Security Cyborgs, Silicons, and ASIMOV

[Subtle]

(I'll get this out of the way right off; have a burning hate for the things, so a bias is somewhat inherent here.)

Secborgs are easily one of, if not the most, popular modules for Cyborgs. You get weapons, authority and nigh-invincibility to 99% of the station's danger. These tremendous comparative benefits as a cyborg are supposed to be balanced by the fact that they're initially bound to the ASIMOV lawset. In theory this prevents them from acting like Robocop and keeps them focused on stopping pure harm, but the reality is more like an armored juggernaut marching down the halls as a regular Officer with one extra step of logical gymnastics if the admins ask what you're doing.

The problem is that they're capable of "assuming" harm based on the global antag/roundtype information, since it's okay to metagame that.

If we're going to hold security to a higher standard I propose we do double for Security-Cyborgs. They should be essentially useless under the default lawset rather than a tool for people to gain powerful gear and use it for validhunting/fun-ending. Likewise, I propose we remove the AI's ability to throw a hissyfit and end the shift for everyone if it doesn't like the current one. Silicons are an amazingly powerful tool and our lax/schizophrenic enforcement of ASIMOV guidelines has allowed them to completely discard the roleplay and behavior rules that prevent them from ruining rounds. "Just give them different laws" only goes so far when the people with the power to do that are Captain and RD; even then there are plenty of AIs who will fight you every step of the way because of more assumed potential harm.

Is a cyborg allowed to ignore a crewmember based on them being "harmful" because of their antagonist status, and not experience?

Is a cyborg allowed to consider a crewmember "harmful" because they may be associated with another harmful human? (A distinction that only seems to matter during cult/rev)

Is a cyborg even allowed to brig nonharmful crewmembers?

Is a cyborg allowed to prioritize security/command's orders over the crew?

Is a cyborg or silicon allowed to shutdown the bridge and force a shuttle-call because of potential harm instead of immediate threats?
* As an example I can verify through the logs, there was a round the previous week where the ASIMOV silicon used a facehugged monkey in controlled xenobio containment to justify locking down the comms consoles and upload before depowering all of them during the shuttle call. This was not seen as an issue despite numerous crew complaints.

So, yeah! Secborgs. Love 'em, hate 'em? See where I'm coming from or think I'm a big idiot? Spess-penny for your thoughts on Secborgs and ASIMOV.

[Steelpoint]

Last time I checked the Silicon stats page showed that the Sec Borg was by a wide margin the most popular module. I think around 50% of all Cyborg's picked a Security module.

The general idea is that a Cyborg module is very effective at its stated role but is useless at doing anything else, only the Standard Module has flexibility as a jack of all trades master of none module.

However a Security Cyborg is a extremely powerful Cyborg with very few drawbacks, here's a quick list.

• They are not beholden to the same standard as Security is.
• They are immune to most forms of stunning, only flashes, the ion gun and flashbangs stun them.
• They have a inbuilt, ranged, and very high capacity stunning weapon. This weapon cannot be stolen from them.
• They have immediate access to any Security item they need on the spot in near unlimited quantities.
• They have all access.
• All the perks of being a Silicon, including having a private communications channel with the omni-present AI.

Whereas their main disadvantage is being able to be blown remotely and being beholden to a law set.

If you want to amend this I can think of a few things.

• Remove a Sec Borgs taser and replace it with pepper spray, or restrict it's ability to fire rapidly
• Make a Security Cyborg module a item that is found in the Armoury, have to talk to the HoS first.
• Do what many other codebase's have done and remove it from the game.

[Erbbu]

Man is this is a complex topic.

I agree that the AI and borgs have too much power, but I am not sure if this issue should be solved from a policy or a coding standpoint, or perhaps both. For starters when players begin playing as the AI/a borg in a round they should get a link in the chat to the silicon policy page since those are their actual rules, not the three laws of robotics.

I do like the laxed approach to "meta"gaming we have here and it would be a shame if you were supposed to pretend that you don't know what certain antagonist types do. Your underlined questions, however, are difficult to answer, typically the players themselves have been able to choose how they play around such issues.

One of the reasons secborgs are often hated comes from this policy page clause: "In case of conflicting orders an AI is free to ignore one or ignore both orders and explain the conflict or use any other law-compliant solution it can see." This ruling here seems to be a major cause for the secborg behavior we see today. The wording does seem to allow borgs to play as your standard security officer should they choose to accept orders from security staff and ignore conflicting orders from the people they detain. I, myself, find it more interesting to just let nonharmful humans go should they order me to do it but not nearly every player would agree.

[Lo6a4evskiy]

I agree that the AI and borgs have too much power

Funny thing is, coders apparently don't think so. I am, of course, talking about recent letting AI to spy on all radio channels all the damn time, which I hardly think was necessary. I mean, smart AIs would get it anyway with NTSL, but that's the difference between skilled people being able to do it and everyone being able to do it.

Anyway, the topic at hand.

Since I was very much interested in how silicons work, I decided to read up some Asimov. I'm about half through "Complete Robot" and I can say that firstly, I very much like how Asimov robots work (obviously there are variations in his stories, but in general) and I think they would work great on our server, however, secondly, the way people usually play silicons is fucking terrible. Might be why some people want a different lawset.

Anyhow, to the reasons I quite like how robots in Asimov stories work.
Well, for one is that they quite often have human traits, which is good because players are human. They can have preferences, likes and dislikes, they are extremely loyal to human kind, the good example of that would be in "Victory Unintentional", where robots are genuinely confused about aliens who wish the destruction of humans.

For a moment the robots were bathed in clinging radiance and then Three said thoughtfully, "High-tension electricity! Quite respectable power, too. One, I think you're right. After all, the human masters have told us that these creatures seek to destroy all humanity, and organisms possessing such insane viciousness as to harbor a thought of harm against a human being"-his voice trembled at the thought-"would scarcely scruple at attempting to destroy us."

"It's a shame to have such distorted minds," said ZZ One. "Poor fellows!"

"I find it a very saddening thought," admitted Two. "Let's go back to the ship. We've seen enough for now."

Speaking of destroying all humanity, even though robots come to a conclusion that aliens do, in fact, have the capability to wipe out humanity, they don't possess any negativity towards them. That's to the topic of antagonists and the fact that Asimov robot doesn't necessarily have to wipe out everything potentially (or even likely) harmful when there is no immediate threat and especially if you have reasons not to.

The other thing that I like is the fact that laws can, in fact change priorities and that robots still exercise common sense. The shining example would be "Runaround", where robot, given the order actually ignored it because he was so expensive, that getting into the dangerous area (which was required by the order) strengthened his law 3 and he had to run back. Then he got drunk because law 2 took priority again when out of dangerous zone, causing him to become stuck running back and forth, so drunk borgs should be a thing. Anyway, that correlates nicely with the fact that borgs aren't going to mass driver themselves because law 2.

That said, common sense is there to an extent. In "Robot AL-76 Goes Astray" AL-76 destroys a Disinto which he made from a bunch of trash because he was ordered to by a human. Well, that Disinto turned out to be a huge advancement, but nobody knew how to remake it, because robot completely obliterated it because of the order he received.

Oh, and there's also an example of robots lying because they try to protect their masters' reputation in "Mirror Image", so there's that.

Anyway, I think that we need to see more obedience and more trust in our borgs and AIs, even if that means not validhunting for once.

[MrStonedOne]

This post was deleted by MrStonedOne on Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:46 pm.
Reason: Requested

[Lo6a4evskiy]

Er, what are you even referring to?

Care to elaborate just a little?

[MrStonedOne]

This post was deleted by MrStonedOne on Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:46 pm.
Reason: Requested

[Riley]

I think borgs, AIs, and ASIMOV are fine the way they are, personally. Not many seem to agree, though, given the amount of 'just remove the AI entirely' floating around. Simply removing the crew's universal door-opener will lead to a lot of break-ins and IC/OOC headaches and I don't think it's worth it, on top of removing what is a pretty fun role.

To address each of Subtle's questions, from my own experience with play and current policy:

1. In most cases, yes, as almost all antagonists either intend to or eventually carry out human harm in pursuit of their objectives. Silicons can work to prevent future harm. This area tends to be somewhat grey with traitors, but that greyness can be bridged over by other humans using Law 2 orders or silicons choosing to enforce Space Law. I don't remember Law 2 vs. Space Law conflict coming up in Silicon Policy discussion, i.e.

Secborg sees person with an arrest warrant.
Secborg cuffs them.
Person says, "Borg, release me. I've done no harm. Law 2."
Secborg examines Person.
Secborg's HUD does not show Comments/Crimes indicating harmful activity.

What then does the Borg do? I imagine you could treat the arrest warrant itself as a Law 2 directive, allowing the Borg to ignore one or the other as with standard Law 2 conflicts, but I haven't seen that written down anywhere.

2. If a crew member might share cult/rev status with a known harmful human, you can act to prevent their future harm. In my experience, given how suicidal that is if you're solo in a typical Rev/Cult round, you don't often end up doing so.

3. Borgs can brig nonharmful crew members in pursuit of Space Law, if they're choosing to uphold it. Standard Sec/Rule 1 behaviour regarding sentence and prisoner treatment should apply, but I rarely see borgs handling that side of it in most populated rounds.

4. Borgs can prioritize Security/Command orders if they want, per standard response to Law 2 conflicts. They can go the other way, too, though it may eventually bring them grief in the form of the Captain knocking on their upload.

5. In this case, no, this is fucking stupid and that silicon should have gotten a talking to. I know I said 'silicons can act to prevent future harm', but they are simultaneously bound by the OOC/policy rules of 'Don't be a dick.' and 'Act in good faith.' Both were broken for science's gimmick and the crew's round in general. Given that Science also has the responsibility to handle harmful bombs, just as Security has an armoury full of harmful shit, and you're specifically told as a Silicon to not fuck with either of these things - an alien in secure containment should be no different, at least until the situation evolves.

Beyond secborgs being OP (which I'm ambivalent on; I neither have problems with them or play them much), I think most people's grief with silicons comes from the depth of playstyles they're allowed, specifically the sliding scale between Naivete and Cynicism. An AI that plays naturally Naive facilitates a lot more things for crew and traitors alike, while a Cynical AI is seen as a sec-loving, valid-hunting overlord with too much power. From the hate against them, it would seem silicons tend to gravitate towards cynicism for one reason or another, which results in a lot less 'act in good faith' going around than there ought to be.

[Scott]

Don't harm people and Secborgs can't find an excuse to intervene. If Secborgs are being bad, ahelp. Being bad includes being Robocop. Secborgs are not supposed to follow Space Law.

I also read some books of Asimov and while his Three Laws of Robotics are interesting from logical and philosophical points, they do not work in our game.

That is why we do have countless interpretiations and exclusions. New players will get bwoinked if they follow what they think is Three Laws of Robotics, but in reality is Three Laws of Robotics With 9001 Exceptions.

I read this as "I can't play Silicon".

[paprika]

I was planning on reworking tasers after the freeze so tasers were more focused on single person pacification for cuffing and arresting rather than room-clearing spam fire shittery

[cedarbridge]

Is a cyborg allowed to ignore a crewmember based on them being "harmful" because of their antagonist status, and not experience?

Is a cyborg allowed to consider a crewmember "harmful" because they may be associated with another harmful human? (A distinction that only seems to matter during cult/rev)

Is a cyborg even allowed to brig nonharmful crewmembers?

Is a cyborg allowed to prioritize security/command's orders over the crew?

Is a cyborg or silicon allowed to shutdown the bridge and force a shuttle-call because of potential harm instead of immediate threats?
* As an example I can verify through the logs, there was a round the previous week where the ASIMOV silicon used a facehugged monkey in controlled xenobio containment to justify locking down the comms consoles and upload before depowering all of them during the shuttle call. This was not seen as an issue despite numerous crew complaints.

In order
"Yes" if there is reliable information that this human, if released, would be a tangible threat of harm to humans on the station. You don't set known "antagonists" loose to go do more antag things just because they asked. Law priority says you cannot cause harm to humans and setting them loose makes you an accessory to whatever they do after being set loose.

Yes, with the same caveat that harmful intent has already been verified by similar members of a group. That is to say, a borg that knows there's a harmful cult can detain cultists, but cannot arrest all of cargo because one had an ebow.

Yes, but a non-harmful crewmember should be released if commanded to UNLESS they were ordered to arrest that non-harmful lawbreaker. If the borg works off First-In First-Out law processing (something I prefer), the order to detain comes before the order to stop detaining. Thus, the borg, arrests the lawbreaker and takes them to the brig. Upon arrival, the first command is completed, so the borg goes to the second command and "stops arresting" the human when they've been delivered to the brig.

The law says "human" not "high ranking" or "commanding" human. A borg should not care if it was a head of staff that gave an order or a bartender. Human commands are human commands.

[MrStonedOne]

This post was deleted by MrStonedOne on Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:46 pm.
Reason: Requested

[Scott]

I'll laugh at you and flash you.

[cedarbridge]

Upon arrival,
the first command is completed, so
the borg goes to the second
command and "stops arresting" the
human when they've been delivered
to the brig.

What if I say:
Borg uncuff me now before we reach brig
Borg let me out of brig

Your "before we arrive at the brig" command would still be processed after arriving at the brig as the previous command hasn't been completed yet. It just gets added to the end of the queue.
"Let me out" is a command that would be followed like any other command. If the borg has no other outstanding commands to follow, the borg lets you out of the cell. Probably very loudly if the borg feels like being a dick and alerting attentive sec nearby.

[Random Players]

When I play secborg (I prefer medborg or engiborg, but circumstances conspire against me often) I tend to not arrest people precisely because they are BREAKING space law, but because space law is a good 'guide' to Cyborgs (In universe) to upholding a healthy and safe human society. Which means no harm. Which is good.

As a result, if you yell "LAW 2 RELEASE ME!" when I have you arrested? I continue dragging you to the brig as the situation should be handled by the (supposed to be) experts in Space Law, Security. Or naturally, if the possiblity exists, hand you over to one of said officers even outside the brig.
Naturally, some exceptions may occur and I could go into more detail for why it's good to use Space Law as a guide, but no one wants to read a wall-o-text I presume.

Just my two cents, so to speak. Primarily regarding "Is a cyborg even allowed to brig nonharmful crewmembers?"

[Raven776]

If you're someone who's murdered/harmed/assaulted/doorslammed/shutterslammed/tabled/bottlestunned/grenaded/speared/fireaxed or anything else another human being in front of a security borg or AI, and then you shout out 'BUT YOU CANT FOLLOW SPACE LAW' when they're putting you in jail, please shut the game off.

Borgs can very well follow space law so long as it's an end to the goal of preventing harm. You can't punish past harm over your own laws, but you can remove supposed future harm by putting someone who's going on a murder spree in perma.

The problems with this are all mechanics. Secborg is just given too many fun toys as a regular borg AND a hacked borg... Lasers for days. Remove some of it, replace the taser with a one shot per three second, recharging borg taser or something, and replace the lethal laser with something more on bar with other hacked borg modules, and you're golden.

[Random Players]

I want to groan when people say Secborgs are too powerful or need nerf. (Mostly because they usually base these claims on incorrect facts)
They ALREADY Have recharging tazers, not infinite shots.
And using the stun part of their baton or the tazer drains a ton of power. Laser even more so.

Raven776, I honestly have to ask: HAVE you played Secborg? Especially hacked?

[Lo6a4evskiy]

Yeah, secborgs aren't that good against huge number of people, but their effectiveness against single targets or small groups is unmatched. I think it's only fair that secborg is required to obey people they hunt down (with law 1 still applying of course) unless security personnel gave an order to do otherwise. Obviously we can assume that brigged people are there because security personnel want them to be there (unless evidence suggests otherwise).

I hate it when I have to tell borg to arrest somebody five times and possibly explain myself as well for borg to do anything, but borgs themselves hunt whoever they want whenever they want.

[Spacemanspark]

I want to groan when people say Secborgs are too powerful or need nerf. (Mostly because they usually base these claims on incorrect facts)
They ALREADY Have recharging tazers, not infinite shots.
And using the stun part of their baton or the tazer drains a ton of power. Laser even more so.

Raven776, I honestly have to ask: HAVE you played Secborg? Especially hacked?

I can say that this is true.

[Incomptinence]

I think I remember being ahelped for "letting someone die" because I tried to body block some lasers rather than blasting my taser all over the place.

Even without carte blanch to arrest nonharmful people there is often plenty to do. I feel trespassers and other idiot criminals should be ejected from locations they aren't meant to be at the least, to prevent the people that work there attacking them.

I have been ordered to release them by a criminal and done it before, so many people are too stupid to do that though. I have also been given orders not to take those orders which I am pretty sure is also legit.

[lumipharon]

I hate playing sec, and seeing secborgs playing like they're robocop. If you're asimov, FOLLOW YOUR LAWS. If someone breaks into somewhere, you can arrest them if you want, but if they tell you to let them go, you MUST do so, unless you believe there is a law 1 reason not to do so.

Too many sec borgs seem to think that because they choose a sec module, they get to play sec, while happening to be a borg. You are a borg, that happens to have sec capabilities, leave the robocop to when you actually get that lawset.

[mrpain]

I honestly dont mind secborgs, and don't think they're really an issue. I think we just need bigger policy/statement that as a security cyborg, you ARE YOUR LAWS, not space law. Space law really is optional and your own laws take priority over that.

And as far as balance goes, honestly, most of what a secborg has really KILLS his battery as he uses it. Although I'd be ok with say, handcuffs that require a recharge or something.

I am against secborg removal or an outright nerf of them though. Without them the AI doesnt have much offensive ability.

[Steelpoint]

Just have it remind a Secborg player, when they select a Sec module, that they are beholden to their lawset first and space law does not take precedence.

[Raven776]

I want to groan when people say Secborgs are too powerful or need nerf. (Mostly because they usually base these claims on incorrect facts)
They ALREADY Have recharging tazers, not infinite shots.
And using the stun part of their baton or the tazer drains a ton of power. Laser even more so.

Raven776, I honestly have to ask: HAVE you played Secborg? Especially hacked?

Yes.

I'm saying that the laser should be replaced entirely because a security borg already gets more in the way of pure killing power than every other borg, especially when hacked. The taser should be changed to not need to be recharged but also to make it impossible to spam. Obviously nerfing it so hard as to make it a disabler would be silly, but right now you can put down an entire room of baddies with it and keep them down with your endless stun baton long before your charge runs out on any decent battery.

Nerfing the taser could possibly put room forward to buff the baton's power usage, though, if things stay awful.

[cedarbridge]

I want to groan when people say Secborgs are too powerful or need nerf. (Mostly because they usually base these claims on incorrect facts)
They ALREADY Have recharging tazers, not infinite shots.
And using the stun part of their baton or the tazer drains a ton of power. Laser even more so.

Raven776, I honestly have to ask: HAVE you played Secborg? Especially hacked?

Yes.

I'm saying that the laser should be replaced entirely because a security borg already gets more in the way of pure killing power than every other borg, especially when hacked. The taser should be changed to not need to be recharged but also to make it impossible to spam. Obviously nerfing it so hard as to make it a disabler would be silly, but right now you can put down an entire room of baddies with it and keep them down with your endless stun baton long before your charge runs out on any decent battery.

Nerfing the taser could possibly put room forward to buff the baton's power usage, though, if things stay awful.

A disabler would hardly be a nerf considering it would dunk a bunch of things that borgs currently can't touch or can't stop as effectively. Lings and hulks come to mind. Though this assumes we keep the current borg rate of fire.

[Lo6a4evskiy]

I feel trespassers and other idiot criminals should be ejected from locations they aren't meant to be at the least, to prevent the people that work there attacking them.

See, this is what ruins whole notion of Asimov borgs. Silicon players need to accept that they're not ultimate justice or anything, they are not here to do "what is right". You're just an obedient machine. You have three laws that come before anything else.

I mean, when it's hacked law making one go rogue, everyone suddenly becomes oh-so compliant with laws and lose all their justice attitude, but with asimov that somehow doesn't happen.

[Scott]

Exactly. Unless someone orders you to intervene, you should ignore anything that doesn't necessarily result in human harm. "If this person is trespassing, he will definitely harm somebody" is a wild conclusion that you can't reach IC, unless it's a known aggressor.

[cedarbridge]

Except that none of that is actually a requirement for borg functioning. They are governed by their laws, but they are not restricted to them. That is, a borg can do a lot of things for reasons that have nothing to do with their laws so long as those things do not conflict with the laws. An engieborg that has not been told to wire the solars can do so under asimov because the lawset doesn't prohibit them from doing so. A secborg can arrest lawbreakers all it wants until a case arises where doing so would violate their laws. Its really that simple.

[Scott]

And if the criminal tells you to fuck off, you have to fuck off.

[Lo6a4evskiy]

Except that none of that is actually a requirement for borg functioning. They are governed by their laws, but they are not restricted to them. That is, a borg can do a lot of things for reasons that have nothing to do with their laws so long as those things do not conflict with the laws. An engieborg that has not been told to wire the solars can do so under asimov because the lawset doesn't prohibit them from doing so. A secborg can arrest lawbreakers all it wants until a case arises where doing so would violate their laws. Its really that simple.

And if you receive an order that conflicts with what you're doing, you obey that order. It is simple.

[Steelpoint]

Unless you received a order to uphold space law from another human, than you can make the concious choice to go one way or the other.

[Malkevin]

Sec borgs should probably be renamed to Enforcement droids or something of that nature, and recoloured to something other than Sec red.
Just to make it more clearer they're not actually part of security.

But then again, you'd have to do the same to engi borgs and medical borgs and mining borgs, etc. because otherwise it'd be yet another shitty double standard just piled against players that play security, and we don't want that - right?



Anyway, whilst we're yet again on the topic of Silicons and Security.
I want to again raise the point of Asimov silicons saying that they *HAVE* to prevent executions by pointing to this excerpt from Asimov's Evidence short story

Code: Select all

Here Lanning's mind leaped suddenly to the sting of an idea, "Has it occurred to anyone," he ground out, "that district attorney is a rather strange occupation for a robot? The prosecution of human beings  -  sentencing them to death  -  bringing about their infinite harm-"

Quinn grew suddenly keen, "No, you can't get out of it that way. Being district attorney doesn't make him human. Don't you know his record? Don't you know that he boasts that he has never prosecuted an innocent man; that there are scores of people left untried because the evidence against them didn't satisfy him, even though he could probably have argued a jury into atomizing them? That happens to be so."

Lanning's thin cheeks quivered, "No, Quinn, no. There is nothing in the Rules of Robotics that makes any allowance for human guilt. A robot may not judge whether a human being deserves death. It is not for him to decide. He may not harm a human-variety skunk, or variety angel."

Susan Calvin sounded tired. "Alfred," she said, "don't talk foolishly. What if a robot came upon a madman about to set fire to a house with people in it? He would stop the madman, wouldn't he?"

"Of course."

"And if the only way he could stop him was to kill him-"

There was a faint sound in Lanning's throat. Nothing more.

"The answer to that, Alfred, is that he would do his best not to kill him. If the madman died, the robot would require psychotherapy because he might easily go mad at the conflict presented him -of having broken Rule One to adhere to Rule One in a higher sense. But a man would be dead and a robot would have killed him."

"Well, is Byerley mad?" demanded Lanning; with all the sarcasm he could muster.

"No, but he has killed no man himself. He has exposed facts which might represent a particular human being to be dangerous to the large mass of other human beings we call society. He protects the greater number and thus adheres to Rule One at maximum potential. That is as far as he goes. It is the judge who then condemns the criminal to death or imprisonment, after the jury decides on his guilt or innocence. It is the jailer who imprisons him, the executioner who kills him. And Mr. Byerley has done nothing but determine truth and aid society.

"As a matter of fact, Mr. Quinn, I have looked into Mr. Byerley's career since you first brought this matter to our attention. I find that he has never demanded the death sentence in his closing speeches to the jury. I also find that he has spoken on behalf of the abolition of capital punishment and contributed generously to research institutions engaged in criminal neurophysiology. He apparently believes in the cure, rather than the punishment of crime. I find that significant."

"You do?" Quinn smiled. "Significant of a certain odor of roboticity, perhaps?"

"Perhaps. Why deny it? Actions such as his could come only from a robot, or from a very honorable and decent human being. But you see, you just can't differentiate between a robot and the very best of humans."


Not only is the robot not freaking out about people getting executed it actually plays a hand in getting that person executed.


Edit: changed to code because fuck long quotes

[Steelpoint]

-snip-

That's what I like about Asimov. Sadly however we really can't afford that kind of ambiguity since many people would either complain about that Silicon letting him be executed or even having a hand in it, or by having players exploit Asimov's loopholes to essentially do what they want.

[MrStonedOne]

This post was deleted by MrStonedOne on Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:46 pm.
Reason: Requested

[Saegrimr]

That's what I like about Asimov. Sadly however we really can't afford that kind of ambiguity since many people would either complain about that Silicon letting him be executed or even having a hand in it, or by having players exploit Asimov's loopholes to essentially do what they want.

Well that's why we have the "Prisoner Transfer Room", after all.
If you're just moving the prisoner elsewhere, that's not harming them.

Stuff

I have a feeling you didn't quite read it in its entirety.

"The answer to that, Alfred, is that he would do his best not to kill him. If the madman died, the robot would require psychotherapy because he might easily go mad at the conflict presented him -of having broken Rule One to adhere to Rule One in a higher sense. But a man would be dead and a robot would have killed him."

"I find that he has never demanded the death sentence in his closing speeches to the jury. I also find that he has spoken on behalf of the abolition of capital punishment and contributed generously to research institutions engaged in criminal neurophysiology. He apparently believes in the cure, rather than the punishment of crime. I find that significant."

Plus, although the borgs are Asimov flavored, they're not "Asimov". Something something literary devices, ideal and hypothetical situations, you know that whole arguement that happens for 3 pages straight in every thread.

[Malkevin]

Why omit the two paragraphs between those?
You know, the actual important bits...
"Well, is Byerley mad?" demanded Lanning; with all the sarcasm he could muster.

"No, but he has killed no man himself. He has exposed facts which might represent a particular human being to be dangerous to the large mass of other human beings we call society. He protects the greater number and thus adheres to Rule One at maximum potential. That is as far as he goes. It is the judge who then condemns the criminal to death or imprisonment, after the jury decides on his guilt or innocence. It is the jailer who imprisons him, the executioner who kills him. And Mr. Byerley has done nothing but determine truth and aid society.

In short:
-Robot doesn't give a fuck about someone getting killed because he's not the one pulling the switch
-Robot knowingly presents evidence and argues a case even though it knows it could lead to an execution conviction, because its not the one that actually assigns that conviction
-Robot does not push for the death penalty, and campaigns for the removal of capital punishment. Thus fulfilling the its end of the law 1 bargin.

Its not the best example, but its the only one I know of that touches on the subject directly, as the short story is actually about how well a Skinjob could impersonate the person they are replacing, the questions are there to prove/disprove that the DA is actually a robot made to look like him.

Like people have said, the only thing the AI needs to do is put on a Willy Wonka hat and say "nooo...stoppp"

-------------------------
As far as the Prisoner Transfer Room is concerned....

This is something that happened the other week:
AI: HoS, what is the Prisoner Transfer Room?
Me (HoS Actually I wasn't the HoS that round): The Prisoner Transfer Room is where the prisoner transfer shuttle docks so that we may ship dangerous persons to the high security prison at CentCom
Engi-borg: DEAD BODY!! WE KNOW- SHUT IT DOWN!!

So yeah, doesn't actually work all that well.

[cedarbridge]

Except that none of that is actually a requirement for borg functioning. They are governed by their laws, but they are not restricted to them. That is, a borg can do a lot of things for reasons that have nothing to do with their laws so long as those things do not conflict with the laws. An engieborg that has not been told to wire the solars can do so under asimov because the lawset doesn't prohibit them from doing so. A secborg can arrest lawbreakers all it wants until a case arises where doing so would violate their laws. Its really that simple.

And if you receive an order that conflicts with what you're doing, you obey that order. It is simple.

I'm pretty sure I said that in the very post you quoted.

[Incomptinence]

See, this is what ruins whole notion of Asimov borgs. Silicon players need to accept that they're not ultimate justice or anything, they are not here to do "what is right". You're just an obedient machine. You have three laws that come before anything else.

I mean, when it's hacked law making one go rogue, everyone suddenly becomes oh-so compliant with laws and lose all their justice attitude, but with asimov that somehow doesn't happen.

It is like you play a totally different game. People fight each other over trespassing all the time. I'm not allowed to know humans are rowdy and territorial?

I didn't even say they needed to be brought to justice. In non violent crimes the prison sentence is irrelevant to borgs, that scenario is a case of protecting the criminal.

[Lo6a4evskiy]

I'm not allowed to know humans are rowdy and territorial?

No. Robots programmed to believe the best of humanity, not the worst.

And frankly it's more fun that way.

[Incomptinence]

Even when they are making threats of violence at each other over trespasses?

[Lo6a4evskiy]

No, only by default.

[cedarbridge]

I'm not allowed to know humans are rowdy and territorial?

No. Robots programmed to believe the best of humanity, not the worst.

[citation needed]

[flazeo25]

I'm not allowed to know humans are rowdy and territorial?

No. Robots programmed to believe the best of humanity, not the worst.

And frankly it's more fun that way.

The difference is silcons arn't robots but cyborgs and ais with human brains in them so they would well know most things about humans unless their laws were altered in a way.

[Lo6a4evskiy]

[citation needed]

I kinda did that in the first post I made in this thread.

[cedarbridge]

[citation needed]

I kinda did that in the first post I made in this thread.

Then the problem is you're assuming that every player be fully versed in the Asimov source material to answer a series of questions about policy.

[Aurx]

He's also assuming that ASIMOV by Issac Asimov is server policy.

It's not. Hell, in Asimov's books the robots do things that would be considered breach of laws in SS13. SS13 ASIMOV and Asimov ASIMOV are two different things, really.

[Malkevin]

Which is really why we should ditch Asimov, because keeping it now is really just for lolreference! purposes

[ExplosiveCrate]

What lawset do you recommend, then? So far I haven't seen any that fulfilled what Asimov is supposed to do, ie. being a neutral party that is obligated to help out antagonists as much as the rest of the station, and is also not inherently biased towards one side or the other.

[Malkevin]

But it is just a reference, policy has mutated what can be done with that lawset to the point that what it says isn't really what it is.

To answer the question of lawsets, a new one based off the keeper lawset.

[Lo6a4evskiy]

He's also assuming that ASIMOV by Issac Asimov is server policy.

It's not. Hell, in Asimov's books the robots do things that would be considered breach of laws in SS13. SS13 ASIMOV and Asimov ASIMOV are two different things, really.

Which is why I said that it would be nice to have actual Asimov here?

If you actually read any of my posts, you will notice that I speak of what I would like silicons to be, which is what the bloody thread is about.