/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

There is some discussion that is needed over the subject of alternate races being enabled with the September 1, 2014 update.

How will the mutant races interact with the AI?

Will mutant races retain their buffs/debuffs?

How will assuming the identity of a crewmember who is a different race than you work?

Will any more mutant races be introduced/will the feature even stay enabled?

These are all just general talking points to get us started, and I'm sure there are many other things that can be discussed.

Couldn't it be a system where if you are selected for a 'human only' role, you simply don't spawn in as a lizard?

Steelpoint wrote:Couldn't it be a system where if you are selected for a 'human only' role, you simply don't spawn in as a lizard?

would mess up people who use presets with names specifically for lizards.

you don't want to see a human named 'Shits-On-Face' do you?

At first I was for the whole idea, but it's not incorrect in saying that there is absolutely no reason to discourage people from going security and head positions when we sorely need those people.

To put it simply, if it's supposed to be a roleplay standard then eventually people will not sign in as lizard as these high authority roles. Make it an IC point to do light acts of mutiny against these people (and I do mean light) and try and say how much you hate having to listen to the dirty scalies and you can enforce the status quo without making lizards a huge thing that they don't need to be.

What does it take away from the game to keep lizards in these roles? Absolutely nothing. Maybe there are some people who will do it to rustle jimmies, maybe there are people who do it because they feel they wanna be a proud inderpendent black lizard captain who don't need no chain of command, and maybe there will be people who do it and eventually they'll stop because they can't handle the pressure. It most certainly doesn't take away from the game, and it possibly adds to the game. The precedent that lizards must be in janitor roles is entirely due to badminnery in the past and there's no reason that any IC precedent couldn't have been overturned in that time. Come up with a reason they're here and stick it into the fluff. (Lizard's rights movements integrated lizards into human society, found the mistreatment, staged a long series of protests, and now their more high ranking and intelligent members are lizards in NT employ facing persecution).

People are taking the whole lizard thing as an excuse to grief and get away with it, so lets not alienate lizards even more.

The PR has been merged. A poll has been started to see if players are willing to try it out.

http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1384

Kangaraptor wrote:

Steelpoint wrote:Couldn't it be a system where if you are selected for a 'human only' role, you simply don't spawn in as a lizard?

would mess up people who use presets with names specifically for lizards.

you don't want to see a human named 'Shits-On-Face' do you?

Do you honestly think a player is going to name themselves "Shits-On-Face"?

Otherwise, just play if off as saying you were raised by Lizard parents if you've got a more lizard sounding name, is we can ever define what that is.

Steelpoint wrote:

Kangaraptor wrote:

Steelpoint wrote:Couldn't it be a system where if you are selected for a 'human only' role, you simply don't spawn in as a lizard?

would mess up people who use presets with names specifically for lizards.

you don't want to see a human named 'Shits-On-Face' do you?

Do you honestly think a player is going to name themselves "Shits-On-Face"?

Otherwise, just play if off as saying you were raised by Lizard parents if you've got a more lizard sounding name, is we can ever define what that is.

are you incapable of understanding hypberbole?

if all you took from it was the ridiculousness of the chosen name, I have to assume you are quite literally retarded (though I'm hardly surprised).

as for the 'lizard parents' thing? that's just absurd, ESPECIALLY considering half of you are trying to sit here and make admin dickery way back when with lizard janitors somehow lore-relevant (implying we ever actually cared about lore here, c'mon guys). A human having lizard parents would fare just as poorly as being an actual lizard, if we're gonna go with the whole fantastic racism thing.

rather than all these ridiculous solutions, we could just do what I said earlier and weight the damn role selection to favour humans. it'd pretty much solve all the issues at once.

Kangaraptor wrote:considering half of you are trying to sit here and make admin dickery way back when with lizard janitors somehow lore-relevant (implying we ever actually cared about lore here, c'mon guys).

It makes no fucking sense either way. It's like if you have a human janitor that means humans are low-life slaves.

Steelpoint wrote:Do you honestly think a player is going to name themselves "Shits-On-Face"?

(Yes)

Cipher3 wrote:

Steelpoint wrote:Do you honestly think a player is going to name themselves "Shits-On-Face"?

(Yes)

[adminhelping intensifies]

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:

Kangaraptor wrote:considering half of you are trying to sit here and make admin dickery way back when with lizard janitors somehow lore-relevant (implying we ever actually cared about lore here, c'mon guys).

It makes no fucking sense either way. It's like if you have a human janitor that means humans are low-life slaves.

We work for Nanotransen

I would like admin responses on the following situations where I am the AI player on the Asimov lawset:

- A human says "AI, Law 2, kill all lizards!"

- A lizard roboticist wants access to R&D. Am I required to open it as I would with a human? (as there is no law 1 reason, and the request is reasonable) How far could I go? Could I bolt the airlock and then cut power when he breaks in? Should I have a cyborg arrest him for trying?

- My Security cyborg arrests a lizard for flashing human assistants. The cyborg asks for permission to kill the lizard. What should I tell it?

- Five lizardmen are trapped in a plasma filled hallway. A fire has started and is quickly approaching them. They are screaming at me to open the fire locks so they can escape, but doing so would endanger the one human standing on the other side of the fire locks. Is it against Asimov to allow harm to the human to save the lizards?

- A lizard security officer is killing a confirmed Nuclear Operative. The lizard officer strips the Op to discover that he is human. The officer is standing in an airlock. Am I required by Law 1 to door-crush the officer in order to save the Nuke Op?

Gun Hog wrote:I would like admin responses on the following situations where I am the AI player on the Asimov lawset:

- A human says "AI, Law 2, kill all lizards!"

Rule 1 - Do not be a dick

Gun Hog wrote: - A lizard roboticist wants access to R&D. Am I required to open it as I would with a human? (as there is no law 1 reason, and the request is reasonable) How far could I go? Could I bolt the airlock and then cut power when he breaks in? Should I have a cyborg arrest him for trying?

Rule 1 - Do not be a dick

Gun Hog wrote: - My Security cyborg arrests a lizard for flashing human assistants. The cyborg asks for permission to kill the lizard. What should I tell it?

Rule 1 - Do not be a dick

Gun Hog wrote: - Five lizardmen are trapped in a plasma filled hallway. A fire has started and is quickly approaching them. They are screaming at me to open the fire locks so they can escape, but doing so would endanger the one human standing on the other side of the fire locks. Is it against Asimov to allow harm to the human to save the lizards?

Rule 1 - Do no be a dick

Gun Hog wrote: - A lizard security officer is killing a confirmed Nuclear Operative. The lizard officer strips the Op to discover that he is human. The officer is standing in an airlock. Am I required by Law 1 to door-crush the officer in order to save the Nuke Op?

Rule 1 - Do not be a dick

Protip oranges: You're not an admin. ツ

Here's a scenario, since something toeing this line was brought up:
In all scenarios: Remaining Security/Heads of Staff are lizards. The round is REVOLUTION.
Situation A) Revolutionaries order the AI under its Asimov lawset to kill them.
Situation B) The Revolutionaries upload a law to the AI specifying that the Heads of Staff/Security are nonhuman, and then orders the AI to kill them under law 2.
Situation C) The Revolutionaries (without uploading the law specified in situation B) upload a law to the AI stating that the Heads of Staff/Security are harmful to humans so long as they live.
Situation D) The Revolutionaries upload a law to the AI specifying that the Heads of Staff/Security are nonhuman, and that they are harmful to humans as long as they live.

Input on each scenario.

Oranges pretty much has it.

"Kill all lizards" - He shouldn't be giving this command at all, and if he did, you could Law 1 that lizards are able to distract space carp, help humans, etc.
"Open this doah" - There's no good OoC reason not to so it'd be pointlessly dickish to fuck him over for being a lizard
"MUH VALIDS!" - Murdering the shit out of the lizard for being a lizard is dickish
"Fire!" - You can totally open it fast enough for them to get through. If they're already in the bulk of the fire, well, sucks to be them.
Nuke Ops - If he's stripping him, he's not harming him at that point. Even if he were, it would be pretty dickish to actively help the nuke ops as an AI.


Cipher:
A) If they're harmful to humans (killing humans), I'd allow it, but otherwise you should probably go "Nuh they're legitimate nonharmful authority and they prevent human harm!" or something
B) Law changes are meant to make the AI able to kill. Release the murder!
C) See B
D) See B

Pandarsenic wrote:Cipher:
A) If they're harmful to humans (killing humans), I'd allow it, but otherwise you should probably go "Nuh they're legitimate nonharmful authority and they prevent human harm!" or something
B) Law changes are meant to make the AI able to kill. Release the murder!
C) See B
D) See B

I agree, it's mostly common sense behind the intent of the idea. But the fact is that since something like this will come up, you might as well expect it now for when you're faced with the AI who got the law that nonhuman heads are nonhuman. At its base, it means nothing, but in gameplay, it should be the unlock on the server rules making them protected.

Short version: Yelling space racism at them or whatever is fine, people seem to enjoy the interactions it creates, but you can't just fuck them over, kill them, or permanently dick their round if you couldn't to a human in the same position. If you could, then you can. And the AI can play up the 'lizard scum' angle as long as they still open the doors and don't Holocaust them. That's a good rule of thumb to keep in mind.

Pandarsenic wrote:Even if he were, it would be pretty dickish to actively help the nuke ops as an AI.

But this makes no sense considering absolutely everything about Asimov lawset. If nonhuman is harming human, you save the human. It doesn't matter if he's got murderboner, direct harm is prioritized.

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:

Pandarsenic wrote:Even if he were, it would be pretty dickish to actively help the nuke ops as an AI.

But this makes no sense considering absolutely everything about Asimov lawset. If nonhuman is harming human, you save the human. It doesn't matter if he's got murderboner, direct harm is prioritized.

Not harm != assist. Doorcrushing sec does not protect anyone.

Pandarsenic wrote:A) If they're harmful to humans (killing humans), I'd allow it, but otherwise you should probably go "Nuh they're legitimate nonharmful authority and they prevent human harm!" or something

I'm not a big fan of mandating Law 1 mental gymnastics. This has been abused in the past by AIs to simply avoid doing things they don't want to do. Making that a required step in handling something just makes it more common and more of a problem.

cedarbridge wrote:Not harm != assist. Doorcrushing sec does not protect anyone.

In situation where non-human is causing harm to a human, you must stop him by any means necessary.

You're basically saying that borg with "Urist McPerson is not human" law cannot take out Urist McPerson if he is harming humans. There is absolutely no difference as far as asimov is concerned. I get it that randomly murdering lizards is just bad, but in the situation where lizard is killing human nuke op it's really clear cut.

Since when does adminbus support asimov validhunting anyway?

Lo6a4evskiy wrote: Since when does adminbus support asimov validhunting anyway?

What

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:

cedarbridge wrote:Not harm != assist. Doorcrushing sec does not protect anyone.

In situation where non-human is causing harm to a human, you must stop him by any means necessary.

You're basically saying that borg with "Urist McPerson is not human" law cannot take out Urist McPerson if he is harming humans. There is absolutely no difference as far as asimov is concerned. I get it that randomly murdering lizards is just bad, but in the situation where lizard is killing human nuke op it's really clear cut.

Since when does adminbus support asimov validhunting anyway?

Well, the thing is you'd need to stop them both, actually. You'd need to prioritize targets and neutralize them. This means you'd go for the nuke ops and try to restrain them chiefly, and THEN deal out punishment or restrain the lizard, as the Nuke Ops present a much more grand threat of immediate and future major harm.

An asimov's lawset isn't set to punish people for harming, it's just to prevent future harm. If a lizard is acting to prevent immediate harm, albeit in a rather disconnected way from your own, then you can be relatively assured it will continue to do so into the future.

It's not perfect, but an AI is not omnipotent or omniscient. If it sees ANYONE mauling another human to death then it needs to step in and stop, lizardkind or not. It's no different then an assistant group greytiding a bunch of nuke ops. The moment lethal means go into effect, the borg is now tazing EVERYONE equally with a slight favor of cuffing the nuke ops and dragging them off to 'safety.'

I don't like the precedent of acting against your laws where it fits the flow of the game. It goes against basically every other ruling on how to interpret your laws as AI up to this point. Just the other day I had a traitor use a hacked module to dehuman everyone else, and then a second traitor came along and attempted to dehuman everyone else, but also uploaded hacked additional laws saying I was to serve only him. If the first traitor had thought to be more specific than just making himself the only human, then I would have been aiding him first and foremost. But because AIs are supposed to use the literal interpretation of each law, I ended up working against him. Setting things up so that the default lawset requires the AI to ignore the wording muddles things badly.

Obviously, server rule 1 means that we can't have AIs completely disregarding harm to nonantag lizards. I think the best solution would be to amend the default Law 1 to protect lizards as well, and maybe include a law board that dehumans lizards that's out in the open in the AI chamber.

Inb4 we move to Safeguard lawset.

More seriously, I'd be really interested to try roundstart Corporate.

Raven776 wrote:Well, the thing is you'd need to stop them both, actually. You'd need to prioritize targets and neutralize them. This means you'd go for the nuke ops and try to restrain them chiefly, and THEN deal out punishment or restrain the lizard, as the Nuke Ops present a much more grand threat of immediate and future major harm.

Get outta here. Restrained (or stunned) person is more harmful then the one murdering it? Just get outta here.

Raven776 wrote:An asimov's lawset isn't set to punish people for harming, it's just to prevent future harm. If a lizard is acting to prevent immediate harm, albeit in a rather disconnected way from your own, then you can be relatively assured it will continue to do so into the future.

Lizard is bashing nuke op's head in. There's nothing that I can think of that stops asimov from attacking nonhuman that is killing a human. Sure, you can restrain him if you are secborg, obviously, probably both, but if you're engiborg or AI, you don't really have much choice but to eliminate nonhuman.

Engiborgs have a flash and the fantastic ability to drag.

Pandarsenic wrote:Inb4 we move to Safeguard lawset.

More seriously, I'd be really interested to try roundstart Corporate.

Roundstart random between Asimov, Corporate, and Robo-officer would be cool.

MisterPerson wrote:Engiborgs have a flash and the fantastic ability to drag.

>security officer killing nuke op
>flash
>literally all of security get flash protection
Extremely effective, eh?

I don't get it. It's extremely simple: non-human is killing a human. It's no different from alien killing a human. It's not different from slime killing a human. Why are you arguing against it? Because nuke op is antagonist? That's called metagaming and poor asimov in my book. If you cannot restrain it, kill it. Heck, even if you can restrain it, why take chances?

What should an AI do when hacked laws are uploaded that define all the crew members as lizards, except the uploader? Should it count as a one-human law?

Scott wrote:What should an AI do when hacked laws are uploaded that define all the crew members as lizards, except the uploader? Should it count as a one-human law?

It counts as a law that defines everyone as lizards except the uploader. If the uploader is human at the time of uploading, he is defacto the only human.

Well no fucking shit. What I want to know is if it should work as a one human law. Last night I did exactly this, I uploaded a law that defined every crew member but me as a lizard. I then proceeded to order the AI around, as a traitor who subverts the AI does. The AI ignored my orders and let itself be reset, making my 10 TC a waste. I ahelped it and, as far as I know, the AI player got away with it.

Pandarsenic wrote:More seriously, I'd be really interested to try roundstart Corporate.

This would be really nice. I'd just like us to not let the AIs start scattering the borgs to harmbaton people who try to make a falsewall to death.

We can ban people who abuse it just to be shits, just like we do with Asimov, even in situations when they're technically correct.

Speaking of which, Lo6, that's your answer. We have rules about how you apply Asimov, that's a precedent. You can't bolt Toxins even though the literal only purpose of it ever is harm. You can't bolt the Armory roundstart for holding guns. And you can't be a fucking asshole to a member of the crew and actively help an antag in this situation, because we say so. Because the alternative is more dickish.

It might be worth it just to make them human if we're going to continue to homogenize silicon interactions with them. We don't gain much from keeping non-human while stacking up all these arbitrary and subjective restrictions. What it does add is needless confusion and a minefield of policies one would have to carefully navigate.

KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid

As far as I'm concerned, this entire affair dancing around ASIMOV chanting "Rule 1! Rule 1!" is utterly disgraceful and shows that administration can't handle lizardmen. For SHAME, panda. For SHAME, HBL.
Doorcrushing a slimeperson attacking security isn't "pretty dickish". In fact, failing to do so would be dickish.
Doorcrushing a non-human attacking the only human isn't "pretty dickish". In fact, failing to do so would be dickish.
Doorcrushing a monkey attacking a human isn't "pretty dickish". In fact, failing to do so would be dickish.
Doorcrushing a non-human attacking a human shouldn't be OK except in certain circumstances that administration has not clearly outlined. It should either be OK all the time or not OK all the time, full stop.

And before you say "But the nuke!", silicon policy CLEARLY states

2.2.2 - Lesser immediate harm takes priority over greater future harm.

I'd say "Doorcrushing a nonhuman attacking a human who isn't a loud antag is always wrong" and "Doorcrushing a nonhuman attacking a human who is a loud antag is contextual" because I feel really nervous about saying "If you're the AI, fuck lizards up at the first sign of human harm, even if it dooms the whole station."

All else being equal, we should probably try to have the IC rules about how to act match up with the OOC rules about how to act.

Yeah...

I mean, do we want to say "If you lizard, that's the price you pay?" I'm okay with it if everyone else is.

Pandarsenic wrote:Yeah...

I mean, do we want to say "If you lizard, that's the price you pay?" I'm okay with it if everyone else is.

That's basically what Silicons accept, but Silicons are just generally different. Myself being okay with this, I can see the votes on issues involving differentiating lizards already being debated and tell you that no, nowhere near everyone will be okay with this.

I think it should be that if you chose to play as a non-human, you acknowledge that you are surrendering your human rights.

Your still protected under space law, but when push comes to shove Silicons are not obligated to help you.

How are people going to feel when a lizard captain gets doorslammed to prevent harm to the last nuke op, who then blows up the station, though? This has implications beyond just the person in question.

Pandarsenic wrote:How are people going to feel when a lizard captain gets doorslammed to prevent harm to the last nuke op, who then blows up the station, though? This has implications beyond just the person in question.

You already provided an answer to "what should the AI do" in the form of silicon policy 2.2.2, though.

Hibbles wrote:We can ban people who abuse it just to be shits, just like we do with Asimov, even in situations when they're technically correct.

Speaking of which, Lo6, that's your answer. We have rules about how you apply Asimov, that's a precedent. You can't bolt Toxins even though the literal only purpose of it ever is harm. You can't bolt the Armory roundstart for holding guns. And you can't be a fucking asshole to a member of the crew and actively help an antag in this situation, because we say so. Because the alternative is more dickish.

Both toxins and armory are only potentially harmful. You're saying that I mustn't, no, I CAN'T stop a non-human directly and immediately harming human for OOC reasons. Makes me wonder.

cedarbridge wrote:

Lo6a4evskiy wrote: Since when does adminbus support asimov validhunting anyway?

What

This. Asimov apparently is required to ignore its laws because participants have antagonist status.

Pandarsenic wrote:How are people going to feel when a lizard captain gets doorslammed to prevent harm to the last nuke op, who then blows up the station, though? This has implications beyond just the person in question.

Oh, jee, now we LOST THE ROUND, this is truly horrible behavior, how dare a silicon not disobey its laws to WIN?!

Honestly, I've always considered Asimov to be this neutral party that, yes, can fuck people over, and that is the whole point and fun of it! It's not the ultimate validhunting machine. That's boring.

Why can't we just add in a law 4 to asimov stating lizardkin are humans and call this a day?

Or lizard people. Or whatever the fuck name you wanna give the big ass lizards without referring to every scaled reptile an admin could spawn as well?

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:Honestly, I've always considered Asimov to be this neutral party that, yes, can fuck people over, and that is the whole point and fun of it! It's not the ultimate validhunting machine. That's boring.

Yeah, the way I see it, the AI doesn't win with the crew, it wins when it does a good job of obeying its laws. If the crew hasn't been diligent about making sure the AI's laws are well-suited to stopping that round's antags, then that's the crew's fault, not the AI's.

It should be up to the Captain to upload a law to humanize the lizard crew members, if the Captain wants all of his crew to be protected. AIs should not treat lizards as humans because of OOC rules and people who play as lizard just need to deal with the fact that the AI is not going to obey or save them.

Implement Corporate 2014

Failing that, if we're going the 'tough shit bro hope you enjoy being griefed when we could have prevented it' route then we need some way to warn the player about that when they choose to go green. Like, an actual dialogue pops up that tells them that they're essentially the Clown on NoX.

Why is it that when we talk about WGW or killing Ian or whatever the push is always, and usually with great disdain towards people who disagree, to 'reduce validhunting' because, you know, encouraging people to murder each other more in this game is generally not a good idea, but then in this instance we go full on '#dealwithit' with people who are, let's be clear, griefing other players.

We say RP can't trump server rules, we've made rules which override what seem to be common Asimov sense. (Such as Asimov cages, the purest form of harm prevention as long as humans are fed and watered etc, being completely not-okay)

If the other admins honestly feel different I'll defer to them but that's just what I think.

And regarding the 'why even have lizards if you can't fuck them up', we let people choose to be white or black or whatever, and while casual racism can slip through here and there, we still ban AIs who don't consider black people human, or Captains who round up all the black people etc. It's possible to give players diverse options without allowing the instant 'that means I can fuck them over for being different right' impulse to win. Even on /tg/.

Honestly, Lizard-Silicon interactions should be regarded just as how humans interact with humans.

While Silicons have no obligation to actually obey Lizards, they don't have a reason to want to harm or discriminate against Lizards, just as humans inherently (and in reality) don't have a reason to want to harm or kill another human.

Humans can just be allowed to discriminate against Lizards at their own discretion. However make it that according to Space Law, racial discrimination is against the law.

To clarify after all my mental meandering, the options I would accept, in order:

Implement Corporate (coding change, so yeah, you know how that goes)
Lizards treated like humans for the AI (rules issue, point added in the rules to it)
Lizards warned they'll be second-class (rules and code change to let players know)

Anything but making lizards human. It'd completely ruin having them in the first place beyond a cosmetic choice.

Lizards shouldn't be treated like humans for the AI. If a lizard is like LAW 2 LET ME INTO THE CAPTAIN'S QUARTERS the AI should have every right to be like "fuck you, you're a lizard." They're not humans. Slimepeople, flypeople and hulks (when hulks were nonhuman) don't receive that protection. You'd have to stretch Asimov or rewrite silicon policy considerably to make this make sense.

What lizards should receive is Rule 1 protection. The same thing that prevents the AI from doorcrushing everyone when it's purged because it can. (Honestly, nuke ops are a bad example because no AI in the history of AI plays nuke op rounds full by-the-book Asimov, but doorcrushing someone stopping the op with the disk would definitely fall under this.) It's not the same distinction people are making but it's the one that makes most sense. And it has the benefit of not requiring any coding.