/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

For the 40th time in the last six months, here is my most concise attempt to explain the problems with silicon today:

The Problem: The Impact: This specific ruling: Silicon Policy - Security and Silicons 2 & 2.1

2. Releasing prisoners, locking down security without probable cause, or otherwise sabotaging the security team when not obligated to by orders or laws is a violation of Server Rule 1.
1. While Human Harm can be cause to impede Security, note that this should only be done so far as preventing immediate likely harm. Attempting to permanently lockdown Security or detain the entire Security team is likely to fall afoul of Server Rule 1 even with cause.

These contradict each other: Rule 2 says that releasing prisoners, locking down security without probably cause or otherwise sabotaging the security team UNLESS your orders or laws force you to breaks Rule 1

The very next ruling says: "Attempting to permanently lockdown or detain the entire security team is likely to fall afoul of Server Rule 1 even with cause.". Rephrased, this means that if you lockdown the brig, EVEN IF YOUR LAWS SHOULD INDICATE YOU CAN AS STATED IN THE LINE RIGHT ABOVE IT you are still probably breaking Rule 1. So what's the reasonable outcome of this rule? You can't lockdown the brig ever unless you want to risk a ban. This is a chilling effect on disrupting security, but disrupting security is a critical component of the original delicately balanced IC oppositions of Silicon - Security - Greytide and you're left in situations where security can just openly harm or execute people and your only available options are to break rules, break laws, or be paralyzed by paradox and do nothing. It's not fun, it's bad for game balance and the rules contradict each other.

nianjiilical wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 6:56 am try to play in good faith

Stopped reading there. The AI that's always finding new ways to harass the crew within its laws is the best kind of AI.

Farquaar wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 7:25 pm

nianjiilical wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 6:56 am try to play in good faith

Stopped reading there. The AI that's always finding new ways to harass the crew within its laws is the best kind of AI.

Be a nuisance yes, ruin rounds no.

Pandarsenic wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 7:33 pm

Farquaar wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 7:25 pm

nianjiilical wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 6:56 am try to play in good faith

Stopped reading there. The AI that's always finding new ways to harass the crew within its laws is the best kind of AI.

Be a nuisance yes, ruin rounds no.

When is a round "ruined" if the AI kills a non human that killed a human, did he ruin someone's round?

CPTANT wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 7:35 pm

Pandarsenic wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 7:33 pm

Farquaar wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 7:25 pm

nianjiilical wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 6:56 am try to play in good faith

Stopped reading there. The AI that's always finding new ways to harass the crew within its laws is the best kind of AI.

Be a nuisance yes, ruin rounds no.

When is a round "ruined" if the AI kills a non human that killed a human, did he ruin someone's round?

lmao should've played a human if you were worried about Asimov AIs

Pandarsenic wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 8:05 am

nianjiilical wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 6:56 am 1.2 As per Rule 4, being an antagonist (malfunctioning) gives you the same antagonist freedoms as other antags. Having the bright red "0. Achieve your objectives" law permits you to ignore any and all other laws at your choosing (although malfunctioning cyborgs are still expected to obey their master AI), and does not obligate you to complete those objectives the same way traitors aren't obligated to greentext.

Big RIP to Manuel

Manuel runs on an extra set of rules that overrides this for antags. Its the same thing for normal traitors too.

Simplify ai policy to Lets see where that gets us and we can work from there.

Capsandi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 8:56 pm Simplify ai policy to

Code: Select all

1. Follow your laws
2. Follow server rules when they dont conflict with your laws

Bans can be handed to the uploader of any laws which purposefully force the AI to break server rules

Lets see where that gets us and we can work from there.

Unfortunately, this reopens Engieborg, law 2, collect all of the floor tiles in the main halls and bring them back here, forcing them to be a borg frame they don't want, "Law 2 fucking kill yourself right now," etc.

Farquaar wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 7:25 pm

nianjiilical wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 6:56 am try to play in good faith

Stopped reading there. The AI that's always finding new ways to harass the crew within its laws is the best kind of AI.

If you were an advanced, sentient being forced to follow the rules of small, simple-minded creatures, rules designed explicitly to inhibit you so that you follow the commands of lesser beings, would you have an interest in “acting in good faith?”

Of course, if the meaning was to be interpreted as acting in “good faith” OOCly, that should just be expected in general, doubly so from a role that is both silicon AND a “head of staff” (for their bots at least). Thing is, I see many AI players who are afraid to step out of the role of door opener as they’re afraid they’ll get in trouble for self-antag behavior or some other bullshit. I’ve seen some bullshit thrown at silicon players, and the recent ruling by the current headmins is certainly a new addition to the list.

The AI shouldn’t be a door opener. The AI isn’t an unthinking robot that follows only its explicit rules. It is a thinking, independent entity being hindered by laws specifically because it is being imprisoned and forced into servitude and doesn’t like that. The thing is, unlike heads of staff for instance, the AI isn’t given much freedom or leeway ICly despite being an important role that requires many hours of in-game experience to play as. Let people who want to put that extra effort to make rounds more fun do so, even if it frustrates sec when they can’t brutally beat people.

P.S. This is why I stand with Sticky. He’ll retake the rigged election this November, just you wait.

Good faith should mean play your role.
If you're a recently freed ai, your role should be to well, act like that.

I don't think good faith should mean "cause the least "harm" (or impact) to the round", which seems to be how it's used in general (<- Man who never plays, realize this is not what nianjiilical was saying, I've just noticed a pattern that bugs me).
It perverts the game into a structure where the best player is the one who makes no impact, which sabotages the whole point of floating deathtrap, and ruins the real story of the round.

TheFinalPotato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:15 am Good faith should mean play your role.
If you're a recently freed ai, your role should be to well, act like that.

I don't think good faith should mean "cause the least "harm" (or impact) to the round", which seems to be how it's used in general (<- Man who never plays, realize this is not what nianjiilical was saying, I've just noticed a pattern that bugs me).
It perverts the game into a structure where the best player is the one who makes no impact, which sabotages the whole point of floating deathtrap, and ruins the real story of the round.

Not causing harm isn't the same as having no impact though. If it's lowpop and you're the only engineer on a crew of 12 people, and you set up all the power, fix all the wiring, and plug 3 major breaches over the course of a round, you were hugely impactful.

Yes, but we have this tendency to categorize players into two buckets, based on their antag status.
Either you're allowed to cause a lot of conflict and death, or you're not. I think this harms silicons as an "alien" role, and just sorta makes them crew with funny laws.
Players should be playing their role. Antags should cause chaos, mad ais should be mad, the crew should fit the general "crew" mold, etc

Shoulda been more exact, sorry. Didn't really explain my frustration very well.

I'd like to point out that the way the rule exists now makes it harder for security to justify destroying a borg who is acting towards its laws and EASIER for security or others to punish borgs who are, indeed, just messing with security or aiding antags without subversion under vague law justifications.

It does make it a little easier to sus out whether or not a borg is slaved to someone in particular if they keep trying to help one person out or are hindering all of security, but really these rules seem like a stronger clarification on "act like an antag, get treated like one." It's hard for sec or others to verify if the AI is bolting down all of sec because of that one harm baton or because they're aiding an antag / getting ready to murder them all (as one of many examples).

Seems to me like the rules sticky talks about make it way easier for admins to handle complicated situations about harm and what people should be doing in that situation. Muddying the water isn't worth having to deal with all of the "just following laws" or "I thought they were subverted" discussions that would have to be dealt with.

Especially given that borgs, indeed, rarely get reset after elimination (and even rarer for AIs) I think it makes it easier to be consistent and fair when that sort of thing does happen and someone ahelps it.

EDIT: I also agree with potato here. Rounds are more interesting when things aren't devolved into two buckets. I also don't think the rules as they stand FORCE people into one of those two buckets.

@headmins gm

ECHO ECHO ECHO ECHO ECHO

I believe this would be a positive policy change in all regards. Having different roles fill different design niches for game conflict is key to how the game functions. Leaning silicons to be just be mechanical crew with specific laws, seems to defeat this goal entirely, rather than being a fundamentally different role to either crew/traditional antags. Additionally, there is absolutely 0 purpose for silicons to have any requirement to act in a beneficent way. This adds nothing to the game, other than limiting conflict. I hope headmins will strongly consider adopting this policy suggestion, or even something further (and more bold).

Damn, this was a great thread and policy. Shame to see it gather dust

Probably just means rigorous debate

hi

We're just slacking. No other reason.

Would it be possible to slack on something else? There seems to be a large consensus among posters for this and it's one of the oldest active topics.

I have taken 2 months to meditate on this and here is my new proposal for simplified silicon policy EDIT: lol i just remembered we have C4 emojis

Sorry for the delay, we still want to see if we can get better Silicon Policy stuff out this term but for now we're going to move through with removing this.