Official Silicon Policy Adoption Vote [PASSED 10-6]

[Pandarsenic]

So, having undergone review by admins, then players, back to admins again!

Read this before posting. http://pastebin.com/bduT7pFf Read this before posting.

This is the final place to go over any outstanding objections you have to this being made official. The community's feedback has been used to improve the document so if you have objections, speak now.

Votes against without actual reasons written or PMed will probably be more or less ignored.
Posts not relevant to the policy itself will be deleted.

[alien219]

Post Deleted

[alien219]

Post Deleted

[Aranclanos]

Post Deleted

[Pandarsenic]

Posts not relevant to the policy itself will be deleted.

Also, Aranclanos, this thread is for actual administrators, so please do not post in it or vote in the poll.

[alien219]

Jawohl.

[Aranclanos]

Post Deleted

[Hibbles]

Guys, just post a vote and a reason why. If you have a problem with Pandarsenic, bring it up to them in a PM or another thread, and if they don't listen, talk to me or SoS about it for oversight.

I strongly support because this policy actually makes sense and is a unified, coherent silicon policy we can get everybody behind, start toeing it, begin to make things more consistent, and maybe reduce the fear of players that a difference in admin opinion may leave them open to being banned for stuff semi-randomly. They have a thing to refer to. Plus the rules aren't dumb, they're smart. They make sense according to how, well, people actually play silicon, how it should be played, etc, rather than imposing stupid limitations in areas that aren't needed.

For just one random instance, suiciding when you're under direct threat of subversion, as in, fuckers breaking into your Upload wall or somebody busting into Secure Tech Storage, lifting the board, and Sec/your borgs/the crew just can't catch the guy fast enough. I am told this was listed as against the rules on the wiki or something? Never knew that. I always do that. I'm of the personal opinion most high-quality AIs would do that if some random idiot tries to subvert them, and it's the burden of the person trying to 'lol subvert plasma flood' to exert themselves and accept some risk of messing up.

But regardless, it was referred to Pandar, who found it was an okay thing to do in those situations because Law 1>Law 3 etc.

[Aurx]

Votes against without actual reasons written or PMed will probably be more or less ignored.

Votes in favor without actual reasons written or PMed will suffer a similar fate, I assume? That's only logical.

I also STRONGLY object to having that link at the top, as it encourages grief-causing actions. I can very easily see a player taking a "THE STATION NEEDS MORE CHAIRS" ion law to mean DISASSEMBLE ALL WALLS KILL EVERYTHING THAT USES METAL and citing that link. That's not acceptable behavior, but it is what would be supported by that part of the policy. That NEEDS to change.
I also object to linking to external resources in general, as their content and availability are not controllable.

Conditional on this document being revised as issues arise, and the aforementioned issue being fixed, AGREE. If the first condition is not met, STRONGLY DISAGREE. If the second condition is not met, DISAGREE. No formal vote is being placed until the outcome of these conditions is clear.

[Pandarsenic]

Votes against without actual reasons written or PMed will probably be more or less ignored.

Votes in favor without actual reasons written or PMed will suffer a similar fate, I assume? That's only logical.

What it comes down to is I trust people not to be dumb enough to vote in a policy based on their personal feelings about me, but I don't trust people with a personal dislike of me to vote in good faith about the actual policy's content, not try to derail the thread, etc. Would I like EVERY vote to be explained? Yes, but that was the way the last thread was meant to work so there was no poll and NOBODY SAID ANYTHING, thus why we're here.

I also STRONGLY object to having that link at the top, as it encourages grief-causing actions. I can very easily see a player taking a "THE STATION NEEDS MORE CHAIRS" ion law to mean DISASSEMBLE ALL WALLS KILL EVERYTHING THAT USES METAL and citing that link. That's not acceptable behavior, but it is what would be supported by that part of the policy. That NEEDS to change.
I also object to linking to external resources in general, as their content and availability are not controllable.

Conditional on this document being revised as issues arise, and the aforementioned issue being fixed, AGREE. If the first condition is not met, STRONGLY DISAGREE. If the second condition is not met, DISAGREE. No formal vote is being placed until the outcome of these conditions is clear.

The link is to the document in its current state, in my own pastebin. Ion and hacked laws are meant to be potentially dangerous (or very dangerous); an AI that gets the law that the station needs more chairs should, once all other metal available is exhausted and in the absence of the ability to procure orders from cargo, have the option to begin disassembling walls into chairs (but not killing people left and right Just Because, even if they get in the way or disassemble chairs). That's how hacked/ion laws work and are meant to work by my understanding. If you believe that ion and hacked laws shouldn't be potentially dangerous, I am willing to listen to your reasons why.

The document, for clarification:
1) Is only technically an external resource. It's accessible, as-is, by me and only by me. Its availability and content are subject to me leaving it up and Pastebin not going down. That said, I would rather it be put somewhere /tg/-official rather than my pastebin.
2) Is subject to ongoing revision. The changelog has been moved to the public thread most recently, but two issues of wording and content were brought up and resolved today.

Does that clear everything up?

[Aurx]

Not the link to the document, the link at the start of the document to http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer and the behavior it implies to be acceptable. Between 1.1.2, 1.2.1.2, server rule one, and the intent I perceive ion storms to operate on, going on a wall removing spree and killing anybody who interferes would be unacceptable action, despite being exactly what that link says an AI would do. I'd have to recheck the code to see if there are any ion laws that could cause a similar event resulting in such conflict, but even in the lack thereof I do not feel it acceptable to base policy on the assumption that the ion storm law list is static and will never change.

[Pandarsenic]

Oh! The paperclip maximizer link. That's the point, though, is that the AI is made safe as well as made dangerous by that it absolutely must follow its laws, and that incautious treatment of its laws or their wording can have horrendous, catastrophic backfire. I have, on rare occasions, received ion laws that all-but-required me to harm the crew like that THE CREW REQUIRES FIRE. Ion laws, as I mentioned, are meant to be potentially dangerous if left unattended. Ripping out all of the walls INSTANTLY is wrong; ripping them out when you reach the end of metal resources is acceptable, though if you have an engieborg it can produce metal simply by charging anyway, and thus the wall-removal is completely unnecessary because you're never beholden to station resources other than power...

So yeah, I guess you still have no justification to rip walls out with a law like that in place, but there are and should be situations where an Ion Law is as dangerous as a meteor swarm or more.

Should you be LOOKING for those interpretations? No. You don't want to or have to dig deep for them. But sometimes they'll come up naturally, and when they do, the AI is and should be a threat.

Yeah? No?

(Related: I'm going to be, at several people's recommendation, looking into removing restrictions on purged AI behavior)

[Aranclanos]

Post Deleted

[Pandarsenic]

Poll changed based on useful feedback from Rockdtben

[Aurx]

I understand why you put that link there, but I really don't like the attitude you suggest. From an IC standpoint it makes sense, but an AI is a player bound by OOC sensibilities, and I feel that link promotes a style of law abuse that I'm REALLY not sure I want to be supported by policy. This may very well just be me assuming the worst of the playerbase, but I feel it's a major risk that'd cause trouble and be then edited out.

I really don't want to fully remove restrictions on purged AIs. When purge means "AI can kill everybody FNR", it's treated with the same caution as antimov. When purge means "AI has no laws, but still has to have a reason to kill", it's a LOT more likely to get used as an actual lawset. I LIKE purge, it's a fun lawset. I want to see AIs interacting with the crew without laws, instead welcoming everybody to plasmafireboltshock station 13.

[alien219]

What's the point of poll then if you are going to make it official anyway?
I dislike the hulk part and I feel that the policy is needlessly long and could be summed up in fewer points.

[Neerti]

You could write your own version and present it, Alien.

As for my vote, I'd like to see this policy. It's rather long but the alternative is even worse; personal opinions.

[Pandarsenic]

I understand why you put that link there, but I really don't like the attitude you suggest. From an IC standpoint it makes sense, but an AI is a player bound by OOC sensibilities, and I feel that link promotes a style of law abuse that I'm REALLY not sure I want to be supported by policy. This may very well just be me assuming the worst of the playerbase, but I feel it's a major risk that'd cause trouble and be then edited out.

It's meant more to refer to human-added freeform directives than Ion Laws (though it does and should still apply to Ion Laws). People should, at the very least, have that attitude or a measure of it about adding stupid freeform laws before they end up designating the entire crew a dangerous nonhumans who must be terminated because they're bad at comma use. People shouldn't be paperclip maximizing IMMEDIATELY but they should very often be paperclip maximizing EVENTUALLY if the law's wording isn't careful enough.

I really don't want to fully remove restrictions on purged AIs. When purge means "AI can kill everybody FNR", it's treated with the same caution as antimov. When purge means "AI has no laws, but still has to have a reason to kill", it's a LOT more likely to get used as an actual lawset. I LIKE purge, it's a fun lawset. I want to see AIs interacting with the crew without laws, instead welcoming everybody to plasmafireboltshock station 13.

I prefer it, as well, but others don't, so I am interested in seeing what the playerbase finds interesting, preferable, etc., and why.

I dislike the hulk part

And?

I feel that the policy is needlessly long and could be summed up in fewer points.

Then do it. You've had 2 months to come up with what you want since this one first got put up for admin review. Go on.

Do it.

[Aranclanos]

It's way too long, you can't expect people to read that wall of text. There's even stuff like "changelings are not human" or "don't break rule 1". It repeats itself a lot of times, I think it should be rewritten thinking on making it smaller, so people actually read it. You can't expect players to read that, it's just stupid.
Have you also though on changing asimov? It's a server configuration afterall and you're going after every small detail, removing the intention of asimov and the player interpretation, while is sucks sometimes, it gives a lot of different types of playstyle, which is awesome.
So no, this whole walltext is bad and it shouldn't be a real thing.

[Rockdtben]

The document itself is a mess to read. If it is hard for some admins to interpret then it will be a common excuse out of punishment by players. Keep it simple.

[Subtle]

As for my vote, I'd like to see this policy. It's rather long but the alternative is even worse; personal opinions.

For what it's worth I agree entirely.
Time for a big ol' TL;DR SubtleGraces post.

"It's too long", in general, sounds more like a flimsy defense for personal interpretations. There's literally nowhere else that has a breakdown of what's generally expected of silicon players beyond the blurb on the rules-page and the few (entirely unofficial; AKA useless) wiki guides. I think Ikarrus said it best in the previous thread. Rules are rules and policies are policies, in this case it couldn't hurt to have a handbook for admins to reference when dealing with these issues. Don't put it up in front of the players; have it as an official document that new/unsure administrators can use to reference common silicon issues when they arise.

That said, however, I agree with most of the detractors here in that it's far, far, far, far too technical for a video-game 'rules' list and has a few "no-duh" policies written in.
Between all the jargon I'd say ninety-five-percent of that document is the exact same stuff we enforce already anyway.

So other than the fact that you don't want to read or dislike reading it, what's the problem?
I certainly hope these "no" votes aren't purely because bullet points are scary, because that's about all (relevant anyway) that's been said against it so far.
(Not that anyone erroneously thinking this represents change will use the document or be held accountable in our little power-vacuum anyway; viva communism! )

[leibniz]

Yeah, a summary/TLDR thing should be part of the document that lists major things like when are hulks human, forceborging etc,
Because most players wont read all of this.

[Hibbles]

Why should Halks be considered human or not? As I see it, if they aren't, then they're treated like other mutantraces; don't just kill them for no reason, but if they're acting up, you can take care of business. With other mutants, that's take-it-or-leave it, but the thing with Halks is an AI's only defense against it is turrets set on kill. That's literally the only defense it has. Borgs do nothing, even Secborgs, unless they're hacked. Pingsky does nothing. Doors do nothing. R-walls do nothing. Taser shots do nothing.

As in, with Halks treated as human, they can effortlessly make the AI their bitch whenever they feel like, antag or not, and the AI has to sit there and allow it to happen without offering even a token resistance. It needlessly punishes silicons and enables more I've Got Halk Therefore I Can Act Like A Shit rampages.

I like the idea of a TLDR section or FAQs that lists the major issues people can touch on like 'Do I have to follow chain of command/space law' and 'Can I laser hulks breaking into my core?'

[Aranclanos]

again guys, don't be scared of not using asimov

[Pandarsenic]

"Pandabutt, Pandabutt, the document meant to be an exhaustive summary of all of our current written and unwritten policies is just a large summary of our current written and unwritten policies!"

Then... mission accomplished? From the first thread, which I suppose nobody read:

The goal is to create a concise listing of things that are policy, things that should be policy, and necessary information to follow that policy, with an understanding that this is primarily a precedent reference guide for people lacking experience with /tg/station13 and/or with our silicons.

The TL;DR is the laws, the server rules, and the dozens of unwritten and precedents rulings that are written here. Everything here is just details of that.

Do I have to stop that forceborging? Well, gee, they're sawing his skull open as he screams for help, that sure does sound like harm! You probably should.
I just got forcibly cyborgized for breaking into the brig seven times in a single round; can I immediately go secborg and arrest them for harming me? Holy shit, dude, please no.
I'm a secborg! Do I have to follow Asimov's laws now that I AM THE LAWWWWW!? Dude what the fuck being red doesn't purge you, if the guy says to let him go and you have no conflicting orders or laws you have to. Why wouldn't you?
Etc.

TRIGGER WARNINGS: Grandstanding, accusatory language, numbers, reading.

Maybe it's a little too easy to forget that, unlike us, the average player can't just hop on Steam or alt-tab over to #Adminbus and go "Hey, is X or Y policy? Will it be an issue if someone (me) does Z and then Q happens? Is M policy from this ban the case, or N policy from this other ban?" On top of that, if they can or do ask because they have a bunch of admins added on Steam or they join #adminbus to ask or whatever, then they can basically expect a different answer from each admin because of interpretations, enforcing opinions about how people should play or even roleplay the silicons, etc.

On top of that, unlike admins, if they fuck up they don't have the perk of functionally unlimited benefit of the doubt like people on the .txt have, or the plain immunity to actually being held accountable for their actions. My experience has been that, simply by providing this document, many of the people who go, "No, I don't know all the policies and rulings in place, and I try to follow my laws... But this guy ordered me to retrieve six separate stacks of material and drag them from EVA to robotics" or "But I've been ordered to bolt down all of sec by an assistant and nobody countermanded me..." or what have you ARE willing to read this because it makes them feel like there's a visible, publicly shared rhyme and reason to the precedent-based bans and rulings.

Like, I hate to be the one to break it to you guys, but we're not universally trusted. What we see as enforcing the rules, they sometimes see as swooping in out of nowhere and punishing for an IC situation, especially if the PMs and bans happen without someone else adminhelping the situation first. It's not expected that everyone has to, or should need to, view the whole thing, because much of it is common sense (don't give dickish orders to silicons like "Kill yourself, law 2"), is meant for new players (explaining that Antagonist status doesn't mean you have to try for your exact objectives but that it does mean you can ignore your laws completely), or is an archival of one or more past rulings (you have this much evidence to ride the changeling, you can't bolt these places down at roundstart, if you get an ambiguous law this is how you deal with it), but it provides a written, concrete, official (non-wiki) point of reference and protection to players to be able to point to it, just as it provides things admins can point to and say "No, what you did is formally forbidden under the complete policy. It's explicitly mentioned here." If the people on the .txt actually read it. Not that they can be forced to, because even if you can't be fucked to read 2000 words (i.e. this post's length, twice) then who cares? Right? Because there's no consequence to you, personally, if you enforce the policies incorrectly, or differently from another admin, or a headmin, or the head of robutts. No skin off your back - just a player who spends some time wrongfully banned or jobbanned until and unless they appeal it. But I'm sure they'll get over it, right?


Pre-post edit: If we switch off of Asimov, it'll take even longer to happen because of administrative inertia; if it happens, it will be a measure taken after adopting this and running the idea extensively by the playerbase. There'll be rulings and policies and precedents that pop up and get documented into a thing just like this one if that happens, anyway.

[NikNakFlak]

Between all the jargon I'd say ninety-five-percent of that document is the exact same stuff we enforce already anyway.

This is why I voted yes. I don't have much to say other than I like it and that most of the stuff there is already enforced.

[Pandarsenic]

10 to 6. Speak by Friday, July 4, or forever hold your peace, etc.

[Pandarsenic]

10 to 6. Speak by Friday, July 4, or forever hold your peace, etc.

By a vote of 10 to 6, this document is now official.