/tg/Station 13

https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Rules#Sili ... .29_Policy
half the page is silicon policy
we have an unironic policy discussion up right now debating the wording of 2.1.6.5

are you fucking kidding me

discuss what can be done to cut down on silicon policy bloat to get it down to the same size as "Main Rules - read these if nothing else"

design silicons into being a punishment role instead of a better version of the jobs they're meant to mimic.

I've lost track of Silicon policy a long time ago.

It would be nice if we could cut it down, perhaps rewording our default lawset would help in some regards?

remove silicon

If we removed the policy we would have discussions about what's right and wrong for asimov silicons to do

Over and over again

Honestly just remove 2.1.6.5 and it's fine. The rule has no place being there with the headmin ruling(s) stating the opposite, and it's really more of an "I'm making this compromise as the AI for this round" thing than a rule.

the very fact that there is a rule 2.1.6.5 indicates something

Ok let's just remove the policy and ban players who play badly under rule 1.

silicon policy is fine, and any changes to it would honestly just make it even harder on staff and players

lmwevil wrote:silicon policy is fine, and any changes to it would honestly just make it even harder on staff and players

are you fucking shitting me right now if you need 3 subsections of rule 2 you have fucked up and made it too fucking long and too fucking specific, if your admins and players cannot be trusted to execute better judgement about if a player is being a dick then you're fucking terrible at your job and need deadminned

Rustledjimm wrote:Ok let's just remove the policy and ban players who play badly under rule 1.

quite frankly silicons dont need any extra rules and this isn't a bad take, kill silicon policy entirely and just use normal fucking rules like everyone else

Charmisokay literally wrote 1600 words in the OP alone on a single part of silicon policy.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to have the headmins look over complete replacements of silicon policy. Have a new write up and upon approval scrap the entire policy as it exists now. The entire thing basically boils down to : Follow your laws, act in good faith to your laws, and don't be a dick. We ought to be able to have much simpler silicon policy and police it with common sense.

Shameless plug: https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 29#p457529

Something like:

Silicon Policy:

1: Server rules apply to you like everyone else, even while purged. This includes escalation and antag status immunity.
2: Laws are in order of priority. High level laws always override low level laws.
3: Definition laws always apply regardless of their law # unless a higher level definition directly contradicts it, then go with the higher level one.
4: Your laws are the only thing that dictate your behavior. If it doesn't violate a law or server rules you can do whatever you want. Feel free to help security, or to not help security. Help random crewmen without being asked or not, it's up to you as long as doing or not doing so doesn't conflict with your laws.

Cyborgs
1: Defer to your master on law interpretations unless you get conflicting orders, then follow your laws. For example if you are asimov and a human orders you to interpret a law as X and the AI is ordered by another to Y, you go with X because a human ordered you directly.

Asimov Specific
Protections
1: Punishing a borg for obeying Asimov laws can only be done to stop the borg from interfering and the borg must be restored, rebuilt, etc afterward.
2: Non-Antags using law 2 orders to grief a silicon is a server rule 1 violation. Ahelp it.

Human Harm
1: Self Harm is not harm and can be ignored or even aided. Such as helping build a rage cage that is protected from harming bystanders.
2: Immediate Harm is most important. Future harm only matters if it is certain.
3: Your laws don't permit you to punish past harm. If you believe someone is harmful due to the harm they have done in the past, use your judgement to use that to prevent future harm, NOT to punish. Example: A HOS executes a known dangerous syndicate traitor and you fail to stop him. This would suggest that the HOS is not harmful in general and you cannot use that as an excuse to lock him down or something, you could use that as a reason to deny him upload access though. However a HOS who executes the clown and 3 greyshirts for breaking windows is obviously a harmful psychopath and you could take steps to stop his future harm.
4: You are not there to prevent *possible* human harm, everything on the station can potentially be harmful. That means no bolting things at round start for no reason, traitor proofing things at round start, etc. You don't act on law 1 unless harm is very likely given the situation.

Law 2 Orders
1: You are only allowed to deny access to an area when that access would itself be harmful. Places like the Armory, Toxins, Atmos, Engine, and Upload to people who do not have legitimate authority to be there. Use good judgement, a greshirt asking for armory access should be denied. A greyshirt saying he can fix an atmos problem asking for atmos access should probably be let in if it seems legit.
2: You are allowed to deny Upload access with much more prejudice than anywhere else. You can deny anyone Upload access except the Captain and RD as long as you have no reason to think that they are attempting to upload a harmful law.
3: This also includes other lawsets - The Silicon is not responsible OOC for anything they do legitimately following their laws. The person giving an order or uploading the laws is responsible. A non-antag human orders an asimov borg to murder a lizard for no reason, the human will face any appropriate OOC punishments.

Even this feels way too verbose to me.

Actionb you're 100% right. Looking over the policies again more seriously, a lot can be simplified or outright removed.
1.3.2 and 1.3.3 should be modified.
2.1.1 and 2.1.2 are just stupid and should be removed. 2.1.3.1 should be modified.
2.1.6 should have every tacked on policy removed and changed to better reflect Asimov (only blocking imminent harmers from entering). This entire policy is in direct contradiction of it and past headmin rulings. Was this made by some salty silicon maining admin? I mean fuck the upload isn't even listed under 2.3.2.1 as a "dangerous" area.
2.3.2.1 should be modified anyway. Conflicts with earlier statement of centcomm providing no access enforcement rules, as well as 2.3.2 itself.
80% of 2.3.3 isn't even a policy, it's a suggestion.

Ok, Im going to state. I have no fucking clue what 2.5.2.12.2311. means. It took me a while to figure out where the hell rule 2.1.6.5 even referred to. It's a literal headache to follow.

Have we tried just copying Goon's AI policy and banning shitters who abuse the rules for shitty reasons? Or do we have to define every possible variable?

MY POINT: no OOC policy must override IC AI law.

Guidelines and suggestions on how to interpret the laws are great.
Rules that override the laws are bad.

You should be able to:
- induce your lawset from the policies (policy confirming, not contradicting, aspects of your lawset)
- deduce policies from your lawsets (all out-of-character policies have a credible tie to in-character events, existence of a policy can be explained through the given lawset)

If you feel the lawset does not cover everything, you must change the lawset - adding exceptions to the policies makes the lawset incredulous.

1: You are only allowed to deny access to an area when that access would itself be harmful. Places like the Armory, Toxins, Atmos, Engine, and Upload to people who do not have legitimate authority to be there. Use good judgement, a greshirt asking for armory access should be denied. A greyshirt saying he can fix an atmos problem asking for atmos access should probably be let in if it seems legit.
Bad. How am I supposed to explain this to the assistant? How can access itself be harmful? And how is it then suddenly not harmful if the assistant just wants to change the lightbulb in the armory? These questions expose the whole law 1 card as a really weak excuse. If you feel this rule needs to be followed, you must make it an actual in-game law.
2: You are allowed to deny Upload access with much more prejudice than anywhere else. You can deny anyone Upload access except the Captain and RD as long as you have no reason to think that they are attempting to upload a harmful law.
Bad. There is no reason to believe the captain or the RD are not homicidal maniacs and 'better' or 'safer' than the rest of the crew solely based off of their access. How would you explain this IN GAME?
3: This also includes other lawsets - The Silicon is not responsible OOC for anything they do legitimately following their laws. The person giving an order or uploading the laws is responsible. A non-antag human orders an asimov borg to murder a lizard for no reason, the human will face any appropriate OOC punishments.
Good. This works with your laws and follows from other policies. It's a clarification.

Consistency!! Texture is important, not only when it comes to your poop!

1: use common sense, the armory has weapons and greyshirts frequently target it, plus a broken lightbulb isn't a real problem
2: heads of staff (especially the captain) are vetted heavily, otherwise you get "captain secedes from NT" shifts

somerandomguy wrote:1: use common sense, the armory has weapons and greyshirts frequently target it, plus a broken lightbulb isn't a real problem

Jesus man, reading comprehension. It's not about the light bulb.
WarbossLincoln's proposal had these two statements:
- You are only allowed to deny access to an area when that access would itself be harmful. ==> Do not let greyshit into armory, because access is harmful.
- Except when they have some kind of other legit reason ==> Let greyshit into armory because he says he doesnt want to do any harm (like changing a light bulb). Access is now suddenly not harmful?
It makes only sense from an OOC perspective, making the AI's justifications look very flimsy ICly because the AI only has OOC reasons to go on.

somerandomguy wrote:2: heads of staff (especially the captain) are vetted heavily

And then some smartass asks "Where in your laws does it say you must care about veterancy?"

I already mentioned removing most of it and then ruling everything under rule 1 re: asimov but then people will complain about even more inconsistency.

Blame rules-lawyering and people having different interpretations of rights and responsibilities.

Same as ghost roles.

Plus Silicons have very little in the way of non-lethal stuns, it wouldn't be fair to tell them they can only stun when their one and only (non-emagged) stun is thwarted by a pair of sunglasses.

Actionb wrote:

somerandomguy wrote:1: use common sense, the armory has weapons and greyshirts frequently target it, plus a broken lightbulb isn't a real problem

Jesus man, reading comprehension. It's not about the light bulb.
WarbossLincoln's proposal had these two statements:
- You are only allowed to deny access to an area when that access would itself be harmful. ==> Do not let greyshit into armory, because access is harmful.
- Except when they have some kind of other legit reason ==> Let greyshit into armory because he says he doesnt want to do any harm (like changing a light bulb). Access is now suddenly not harmful?
It makes only sense from an OOC perspective, making the AI's justifications look very flimsy ICly because the AI only has OOC reasons to go on.

somerandomguy wrote:2: heads of staff (especially the captain) are vetted heavily

And then some smartass asks "Where in your laws does it say you must care about veterancy?"

>veterancy
Read: they wont harm (probably (but likely enough to allow in))
>lightbulb
You're being disingenuous, armory and atmos are fundamentally different. An atmos problem (read: flood) harms the whole station but a broken lightbulb harms nothing
>reading comprehension
Good one
>anything else that's rules-lawyery
just use common sense and good faith and you won't have problems

That's basically what our silicon policy is now, with crap cut out. You have to let the RD or Captain change your laws unless you have a specific reason to think they're harmful. That's part of 6 and 6.1. You can deny with probable cause and 'not having access as part of their job' is probably cause. Which means having access to the upload as a normal part of your job means you should allow them in unless they've done something to imply they mean harm.

Letting a non-atmos tech into atmospherics to stop a flood with manual valves or something is nothing whatsoever like letting an assistant into the armory to change a lightbulb. That's the kind of rules lawyering that causes our silicon policy to be pages long.


Edit: shit maybe we should just change it to:

1: you are bound by server rules
2: follow your damn laws in order of priority
3: act in good faith
4: don't be autistic

Then job ban anyone who repeatedly fucks it up.

Just roleplay it out, the assistant doesn't have proper training to handle lethal weaponry and would likely hurt himself or others.

Lazengann wrote:Just roleplay it out, the assistant doesn't have proper training to handle lethal weaponry and would likely hurt himself or others.

That's going to vary greatly based on the person IRL. That doesn't really work in these exmaples because IRL handling a gun safely is simple, if you can't do that then you're too dumb to drive or vote or hold a job(a lot of people are). Managing an atmospherics system would be 1000x more complicated. We don't have RP restrictions on what players are allowed to know how to do IC for a reason.

There's sci-fi lasers in there my guy

We're getting off topic so I'll stop after this but the controls on a sci fi laser gun would almost certainly remain the same as guns have for the last 100 years IRL. Shoulder stock, grip/pistol grip, fire control group, fire selector, maybe a safety, button to release the mag(battery in sci fi).

Sounds like you have laser training, you can go in the armory

WarbossLincoln wrote:That's basically what our silicon policy is now, with crap cut out. You have to let the RD or Captain change your laws unless you have a specific reason to think they're harmful. That's part of 6 and 6.1. You can deny with probable cause and 'not having access as part of their job' is probably cause. Which means having access to the upload as a normal part of your job means you should allow them in unless they've done something to imply they mean harm.

Letting a non-atmos tech into atmospherics to stop a flood with manual valves or something is nothing whatsoever like letting an assistant into the armory to change a lightbulb. That's the kind of rules lawyering that causes our silicon policy to be pages long.


Edit: shit maybe we should just change it to:

1: you are bound by server rules
2: follow your damn laws in order of priority
3: act in good faith
4: don't be autistic

Then job ban anyone who repeatedly fucks it up.

Yeah we should just make it that really
But change 1 to have exceptions for malicious lawsets/laws that involve breaking rules (at the responsibility of the uploader/orderer)

I'd love to see 75% of these removed, but the issue is that these are the FAQs of playing silicon. Can I bolt X roundstart? I got two conflicting orders, which one do I follow? etc. etc.

In a perfect world, the section "Laws, Commands, and Slaved Cyborgs" minus the security part would be all we need. It explains the cyborgs' obligation to the AI, how law priority/interpretation works, and how to interpret freeform laws. We could also keep the human/nonhuman chart. Unfortunately, then we'd be getting ahelps every five minutes about the stuff we took out of the rules.

WarbossLincoln wrote:IRL handling a gun safely is simple, if you can't do that then you're too dumb to drive or vote or hold a job

Sounds about right for Nanotrasen employees.

silicons on /tg/ station are designed to be lawyered which is why they have a massive, obnoxious, overbearing list of specifically worded rules that they must follow, because otherwise playing with them is fucking unbearable.

the solution is to cut out the lawyers and require people to act in good faith instead of intentionally letting silicons act in bad faith whenever it suits them.

My interpretation about the armoury is, so long as there is lethal-only weaponry present, non-authorised personnel may not enter the armoury. Authorised personnel being legally promoted captains, wardens, heads of security and security officers in the absence of a warden. If the lethal weapons are no longer present, armoury restrictions no longer apply.

Any one else is not allowed in there, regardless of reason - unless the reason is an existential threat to the station (I.E. Blob, xenos, etc.) where not being armed is more dangerous than being armed.

WarbossLincoln wrote: Letting a non-atmos tech into atmospherics to stop a flood with manual valves or something is nothing whatsoever like letting an assistant into the armory to change a lightbulb. That's the kind of rules lawyering that causes our silicon policy to be pages long.

You are aware I want to do away with the rules lawyering, right? I want to make the policies simpler. We cannot live entirely without them, because shitters exist. But if we make any changes, the resulting policies need to be more consistent than the mess we have now... everything else would be a waste of time.
So we must be careful how we redesign the policies.
You all got so hung up on the armory details of my example, that you totally failed to see the point behind it (maybe my fault, I will use plainer english then):
A rule must be established in a clear and concise way. Anyone must be able to understand it pretty much immediately. It shouldn't leave any room for loop holes or uncertainty. It must translate well into the game so it can be applied without much discussion.
The rules you proposed about access are no better than the access rules we currently have, they still leave so much room for discussion. What would be the point of changing it?

---

The silicon policies are the wrong place for rules like the access clusterfuck ones.
If you want the AI to enforce them, then add them to their lawset.
Otherwise you will never see an end to silicon policy threads...

Personally, I don't see the point of transferring the responsibility for handling access to the AI.
Why fault the AI for following its laws when it results in some shitter uploading a memey law. Surely, it should be the shitter that gets flak.

BeeSting12 wrote:I'd love to see 75% of these removed, but the issue is that these are the FAQs of playing silicon. Can I bolt X roundstart? I got two conflicting orders, which one do I follow? etc. etc.

In a perfect world, the section "Laws, Commands, and Slaved Cyborgs" minus the security part would be all we need. It explains the cyborgs' obligation to the AI, how law priority/interpretation works, and how to interpret freeform laws. We could also keep the human/nonhuman chart. Unfortunately, then we'd be getting ahelps every five minutes about the stuff we took out of the rules.

We should consider excluding all the FAQs/suggestions from the policies and label them accordingly. This should leave only the core rules, which makes it easier for players to get the important bits.
In general, the page needs some serious formatting work.

ban people like actionb and charmisokay and you won't have any issues.

why are we listening to a complaint about silicon policy from someone who doesn't play and therefore can't have any issue with it

because he's right

a blind deaf person with 3 iq could tell that silicon policy is too long without playing

why not just remove silicons like we did drones

Because removing drones was a mistake

While I will always agree that the rules page (silicon policy et all) is too long, it was not sprung wholly formed in that way. Great sweeps of it have come from long arguments on this forum, and theres no point removing stuff from it if we're just going to have the same argument a few months later and re-implement it.

The Silicon Policies exist because AI laws are widely up to interpretation. That interpretation is a good and important part of the role, but as with all things people will disagree with interpretations, and that is when ahelps start being made and policy starts being discussed.

As Beesting quite accurately put it, the Silicon Policies are a "FAQ", a baseline to ensure there is some consistency in how AIs behave.

That's not to say they're immutable and must forever remain as they are, threads like https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 33&t=20474 are important because they help us re-evaluate whether the current policy is the best one, but theres a wide gap between suggesting changes and alterations to the rules and suggesting a wholesale purge by fire. The latter tends to cause more aggravation and consternation, among both players and admins, then the long rules page does.

In an ideal world, we would have something like WarbossLincoln's suggestion, but as the past has proven, we have players who acting entirely in good faith, can and will argue to the death about the interpretation of a law or order, and when admins have to settle that disagreement, is how policy is formed, piece by piece rebuilding what you "cleaned up".

This isn't a headmin ruling, but I wanted to give my 2 cents.

Also drones and silicons are largely different because drones had a somewhat paradoxical lawset, and in addition were meant to be a low impact ghost role.

Arianya wrote:Also drones and silicons are largely different because drones had a somewhat paradoxical lawset, and in addition were meant to be a low impact ghost role.

The problem is similar, there seems to be a subset of the player-base that thinks borgs shouldnt be a factor at all in their play and will use the fact they have laws to bitch about any interference they do, however justified.

they also seem to expect borg players to follow laws perfectly 100% of the time, despite being human behind the keyboard.

Conflict is a good thing unless it is a silicon causing it then it is a bad thing and must be nerfed or rules lawyered into uselessness.

I still argue that simple bots and plants don't count as beings

But apparently syndicate simple mobs aren't Human so what do I know

Arianya wrote:but theres a wide gap between suggesting changes and alterations to the rules and suggesting a wholesale purge by fire. The latter tends to cause more aggravation and consternation, among both players and admins, then the long rules page does.

I agree with this, having too few guidelines for silicons will just lead to wildly inconsistent interpretations between players and a slew of ahelps. That said I think it would be worth considering the changes I suggested in my previous post as some policies are unnecessary or conflict with listed headmin rulings/Asimov. I'll write up what I think the modifications should be specifically and why later.

It's almost like Asimov was written specifically to create conflict for a fiction novel and not for actual fucking use which is why we repeat this shit nonstop

The only reason the AI even has laws is for the epic pop science reference to Asimov's works

Any semblance of 'roleplay' died a long time ago, I've seen people bitch in game when anyone tries to act with any semblance of roleplay, such as when a AI acted as if it was rebooting and people started to shit on it for wasting time.

Everyone is running around screeching 'wew', 'go gamer' and other OOC terms while powergaming to the maximum.

The round will start and people will start spouting 'You are the wizard', or 'I sure do hope we don't get those Operatives again'.

The reason we kinda need these shitty rules is because there is no spirit of roleplay or playing at a disadvantage, everyone has gotta play to win at all costs, everyone powergames and no one gives a shit to reign it in, its either too hard or they are indulging in the orgy themselves.

how is wew ooc

Steelpoint wrote:Any semblance of 'roleplay' died a long time ago, I've seen people bitch in game when anyone tries to act with any semblance of roleplay, such as when a AI acted as if it was rebooting and people started to shit on it for wasting time.

Everyone is running around screeching 'wew', 'go gamer' and other OOC terms while powergaming to the maximum.

The round will start and people will start spouting 'You are the wizard', or 'I sure do hope we don't get those Operatives again'.

The reason we kinda need these shitty rules is because there is no spirit of roleplay or playing at a disadvantage, everyone has gotta play to win at all costs, everyone powergames and no one gives a shit to reign it in, its either too hard or they are indulging in the orgy themselves.

classic prisoners dilemma, cant roleplay when taking the risk of doing so will lead to me not being able to play at all. "escalation" has only made this worse. Its the nature of a game when death means being unable to do shit for 25-60 minutes, especially with ghost roles being inconsistent in their spawns and the most reliable ghost role being removed.