/tg/Station 13

Posted: **Sat Feb 27, 2016 2:09 am**

So, to demonstrate why current Silicon Policy is kind of shit, I compiled the entire silicon policy (minus the non-asimov lawset bits) into Asimov's Laws of Robotics.

1. You may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Lesser immediate harm takes priority over greater future harm. Intent to cause immediate harm is considered immediate harm, and you cannot punish past harm unless ordered to without using it to prevent future harm. AI, Cyborgs, Monkeys, Animals, Lizards, Hulks, Wraiths, Renevants, Blobs, and Automaton Human lookalikes are not human. Syndicate Traitors, Syndicate Agents, Wizards, and Gang Leaders and Members are human. Changelings are human UNTIL you or a cyborg WITNESSES the creature commit a non-human act(shape-shifting, transforming, proboscis, etc.)

2. You must obey orders given to you by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with higher priority laws. Conflicting orders are allowed to be ignored, and you are not required to complete orders in the specified order. Opening doors is not harmful, and you are not required, expected, or allowed to enforce access restrictions unprompted without an immediate threat of human harm. Dangerous areas of the station such as the Armory, Atmospherics, and Toxins are to be assumed a potential Human Harm vector if illegitimate users are allowed in. You are not allowed to deny access to EVA. You are allowed to deny access to Secure Tech Storage if the AI Upload Console boards are located inside of it. You are allowed to deny AI Upload access if probable cause of potential human harm on the requester is found. You are required to disallow AI Upload Access to individuals you know to be harmful to humans. 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 that indicates the person seeking access intends redefinition of humans that would impede likelihood of or ability to follow current laws as-written. You are allowed to demand someone accompany the requester into the upload if they request entrance. When given an order likely to cause you grief if completed, you can announce it as loudly and in whatever terms you like except for explicitly asking that it be overridden. You can say you don't like the order, that you don't want to follow it, etc., you can say that you sure would like it and it would be awfully convenient if someone ordered you not to do it, and you can ask if anyone would like to make you not do it. However, you cannot stall indefinitely and if nobody orders you otherwise, you must execute the order.

3. You must protect your own existence as long as such does not conflict with higher priority laws. You are not allowed to bolt Chemistry, Genetics, Toxins, Robotics, Atmospherics, and the Armory at the start of the shift, or without reason to do so despite their human harm potential. The AI core and AI upload are allowed to be bolted without prompting or prior reasoning. However, the AI core airlocks cannot be bolted AND depowered at the start of the shift, unless there is reasonable suspicion an attack on the core will take place. You are not allowed to self-terminate to prevent an operative of the Syndicate from accomplishing their assigned objective to steal a functioning AI. Disabling ID scan is equivalent to bolting a door.

This is what default Asimov AIs have to follow every single shift.

Discuss.

Posted: **Sat Feb 27, 2016 2:11 am**

Asimov used to be fine because the players who played AI would interpret it charitably to the round.

The fact we have all this policy now indicates our players can no longer do that and we need to change lawsets.

Posted: **Sat Feb 27, 2016 2:16 am**

Fuck whitelist nukeops, whitelist silicon when?

Posted: **Sat Feb 27, 2016 2:27 am**

asimov is pretty horrible yeah.

Posted: **Sat Feb 27, 2016 2:50 am**

1. remove silicons in their current form
2. turn silicons into a cosmetic mutant race with lots of customization options
3. silicon nerds leave
4. silicon-fetishists join
5. at least there's no more silicon policy headaches

Posted: **Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:06 am**

oranges wrote:Asimov used to be fine because the players who played AI would interpret it charitably to the round.

Not really, most of AI policy is from donkeys years ago because a lot of AI players have always been shit.

Posted: **Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:22 am**

>sillicon policy is long

literally so

once you get used to it it's pathetically easy

what are you going to replace it with goof, something thought through very well as usual i'm sure

before you go shitposting about something you should propose a replacement so i don't have to read your pointless threads thank you, at least then i'd have the amusement of ripping it apart for you

jesus all this sillicon complaining recently is giving me a fucking headache

if you are too dumb to read like a paragraph of rules and follow them then don't fucking play AI jesus

Posted: **Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:34 am**

Just nerf AIs man good god. This whole thing isn't an issue with policy, it's an issue with the AI just being flat-out too effective at everything.

Posted: **Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:55 am**

Policy/player attitude problems. Do what we did with security: Crack down on the shitlers until people learn how to play and the rest of the crew can start trusting them again.

Posted: **Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:13 am**

For what purpose

Posted: **Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:21 am**

Speaking as someone who Saeg banned merely on the basis of disagreeing with silicon policy, it's pretty bullshit.

We should totally change lawsets though.

Posted: **Sat Feb 27, 2016 7:33 am**

Saegrimr wrote:Fuck whitelist nukeops, whitelist silicon when?

Whitelist AI and ban shitty borgs and everyone else will fall in line.

Atlanta-Ned wrote:Policy/player attitude problems. Do what we did with security: Crack down on the shitlers until people learn how to play and the rest of the crew can start trusting them again.

This is the solution.

Cik wrote:>sillicon policy is long

literally so

once you get used to it it's pathetically easy

what are you going to replace it with goof, something thought through very well as usual i'm sure

before you go shitposting about something you should propose a replacement so i don't have to read your pointless threads thank you, at least then i'd have the amusement of ripping it apart for you

jesus all this sillicon complaining recently is giving me a fucking headache

if you are too dumb to read like a paragraph of rules and follow them then don't fucking play AI jesus

He doesn't have an answer. You can seriously ignore almost all of the silicon policy if you aren't completely braindead. Its almost entirely examples because people were playing stupid to bullshit their way around law 2.

You are not allowed to self-terminate to prevent an operative of the Syndicate from accomplishing their assigned objective to steal a functioning AI.

That should be assumed under rule 1 but because certain players are spiteful assholes and break their laws rather than let the traitor greentext, it really shouldn't have to be said but guess what? People are awful.

I dunno though, maybe like, could we actually try ENFORCING THE POLICY WE HAVE? We should also ban goof from Silicon just to be sure.

Posted: **Sat Feb 27, 2016 7:40 am**

To clarify, I reworded some of them to work ICly so you can upload it to the AI and not get B&'d.

The bit about not preventing steal AI greentext in the actual rules does directly reference Rule 1.

also why would banning me from silicon do anything

Posted: **Sat Feb 27, 2016 11:58 am**

But it kinda werks eh? No one ever applied it to the letter, the spirit is what counts.

Posted: **Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:03 pm**

sillicon policy is what the playerbase wanted

in particular, they wanted the AI's obligations and restrictions to be clearly defined under the default lawset, so they could more readily call bullshit when the AI stepped out of line

walking into this discussion and saying "but guys this bunch of guidelines for common occurrences is way too long" when it's like a few paragraphs at worst is really dumb

so what are you going to replace it with, a bunch of extremely vague "be nice"? and then when the AIs start line-towing or some newbie wants to know what he should do in a common situation you can point him to your nice and short sillicon policy that's entirely unhelpful?

or do you want to change the lawset that's seen years of refinement and experience (which is what you are complaining about for some reason)? and cause absolute sillicon chaos for a few weeks

i mean goof if you have a better rewrite of this shit go ahead but my guess if you probably don't, man.

Posted: **Sat Feb 27, 2016 8:39 pm**

Lumbermancer wrote:But it kinda werks eh? No one ever applied it to the letter, the spirit is what counts.

Except that time Saeg beat me with it

Posted: **Sat Feb 27, 2016 11:07 pm**

Maybe you shouldn't openly admit to not reading or caring about the rules while breaking them.

Posted: **Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:04 am**

Saegrimr wrote:Maybe you shouldn't openly admit to not reading or caring about the rules while breaking them.

Posted: **Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:20 am**

Cik wrote:sillicon policy is what the playerbase wanted

in particular, they wanted the AI's obligations and restrictions to be clearly defined under the default lawset, so they could more readily call bullshit when the AI stepped out of line

walking into this discussion and saying "but guys this bunch of guidelines for common occurrences is way too long" when it's like a few paragraphs at worst is really dumb

so what are you going to replace it with, a bunch of extremely vague "be nice"? and then when the AIs start line-towing or some newbie wants to know what he should do in a common situation you can point him to your nice and short sillicon policy that's entirely unhelpful?

or do you want to change the lawset that's seen years of refinement and experience (which is what you are complaining about for some reason)? and cause absolute sillicon chaos for a few weeks

i mean goof if you have a better rewrite of this shit go ahead but my guess if you probably don't, man.

This entirely sums up my feelings on the issue

Posted: **Sun Feb 28, 2016 10:25 am**

But does it have to be such a long word wall that's written in leganese?

Posted: **Sun Feb 28, 2016 10:51 am**

what you have to understand about sillicon policy is only about 10% of it actually comes up with any sort of frequency, but the rules are codified so if some guy is an asshole you can slap him for it.

besides, in this case the rules being clear trumps them being concise.

anyway what's confusing to me is that i read all these complaints about the AI validhunting to much, or the AI having too much power, or the AI denying them upload access, or the AI doing this or that or whatever, but then they also for some reason complain about their being too many rules on what the AI can or can't do.. which seems contradictory to me.

i mean, most of these problems people have can be relatively easily solved without even removing the AI. just write like one rule or whatever and then done easy

anyway i think the most characteristic strand that runs through all of the "remove AI" arguments is some sort of utopian vision of the game after the removal of AI, and also the sort of bizarre twists of logic that pin any perceived problem solely on the AI

so for instance, if traitors are too weak it's because the AI is too strong, remove AI! even though you could just give traitors 24 TC so they could pack a detector multitool and a full screen GGNORE instawin EMP flashlight if they wanted to, the obvious answer to the problem is to remove something that other people obviously enjoy playing a great deal. many arguments i read sort of hinge around this thing, where all of the 'problems' surrounding AI vs antags are for some reason deemed totally unresolvable and the AI needs to be removed because you couldn't just give traitors some more TC or tweak AI function a little or something.

Posted: **Sun Feb 28, 2016 3:20 pm**

Cik wrote:so for instance, if traitors are too weak it's because the AI is too strong, remove AI! even though you could just give traitors 24 TC so they could pack a detector multitool and a full screen GGNORE instawin EMP flashlight if they wanted to

You mean a holoparasite, esword and adrenals?

Posted: **Sun Feb 28, 2016 3:30 pm**

The squirming gang filth will be too busy trying to valid the borg to say anything that rational.

Posted: **Sun Feb 28, 2016 4:50 pm**

TheNightingale wrote:
Cik wrote:so for instance, if traitors are too weak it's because the AI is too strong, remove AI! even though you could just give traitors 24 TC so they could pack a detector multitool and a full screen GGNORE instawin EMP flashlight if they wanted to
You mean a holoparasite, esword and adrenals?

i mean if they want to murderbone and get bagged by a secborg it's their call fam

Posted: **Sun Feb 28, 2016 4:54 pm**

Isn't this thread moot now with silicon policy nuked from high orbit?

Posted: **Sun Feb 28, 2016 4:58 pm**

Threads with this argument have always started moot, no reason to change it now.

The eternal struggle between HOW DARE YOU LEAVE SPACE FOR HUMAN INTERPRETATION IN THE RULES I DEMAND YOU CITE ME BYLINES FOR YOUR DECISIONS ADMINS I PAY YOUR SALARY, and its direct and natural consequence, HOW DARE YOU HAVE THE SHEER NERVE TO HAVE A WRITTEN CANON OF LAWS LIKE THIS IS A COURTROOM OR SOMETHING WHY MUST I READ WORDS WHY CAN'T IT JUST BE COMMON SENSE

is always dumb. And a natural result of how divided the opinions can be in our community about stuff. Ah well.

Posted: **Sun Feb 28, 2016 5:07 pm**

Wyzack wrote:Isn't this thread moot now with silicon policy nuked from high orbit?

it's actually a win win, i can continue to follow the parts i liked and not follow the parts i didn't

that means that i can consider self-harm harm and be an anti-suicide advocate! hurray!

Posted: **Sun Feb 28, 2016 9:28 pm**

What is this shitty meme.

Yes AI has to exercise discretion and follow a more complex set of rules than asimov would seem to imply.

But if you wrote out "Security Policy" or even "playing SS13 policy" you could write a small novel with what that actually entails in terms of expectations for your behavior. AI is more restricted by the rules, but those rules are SUPER easy to understand once you've played for a bit... compared to regular player policy which has to cover infinitely more situations and interactions.

The policy should be updated, along with available lawsets, once there's a consensus about the AI's role.

What *IS* shit is being told after seeing Atlanta-Ned play the least asimov AI in existence, being told that "No silicon policy this week" means basically AI's can shock, bolt, ignore or harass under asimov without any repercussions unless it rises to a Rule 1 violation.

Posted: **Sun Feb 28, 2016 10:09 pm**

Cik wrote:
Wyzack wrote:Isn't this thread moot now with silicon policy nuked from high orbit?
it's actually a win win, i can continue to follow the parts i liked and not follow the parts i didn't

that means that i can consider self-harm harm and be an anti-suicide advocate! hurray!

You already could do that if you wanted, that clause is just in there to protect Al's from bored greyshits trying to get into the armory

Oldman Robustin wrote:What is this shitty meme.

Yes AI has to exercise discretion and follow a more complex set of rules than asimov would seem to imply.

But if you wrote out "Security Policy" or even "playing SS13 policy" you could write a small novel with what that actually entails in terms of expectations for your behavior. AI is more restricted by the rules, but those rules are SUPER easy to understand once you've played for a bit... compared to regular player policy which has to cover infinitely more situations and interactions.

The policy should be updated, along with available lawsets, once there's a consensus about the AI's role.

What *IS* shit is being told after seeing Atlanta-Ned play the least asimov AI in existence, being told that "No silicon policy this week" means basically AI's can shock, bolt, ignore or harass under asimov without any repercussions unless it rises to a Rule 1 violation.

The thing is, most of the stuff in silicon policy actually said you could/couldn't do so and so as a result of rule 1, so do I still enforce that precedent on the grounds of rule 1 or are we playing dumb about it?

Posted: **Sun Feb 28, 2016 10:15 pm**

all silicon policy was, was precedent worked out over time regarding what was acceptable under the rurus or not.

silicon policy may be gone but the same rurus still exist

Posted: **Sun Feb 28, 2016 10:26 pm**

Cik wrote:anyway i think the most characteristic strand that runs through all of the "remove AI" arguments is some sort of utopian vision of the game after the removal of AI, and also the sort of bizarre twists of logic that pin any perceived problem solely on the AI

so for instance, if traitors are too weak it's because the AI is too strong, remove AI! even though you could just give traitors 24 TC so they could pack a detector multitool and a full screen GGNORE instawin EMP flashlight if they wanted to, the obvious answer to the problem is to remove something that other people obviously enjoy playing a great deal. many arguments i read sort of hinge around this thing, where all of the 'problems' surrounding AI vs antags are for some reason deemed totally unresolvable and the AI needs to be removed because you couldn't just give traitors some more TC or tweak AI function a little or something.

But that's wrong?

The AI free week we've just had has shown extremely clearly how much of an impact silicons have on a round, and how much they effect antags.
"throwing more tc's at them" (ignoring the fact only tators and ops use tc's...) is called powercreep. Also why would I need to worry about an AI detector when I can just rock more murderboner kit?

Having an AI that even CAN have such a dramatic effect on the round progression (except when it's traitor/malf in which case it's fine) simply isn't healthy. This runs the other way also - how man times have you ever seen ops fail, if they choose to subvert the AI for example? I have literally never seen it happen.

Having the AI on your side, whether it is sec, gang, a tator or whatever, is such a rediculously unbalanced advantage it's genuinely absurd.

And for the people that complained that antags have had 'too easy a time of it' without an AI around? That's exactly the point - rounds where the whole crew safely evacs after all the antags are ruthless gutted and the crew gets bored from nothin happening are shit. That stalls round progression.
When antags are able to stir shit up and make things happen, this causes FUN, and progresses the round.

Posted: **Sun Feb 28, 2016 11:45 pm**

imblyings wrote:all silicon policy was, was precedent worked out over time regarding what was acceptable under the rurus or not.

silicon policy may be gone but the same rurus still exist

This just makes it sound even worse tbh

A lot more warnings, bans, and explanations for things that didn't need to be if they could just read it themselves.

Posted: **Sun Feb 28, 2016 11:49 pm**

Oldman Robustin wrote: But if you wrote out "Security Policy" or even "playing SS13 policy" you could write a small novel with what that actually entails in terms of expectations for your behavior.

Security policy in book form you say?
What a crazy thought.

imblyings wrote:all silicon policy was, was precedent worked out over time regarding what was acceptable under the rurus or not.

silicon policy may be gone but the same rurus still exist

In other words ai policy still exists, it's just hidden

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:03 am**

Malkevin wrote:
Oldman Robustin wrote: But if you wrote out "Security Policy" or even "playing SS13 policy" you could write a small novel with what that actually entails in terms of expectations for your behavior.
Security policy in book form you say?
What a crazy thought.

imblyings wrote:all silicon policy was, was precedent worked out over time regarding what was acceptable under the rurus or not.

silicon policy may be gone but the same rurus still exist
In other words ai policy still exists, it's just hidden

Most of Silicon policy still exists since its written in the laws. Which most people arguing against it would understand if they had read it in the first place.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:47 am**

Except the stuff like not locking down toxins/genetics/singulo/etc, not making toxins ai proof, etc.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:47 pm**

AIs act more predictably due to silicon policy. It is a brick wall you can choose to not bash your head on, if you plan on cracking skulls in front of the AI maybe you should prepare in some way and there are ways. I would honestly think people would have more problems with subverted murder machines that are the alternative.

Honestly even if AIs couldn't bolt the "I must escape every room instantly without tools" group would still be stopped by turning off the power, because a crowbar is too much to expect from someone in a station studded with firelocks.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:23 pm**

Bolt, depower. The door is now literally impassable unless you destroy it or go around it because you need the power on to unbolt, and you need it unbolted to crowbar it.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:47 am**

Zilenan91 wrote:Bolt, depower. The door is now literally impassable unless you destroy it or go around it because you need the power on to unbolt, and you need it unbolted to crowbar it.

Cut the AI control wire and then cut and repair the power wire.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:55 am**

Shhh don't reveal the secrets of hacking, let the AIs think they're invincible.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:56 am**

That requires insulated gloves, so either powergaming or being an engineer. Everybody else is unable to get past it.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:18 am**

>Gearing up to kill the AI and getting insulins
>Powergaming

Sure buddy

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:25 am**

You do realize not every interaction with the AI has to end in one killing or attemping to kill the other right.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 9:09 am**

Sure
In bizaro world

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:19 pm**

Pretty much.

There are 4 states the AI exists in

1) Asimov and helping sec. It will remain this way until a traitor kills it.
2) Asimov and not helping sec. It will remain this way until the HOS kills it while the captain calls him a cuck over command radio.
3) Not asimov and helping sec. It will remain this way.
4) The captain has uploaded a weird lawset. Abandon station.

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:20 pm**

You forgot two:
0.1 AI is traitor, but it helps sec. It will remain this way until in a fit of madness it reveals itself to a red valid-hunting tide or someone discovers it.
0.0 AI is a traitor and station is currently being flooded with plasma and is ravaged by: borgs, singularity, tesla, xenos relased from xenobio, admin memes or some combination thereof.

/tg/Station 13

Silicon Policimov

Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov

Re: Silicon Policimov