/tg/Station 13

First of all dunno if this is the right place, but hope so.

Anyway... as we all know from time to time the crew decides to build a "rage cage" or other kind of fighting club, most often in the bar. Sometimes even with electric grilles and such.

This often puts the silicons in a very unfun position as they pretty much have to try and stop it, but that often antagonizes the crew and makes the borgs a fun police. And this pretty much sucks all around.

Crewmembers get arrested, people hate the borgs, maybe even aussault them, etc.

So maybe we should have some kind of small policy that allows the silicons to ignore this. Like stepping into the ring is self-harm or simply "Wrestling isn't real *wink wink*" or whatever.

That way the silicons don't have to be anti-fun and the crew can bash each other's heads in.

last time i checked borg policy (who the fuck am i kidding, i never looked at that shit) humans harming themselves is something you don't have to try to prevent.

John_Oxford wrote:last time i checked borg policy (who the fuck am i kidding, i never looked at that shit) humans harming themselves is something you don't have to try to prevent.

If you're a silicon player or often interact with silicons you should give it a read, it's very helpful to "know your rights". Though most players don't know them which can cause problems (especially when it comes to denying requests).

And the self-harm thing is true, which is why I gave it as an option (stepping into the ring is self-harm), the problem is that strictly speaking two people hurting each other isn't self-harm, it's two people harming each other and that triggers asimov.

CosmicScientist wrote: To give an opinion, if the current policy is allow it, then fine. If it isn't, then I think heavy emphasis to Captains or similar that your laws deny you standing by and watching this unfold and that you will continue to try and intervene (which in itself gives people something to do) as your laws have not been changed to allow this situation.

That's true, but this very rarely happens and sometimes it happens too late (after it has already become an escalating problem between crew and silicons)

Self harm.

Sometimes you have to ignore the asimov rules to be a cool fun player.

selective blindness

Fight clubs okay. Rage cages with exposed shock grills and shit should be interfered with and padded or dismantled because shits dangerous yo.

My usual approach to things like this is to yell harm and make sure the rage cage isn't harming bystanders, but let the fighters do their thing unless it's clearly unwilling or they're killing a critted contestant.

Self-harm as soon as both sides give their confirmation they accept any and all harm that befalls on them.

Just ask "Is this consensual?" and once you get your Yes, either buzz off or referee.

Flood the cage with n2o - asimov is not fun, no fun allowed!

If players want to fight, they can do it in the holodeck with harmless weapons. If you start fighting and an Asimov silicon sees it, expect it to take action to stop you.

The more retarded policies, the less there is a point to having laws.

if there is a rage cage then command/security does not care

upload a law 4. no harm can occur inside the rage cage

note: i am not responsible if under a mandate of preventing harm the sillicons spend the rest of eternity deconstructing the universe and creating a gigantic wall around the galaxy to prevent all harm from happening ever if you don't specify where the boundaries of the rage cage are btw thx

Self-harm is not human harm. That's the easiest and most straightforward way to lay out the rules and it creates an outcome that makes everyone happy.

I'm honestly contemplating coding that in for asimov, either explicitly into the law or as a note when you become a borg.


We decided a long time ago that fucking with Geneticists who almost invariably toxin themselves is not acceptable. The logic behind allowing rage cage is not any different.

Oldman Robustin wrote:Self-harm is not human harm. That's the easiest and most straightforward way to lay out the rules and it creates an outcome that makes everyone happy.

I'm honestly contemplating coding that in for asimov, either explicitly into the law or as a note when you become a borg.


We decided a long time ago that fucking with Geneticists who almost invariably toxin themselves is not acceptable. The logic behind allowing rage cage is not any different.

Shouldn't have to be coded in, its in the sillicon policy.

is silicon policy still ded? Is it back?

Shad0vvs wrote:

Oldman Robustin wrote:Self-harm is not human harm. That's the easiest and most straightforward way to lay out the rules and it creates an outcome that makes everyone happy.

I'm honestly contemplating coding that in for asimov, either explicitly into the law or as a note when you become a borg.


We decided a long time ago that fucking with Geneticists who almost invariably toxin themselves is not acceptable. The logic behind allowing rage cage is not any different.

Shouldn't have to be coded in, its in the sillicon policy.

The question is whether two people attacking each other is really self harm. Sure, a rage cage is clear cut. But it gets much more ambiguous. Say a detective is ambushed by a traitor with a revolver. The traitor gets a shot off, but the detective's lightning-fast reactions allow him to fire back. He spams his shots, follows up with a baton, and kills the traitor. The traitor knew the risks of attacking a well-armed target. It's his own fault he got shot.

Okay, that wasn't in a pre-arranged area. Maybe you need verbal consent from everybody participating. A lot of players literally won't give that. They'll be annoyed about it, the silicon can even explain what they want, and some people just won't say the magic words (borg, I consent to this mutual violence or whatever).

Let's take another ambiguous situation. An assistant, having stolen the fire axe, appears at the RnD window and asks to be let in. The scientist tells him that if he comes in, he'll attack the assistant. The assistant breaks down the window, slices at the scientist, and is then stabbed to death with a spear. Was that in a pre-arranged area? Yes. Was the assistant clear he was entering into an area where others would try to harm him? Yes. Was it human harm? Well...probably, but if a rage cage isn't, is this?

They're not real situations, but they're meant to describe real things that could happen. If two people attacking each other isn't human harm, then what the hell is? What you really need is a proper series of death jockey contracts, but players will never do that because they can't be bothered. They'll just rage at silicons when they inevitably try to stop them, as they are required to in game.

Edit: unless, of course, it's a policy exception made for -and only for- rage cages.

The way I see it unless someone's being dragged kicking and screaming for help into a rage cage or they build it in an area where people can easily run into it pretend you didn't see anything. If the assistants want to get themselves killed by flinging eachother into electrified grills and beating the living shit out of eachother then let them have their fun unless they're dragging people who want no part of it into it.

Cheimon wrote:

Shad0vvs wrote:

Oldman Robustin wrote:Self-harm is not human harm. That's the easiest and most straightforward way to lay out the rules and it creates an outcome that makes everyone happy.

I'm honestly contemplating coding that in for asimov, either explicitly into the law or as a note when you become a borg.


We decided a long time ago that fucking with Geneticists who almost invariably toxin themselves is not acceptable. The logic behind allowing rage cage is not any different.

Shouldn't have to be coded in, its in the sillicon policy.

The question is whether two people attacking each other is really self harm. Sure, a rage cage is clear cut. But it gets much more ambiguous. Say a detective is ambushed by a traitor with a revolver. The traitor gets a shot off, but the detective's lightning-fast reactions allow him to fire back. He spams his shots, follows up with a baton, and kills the traitor. The traitor knew the risks of attacking a well-armed target. It's his own fault he got shot.

Okay, that wasn't in a pre-arranged area. Maybe you need verbal consent from everybody participating. A lot of players literally won't give that. They'll be annoyed about it, the silicon can even explain what they want, and some people just won't say the magic words (borg, I consent to this mutual violence or whatever).

Let's take another ambiguous situation. An assistant, having stolen the fire axe, appears at the RnD window and asks to be let in. The scientist tells him that if he comes in, he'll attack the assistant. The assistant breaks down the window, slices at the scientist, and is then stabbed to death with a spear. Was that in a pre-arranged area? Yes. Was the assistant clear he was entering into an area where others would try to harm him? Yes. Was it human harm? Well...probably, but if a rage cage isn't, is this?

They're not real situations, but they're meant to describe real things that could happen. If two people attacking each other isn't human harm, then what the hell is? What you really need is a proper series of death jockey contracts, but players will never do that because they can't be bothered. They'll just rage at silicons when they inevitably try to stop them, as they are required to in game.

Edit: unless, of course, it's a policy exception made for -and only for- rage cages.

This meme is literally covered in

2.2.1.1 - Humans can be assumed to know whether an action will harm them and that they will make educated decisions about whether they will be harmed if they have complete information about a situation.

If someone wants you to unbolt the outer airlocks for them without a spacesuit and you say, it is space, you will be harmed, and they say they understand, then you can do it if you wish, as they understand the full situation, and it would be self harm.

The problem I see with this is that letting someone else harm you is not self harm.
Now I don't particularly think borgs and AI's should interfer with fight clubs because that's some nofunallowed shit, but that's what asimov really implies.

Running out an airlock is not the same thing as willingly going into a situation where someone else MAY hurt you.

lumipharon wrote:The problem I see with this is that letting someone else harm you is not self harm.
Now I don't particularly think borgs and AI's should interfer with fight clubs because that's some nofunallowed shit, but that's what asimov really implies.

Running out an airlock is not the same thing as willingly going into a situation where someone else MAY hurt you.

They have complete info that going into the ragecage and fighting someone will get them harmed.

It would be a lot simpler to just remove the inaction clause.

Scott wrote:It would be a lot simpler to just remove the inaction clause.

This would result in Borgs not longer being friends to antags who are getting executed, one of the main things that prevents valid mov

Shad0vvs wrote:

lumipharon wrote:The problem I see with this is that letting someone else harm you is not self harm.
Now I don't particularly think borgs and AI's should interfer with fight clubs because that's some nofunallowed shit, but that's what asimov really implies.

Running out an airlock is not the same thing as willingly going into a situation where someone else MAY hurt you.

They have complete info that going into the ragecage and fighting someone will get them harmed.

Yes - by another person.

Otherwise you can use the same logic to say that anyone who tries to fight a traitor/nuke op/etc is also self harming because 'they know someone will get harmed', and proceed to beep boop and watch everyone get e-sworded to death.

TechnoAlchemist wrote:

Scott wrote:It would be a lot simpler to just remove the inaction clause.

This would result in Borgs not longer being friends to antags who are getting executed, one of the main things that prevents valid mov

We don't know what this would result in.

lumipharon wrote:

Shad0vvs wrote:

lumipharon wrote:The problem I see with this is that letting someone else harm you is not self harm.
Now I don't particularly think borgs and AI's should interfer with fight clubs because that's some nofunallowed shit, but that's what asimov really implies.

Running out an airlock is not the same thing as willingly going into a situation where someone else MAY hurt you.

They have complete info that going into the ragecage and fighting someone will get them harmed.

Yes - by another person.

Otherwise you can use the same logic to say that anyone who tries to fight a traitor/nuke op/etc is also self harming because 'they know someone will get harmed', and proceed to beep boop and watch everyone get e-sworded to death.

There's no way to know the full situation when they attack a traitor/nuke op/etc.

not even really true. you know he's a nuclear operative sent to kill everyone aboard and he has a fucking shotgun loaded with slugs.

if we're going with "walking out of an airlock is okay" then stepping into the firing arc of a 5+ strong team of psychopathic mass murdering specops guys is on the same tier.

i mean, space probably has a higher survival rate than disarm spamming a nukeop.

The difference is, walking into spaceor setting yourself on fire is a deliberate act to harm yourself. fighting a nuke op, or even fighting a dude in a rage cage, is putting yourself AT RISK of another person harming you.

ie: standing under a hanging anvil that you can make fall on your head, vs standing under an anvil which someone else COULD drop on your head.

This is all part of way asimov is pretty gay, btw.

Does the person being harmed give their explicit consent to being harmed? (i.e. "AI, I understand that going into the rage cage might cause me to be harmed, and I'm okay with that")

If not, sound the harm alarm. If people don't give their consent, then they're being harmed, and so you have to shut down the rage cage and get them out of their, ASAP... whilst reminding them "All you needed to do was give your verbal consent, it's not that hard, is it?".

I interpret it as "harm you both give consent to is self-harm", and if it's self-harm, you don't have to interfere (but you can if you want to - unless ordered to, maybe? Not sure how Law 2 works here).

So that means if the Captain went "Operative leader, I want to 1v1 you, no weapons, fitness room" and the leader accepted, that wouldn't be harmful as long as they were both aware of the risks.

Most of the time, that doesn't happen, though - and operatives shoot anyone they come across, even those who don't consent to being shot (and who actually says "Hey, ops, if you want to shoot me I'm okay with that"? Ever?).

lumipharon wrote:The difference is, walking into spaceor setting yourself on fire is a deliberate act to harm yourself. fighting a nuke op, or even fighting a dude in a rage cage, is putting yourself AT RISK of another person harming you.

Same principle as undergoing de-braining (which requires a second person to do it). It's self-harm unless you hear otherwise.

As for catatonics, they're presumed to have volunteered to whatever will happen to them unless they say otherwise.

TechnoAlchemist wrote:

Scott wrote:It would be a lot simpler to just remove the inaction clause.

This would result in Borgs not longer being friends to antags who are getting executed, one of the main things that prevents valid mov

The the above statement is dumb.

You don't need to harm or prevent harm to validate traitors, perma is a thing that exists and smart sec just drags traitors off to the gulag to execute them anyway.
Why exactly do we need to 'force' AIs to shit on sec for doing their jobs too well when every other department that can cause harm has ooc rules against AI interference?

The only thing it does it gets in the way of security doing proper fun executions approved by the captain, leaving the only options to either:
-a: throw the traitor into perma and hope they die of boredom
-b: sneak off the traitor to the gulag and execute them.

Malkevin wrote:The only thing it does it gets in the way of security doing proper fun executions approved by the captain, leaving the only options to either:
-a: throw the traitor into perma and hope they die of boredom
-b: sneak off the traitor to the gulag and execute them.

A2: throw the traitor into perma and let them escape (eventually) to do more antagonism
Or...
C: roleplay with the traitor, find out who they are and why they're on-station, and maybe cut a deal with them if they're nice enough

TheNightingale wrote:

Malkevin wrote:The only thing it does it gets in the way of security doing proper fun executions approved by the captain, leaving the only options to either:
-a: throw the traitor into perma and hope they die of boredom
-b: sneak off the traitor to the gulag and execute them.

A2: throw the traitor into perma and let them escape (eventually) to do more antagonism
Or...
C: roleplay with the traitor, find out who they are and why they're on-station, and maybe cut a deal with them if they're nice enough

Sybil isn't Basil.

Shad0vvs wrote:

lumipharon wrote:

Shad0vvs wrote:

lumipharon wrote:The problem I see with this is that letting someone else harm you is not self harm.
Now I don't particularly think borgs and AI's should interfer with fight clubs because that's some nofunallowed shit, but that's what asimov really implies.

Running out an airlock is not the same thing as willingly going into a situation where someone else MAY hurt you.

They have complete info that going into the ragecage and fighting someone will get them harmed.

Yes - by another person.

Otherwise you can use the same logic to say that anyone who tries to fight a traitor/nuke op/etc is also self harming because 'they know someone will get harmed', and proceed to beep boop and watch everyone get e-sworded to death.

There's no way to know the full situation when they attack a traitor/nuke op/etc.

I gave some examples of situations where someone does know the full situation outside of a rage cage. Assistant breaking into science after being threatened with a spear, traitor attacking detective after detective's said he'll shoot in self defence, and so on. Just to be clear, are you saying that the AI should consider these things self harm? Because they're the same as a rage cage unless you give them a magical policy distinction: both people enter into a state where they agree to harm each other if certain conditions are met. That honestly covers the vast majority of non-antagonist harm (and a lot of validhunting antags, as well).

It's not about whether they say they consent to each other (e.g. "A step closer and I'll shoot!" "Go on, then. -steps-"), it's about if they consent to the AI, I'd say. If the AI doesn't know it's consensual, then they have to assume it's non-consensual (because nobody wants to be harmed, right?), and must intervene.

(All this applies to borgs too, of course, and remember that they can still intervene even if it's consensual, they're just not obligated to.)

Cheimon wrote: I gave some examples of situations where someone does know the full situation outside of a rage cage. Assistant breaking into science after being threatened with a spear, traitor attacking detective after detective's said he'll shoot in self defence, and so on. Just to be clear, are you saying that the AI should consider these things self harm? Because they're the same as a rage cage unless you give them a magical policy distinction: both people enter into a state where they agree to harm each other if certain conditions are met. That honestly covers the vast majority of non-antagonist harm (and a lot of validhunting antags, as well).

But they don't know the full situation? They go into science the scientist could have a gun, the scientist could have 5 guns, its not a situation anyone can claim they know every aspect of.
Saying things and doing things are completely different too.

Airlock into space is simple, and ragecage is simple. Least that's how I see it, and it lets you not ruin people's fun really.

Just maintain a safe clean murder pit and it makes sense. Shocked grills and shit are hair trigger hazards and you don't leave an entire line of them be.

It's the difference between asking to go out a proper airlock and insisting a broken window to space be left alone.

Shad0vvs wrote:

Cheimon wrote: I gave some examples of situations where someone does know the full situation outside of a rage cage. Assistant breaking into science after being threatened with a spear, traitor attacking detective after detective's said he'll shoot in self defence, and so on. Just to be clear, are you saying that the AI should consider these things self harm? Because they're the same as a rage cage unless you give them a magical policy distinction: both people enter into a state where they agree to harm each other if certain conditions are met. That honestly covers the vast majority of non-antagonist harm (and a lot of validhunting antags, as well).

But they don't know the full situation? They go into science the scientist could have a gun, the scientist could have 5 guns, its not a situation anyone can claim they know every aspect of.
Saying things and doing things are completely different too.

Airlock into space is simple, and ragecage is simple. Least that's how I see it, and it lets you not ruin people's fun really.

AI's have been ruining security's fun for years, so I say suck it.