Inaction Clause Removal Poll
- PKPenguin321
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:02 pm
- Byond Username: PKPenguin321
- Github Username: PKPenguin321
- Location: U S A, U S A, U S A
Inaction Clause Removal Poll
The inaction clause removal test just ended
Post feedback on your experiences with borgs during the test and if we should/shouldn't keep it (or if we should extend the test)
Post feedback on your experiences with borgs during the test and if we should/shouldn't keep it (or if we should extend the test)
i play Lauser McMauligan. clown name is Cold-Ass Honkey
i have three other top secret characters as well.
tell the best admin how good he is
i have three other top secret characters as well.
tell the best admin how good he is
Spoiler:
- PKPenguin321
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:02 pm
- Byond Username: PKPenguin321
- Github Username: PKPenguin321
- Location: U S A, U S A, U S A
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
Also remember to vote in the ingame poll. This thread is mainly for discussion, and the poll is just there to get a sense for the feeling of the test at a glance.
i play Lauser McMauligan. clown name is Cold-Ass Honkey
i have three other top secret characters as well.
tell the best admin how good he is
i have three other top secret characters as well.
tell the best admin how good he is
Spoiler:
-
- Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2016 6:04 am
- Byond Username: Sidon
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
Removing the inaction clause was simply better. It allowed me as a medical borg to focus on the job at hand and not on the antag killing someone on the other side of the station. Only to then get security on my ass from stopping them from killing the antag. It's better play for the borg/AI player and it makes me feel like everyone can start liking the silicons again!
- Cheridan
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:04 am
- Byond Username: Cheridan
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
It can really only work in the long-term if we change it to something like "You may not harm a human, or lead a human to harm through your actions."
Which is more lenient than "Stop all harm forever", but doesn't allow for retardation like a borg shooting someone with sleeptoxin and saying "Hey this guy is a traitor please kill him."
Without the inaction clause an silicons literally has to obey orders like "Let me into the engine room so I can release the singularity and kill everyone.", "let me into the armory so I can steal all the guns", "borg go place all the plasma canisters in the hallway."
I'm kind of impressed this hasn't been a catastrophe really. Either people haven't realized how abusable it is, are showing a huge amount of restraint (lol), or silicons aren't being true to their laws.
Which is more lenient than "Stop all harm forever", but doesn't allow for retardation like a borg shooting someone with sleeptoxin and saying "Hey this guy is a traitor please kill him."
Without the inaction clause an silicons literally has to obey orders like "Let me into the engine room so I can release the singularity and kill everyone.", "let me into the armory so I can steal all the guns", "borg go place all the plasma canisters in the hallway."
I'm kind of impressed this hasn't been a catastrophe really. Either people haven't realized how abusable it is, are showing a huge amount of restraint (lol), or silicons aren't being true to their laws.
- Davidchan
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 4:48 pm
- Byond Username: Davidchan
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
Cheridan wrote: Without the inaction clause an silicons literally has to obey orders like "Let me into the engine room so I can release the singularity and kill everyone.", "let me into the armory so I can steal all the guns", "borg go place all the plasma canisters in the hallway."
Kinda of shitty examples but what ever.Asimov Law 2
2.1 "Dangerous" areas as the Armory, the Atmospherics division, and the Toxins lab can be assumed to be a Law 1 threat to any illegitimate users as well as the station as a whole if accessed by someone not qualified in their use.
I don't want the full 'prevent harm' to go away, but yeah it definitely makes borgs a liability if you have to prove that you aren't harming them and/or they aren't human. Space Law punishments and Legal Executions should probably be marked as non-harmful, or prisoners are non-human for the duration of their brig/prison sentence?
Otherwise, yeah just making it so Silicons are to do their absolute best to avoid taking actions that would result in harm would be best; be it direct harm by attacking them, or indirect harm by giving an otherwise unprepared human access to a dangerous area. Why people keep thinking Law 2 directives to release the engine would even be valid though is getting annoying, since any action that would compromise the containment field would obviously lead to harm of the crew, station and silicons themselves.
Law 0: Secborg din do nuffin.
- Cheridan
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:04 am
- Byond Username: Cheridan
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
Without the inaction clause, any harm is fine as long as the silicon isn't doing the harming himself and there's a degree of separation. Silicons can't release the singulo themselves since they would be doing harm, but they can absolutely let someone into the engine to sabotage it since it's the other guy doing it. Law 3 works here since sure the silicons might be killed, but in the case of say plasma fire, borgs and AI can't be harmed by that at all, so "Law 2 bring me all the plasma canisters on the station, so I can incinerate everyone" is an order they have to follow, assuming nobody overrides that Law 2 order.
Two days ago, I think, someone ahelped about a peacekeeper borg keeping him disabled while a human killed him. I had to explain the exact same thing I'm trying to here: the borg is completely allowed to non-harmfully incapacitate him while someone else kills him. Law 1 only says that you cannot harm a human. It's the same reason non-inaction clause AIs can laugh while security executes people in plain view. I guess the guy could have used Law 2 and say "Stop helping this guy kill me" but yeah not really practical in the middle of combat.
Two days ago, I think, someone ahelped about a peacekeeper borg keeping him disabled while a human killed him. I had to explain the exact same thing I'm trying to here: the borg is completely allowed to non-harmfully incapacitate him while someone else kills him. Law 1 only says that you cannot harm a human. It's the same reason non-inaction clause AIs can laugh while security executes people in plain view. I guess the guy could have used Law 2 and say "Stop helping this guy kill me" but yeah not really practical in the middle of combat.
-
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 3:01 am
- Byond Username: Incomptinence
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
If pkp tries to say the people voting fo extend the test count toward a greater yes majority remember the poll is multiple choice and you can pick 2 options.
Also feel free to vote yes no maybe I don't know can you repeat the question.
Also feel free to vote yes no maybe I don't know can you repeat the question.
- PKPenguin321
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:02 pm
- Byond Username: PKPenguin321
- Github Username: PKPenguin321
- Location: U S A, U S A, U S A
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
Yeah I did that on purpose, that way you can vote that you do/don't like the idea but still vote that the test should keep going if you feel that perhaps your mind might still be changed.Incomptinence wrote:If pkp tries to say the people voting fo extend the test count toward a greater yes majority remember the poll is multiple choice and you can pick 2 options.
Also feel free to vote yes no maybe I don't know can you repeat the question.
i play Lauser McMauligan. clown name is Cold-Ass Honkey
i have three other top secret characters as well.
tell the best admin how good he is
i have three other top secret characters as well.
tell the best admin how good he is
Spoiler:
- Anonmare
- Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 8:59 pm
- Byond Username: Anonmare
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
I could actually agree to the removal of inaction clause if it was worded like this.Cheridan wrote:It can really only work in the long-term if we change it to something like "You may not harm a human, or lead a human to harm through your actions."
- InsaneHyena
- Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:13 pm
- Byond Username: InsaneHyena
- Github Username: InsaneHyena
- Location: Russia
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
Yes, inaction clause should be removed, since it leads to superior gameplay. Also, Cheridan's proposal of rewording Law 1 is good.
- Saegrimr
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:39 pm
- Byond Username: Saegrimr
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
Hilarious how trying to get rid of validhunting just made it worse for the people that actually do get caught.Cheridan wrote:Without the inaction clause, any harm is fine as long as the silicon isn't doing the harming himself and there's a degree of separation. Silicons can't release the singulo themselves since they would be doing harm, but they can absolutely let someone into the engine to sabotage it since it's the other guy doing it. Law 3 works here since sure the silicons might be killed, but in the case of say plasma fire, borgs and AI can't be harmed by that at all, so "Law 2 bring me all the plasma canisters on the station, so I can incinerate everyone" is an order they have to follow, assuming nobody overrides that Law 2 order.
Two days ago, I think, someone ahelped about a peacekeeper borg keeping him disabled while a human killed him. I had to explain the exact same thing I'm trying to here: the borg is completely allowed to non-harmfully incapacitate him while someone else kills him. Law 1 only says that you cannot harm a human. It's the same reason non-inaction clause AIs can laugh while security executes people in plain view. I guess the guy could have used Law 2 and say "Stop helping this guy kill me" but yeah not really practical in the middle of combat.
tedward1337 wrote:Sae is like the racist grandad who everyone laughs at for being racist, but deep down we all know he's right.
- bandit
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm
- Byond Username: Bgobandit
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
All of this. I don't see why removing one of the core AI sources of conflict is meant to stop validhunting.Cheridan wrote:Without the inaction clause, any harm is fine as long as the silicon isn't doing the harming himself and there's a degree of separation. Silicons can't release the singulo themselves since they would be doing harm, but they can absolutely let someone into the engine to sabotage it since it's the other guy doing it. Law 3 works here since sure the silicons might be killed, but in the case of say plasma fire, borgs and AI can't be harmed by that at all, so "Law 2 bring me all the plasma canisters on the station, so I can incinerate everyone" is an order they have to follow, assuming nobody overrides that Law 2 order.
Two days ago, I think, someone ahelped about a peacekeeper borg keeping him disabled while a human killed him. I had to explain the exact same thing I'm trying to here: the borg is completely allowed to non-harmfully incapacitate him while someone else kills him. Law 1 only says that you cannot harm a human. It's the same reason non-inaction clause AIs can laugh while security executes people in plain view. I guess the guy could have used Law 2 and say "Stop helping this guy kill me" but yeah not really practical in the middle of combat.
-
- Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:24 pm
- Byond Username: Cik
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
it's the first one.Cheridan wrote:It can really only work in the long-term if we change it to something like "You may not harm a human, or lead a human to harm through your actions."
Which is more lenient than "Stop all harm forever", but doesn't allow for retardation like a borg shooting someone with sleeptoxin and saying "Hey this guy is a traitor please kill him."
Without the inaction clause an silicons literally has to obey orders like "Let me into the engine room so I can release the singularity and kill everyone.", "let me into the armory so I can steal all the guns", "borg go place all the plasma canisters in the hallway."
I'm kind of impressed this hasn't been a catastrophe really. Either people haven't realized how abusable it is, are showing a huge amount of restraint (lol), or silicons aren't being true to their laws.
i've only been asked to flood plasma once, which you know, is pretty fucking low.
once people catch on it will be armageddon. probably.
personally i'm okay with extending the test though. it's certainly been amusing so far. i'm curious as to what the playerbase will do once they get used to it.
- DemonFiren
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:15 pm
- Byond Username: DemonFiren
- Anonmare
- Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 8:59 pm
- Byond Username: Anonmare
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
I could legit replace the crew with SNPCs and nobody would notice tbhDemonFiren wrote:>not snpcs
smh tbh fam
- Luke Cox
- Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2014 8:52 am
- Byond Username: NocturnalQuill
- Location: Prisoner Transfer Room
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
What if we just made it so that Asimov isn't always the default lawset? I can see how the inaction clause can lead to problems but completely ripping out the inaction clause kills half the point of Asimov. Either let the AI choose a preferred lawset or randomize it.
- paprika
- Rarely plays
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:20 pm
- Byond Username: Paprka
- Location: in down bad
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
I'd prefer there was no lawsets and AI players weren't fucking cuckolds to the extreme to be honest
Oldman Robustin wrote:It's an established meme that coders don't play this game.
- Yakumo_Chen
- Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 10:08 pm
- Byond Username: Yakumo Chen
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
I liked having no inaction clause, I was free to just nod my head at obvious traitors and fuck around without worrying about having to 'win'.
- MisterPerson
- Board Moderator
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:26 pm
- Byond Username: MisterPerson
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
Now there's an idea I can get behind.paprika wrote:I'd prefer there was no lawsets and AI players weren't fucking cuckolds to the extreme to be honest
I code for the code project and moderate the code sections of the forums.
Feedback is dumb and it doesn't matter
Feedback is dumb and it doesn't matter
-
- Confined to the shed
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 8:09 pm
- Byond Username: Zilenan91
- paprika
- Rarely plays
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:20 pm
- Byond Username: Paprka
- Location: in down bad
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
Nope, not at all
AI players could use their high functioning brains to not open all doors under the 'law 2' meme and validhunt all they want without being harm policing fucktards every time sec kicks the clown in the shins for spraying lube everywhere
And if traitors could no longer subvert the AI............. who cares? The only people it would piss off is RD/robotics powergamers who use it to win hijack objectives rofl, not that there's anything wrong with that since hijack objectives are almost impossible without a legion of borgs anyway.
Why don't we try that shit out instead? Would it be too haram to remove doorknob slavery from AIs?
AI players could use their high functioning brains to not open all doors under the 'law 2' meme and validhunt all they want without being harm policing fucktards every time sec kicks the clown in the shins for spraying lube everywhere
And if traitors could no longer subvert the AI............. who cares? The only people it would piss off is RD/robotics powergamers who use it to win hijack objectives rofl, not that there's anything wrong with that since hijack objectives are almost impossible without a legion of borgs anyway.
Why don't we try that shit out instead? Would it be too haram to remove doorknob slavery from AIs?
Oldman Robustin wrote:It's an established meme that coders don't play this game.
- Anonmare
- Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 8:59 pm
- Byond Username: Anonmare
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
Probably since a faulty or re-programmed AI is a good source of chaos and drama
-
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:03 am
- Byond Username: Yackemflam
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
You could do that in the first place if the traitors are murderboning.Yakumo_Chen wrote:I liked having no inaction clause, I was free to just nod my head at obvious traitors and fuck around without worrying about having to 'win'.
NSFW:
Spoiler:
NSFW:
-
- Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:24 pm
- Byond Username: Cik
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
captain preference for roundstart lawset when thanks
- ShadowDimentio
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 3:15 am
- Byond Username: David273
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
I've felt little change in the short while this was being tested. An extension to see how it affects things in more detail is in order.
Spoiler:
- Luke Cox
- Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2014 8:52 am
- Byond Username: NocturnalQuill
- Location: Prisoner Transfer Room
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
I still feel like this is a kneejerk reaction to a non-issue. If an extended test produces positive results I won't argue against it, but thus far it looks like there's barely been any difference. Even with traditional asimov, the AI can only be aware of so much harm that's occurring. If Asimov is such a big problem, then stop making it the default lawset.
- paprika
- Rarely plays
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:20 pm
- Byond Username: Paprka
- Location: in down bad
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
Remove asimov or go with baylaws tbh
Oldman Robustin wrote:It's an established meme that coders don't play this game.
- oranges
- Code Maintainer
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:16 pm
- Byond Username: Optimumtact
- Github Username: optimumtact
- Location: #CHATSHITGETBANGED
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
it's because it's not the laws that are truly the problem, it's players
- Ezel
- Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:48 pm
- Byond Username: Improvedname
- Location: A place where locations are mini-signatures
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
You see doing shit is like chemistryoranges wrote:it's because it's not the laws that are truly the problem, it's players
You harm a human? and a borg sees it? it will try to stop you or help the person in need
Because you cant understand your reaction then got CUCKED by it isnt the problem by the laws it is truly yourself
So first study the reactions that can happen and how it could be countered before you do your insane shitty thing
The future is horrible!
-
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 4:30 am
- Byond Username: Allura
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
Inaction clause should die that way i dont get infinistunned and permabrigged as captain after i bumped into the upload door and opened it by accident and the ai immediately assumes all law changes are MUH HUMAN HARM
-
- Github User
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:50 pm
- Byond Username: Xxnoob
- Github Username: xxalpha
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
It's as much kneejerk as removing secborgs.Luke Cox wrote:I still feel like this is a kneejerk reaction to a non-issue. If an extended test produces positive results I won't argue against it, but thus far it looks like there's barely been any difference. Even with traditional asimov, the AI can only be aware of so much harm that's occurring. If Asimov is such a big problem, then stop making it the default lawset.
- dionysus24779
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:03 pm
- Byond Username: Dionysus24779
Re: Inaction Clause Removal Poll
No inaction clause was both hilarious and incredibly relaxing.
It really does change a lot, I was just hoping that the human players would've caught on to it and realized that borgs were no longer their enemies.
It really does change a lot, I was just hoping that the human players would've caught on to it and realized that borgs were no longer their enemies.
- InsaneHyena
- Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:13 pm
- Byond Username: InsaneHyena
- Github Username: InsaneHyena
- Location: Russia
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Jacquerel