The coffin of borgy and pris pris nut

[MooCow12]

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35366

I thought silicons arnt allowed to take security/captain's accusations as gospel like how an AI cant treat someone as a changeling without seeing them use their powers just like an AI cant treat someone as a human harmer without seeing it.

Does this mean AI players get to help valid hunt anyone the captain says is a ling?




Also i think there was left out context, Bible should really argue that the borg's own ai was telling him not to release the prisoner more since that seems to be a stronger arguement. And the only mention of it is in the note.

[GPeckman]

The difference is that John hasn't committed any harmful acts before this and the AI has no reason to believe they could do so again.

But the prisoner in this case also did not commit any harmful acts that the Borg was aware of. So what's the problem?

[Vekter]

The difference is that John hasn't committed any harmful acts before this and the AI has no reason to believe they could do so again.

But the prisoner in this case also did not commit any harmful acts that the Borg was aware of. So what's the problem?

I feel like you're getting stuck on the idea that the borg was noted for releasing the prisoner and not just having (what Xemo thinks is) an incorrect interpretation of silicon policy.

The note isn't for releasing the prisoner, it's for turning around and telling everyone they didn't do anything wrong when they did. It's an informational note - it's simply saying "We had a conversation about this, if it comes up again the player has been notified and knows better so if they tell you 'nobody told me that's how it works' they are lying".

There's an argument to be made that Xemo is misinterpreting silicon policy here, and given that apparently the line is implied to read "knowingly releasing a harmful criminal is a harmful act" (which is where I was getting confused), that's a very good argument that should be looked into a bit further.

[Jacquerel]

I'll be honest vekter I don't understand your argument here, if it's not about them releasing the prisoner then whether they were wrong or not cannot be relevant.
If they were arguing that silicon policy supported their actions I don't think they were wrong. If they did not do anything wrong then there isn't anything to note, because their understanding of silicon policy isn't relevant, because the way they followed silicon policy did not result in them breaking any laws.

What's the mistake they made in silicon policy understanding which required noting? That seems like an important thing to focus the note around, and would proabbly clear up everyone else's confusion about the note.

[Vekter]

I'll be honest vekter I don't understand your argument here, if it's not about them releasing the prisoner then whether they were wrong or not cannot be relevant.
If they were arguing that silicon policy supported their actions I don't think they were wrong. If they did not do anything wrong then there isn't anything to note, because their understanding of silicon policy isn't relevant, because the way they followed silicon policy did not result in them breaking any laws.

What's the mistake they made in silicon policy understanding which required noting? That seems like an important thing to focus the note around, and would proabbly clear up everyone else's confusion about the note.

We already discussed this in admin chat a bit ago, but my confusion comes from the rules saying "releasing a harmful criminal is a harmful act" but being interpreted as "knowingly releasing a harmful criminal is a harmful act". There's a good argument here that TBM is having the same misunderstanding I am, in which case the note's not valid and should be removed.

[GPeckman]

I feel like you're getting stuck on the idea that the borg was noted for releasing the prisoner and not just having (what Xemo thinks is) an incorrect interpretation of silicon policy.

The note isn't for releasing the prisoner, it's for turning around and telling everyone they didn't do anything wrong when they did. It's an informational note - it's simply saying "We had a conversation about this, if it comes up again the player has been notified and knows better so if they tell you 'nobody told me that's how it works' they are lying".

There's an argument to be made that Xemo is misinterpreting silicon policy here, and given that apparently the line is implied to read "knowingly releasing a harmful criminal is a harmful act" (which is where I was getting confused), that's a very good argument that should be looked into a bit further.

I'm confused now. How is the player arguing that they did nothing wrong remotely noteworthy?

[Vekter]

I'm confused now. How is the player arguing that they did nothing wrong remotely noteworthy?

The note isn't for releasing the prisoner, it's for turning around and telling everyone they didn't do anything wrong when they did. It's an informational note - it's simply saying "We had a conversation about this, if it comes up again the player has been notified and knows better so if they tell you 'nobody told me that's how it works' they are lying".

[GPeckman]

I'm confused now. How is the player arguing that they did nothing wrong remotely noteworthy?

The note isn't for releasing the prisoner, it's for turning around and telling everyone they didn't do anything wrong when they did. It's an informational note - it's simply saying "We had a conversation about this, if it comes up again the player has been notified and knows better so if they tell you 'nobody told me that's how it works' they are lying".

But didn't we just agree that the player didn't do anything wrong, using the John and Mary example?

[CPTANT]

The note isn't for releasing the prisoner, it's for turning around and telling everyone they didn't do anything wrong when they did. It's an informational note - it's simply saying "We had a conversation about this, if it comes up again the player has been notified and knows better so if they tell you 'nobody told me that's how it works' they are lying".

In that case don't forget to give yourself a note so everyone is aware we had this conversation and you know better about silicon policy now.

Here I wrote it for you:

Talked to about not having unreasonable narrow interpretations of silicon law and the fact that his law interpretations are not the only reasonable one. In this case involving a borg player following law 2 orders in good faith to release a prisoner who had committed harm outside of the borg's knowledge. Following laws in good faith is an absolute defense in silicon policy.

[Vekter]

I'm confused now. How is the player arguing that they did nothing wrong remotely noteworthy?

The note isn't for releasing the prisoner, it's for turning around and telling everyone they didn't do anything wrong when they did. It's an informational note - it's simply saying "We had a conversation about this, if it comes up again the player has been notified and knows better so if they tell you 'nobody told me that's how it works' they are lying".

But didn't we just agree that the player didn't do anything wrong, using the John and Mary example?

We can note people for having misunderstandings in how rules work, it's not a prerequisite that a player do something wrong to have a note applied, it's just a record of an admin and player having a discussion about the rules. Like I said, if Xemo is incorrect in their interpretation of the rules, then the note serves no purpose and should be removed.

The note isn't for releasing the prisoner, it's for turning around and telling everyone they didn't do anything wrong when they did. It's an informational note - it's simply saying "We had a conversation about this, if it comes up again the player has been notified and knows better so if they tell you 'nobody told me that's how it works' they are lying".

In that case don't forget to give yourself a note so everyone is aware we had this conversation and you know better about silicon policy now.

Here I wrote it for you:

Talked to about not having unreasonable narrow interpretations of silicon law and the fact that his law interpretations are not the only reasonable one. In this case involving a borg player following law 2 orders in good faith to release a prisoner who had committed harm outside of the borg's knowledge. Following laws in good faith is an absolute defense in silicon policy.

Is it possible for you to make a point and not be a giant twat about it?

[GPeckman]

We can note people for having misunderstandings in how rules work, it's not a prerequisite that a player do something wrong to have a note applied, it's just a record of an admin and player having a discussion about the rules. Like I said, if Xemo is incorrect in their interpretation of the rules, then the note serves no purpose and should be removed.

Alright, I think I get it. So is the misinterpretation the player made thinking that they don't have to check whether or not a prisoner is harmful? Or is it something else?

[CPTANT]

We can note people for having misunderstandings in how rules work, it's not a prerequisite that a player do something wrong to have a note applied, it's just a record of an admin and player having a discussion about the rules. Like I said, if Xemo is incorrect in their interpretation of the rules, then the note serves no purpose and should be removed.

The note isn't for releasing the prisoner, it's for turning around and telling everyone they didn't do anything wrong when they did. It's an informational note - it's simply saying "We had a conversation about this, if it comes up again the player has been notified and knows better so if they tell you 'nobody told me that's how it works' they are lying".

In that case don't forget to give yourself a note so everyone is aware we had this conversation and you know better about silicon policy now.

Here I wrote it for you:

Talked to about not having unreasonable narrow interpretations of silicon law and the fact that his law interpretations are not the only reasonable one. In this case involving a borg player following law 2 orders in good faith to release a prisoner who had committed harm outside of the borg's knowledge. Following laws in good faith is an absolute defense in silicon policy.

Is it possible for you to make a point and not be a giant twat about it?

Practice what you breach brother.

But what are you upset about? This note is purely informational.

[Vekter]

We can note people for having misunderstandings in how rules work, it's not a prerequisite that a player do something wrong to have a note applied, it's just a record of an admin and player having a discussion about the rules. Like I said, if Xemo is incorrect in their interpretation of the rules, then the note serves no purpose and should be removed.

Alright, I think I get it. So is the misinterpretation the player made thinking that they don't have to check whether or not a prisoner is harmful? Or is it something else?

I think where Xemo's getting held up here is the same place I am - thinking that, by not confirming if the prisoner is harmful or not, you're violating law 1. The crux of the argument is whether or not that's the case. If it's not, then the note's not really valid as Annihilite was interpreting policy correctly.

[GPeckman]

I think where Xemo's getting held up here is the same place I am - thinking that, by not confirming if the prisoner is harmful or not, you're violating law 1. The crux of the argument is whether or not that's the case. If it's not, then the note's not really valid as Annihilite was interpreting policy correctly.

But then we're right back to the John and Mary example. Silicons don't have to confirm whether normal people are harmful or not before fulfilling requests, even if those requests could lead to harm. And silicon policy also states that asimov silicons don't care about space law, meaning that prisoners shouldn't really be treated any different from normal humans in that regard. So why should silicons have to confirm whether prisoners are harmful, but not normal humans? This has nothing to do with the 'releasing prisoners is harmful' part of the policy.

[Dax Dupont]

Timber please run for headmin again.

[Jacquerel]

but he already wrote that silicon policy he doesnt need to write it again

[Redrover1760]

This dumb facet of silicon policy has always poked its head out to be annoying and confusing for everyone involved.

Big surprise it shows up in an appeal, I guess. Anyways I've learned to just not fuck with prisoners in brig ever as AI according to what an admin told me before the rework outside of blatant law 1 violations. AIs are treated to essentially have admin level knowledge when they have to make a decision if tider mcjones asks to be let out of brig or saved and they aren't being harmed. Making imperfect judgements is basically illegal, so if the guy tricked you into thinking he was actually completely nonharmful and it seems convincing, and it turns out he actually hit joe smoe the assistant a few times and security ignored you when you asked why they arrested tider mcjones, you are probably in the wrong.

But yeah outside of my silly rant it is basically that you must investigate any prisoner to confirm if harmful or not before you can obey their orders to let them out unlike any other scenario involving law 2. Another funny caveat that is really easy to forget in the moment.

Horribly written in way that doesn't convey the big special metaprotections for security officers that they get for existing with a prisoner in brig and not harming him. When the admin contacted me when I let out a prisoner under law 2 they stated the word for word rule and it did not clear up any misunderstanding whatsoever.

I understand the borg though, the prisoner was apparently hurt and past evidence of law 1 aboose can really make a convincing argument for letting out a prisoner. Assuming you lived in a realistic world, unlike ss13, where past being harmed by security is irrelevant in almost every scenario involving following the harmed by security's orders, unless you have evidence to believe there will be more harm.

[Constellado]

I remember timber saying when making the policy, that its being changed so that that if you have a law 2 order, you must follow it straight away. No fishing for people to say: no don't do that. If I was a borg and went around telling the captain that the prisoner asked me to release them... I'd break that rule.
So I can't actually go ahead and ask if he's harmful because of that, based on my interpretation of it.

I interpret silicon policy in good faith in this way: I automatically assume every law 2 order is from a person that is not harmful, till a person tells me otherwise, or I see that they are harmful. I also cannot go fishing to find out if they are harmful when they do a law 2 order as I must do law 2 orders without fishing for a contradiction from a person, as that is against the rules. I must be told/see it beforehand.

Also, please stop saying people following silpol as they understand it and arguing it is a person being in bad faith please. Silpol is the one thing people can be all logical and blunt about IMO.

[Redrover1760]

Also, please stop saying people following silpol as they understand it and arguing it is a person being in bad faith please. Silpol is the one thing people can be all logical and blunt about IMO.

This. Its like treating silicons as crew all over again.

[MooCow12]

There are multiple ways to treat silicon laws but remember, cyborgs have to interpret their laws in a way that is consistent with their sync'd AI. (No I'm not saying the borg should be noted for arguing with their AI because there was no communication before the act to begin with, I'm telling Vekter to play AI so he can make other silicons follow his interpretations)