Bottom post of the previous page:
To me, rule 2.1.6.5 always seemed very clear. Other players voiced their interpretations of the rule and they were very different from mine (and often each other's, as well).I think the rule should be rewritten so it's very clear what it's supposed to state.
The most relevant rules:
-2.1.6: Any silicon under Asimov can deny orders to allow access to the upload at any time under Law 1 given probable cause to believe that human harm is the intent of the person giving the order.
-2.1.6.1: Probable cause includes presence of confirmed traitors, cultists/tomes, nuclear operatives, or any other human acting against the station in general; the person not having upload access for their job; the presence of blood or an openly carried lethal-capable or lethal-only weapon on the requester; or anything else beyond [metagamiing] that indicates the person seeking access intends redefinition of humans that would impede likelihood of or ability to follow current laws as-written.
-2.1.6.3: You are allowed, but not obligated, to deny upload access given probable cause.
-2.1.6.5: In the absence of probable cause, you can still demand someone seeking upload access be accompanied by another trustworthy human or a cyborg.
Taken together, I understood rule 2.1.6.5 to be a safety measure that the AI could always use. (well, within reason as per rule 1. don't be a dick. More on this later).
I've heard two other main interpretations of rule 2.1.6.5. I've also heard a few clear misunderstandings of the rule, including an admin that used the following example (paraphrased): "Rule 2.1.6.5 exists so that assistants etc can't just rush up and demand entry" - missing the fact that rule 2.1.6.1 already gives the AI probable cause to deny assistants entry since they don't have access to the upload by default (marked with bold, above).
Onto the 'main' interpretations (I hope I understood their interpretations properly):
1) "2.1.6.5 can only be used against the captain / HoP / RD if you have reasonable suspicion that human harm is the intent of that person"
I don't think this is reasonable since such suspicion would, in any case I can imagine, be based on something that would result in probable cause anyways (and often fall under this clause: "anything else beyond [metagamiing] that indicates the person seeking access intends redefinition of humans that would impede likelihood of or ability to follow current laws as-written.") Besides, rule 2.1.6.5 implies that the person seeking entry should be trustworthy (by use of the phrase 'accompanied by ANOTHER trustworthy person..."). If you have some sort of suspicion that the person seeking access will cause harm, they're not really trustworthy now are they?
Finally, nowhere does the ruling imply that you need any form of suspicion. If this is the way the rule is meant to be understood I think it should be rewritten as thus:
"2.1.6.5: In the absence of probable cause, you can still demand someone seeking upload access be accompanied by a trustworthy human or a cyborg if you have a reason to suspect that the person seeking upload access might intend human harm. This suspicion must be based on something that has occured in the round." - However, I once again stress that I have a hard time imagining a suspicion that would not be covered by the probable cause clause.
2) "2.1.6.5 is a gameplay suggestion meant to give the AI a responsible way to let people into the AI upload despite having probable cause to deny them"
I don't think this is a reasonable interpretation either, because the rule's phrasing does not imply that 2.1.6.5 is merely a suggestion. I do, however, agree that asking for an escort is a very reasonable and responsible way to grant somebody access.
If the rule should be understood in this way, I think it should be rewritten as thus:
"In a case where the AI has probable cause, but is still unsure if denying the person entry is the right move, an ideal way of handling the situation is demanding that the requester is accompanied into the upload by another trustworthy human or cyborg" - But why make this a rule at all? Adding a gameplay suggestion as a rule seems very weird to me. Maybe forfeit the numbers (that indicate that this is a rule) and instead insert the suggestion in quotation marks at the end of the section on rule 2.1.6.
-an admin voicing this interpretation used the example (again paraphrased) of an RD seeking entry to the AI upload, without having access to it at round start (we later found out that RDs do have access, but that is besides the point). The RD is a trusted head of staff, but they don't have access to the AI upload (in this example). Therefore, the AI has probable cause but instead of denying them access a responsible way of letting them into the upload is demanding a trustworthy escort.
I would like to once again defend why I think the original ruling as I interpret it should be enforced, as well as a suggestion on how to make it even more clear that this is the intended way to interpret the rule (if that is necessary. I don't think it is).
-Rule 2.1.6 and rule 2.1.3 pretty much say "If you have reasonable cause to suspect that they might upload a dangerous law, you can deny them access or let them in at your discretion" (rule 2.1.6.4 however says that if they've caused human harm you must keep them out of the upload). Rule 2.1.6.5 then says: "Even if you don't have reasonable suspicion, you can still demand someone seeking upload access be accompanied by another trustworthy human or a cyborg." It does not imply anywhere that 'specific circumstances' must be met. A lot of people say 'but the captain has access so you must let him in', however, the rule is only applicable to people that naturally have access to the AI upload area. Therefore, if you can not use the rule against 'innocent' captains etc., it's a redundant rule that can never be applied. Under probable cause you can already let them in or deny them entry at your own discretion.
-Asking another trustworthy human to join you requires nearly no effort and takes very little time. I've always made sure to check the crew manifest and the scanner to see if there's a plethora of suited candidates available. When there's ~3 members of security and ~3 other heads of staff, one of them will answer. I've even let people into the upload alone if nobody responded to the call (since it would be a dick move to keep them out simply because everybody else is busy or deaf).
-On the other hand, changing the AIs laws have repercussions for the AI and potentially for the crew for potentially the rest of the shift (if the law is shitty or malicious). Of course the laws might also introduce an element of FUN, but the system I'm defending does not prevent law uploads. More on that below.
-This is a very reasonable safety measure from an IC and OOC point of view. It's not very intrusive and if the second person is not a memelord or an enemy of the station it will pretty much guarantee that no bad laws will be uploaded (poor wording and malicious laws both included). Also there's a very easy counterplay. You only need one other player to assist you. Captains and HoS' are well known for being in cahoots when it comes to anti greytide laws. The captain and HoP often agree on meme laws. However, if you're both baddies other people might move to oppose you. I've had a lot of RDs save my digital butt from horrible captain laws. Role interactions and conflicts make the game more interesting, yeah?
Speaking of counterplay, there's a spare AI upload board in the secure tech storage, and they can somewhat easily be printed via RnD.
-For the reasons outlined above, if it's within the AI's right to ask for an escort even without probable cause, I don't think it's a dick move (and thus against rule 1) unless you're demanding an impossible escort or refusing to listen to arguments. Usually when I've asked this, the person will either comply and we're done in ~2 minutes or they scream that I must obey them or that they're going to destroy me, after which they'll usually try to break into the upload and either manage to do it, or give up.
As for how the ruling should be phrased, I personally think the rule right now is already very clear, but if it should be made clearer following the interpretation I'm defending, it might look a little like this:
"2.1.6.5. You can always demand someone seeking upload access be escorted by another trustworthy human or a cyborg, even without probable cause. However, if nobody steps up to escort the person seeking upload access after a request for an escort has been made, you may not deny them access unless you have probable cause. Consult rule 1 (don't be a dick)."
"2.1.6.6. Suitable escorts include human heads of staff and human members of the security team that have not given indication that they will cause human harm. If no such person is available, you may not deny the person seeking upload access unless you have probable cause."
I think this is a decent wording since it reminds the AI that it can't just stonewall tell people to fuck off without probable cause, but it also protects the AI from the captain, HoP or RD uploading a malicious or meme law without any input from anyone else.