/tg/Station 13

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 2:06 am**

Bottom post of the previous page:

Luke Cox wrote:I'm not really sure what you're getting at. The main purpose of this borg is to prevent harm, just like the old secborg was.

That's no good. We don't need a borg like that.

Luke Cox wrote:by default the AI's primary objective is to prevent human harm.

Like I've said in the past few posts, this is the wrong mindset and one we should be moving away from. The AI is obliged to prevent human harm, but that is not it's primary objective. The AI in particular is tasked with following the crew's orders when it comes to manipulating machinery or opening doors. Other silicons exist to build/repair as an engieborg, heal dudes as a mediborg, clean things as a janiborg, serve dudes as a service borg, mine as a miner borg, etc.

Based on the feedback poll and the fairly split opinion between supporting their full removal, wanting them back, and wanting secborgs nerfed, a replacement is an imperative.

Not true; they can live without secborg, and they've already proved it by continuing to play the game in the past few weeks where we haven't had secborg. A replacement is in no way needed, and DEFINITELY not imperative.

Presently, the AI has no means to actually intervene in a harmful situation other than bolting stuff.

And that is okay. See my posts above regarding law 1 and the necessity to try your best to help, but not necessarily succeed every time.

My goal with this is to give the AI a means to resolve violent situations in a way different than security.

This is not needed. The AI does not need a dedicated anti-harm tool, especially since preventing harm is not it's primary purpose (see above where I responded to your claim that an AI's primary goal is preventing harm).

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 2:58 am**

You're essentially describing the AI as though it revolves around law 2 (obey crew orders), which it does not. Law 1 supersedes law 2, meaning that preventing harm takes priority over obeying crew orders. The AI's "objective" is to obey its laws, and law 1 is its primary directive; all other tasks are secondary to preventing human harm. Even if we're going with your premise, what's the AI to do when a human orders them to break up a fight? The AI needs tools to obey various orders, and currently it is lacking a means to deal with immediate human harm. Where you're getting the idea of law 2 being the primary directive, I don't know. As you can see in this poll, the majority of the community wants a harm-prevention borg of some sort. The AI can play in its current state, but that does not mean that the current solution is the optimal one.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:08 am**

That pool says that he majority of people want sec Borgs disabled lmao

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:13 am**

Luke Cox wrote:You're essentially describing the AI as though it revolves around law 2 (obey crew orders), which it does not. Law 1 supersedes law 2, meaning that preventing harm takes priority over obeying crew orders.

While law 1 supersedes law 2 in priority, this does not mean it takes priority in terms of the AI's main objective. You are confusing the priority of the AI's obligations with it's main goal. The only reason the laws are ordered that way is so that you can't force AIs to kill people via law two.

Luke Cox wrote:Even if we're going with your premise, what's the AI to do when a human orders them to break up a fight?

Its best. It should try as hard as it can to break up a fight with the tools that it has. If it succeeds, good for it, if it fails, still good for it, because as long as it tries its best it has still satisfied law one.

Like I said before, if trying and failing to save a human from harm broke law one, MOST cyborgs would be banned already. If you were dragging a human who was in crit to medbay and it died before you got there, you would get banned. This is not the case, however. It is okay to fail to save a human from harm as a cyborg, as long as you genuinely tried your best to do so. You can't win them all, and you don't have to, but you definitely have to at least try.

Luke Cox wrote:Where you're getting the idea of law 2 being the primary directive, I don't know.

From the place that wants to make the game fun. An AI that interacts with the crew and acts as more of a service and surveillance system than an active validhunter is worlds more fun to play around. The priority of the laws do not dictate the silicon's main objective most of the time, unless there is a human actively being injured. Again, look to the borg types to see this: The main objective of the engieborg is to repair and build. The janitor borg cleans. The medical borg heals. The mining borg mines. The service borg serves. Just because they have a law one that says they need to stop harm when they see it does not mean they should always be validhunting like you are suggesting. That mindset is shitty, unfun, and is why secborgs were removed.

As for the poll, I believe that many of them were wrong. This poll also lacks an abstain option, which means many may have just voted the last option with no real regard for the poll.

That also goes without saying that this poll is dated. Now that secborgs have been gone for a long time, player opinions have likely changed.

Luke Cox wrote:The AI can play in its current state, but that does not mean that the current solution is the optimal one.

Optimal in this context was a bizarre choice of words, but I'll assume you meant "most fun for the AI." Spoiler alert, sometimes one player has to have less fun so that the rest of the players can have more fun. That is why we don't do things like give standard antags pulse rifles or wands of death. This principle is called "balance," you may have heard of it.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:23 am**

TechnoAlchemist wrote:That pool says that he majority of people want sec Borgs disabled lmao

The "enable secborgs" and "enable secborgs with nerfs" options collectively outnumber the "disable secborgs" options. The point is that a large portion of the playerbase wants some form of harm prevention borg.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:24 am**

Luke Cox wrote:
TechnoAlchemist wrote:That pool says that he majority of people want sec Borgs disabled lmao
The "enable secborgs" and "enable secborgs with nerfs" options collectively outnumber the "disable secborgs" options. The point is that a large portion of the playerbase wants some form of harm prevention borg.

Like I already pointed out in my post that you evidently didn't read, that poll didn't have an abstain option, and doesn't allow revotes. That means that the default vote if you weren't sure was the compromise vote, and it shouldn't be considered when determining a binary "majority." Not to mention this poll is outdated now that secborgs have been off for so long.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:40 am**

I'm just trying to figure out why you're so hell-bent on not trying this in any capacity. Doesn't it make sense to test this out and see how it works in practice? We can argue about theoreticals all day but until we see it in action we won't know for sure.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:50 am**

Apparently you people still do not get it

Luke he understands what you are saying, he just does not agree that silicons should actively be sticking their boner into every violent conflict they see. There is merit to this and I think it was the driving force behind the sec borg removal.

That said, you people are fucking hypocrites for going "it's just a test lol calm down" over the sec borg and AI removal tests and then kicking and screaming over testing this.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:57 am**

Change is good except when it's change I don't like -TGstation 20XX

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:03 am**

Thanks for the sprites, Remie. I'll get the code for this wrapped up this weekend if i can figure out how to add the new sprites.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:21 am**

Wyzack wrote:Apparently you people still do not get it

Luke he understands what you are saying, he just does not agree that silicons should actively be sticking their boner into every violent conflict they see. There is merit to this and I think it was the driving force behind the sec borg removal.

That said, you people are fucking hypocrites for going "it's just a test lol calm down" over the sec borg and AI removal tests and then kicking and screaming over testing this.

Same could be said about the people who kicked and screamed about the secborg test but insist that we test this. Hypocrisy goes both ways.

Not to mention that we essentially already had a test of this, and that was secborgs. A stunted secborg is still effectively a secborg in practice. Why test something that we've had in the code and already been "testing" for actual years?

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:27 am**

Wyzack wrote:Apparently you people still do not get it

Luke he understands what you are saying, he just does not agree that silicons should actively be sticking their boner into every violent conflict they see. There is merit to this and I think it was the driving force behind the sec borg removal.

I know that he understands what I'm saying, I just think that his logic is retarded

Edit: And if people are worried about AIs meddling with every conflict, change Asimov. The lawset mandates that the AI meddle in every possible way.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 5:48 am**

Luke Cox wrote:Edit: And if people are worried about AIs meddling with every conflict, change Asimov. The lawset mandates that the AI meddle in every possible way.

don't act like that hasn't been tried. you go do it and put up a forum thread to try and change it right now. if you can actually convince the siliconfags and all the admins and everything, i'd be seriously impressed.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:58 am**

I'm sympathetic to your concerns about AI overreach, but this getting added or not getting added is not going to change the situation. Even if we follow your vision of how the AI should work, the AI still needs a full range of tools to do its job. We have engiborgs for repairing stuff, janiborgs for cleaning, mediborgs for treating injuries, mining borgs for gathering minerals, service borgs for I don't know what, but absolutely nothing for dealing with immediate, person-to-person harm. If law 1 doesn't mandate it, the AI will still get a law 2 order to do something about it. If validhunters are a concern, I think that the standard module in its current state is much more appealing to validhunters with the stun baton. Do we see a lot of standard borgs validhunting right now?

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:31 am**

A wise man once said "The entire point of asimov ruins asimov! Viva la door knob!"

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 9:05 am**

Wyzack wrote:Apparently you people still do not get it

Luke he understands what you are saying, he just does not agree that silicons should actively be sticking their boner into every violent conflict they see. There is merit to this and I think it was the driving force behind the sec borg removal.

That said, you people are fucking hypocrites for going "it's just a test lol calm down" over the sec borg and AI removal tests and then kicking and screaming over testing this.

I didn't want the secborg removed and I don't want this in the game, not even tested.

The community decided to remove the secborg from player reach, and now we should stick with the consequences, good and bad.

It is simply too early to undo that, considering that people are enjoying a secborg free station.

There are so many things wrong with this game, the lack of secborg is not priority. Focus your energy on something else, something that really needs attention, such as the majority of jobs being stale.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:21 pm**

Scott wrote: Scenario A:
Peacekeeper Borg is not good at stopping harm, players will not play this module because they don't want to get killed every time they try to do their job. At the first encounter with an antag capable of destroying the cyborg, the cyborg will die because it is forced to stop harm annoy the antag with its ineffectual tools due to Asimov.

Conclusion, it has no reason to exist, even less than the rarely used existing cyborg modules, for they at least serve their purpose well.
Malkevin wrote:Also borgs should prevent harm, they just shouldn't have very good tools at doing so
You are missing the point of cyborgs.

If borgs were so easy to kill then why was the sec borg removed for being too challenging for tard babies to tackle?

Point of borgs is to give a different style of play, being slaves to their laws, not be Validus Maximus the Demigod of Power Boners.
Basically they should be only slightly more effective than lawyers.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 2:05 pm**

Guys can we please just finish this Borg, add it, test it, and forget about it? This thread is devolving into mudslinging quickly and more effort is being put into arguing and insulting one another than finishing off the Borg, and it's all really uncomfortable.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 2:21 pm**

Topham wrote: and it's all

really uncomfortable.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:15 pm**

Luke Cox wrote:
Remie Richards wrote:
Scott wrote:Try making the legs wider.
Doesn't change much, not to mention I don't really think the tracks are that wide (well, long)

Absolutely perfect. What do you think we should do for the transformation sequence?

Ah, I knew there was something I forgot, I imagine something like a Standard borg (they all start that way) but then the white shell off the egg wraps around it, and then the cute lil panda style ears pop up out the top.
I'll give it a go later today.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:23 pm**

Topham wrote:Guys can we please just finish this Borg, add it, test it, and forget about it? This thread is devolving into mudslinging quickly and more effort is being put into arguing and insulting one another than finishing off the Borg, and it's all really uncomfortable.

working on it

That said this borg is by design worse at validhunting than a standard model cyborg. It would be essentially impossible for it to kill or detain someone.

I do want to name it something other than "peacekeeper", though. "Love-egg" is a bit too on the nose, though. Any suggestions?

And thanks for the sprite work, Remie! I appreciate the hell out of it.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:26 pm**

Intervention borg? Protector? Guardian? Mediator?

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:47 pm**

"Mediator" sounds great.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:49 pm**

Harm Prevention Edgeless Safety Cyborg.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:11 pm**

About the harm argument, even if laws are supposed to be guidelines on what to do while working, the cyborgs and the AI are supposed to be following them at all costs (by order of priority)

You guys may be forgetting a fundamental part of law 1 that forces silicons to stop harm at all costs

The first law itself states: "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm."

The bold part is the reason borgs and the AI are supposed to prevent harm whenever they see it, and as the AI is supposed to have an eye everywhere in the station, they must be there at all times.
Also, remember the borgs are supposed to follow orders from the AI, this means they can be informed about harm by the AI and go from one side of the station to the other just to stop harm

So yeah, if you guys want borgs not to stick their boners in every conflict, a law change is needed.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 9:50 pm**

Jike wrote: So yeah, if you guys want borgs not to stick their boners in every conflict, a law change is needed.

This is the point that I've been trying to make. Law 1 REQUIRES that the AI interfere with conflicts wherever possible. As I said before, I believe that secborgs were primarily a policy issue, but the admins have shown that they have no interest in resolving it. Gimping the AI isn't the solution either. I believe that this borg is the answer because it allows the AI to carry out its functions in a less intrusive or biased (against antags) way, while still giving it a means of doing something about fights. If validhunting is your concern, law 1 is your issue.

As for the name, I was thinking Safety Borg

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 9:54 pm**

I did the transformation, REALLY proud of this, lots of lil fun cute parts to it (although I had to draw the shading again for each frame ;_;, the worst shading is about 35 of the 54 frames (54!!!) and that's the eggshell bit)

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 10:06 pm**

You are the hero that this server needs

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 10:27 pm**

>shitpost a bunch saying this is a bad idea
>get actual arguments back

>write a bunch of long, really detailed, and accurate posts
>instead of people arguing back they just ignore it

this is still a bad idea and you guys can't prove me wrong
sprites are good though, put them on serviceborg

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:29 pm**

We did address your actual arguments, we just think they're retarded. Refuting your arguments is not "ignoring" them. You said silicons validhunting was a problem, we explained in great detail why law 1 was the issue and not silicons. Standard borgs have actual stun batons, how the fuck is this borg worse? Do you see standard borgs roaming the station, validhunting (spoiler alert you don't)? We can prove you wrong, and we have. Secborgs were an issue because they were designed to function as security, complete with HUDs that identify criminals on sight, disablers, stun batons, and cable cuffs. This borg is less effective at validhunting than the standard module. It's starting to sound less like you're worried about this borg and more like you have a raging hate boner for silicons in general. If you're so confident in the validity of your arguments, why don't you want this made and tested?

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:49 pm**

Quick code update!

Sprites are in, bola launcher bolas delete themselves properly when they get taken off of someone, and the borg, when emagged, gets a Cyborg Disabler.

Something that happened purely by coincidence that I nonetheless like: All of the borg's modules (except the Cyborg Disabler) are force 0.

It's physically incapable of hitting things. Stay away from space carp, folks!

My to-do list:

-Make the cookie dispenser
-Give it a mini fire extinguisher
-Change the name and desc on the bola launcher to suit the new energy bolas

So it's modules will be:

-The energy bola launcher
-The sedative injector (can inject space drugs or cryptobiolin.)
-A holobarrier generator (engineering-style, not sec style)
-A flash.
-A cookie dispenser.
-A mini fire exinguisher.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:56 pm**

YES. BRING US THE LOVE EGG BORG. YES.

Posted: **Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:06 am**

Oh. And I need to get the animation working. That's being difficult.

CORRECTION: I AM AN IDIOT WHO CANNOT PRESS CTRL S, DISREGARD THE ABOVE.

Posted: **Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:07 am**

Drynwyn wrote:Oh. And I need to get the animation working. That's being difficult.

54 frames with the last frame being 3 deciseconds instead of 1, so that's 56 deciseconds total.

Posted: **Sat Apr 23, 2016 9:48 am**

Only a disabler for emagging sounds pretty shit, make it a laser ala sec borgs

Posted: **Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:45 am**

I know it has been said that it's a pain to code, but in the long run I'm still in favour of the grenade launcher with an additional syndicate grenade launcher when emagged.

Silicons still lack any sort of ranged option which is a problem.

Also didn't we agree on the sprites having a pink tint to them? Would be great to give the eggborg its own color and not overlap with the Mediborg with both being white.

Posted: **Sat Apr 23, 2016 11:33 am**

dionysus24779 wrote:I know it has been said that it's a pain to code, but in the long run I'm still in favour of the grenade launcher with an additional syndicate grenade launcher when emagged.

Silicons still lack any sort of ranged option which is a problem.

Also didn't we agree on the sprites having a pink tint to them? Would be great to give the eggborg its own color and not overlap with the Mediborg with both being white.

there is actually a very subtle pink on the egg shell, it's used to make it more of an eggshell white.

Posted: **Sat Apr 23, 2016 11:47 am**

We also agreed it needs a vibrate function

Posted: **Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:24 pm**

who the fuck's this "we" person, i agreed to nothing

Code status: Code is done and dusted. However, I need to get Git working, which is.... hard. PR will be up by Sunday night, hopefully.

Posted: **Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:17 pm**

Luke Cox wrote:We did address your actual arguments, we just think they're retarded. Refuting your arguments is not "ignoring" them. You said silicons validhunting was a problem, we explained in great detail why law 1 was the issue and not silicons. Standard borgs have actual stun batons, how the fuck is this borg worse? Do you see standard borgs roaming the station, validhunting (spoiler alert you don't)? We can prove you wrong, and we have. Secborgs were an issue because they were designed to function as security, complete with HUDs that identify criminals on sight, disablers, stun batons, and cable cuffs. This borg is less effective at validhunting than the standard module. It's starting to sound less like you're worried about this borg and more like you have a raging hate boner for silicons in general. If you're so confident in the validity of your arguments, why don't you want this made and tested?

Luke Cox wrote:We did address your actual arguments, we just think they're retarded. Refuting your arguments is not "ignoring" them. You said silicons validhunting was a problem, we explained in great detail why law 1 was the issue and not silicons.

No, because I told you why law 1 both isn't the issue and also that it can't be changed, and designing around it is not the right way to fix it. If you had addressed my arguments, you would have addressed this.

Standard borgs have actual stun batons, how the fuck is this borg worse? Do you see standard borgs roaming the station, validhunting (spoiler alert you don't)?

Yes, I do. Standard borgs having stun batons is kind of lame, but since they lack a ranged option it's not really a big balance issue. They also give up being able to be a superior module like an engiborg (infinite walls/airlocks, you get a stunbaton anyways if you get emagged, full tool set so that TRAITORS CANT escape FROM YOU).

Before secborg was removed, people pretty much only played standard borgs on accident (or for the occasional "AI is malf time to esword"). You see a good fair number of them now.

We can prove you wrong, and we have.

>we we we we we
are you secretly wewlad memeing me

And no, you haven't.

Luke Cox wrote:This borg is less effective at validhunting than the standard module.

Then why bother? The standard borg is a sort of jack of all trades type of borg. It has a purpose beyond validhunting. This borg exists purely to validhunt and isn't even as good at it as the standard borg. You've failed to address this multiple times, despite your claims that you've already proved me wrong.

Luke Cox wrote:It's starting to sound less like you're worried about this borg and more like you have a raging hate boner for silicons in general. If you're so confident in the validity of your arguments, why don't you want this made and tested?

I think silicons are cool as a concept, but are played by shitty people who believe that their prime objective should be and already is "get them valids." If engieborgs actually build/repair, they're total bros for life. Janiborgs that actually clean are a godsend, mediborgs that vigilantly stand by the medbay are amazing. The problem is that people aren't playing them this way, and it sucks. This idea just encourages that shitty way of play.

I am very confident in my arguments. Feel free to test this. There just won't be a point to it. We already know how it will play out from both secborgs and what I've already said in this post (namely that this "peacekeeper borg" isn't even as good at it's main job than a standard borg, essentially leaving it without a purpose).

Posted: **Sun Apr 24, 2016 4:39 am**

Whatever the use of the borg that egg sprite is cute as hell.

Even if it does remind me a little of T-bob from M.A.S.K.

[youtube]2CqemAT4iwI[/youtube]

Posted: **Sun Apr 24, 2016 6:21 am**

Screemonster wrote:Whatever the use of the borg that egg sprite is cute as hell.

Even if it does remind me a little of T-bob from M.A.S.K.

Spoiler:
[youtube]2CqemAT4iwI[/youtube]

"Hello, Professor Stevens. Feeling better?"
[grunt] "Where am I?"
"In my home, Professor Stevens. Some of my...friends found you unconscious in a ravine."
"Wh-who are you?"
[voice gets soft] "My name is Tracker. Matt Tracker."
"Matt Tracker, I've heard of you."
"I hope the reports were good."
"Better than good. You're supposed to help people in trouble" [brushes hair out of face] "and boy could I use some help now~"
"So can a lot of people, Professor Stevens. However my interests lie in rather...unusual situations."

Spoiler:

Posted: **Sun Apr 24, 2016 9:36 pm**

Okay I have thus far been unable to get GitHub working properly- after copypasting in all of my modified files it compiles but the DMB doesn't run. (The original place I copypasted from still runs fine.) I don't have time to deal with this today. If someone else wants to wrestle with git I can pass them the modified files, if not, I'll deal with this some time in the coming week.

Posted: **Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:21 am**

Drynwyn wrote:Okay I have thus far been unable to get GitHub working properly- after copypasting in all of my modified files it compiles but the DMB doesn't run. (The original place I copypasted from still runs fine.) I don't have time to deal with this today. If someone else wants to wrestle with git I can pass them the modified files, if not, I'll deal with this some time in the coming week.

I mean, I can if you want but i have yet to have a merged pr so i dunno

Posted: **Mon Apr 25, 2016 11:16 am**

Remie Richards wrote:

I did the transformation, REALLY proud of this, lots of lil fun cute parts to it (although I had to draw the shading again for each frame ;_;, the worst shading is about 35 of the 54 frames (54!!!) and that's the eggshell bit)

This is awesome. So smooth and cute.

Could it be called the H.E.L.P.

Harm Elimination with Learning Protocols

Posted: **Mon Apr 25, 2016 12:43 pm**

Okay, name proposals I like so far are the H.E.L.P, the Harm Prevention Edgeless Safety Cyborg, and the Mediator.

That said, while I might sneak H.E.L.P or Edgeless Safety Cyborg into a description somewhere, they're too long and don't give a clear enough idea of the borg module's purpose to use as the module's primary name.

Still can't figure out why the compiled code runs fine in my not-a-git-repo folder and dies in my is-a-git-repo folder- presumably there is a file somewhere I failed to copy paste, but I can't imagine what I touched that would be completely preventing the DMB from running while not producing any compiler errors.

EDIT: Fixed the running problem, it was a permissions thing, not an issue with the code. Now I just need to get this onto Git.

Posted: **Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:52 pm**

Drynwyn wrote: That said, while I might sneak H.E.L.P or Edgeless Safety Cyborg into a description somewhere, they're too long and don't give a clear enough idea of the borg module's purpose to use as the module's primary name.

I'd kinda agree with that. They're silly meme type ancronyms that work well in description.
Something like:
"This is a Mediator Cyborg. A Edgeless Safety Cyborg design to keep harm to a minimum"
OR
"This is a Mediator Cyborg. It's product brochure lists it as a H.E.L.P (Harm Elimination with Learning Protocols) class cyborg, designed to reinforce your selected lawset with maximum safety in mind"
or something...

Posted: **Mon Apr 25, 2016 6:17 pm**

The transformation looks really great, especially how it blinks and the "ears" pop out.

I might've missed something though, didn't we agree on making it light-pink? The white look is great too, but the Mediborg is already white.

As for names... I like both, though I tend towards the edgeless safety joke.

Posted: **Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:18 pm**

dionysus24779 wrote:The transformation looks really great, especially how it blinks and the "ears" pop out.

I might've missed something though, didn't we agree on making it light-pink? The white look is great too, but the Mediborg is already white.

As for names... I like both, though I tend towards the edgeless safety joke.

As I already said to you above, there's a pink tint to the white, which is what makes it an eggshell white.

Posted: **Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:34 pm**

good work remie :^)

Posted: **Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:48 pm**

Drynwyn wrote:Okay, name proposals I like so far are the H.E.L.P, the Harm Prevention Edgeless Safety Cyborg, and the Mediator.

That said, while I might sneak H.E.L.P or Edgeless Safety Cyborg into a description somewhere, they're too long and don't give a clear enough idea of the borg module's purpose to use as the module's primary name.

Still can't figure out why the compiled code runs fine in my not-a-git-repo folder and dies in my is-a-git-repo folder- presumably there is a file somewhere I failed to copy paste, but I can't imagine what I touched that would be completely preventing the DMB from running while not producing any compiler errors.

EDIT: Fixed the running problem, it was a permissions thing, not an issue with the code. Now I just need to get this onto Git.

Very nice. Give us a link once the PR is up

/tg/Station 13

Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg [PR now up]

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg

Re: Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg