

And for extra - staying out of trouble advice ask them if they want anything before fucking off somewhere. If they don't or don't respond after a bit then fuck off somewhere.

On the extra advise for staying out of trouble at no point during the ahelp being made and me being banned was I contacted by the admin not within that round or anywhere else

[Hoolny]

You could write a Tolkien Novel with the amount of arguing going on here fr. Just don't be a dick when you play silicon, I know that's a really high bar for tg players but cmon

I'm a nuclear borg operative that wants to blow up nanotrasen and hates fucking NT employes

MY ROLE is being a dick I'm an antagonist I'm supposed to be antagonistical not a nice helpful cinnamon bun if I was playing a medibot or a leighlest where I was trying to portray that character I would have acted differently but this is a roleplaying game I'm playing a character not myself

[conrad]

They did not tell me to state ALL my laws

If you need an example of acting in bad faith, this is it, really.

[Hoolny]

They did not tell me to state ALL my laws

If you need an example of acting in bad faith, this is it, really.

I'm an antag do you think the fucking heretic ascending as a flesh worm and killing everyone is playing in good faith?????

Then we would be banning every antag execceding any kind of dickish behavior

and I have being randomly bullied by enough assitants to know admins dont ever enforce that

[Hoolny]

They did not tell me to state ALL my laws

If you need an example of acting in bad faith, this is it, really.

I'm an antag do you think the fucking heretic ascending as a flesh worm and killing everyone is playing in good faith?????

Then we would be banning every antag execceding any kind of dickish behavior

and I have being randomly bullied by enough assitants to know admins dont ever enforce that

[mstachife]

The thing is that there is NO policy about this nowhere does it say when someone asks your laws that you need to state ALL of them thats a simple assumption you are making.

My point is that I and any future borgs that do this are perfectly following their laws by doing exactly what I did

You're making the assumption that they do not mean all of the laws.

Also policy doesn't explicitly state that you have to actually follow any of your laws. It's hoped for that you can work out that bit for yourself.

[Hoolny]

They did not tell me to state ALL my laws

If you need an example of acting in bad faith, this is it, really.

My borg even had more than enough reason to act this way I had just come into the station then alec petrov asked me to take a selfie the fucking flash of the selfie TOOK DOWN MY DISGUISE which lead into most of sec and the fucking RD to instantly killing me leading me to want revenge which I somehow accomplished by killing the RD and the Captain together somehow and throwing their body into the recycler. I didn't even just go out there and murderbone I specifically target those who had wronged me for me to then get killed by the QM that I was trying to talk too

[Hoolny]

The thing is that there is NO policy about this nowhere does it say when someone asks your laws that you need to state ALL of them thats a simple assumption you are making.

My point is that I and any future borgs that do this are perfectly following their laws by doing exactly what I did

You're making the assumption that they do not mean all of the laws.

Also policy doesn't explicitly state that you have to actually follow any of your laws. It's hoped for that you can work out that bit for yourself.

Okay then which one should we go by?

your opinion or mine?

or maybe we should wait for the policy to be ratified before we start banning people for things NOT STATED IN THE RULES

[conrad]

I don't understand where you're coming from anymore. "State laws" isn't "state some laws" or "state half your laws". It's "state laws". You're supposed to state all of them. That's it.

Why are we talking about heretics now? wtf

[Vekter]

How hard is it to just say "I fucked up, I won't do it again?". Local human completely incapable of taking the L.

And what let myself get perma banned of silicon when I believe I was playing within the rules?

No, you appeal it and go "I made a mistake, I apologize, this is what happened, I will be more careful in the future". You'd be shocked how many times we'll just go "okay, sure, don't fuck up again" and let you off with a warning, or at least reduce the ban when that happens.

[Hoolny]

Okay no fuck this look at silicon policy

"If a law is vague enough that it can have multiple reasonable interpretations, it is considered ambiguous.
You must choose and stick to an interpretation of the ambiguous law as soon as you have cause to.
You may exploit any loopholes in your laws."

This policy is only for laws not following orders do to a law there is no policy for that as we have discussed.

But under assumption that this also applies to orders given since in a way those also become extra laws added to your system.

I am fully allowed to take the ambiguity of their command/new law added

and twisted to my representation and make exploits and loopholes in this law

THIS IS BASIC SILICON BEHAVIOR that is intended by how the game works you are saying I should be punishing for playing borg as it is meant to just because somebody dosent like the fact that it didnt benefit them

[mstachife]

Okay then which one should we go by?

your opinion or mine?

or maybe we should wait for the policy to be ratified before we start banning people for things NOT STATED IN THE RULES

I'd suggest you go by mine and pretty much everyone else's since you managed to find yourself here and I didn't.

[Hoolny]

I don't understand where you're coming from anymore. "State laws" isn't "state some laws" or "state half your laws". It's "state laws". You're supposed to state all of them. That's it.

Why are we talking about heretics now? wtf

Im coming from the fact that as a silicon I can exploit any loopholes in laws

[Hoolny]

Okay then which one should we go by?

your opinion or mine?

or maybe we should wait for the policy to be ratified before we start banning people for things NOT STATED IN THE RULES

I'd suggest you go by mine and pretty much everyone else's since you managed to find yourself here and I didn't.

doing the same thing everyone does without any form of chaos makes rounds stale

[GPeckman]

My laws do not say I have to tell you the truth my laws said I had to protect you from dying and follow your orders

A question isn't an order

Both of those things are irrelevant to my own statement. You claimed that you didn't state them because you didn't feel like you had to. Even so, its provably false that you just didn't care enough to state them. You outright lied about the laws when asked. Even if it isn't against it is factually true that you deliberately mislead me about your laws.

How hard is it to just say "I fucked up, I won't do it again?". Local human completely incapable of taking the L.

My theory is that people who can admit fault are generally not the kind of people to get banned in the first place.

[TheRex9001]

This is why you don't post in your own peanut. This shit is fucking incoherent at this point, like what are you trying to say? Can you sum it up in ONE paragraph that is not over 150 words.

[mstachife]

doing the same thing everyone does without any form of chaos makes rounds stale

[BlueMemesauce]

Hoolny people just get really pissed when you violate certain hidden rules for silicions nowhere to be seen in policy. Even the admins.

When someone says "AI laws" you are supposed to magically know that what they actually mean is "AI, I order you to state all of your laws." and when someone says "AI open" you have to know that they mean "AI I order you to open the door directly in front of me, and if it is a small decontamination room/airlock then open both doors." You're not allowed to just say a random law or open a random door even though that's following everything that was explicitly said. We allow mediborgs to use medicine chems which harm organs despite all forms of harm being against law 1 and all silicon policy points to it not being allowed.

Silicons in this game are basically built upon unsaid rules and exceptions that you have to magically know or the players and admins will get mad at you.

[mstachife]

There isn't a dictionary attached to the policy section and I interpret the word "follow" to mean "do the opposite of", checkmate jannies.

[BlueMemesauce]

I don't understand where you're coming from anymore. "State laws" isn't "state some laws" or "state half your laws". It's "state laws". You're supposed to state all of them. That's it.

I don't understand where you're coming from anymore. "State laws" isn't "state all laws" or "state every laws". It's "state laws". You're supposed to state two or more of them. That's it.

[Hoolny]

This is why you don't post in your own peanut. This shit is fucking incoherent at this point, like what are you trying to say? Can you sum it up in ONE paragraph that is not over 150 words.

FIne my last post here:

"If a law is vague enough that it can have multiple reasonable interpretations, it is considered ambiguous.
You must choose and stick to an interpretation of the ambiguous law as soon as you have cause to.
You may exploit any loopholes in your laws."

I was given a vague directive to do I used a loophole to benefit my own goals as a syndicate agent which is allowed per silicon policy.

The entire source to condemn me was taken out of discord and at no point was I contacted, I was unable to represent my actions at the time and I got carried away with an argument under a space I hold with no credibility (discord), yet my words where taken full-hearted and against me in a serious place.

[Vekter]

This thread is so funny. It's like accidentally stealing something from a store and trying to argue to the judge that actually you stealing it was 100% legal because of some weird ass logic you made up.

[Hoolny]

This thread is so funny. It's like accidentally stealing something from a store and trying to argue to the judge that actually you stealing it was 100% legal because of some weird ass logic you made up.

Damn you vekter you did not let me make that my last post.

I was not arguing against the admin I was arguing with someone in discord.

Yet it was taken as if I was saying stuff during an ahelp that is not a fair thing to do.

[conrad]

I don't understand where you're coming from anymore. "State laws" isn't "state some laws" or "state half your laws". It's "state laws". You're supposed to state all of them. That's it.

I don't understand where you're coming from anymore. "State laws" isn't "state all laws" or "state every laws". It's "state laws". You're supposed to state two or more of them. That's it.

Do you want a bloated silicon policy that gets changed every two years? 'cos that's how you get a silicon policy that gets bloated every two years.

Use common sense.

When a silicon interprets orders in good faith, the person that gave the order is responsible for the outcome.
Intentionally misinterpreting orders is allowed, but the silicon is responsible if this approach leads to them breaking the rules.

Neither the headmin ruling nor Rule 4 says "Hey you're an antag act in bad faith whenever you're told to act in good faith".

You still need to follow your orders in good faith, even as antag borg, else it is a rule break.

THEN you can do whatever you want.

[BlueMemesauce]

What are you on about conrad? The point of that rule is an exception saying orders followed in good faith can't get you banned, don't know how you're interpreting that as you always have to follow orders in good faith. It literally says they can misinterpret orders right there.

When a silicon interprets orders in good faith, the person that gave the order is responsible for the outcome.
Intentionally misinterpreting orders is allowed, but the silicon is responsible if this approach leads to them breaking the rules.

[TypicalRig]

This thread is so funny. It's like accidentally stealing something from a store and trying to argue to the judge that actually you stealing it was 100% legal because of some weird ass logic you made up.

"Okay, but if they didn't want me to steal the items why did they leave them out in the open on display?" - Seth probably.

[GPeckman]

I don't understand where you're coming from anymore. "State laws" isn't "state all laws" or "state every laws". It's "state laws". You're supposed to state two or more of them. That's it.

Technically, Hoolny only stated one law, not two or more. So by this interpretation they still broke the rules.

FIne my last post here:

"If a law is vague enough that it can have multiple reasonable interpretations, it is considered ambiguous.
You must choose and stick to an interpretation of the ambiguous law as soon as you have cause to.
You may exploit any loopholes in your laws."

I was given a vague directive to do I used a loophole to benefit my own goals as a syndicate agent which is allowed per silicon policy.

The entire source to condemn me was taken out of discord and at no point was I contacted, I was unable to represent my actions at the time and I got carried away with an argument under a space I hold with no credibility (discord), yet my words where taken full-hearted and against me in a serious place.

"If a law is vague enough that it can have multiple reasonable interpretations, it is considered ambiguous."

The key question, as I see, is whether your interpretation of the laws was reasonable. This is why I brought up the example of the emag laws. Would it be acceptable for an emagged borg to lie about their laws, and then run away before any orders could be given to go kill people? To me, the answer seems to be an obvious no. So if that is not a reasonable interpretation of the emag laws, then it isn't a reasonable interpretation for the laws you had (given that the two lawsets were functionally identical).

And since you're probably going to bring the former-antagonist headmin rulings, let me preempt you. According to Timberpoes, one of the people who wrote current silicon policy, being a former-antag doesn't let you break your silicon laws. Nor does it give you more leeway in how you interpret your laws. Being a former-antag only applies if none of your laws apply, and that clearly isn't the case in this situation.

[BlueMemesauce]

This thread is so funny. It's like accidentally stealing something from a store and trying to argue to the judge that actually you stealing it was 100% legal because of some weird ass logic you made up.

It's like someone put up a rules sign in the store saying intentionally stealing is allowed but then there was actually a secret rulebook in the back saying stealing is not allowed.

[conrad]

What are you on about conrad? The point of that rule is an exception saying orders followed in good faith can't get you banned, don't know how you're interpreting that as you always have to follow orders in good faith. It literally says they can misinterpret orders right there.

When a silicon interprets orders in good faith, the person that gave the order is responsible for the outcome.
Intentionally misinterpreting orders is allowed, but the silicon is responsible if this approach leads to them breaking the rules.

This follows the same considerations as "OK now space this room", and the borg runs away, because they didn't explicitly say "I consent to the harm caused by spacing this room, now space this room". It is safely implied that the harm is willing, it is common sense, and its a rule break if the borg decides to not do it. The headmin ruling for antag borgs doesn't come into it.

It's misinterpreting the order and ultimately not following it. The second part of the text you made huge and is choosing to ignore.

A better example is "Deal with that guy" and a borg dragging a deck of cards and saying "I was ordered to play poker with you". The order is open ended, and allows for multiple interpretations. Half-assing an order isn't misinterpreting it. It's not following the order. And that is a rule break.

[RedBaronFlyer]

Silicons and their consequences have been a disaster for the spaceman race.

[GPeckman]

It's like someone put up a rules sign in the store saying intentionally stealing is allowed but then there was actually a secret rulebook in the back saying stealing is not allowed.

Silicon policy says that reasonable interpretations of your laws are allowed. If your interpretation leads to stupid or absurd results (see my emagged hypothetical) then it is not a reasonable interpretation.

And again, even by your own extreme standard, Hoolny still broke the rules by only stating one singular law when I ordered them to state laws, plural.

[BlueMemesauce]

Conrad it literally says nothing about half-assing, you're doing the secret silicon rules thing again. I literally don't even understand what you mean by this, what determines if an order is half-assed or not? From my perspective bringing a deck of cards is pretty half-assed since borgs can't even deal cards.

[BlueMemesauce]

It's like someone put up a rules sign in the store saying intentionally stealing is allowed but then there was actually a secret rulebook in the back saying stealing is not allowed.

Silicon policy says that reasonable interpretations of your laws are allowed. If your interpretation leads to stupid or absurd results (see my emagged hypothetical) then it is not a reasonable interpretation.

And again, even by your own extreme standard, Hoolny still broke the rules by only stating one singular law when I ordered them to state laws, plural.

Laws != orders. These are separate rules.

edit: ok you are technically correct about the singular law thing so i guess they should still be banned

[Hoolny]

It's like someone put up a rules sign in the store saying intentionally stealing is allowed but then there was actually a secret rulebook in the back saying stealing is not allowed.

Silicon policy says that reasonable interpretations of your laws are allowed. If your interpretation leads to stupid or absurd results (see my emagged hypothetical) then it is not a reasonable interpretation.

And again, even by your own extreme standard, Hoolny still broke the rules by only stating one singular law when I ordered them to state laws, plural.

Mmmm I hadn't thought of the fact it was plural.... woops

[Boot]

Perma bans aren't perma, it's just an extended break. Take the L, wait a few months, appeal it with good behavior.

Pigs are more equal.

[NoxVS]

The thing is that there is NO policy about this nowhere does it say when someone asks your laws that you need to state ALL of them thats a simple assumption you are making.

You're why silicon policy had to be a massive wall of text.