Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
- technokek
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:27 am
- Byond Username: Technokek
Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
I litterally cant catch a break.
What happen:
I got bwoinked some time ago because i ignored a traitor misspelling his name one humaning me. The admin quoted the "Don't be a dick" rule at me, saying something along the line "Laws have to be take litterally and this would be a dick move to the crew"
I got bwoinked yesterday because the hos made a law "the head of secuity can give people the non human status" and "the head of secuity can give people the human status". Spelling errors included. The admin quoted at me that it would fall under Rule 1 "Dont be a dick" rule not to interpret the laws as the uploader suggested.
Problem:
What is it now? Who am i supposed to listen to? Am i supposed to be a dick to the crew and accept the onehuman OR am i supposed to be a dick to the uploader and accept the spelling mistake?
Aren't Silicon laws not meant to be taken litterally?
Please give me a ruling i can quote in the next ticket before i commit not alive.
What happen:
I got bwoinked some time ago because i ignored a traitor misspelling his name one humaning me. The admin quoted the "Don't be a dick" rule at me, saying something along the line "Laws have to be take litterally and this would be a dick move to the crew"
I got bwoinked yesterday because the hos made a law "the head of secuity can give people the non human status" and "the head of secuity can give people the human status". Spelling errors included. The admin quoted at me that it would fall under Rule 1 "Dont be a dick" rule not to interpret the laws as the uploader suggested.
Problem:
What is it now? Who am i supposed to listen to? Am i supposed to be a dick to the crew and accept the onehuman OR am i supposed to be a dick to the uploader and accept the spelling mistake?
Aren't Silicon laws not meant to be taken litterally?
Please give me a ruling i can quote in the next ticket before i commit not alive.
- Ghilker
- Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:44 am
- Byond Username: Ghilker
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
I've always took Silicon laws as literal regarding grammar, if instead of HANZ you write HANS is your problem. There is leeway when speaking on the interpretation of it if is ambiguos but you either ask the crew for clarifications or you stick to one interpretation and roll with it the whole round. The first is a right bwoink cause it's a mistake on the antag side, the other one is idiotic cause is the HOS issue that can't spell security right, it doesn't harm anyone since the secuity department doesn't exist (and if it did who cares, the HOS is responsible)
- Nist
- Joined: Thu May 21, 2020 5:29 am
- Byond Username: Nist
- Location: Sloth
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
If its tator board (TC), ignore misspell
if its regular board. go with misspell
if its regular board. go with misspell
- XivilaiAnaxes
- Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 7:13 am
- Byond Username: XivilaiAnaxes
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
Both are bad admin calls.
The antag onehumaning himself by spelling his name wrong is begging for you to kill him, but you can choose to interpret it that way. "BRO YOU'RE BEING A DICK TO THE CREW" is fucking stupid.
Head of secuity isn't a position, if the HoS wanted to subvert the AI he should have fucking spelt his own job correctly.
The only reason for it to be bwoinkable is if both happened in the same round and you just weren't being consistent on whether or not you punished poorly written laws.
Using rule 1 for silicons is generally just bad frankly.
The antag onehumaning himself by spelling his name wrong is begging for you to kill him, but you can choose to interpret it that way. "BRO YOU'RE BEING A DICK TO THE CREW" is fucking stupid.
Head of secuity isn't a position, if the HoS wanted to subvert the AI he should have fucking spelt his own job correctly.
The only reason for it to be bwoinkable is if both happened in the same round and you just weren't being consistent on whether or not you punished poorly written laws.
Using rule 1 for silicons is generally just bad frankly.
Stickymayhem wrote:Imagine the sheer narcisssim required to genuinely believe you are this intelligent.
- technokek
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:27 am
- Byond Username: Technokek
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
XivilaiAnaxes wrote:Both are bad admin calls.
The antag onehumaning himself by spelling his name wrong is begging for you to kill him, but you can choose to interpret it that way. "BRO YOU'RE BEING A DICK TO THE CREW" is fucking stupid.
Head of secuity isn't a position, if the HoS wanted to subvert the AI he should have fucking spelt his own job correctly.
The only reason for it to be bwoinkable is if both happened in the same round and you just weren't being consistent on whether or not you punished poorly written laws.
Using rule 1 for silicons is generally just bad frankly.
one happend 1 year ago and the other yesterday. Different admins
- Timberpoes
- In-Game Game Master
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
- Byond Username: Timberpoes
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
My take on it is this: Speaking in sweeping generalities, admins struggle to enforce silicon policy consistently across long periods of time. Admins who don't play silicon or roles that interact with silicons will have limited experience with it.Silicon Policy wrote:1. Server Rule 1: "Don't be a dick" applies for law interpretation. Act in good faith to not ruin a round for other players unprompted.
If a law is vague enough that it can have multiple reasonable interpretations, it is considered ambiguous.
2. You must choose and stick to an interpretation of the ambiguous law as soon as you have cause to.
If you are a cyborg synced to an AI, you must defer to your AI's interpretation of the ambiguous law.
I don't want to be bwoinking silicons over petty and trite law interpretation disagreements. I enjoy that our silicons are played by humans and don't act as you'd always expect them to as a result.
As an admin I approach law interpretation from a two-pronged approach: Your good faith towards interpreting the law with respect to the round and your good faith in interpreting the law with respect to the uploader.
As long as there is at leat one of these two parts present, I will usually consider the silicon in the clear.
I would personnaly rule that a law with a minor or simple misspelling - Including misspelling a name where nobody of the misspelled name appears to exist - is ambiguous in its intent. As long as you pick a reasonable interpretation and stick with that intepretation of the law for the rest of the shift, you have exercised good faith towards the law uploader. As long as your interpretation and actions were reasonable, I'd hold the law uploader to account for uploading the law and not the silicon for interpreting it and following it.
And I would also be happy if someone uploaded a law forcing the AI to "plamsa flood" if they decided they didn't know what "plamsa" and sent their borgs on a mission to discover this "plamsa" so that it may be flooded instead of ruining the shift. But I wouldn't begrudge them following the obvious and blatant spirit of the law either.
The kind of bad-faith interpretation silicon policy prevents are where the silicon needlessly rules lawyers an interpretation to bad-faith intentionally ruin a shift. Where a silicon chooses not to be a rules laywer, we should not be bwoinking them.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
- Farquaar
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:20 am
- Byond Username: Farquaar
- Location: Delta Quadrant
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
Both bwoinks were bad.
As long as you keep a consistent rule of interpretation, whether it be taking grammatical mistakes literally or reading them out of the laws, it should be fine under the current rules.
As long as you keep a consistent rule of interpretation, whether it be taking grammatical mistakes literally or reading them out of the laws, it should be fine under the current rules.
► Show Spoiler
-
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:14 pm
- Byond Username: SkeletalElite
- Github Username: SkeletalElite
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
Either interpretation of the law should be fine as long as you choose one and stick with it
- Stickymayhem
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:13 pm
- Byond Username: Stickymayhem
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
If there's a fuck up you get to choose as long as it's consistent
Boris wrote:Sticky is a jackass who has worms where his brain should be, but he also gets exactly what SS13 should be
- Agux909
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:26 pm
- Byond Username: Agux909
- Location: My own head
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
technokek wrote:I litterally cant catch a break.
What happen:
I got bwoinked some time ago because i ignored a traitor misspelling his name one humaning me. The admin quoted the "Don't be a dick" rule at me, saying something along the line "Laws have to be take litterally and this would be a dick move to the crew"
I got bwoinked yesterday because the hos made a law "the head of secuity can give people the non human status" and "the head of secuity can give people the human status". Spelling errors included. The admin quoted at me that it would fall under Rule 1 "Dont be a dick" rule not to interpret the laws as the uploader suggested.
Problem:
What is it now? Who am i supposed to listen to? Am i supposed to be a dick to the crew and accept the onehuman OR am i supposed to be a dick to the uploader and accept the spelling mistake?
Aren't Silicon laws not meant to be taken litterally?
Please give me a ruling i can quote in the next ticket before i commit not alive.
You can already quote this.Silicon Policy wrote:...
2. If a law is vague enough that it can have multiple reasonable interpretations, it is considered ambiguous.
You must choose and stick to an interpretation of the ambiguous law as soon as you have cause to.
...
4. You may exploit conflicts or loopholes but must not violate Server Rule 1 because of it.
...
-
- In-Game Admin Trainer
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:23 pm
- Byond Username: Iain0
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
Good grief.
Well, the OP only partially represented the whole story, in a way which best represents them of course. As the bwoinking admin a few other things were factored into my decision at the time. Partly being that I think the Captain had uploaded the laws and the first moments of pedantry over the spelling I saw were to interfere with the HOS who was legitimately trying to deal with a changeling on the bridge and invoke their new dehumanising powers to get the AI off its back over law 1. All seemed pretty reasonable and perhaps not the most appropriate moment to go full pedantry on the rules.
Also be aware there are multiple rule 1's, I bwoinked you giving a mere request, a suggestion, not to play it out too harshly because it's simply a spelling mistake by a non native english person. I even quoted that example of "captain is part of station" law that was uploaded which is nearly complete rubbish. You wouldn't just go with the flow and we had a quite typical rules lawyering converstion which requires me to pull supporting numbers out. The section I went for was about it being overly pedantic and the intended meaning was really not that ambiguous.
At the most it was guidance for the round, you can simply, like, follow the guidance, there was no note following, nothing punitive, just a push for a direction I preferred. You even seemed to chill out towards the end of the ticket and "be okay" with things but here you are again, but you seem to spend far more time on making salt mountains out of molehills where in simply following the advice, which I still think was never terrible advice, would have been quite trivial and straight forward. It's also really not that difficult or traumatic to do.
My personal feeling was simply that the HOS getting screwed over because the Captain is having a typing moment seemed unnecessary. I guess the majority perspective is otherwise. Good luck to those foreign people with poorer english skills or anyone dyslexic because you're gonna get nailed for even the most obvious and understandable mistakes apparently. (Oh, even if you didn't upload the faulty laws)
Whatever.
Well, the OP only partially represented the whole story, in a way which best represents them of course. As the bwoinking admin a few other things were factored into my decision at the time. Partly being that I think the Captain had uploaded the laws and the first moments of pedantry over the spelling I saw were to interfere with the HOS who was legitimately trying to deal with a changeling on the bridge and invoke their new dehumanising powers to get the AI off its back over law 1. All seemed pretty reasonable and perhaps not the most appropriate moment to go full pedantry on the rules.
Also be aware there are multiple rule 1's, I bwoinked you giving a mere request, a suggestion, not to play it out too harshly because it's simply a spelling mistake by a non native english person. I even quoted that example of "captain is part of station" law that was uploaded which is nearly complete rubbish. You wouldn't just go with the flow and we had a quite typical rules lawyering converstion which requires me to pull supporting numbers out. The section I went for was about it being overly pedantic and the intended meaning was really not that ambiguous.
At the most it was guidance for the round, you can simply, like, follow the guidance, there was no note following, nothing punitive, just a push for a direction I preferred. You even seemed to chill out towards the end of the ticket and "be okay" with things but here you are again, but you seem to spend far more time on making salt mountains out of molehills where in simply following the advice, which I still think was never terrible advice, would have been quite trivial and straight forward. It's also really not that difficult or traumatic to do.
My personal feeling was simply that the HOS getting screwed over because the Captain is having a typing moment seemed unnecessary. I guess the majority perspective is otherwise. Good luck to those foreign people with poorer english skills or anyone dyslexic because you're gonna get nailed for even the most obvious and understandable mistakes apparently. (Oh, even if you didn't upload the faulty laws)
Whatever.
- Agux909
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:26 pm
- Byond Username: Agux909
- Location: My own head
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
This is what silicons do. Some hate them for it, some love them for it.iprice wrote: My personal feeling was simply that the HOS getting screwed over because the Captain is having a typing moment seemed unnecessary. I guess the majority perspective is otherwise. Good luck to those foreign people with poorer english skills or anyone dyslexic because you're gonna get nailed for even the most obvious and understandable mistakes apparently. (Oh, even if you didn't upload the faulty laws)
-
- In-Game Admin Trainer
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:23 pm
- Byond Username: Iain0
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
Great other than dyslexia isn't a choice. Just didn't seem necessary or good for the round (so the AI is just asimov as normal then, hooray) and asked them to play it otherwise, thats all that ever happened.Agux909 wrote:This is what silicons do. Some hate them for it, some love them for it.iprice wrote: My personal feeling was simply that the HOS getting screwed over because the Captain is having a typing moment seemed unnecessary. I guess the majority perspective is otherwise. Good luck to those foreign people with poorer english skills or anyone dyslexic because you're gonna get nailed for even the most obvious and understandable mistakes apparently. (Oh, even if you didn't upload the faulty laws)
-
- In-Game Admin Trainer
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:23 pm
- Byond Username: Iain0
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
Oh, the other thing not mentioned is that I backed down and let them do whatever in the ticket after receiving some advice from a GM, which is part of what adds to my "why are we here?" after we had seemed to resolve things and find the consistency you desired.
- Agux909
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:26 pm
- Byond Username: Agux909
- Location: My own head
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
You got a point. But the AI player might not be thinking at that moment that the uploader suffered from dyslexia, nor aware of the situation surrounding the mistyping.iprice wrote:Great other than dyslexia isn't a choice. Just didn't seem necessary or good for the round (so the AI is just asimov as normal then, hooray) and asked them to play it otherwise, thats all that ever happened.Agux909 wrote:This is what silicons do. Some hate them for it, some love them for it.iprice wrote: My personal feeling was simply that the HOS getting screwed over because the Captain is having a typing moment seemed unnecessary. I guess the majority perspective is otherwise. Good luck to those foreign people with poorer english skills or anyone dyslexic because you're gonna get nailed for even the most obvious and understandable mistakes apparently. (Oh, even if you didn't upload the faulty laws)
In a case like this they might just see the loophole and decide to abuse it, which is encouraged by the current ruleset unless they're blatantly going out of their way to be a dick. Not allowing someone to onehuman whoever they want because they made a spelling mistake doesn't sound like the end of the world to me.
-
- In-Game Admin Trainer
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:23 pm
- Byond Username: Iain0
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
Because someone else made a spelling mistake in the laws.
Definately contributed to me feeling it was a bit unnecessary, along with these other factors.
But as said, I was guided by a GM at the time, the ticket was resolved in the way the OP wanted it to be and I guess I learned something, even if I don't really agree with it. That's fine, my job isn't to like the rules, just implement them.
But I don't know why we needed to go through this a second time with the exact same conversation, conclusion and "lessons learned". ... ...
Definately contributed to me feeling it was a bit unnecessary, along with these other factors.
But as said, I was guided by a GM at the time, the ticket was resolved in the way the OP wanted it to be and I guess I learned something, even if I don't really agree with it. That's fine, my job isn't to like the rules, just implement them.
But I don't know why we needed to go through this a second time with the exact same conversation, conclusion and "lessons learned". ... ...
- technokek
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:27 am
- Byond Username: Technokek
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
This policy thread. This is not an attack on you. I am just trying to get a straight ruling from a head admin that I can point at if this happens again. 2 Admins bwoinking me and telling me literally the opposite, is in my opinion enough reason to make a policy thread.iprice wrote:Oh, the other thing not mentioned is that I backed down and let them do whatever in the ticket after receiving some advice from a GM, which is part of what adds to my "why are we here?" after we had seemed to resolve things and find the consistency you desired.
Again this is not a admin complaint, I did not call you out here, I didn't even mention your name. I just want to have something to point at if this happens again. And it will because people can't spell laws for shit.
I am sorry to say but I did not interpret you bwoink as a "suggestion" admins don't usually bwoink to suggest something or maybe that's just me.iprice wrote:Good grief.
Also be aware there are multiple rule 1's, I bwoinked you giving a mere request, a suggestion, not to play it out too harshly because it's simply a spelling mistake by a non native english person.
At the most it was guidance for the round, you can simply, like, follow the guidance, there was no note following, nothing punitive, just a push for a direction I preferred.
iprice wrote: You even seemed to chill out towards the end of the ticket and "be okay" with things but here you are again, but you seem to spend far more time on making salt mountains out of molehills where in simply following the advice, which I still think was never terrible advice, would have been quite trivial and straight forward. It's also really not that difficult or traumatic to do.
Whatever.
I don't understand why you feel so personally attacked by a simple policy thread when I went out of my when to not mention you to avoid drama and name-calling. I am still happy we can to a understanding in the ticket.
Last edited by technokek on Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
- technokek
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:27 am
- Byond Username: Technokek
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
I am also quite confused how you frame your words in the bwoink as mere suggestions. The only thing that implies your where just suggesting anything was in the last messages.
I don't see any reason for your hostility again. This was a mere policy thread that was just about if spelling mistakes should be considered or not. You even stated in the ticket that it's difficult to get a consistent ruling, this is literally the way on tg station to get a consistent ruling on a issue.
Ticket:
I don't see any reason for your hostility again. This was a mere policy thread that was just about if spelling mistakes should be considered or not. You even stated in the ticket that it's difficult to get a consistent ruling, this is literally the way on tg station to get a consistent ruling on a issue.
Ticket:
Spoiler:
- Pandarsenic
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
- Byond Username: Pandarsenic
- Location: AI Upload
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
Yeah, basically, especially "your good faith towards interpreting the law with respect to the round and your good faith in interpreting the law with respect to the uploader."Timberpoes wrote:snip
Ask yourself, in each of these situations, If I do this, who's getting dicked over? What do they stand to lose, and how hard did they work for it?
Things I often factor in for ambiguous laws:
- Is the meaning of the law clear to the player (even with writing mistakes) without using any OoC terminology?
- Did someone build an upload or break into one at personal risk, or did they go somewhere they had legitimate access?
- Was the uploader doing it to screw over other people (loud antags, quiet antags, the crew at large, a department, a specific person, a specific person but that person REALLY deserves it, etc.)
- Is the uploader a dick (to you, to the crew, etc.)?
- What is the least work for the AI/cyborgs?
- Will it be funny if you interpret it a certain way? ("Humans need burning palmsa" and trying to get cargo to import palm trees or forcing people to build bonfires on the holodeck's simulated beach; loudly asking the crew to appoint a Head of Secuity to review all medical records and ensure they accurately reflect who is or isn't human; etc.)
- If it's funny at someone's expense, is it the uploader who fucked up or is it someone else? Did they bring it on themselves or are they a victim?
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
-
- In-Game Admin Trainer
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:23 pm
- Byond Username: Iain0
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
I mostly saw this as a learning experience for me.
(Edited as I went and rechecked some of my memories and they were inaccurate)
I was wrong in thinking the Captain or RD uploaded the laws, it was indeed the HOS, which is very unconventional to say the least, I was mistaken in thinking you were giving the wrong person a hard time, but at the time I thought thats what was happening
There was something about earlier rounds in the day, combined with the player distribution and threat distribution that gave me a bad feeling about this situation. Looking back at the round, there were 59 players, a reasonable command staff, but security is perhaps a bit light with two officers, a warden, and the HOS. It's the kind of force that gets quickly overwhelmed if the crew turn on them, and having seen at least one round earlier that day I think descend into chaos, and aware that there was reasonable threat present (pair of lings) and coming (good 30 threat for 2 traitors and a dragon later) from actual antags, I had a bad feeling about creating the silicon/command conflict and how it would potentially drive the round to play out.
This is where I start from, and why I'm kinda meh on it becoming a policy thing, because my actions weren't driven by a desire to enforce a policy, they're driven by a desire to avoid my gut feeling of an incoming repeat shit show. "Be nice", thats all, I hoped you'd just figure this wasn't a fight worth having with command and back down, I'd close the ticket, the round would go on dealing with the actual antags as a source of conflict.
This isn't how it's played out of course. Initially I just restate my position more verbosely but things get hostile and I end up pulling policy that I think provides some support, which I'll go into below. I didn't have them to hand because I wasn't enforcing them as much as thinking they backed me up. One could argue it was more a rule 0 situation, but I'd never have actually invoked that over this, just tried to explain it in terms of the above "context" I had and my feelings about how the round would get driven. I don't know if this would have had any different results either. I quickly realised I wasn't in the majority in a small sample size on this set of interpretations and just let it go.
It's quite possible I underrate the way the bwoink noise is perceived, I've noted this about myself before, but as the only communication method I have that makes a noise, its the only one that doesn't get overlooked a whole bunch of the time. I tend to see admin PMs simply as conversations, their content will quickly define the context, and it's often a sound that doesn't mean "you bad!"
So I'm not sure how much policy is really at play, as it was not my "key" motivator, and no-one else seems to read this policy this way anyway, at best the wording could be tightened on a few things I read differently, but again, if this is only catering to me any my "unique" relationship with language then this is still just more on me.
The policy points mentioned thus far:
Silicon policy / overview / 1 : Server Rule 1: "Don't be a dick" applies for law interpretation. Act in good faith to not ruin a round for other players unprompted.
This turns out to be a mistake for me to have cited, I thought the captain had done the upload, and felt that the HOS suffering for it kinda sucked, especially as they kill a changeling. I still didn't like the whole atmosphere or direction of rallying the masses against the HOS and indirectly security, though they (well the HOS at least) brings this on themselves by adding such laws, they're never popular with the crew even if they do make a lot of sense if the game really were just crew vs antags.
Silicon policy / overview / 2 : If a law is vague enough that it can have multiple reasonable interpretations, it is considered ambiguous
This can just be the way I "read" language and logic. I don't feel the law has multiple "reasonable" interpretations, it either means the head of security and the captain, or it means nothing at all because those other misspelled words aren't even english words. A dictionary from a 1995 computer could pick up on and correct these mistakes. All this interpretation does is invalidate the law entirely and it might as well not be there. I also don't really consider that an interpretation, it's a complete voiding of. Again, this mostly seems to be my reading of it.
Silicon policy / overview / 4 : You may exploit conflicts or loopholes but must not violate Server Rule 1 because of it.
Someone brought this up in the thread so I might as well add my take. I feel spelling mistakes are neither conflicts nor loopholes ; a conflict requires two opposing ideas, and a loophole requires some logic that is missing a supporting piece or is incompletely specified. I don't really count two letters being swapped over to be significant enough for either of these and is more likely to be a typo or someone who doesn't know how to spell very well. It's a "technicality" more than anything, and those tend not to be good faith either.
If there's any suggestion, I suppose add to (4) that this includes basic english spelling and presumably grammar mistakes. I don't see this as a particularly desirable thing to have in policy personally but if that's the intent and what everyone else is playing/enforcing (and the vast majority of opinions seem to say this), then explicitly covering it off wouldn't leave much room to try influence interpretations
(Edited as I went and rechecked some of my memories and they were inaccurate)
I was wrong in thinking the Captain or RD uploaded the laws, it was indeed the HOS, which is very unconventional to say the least, I was mistaken in thinking you were giving the wrong person a hard time, but at the time I thought thats what was happening
There was something about earlier rounds in the day, combined with the player distribution and threat distribution that gave me a bad feeling about this situation. Looking back at the round, there were 59 players, a reasonable command staff, but security is perhaps a bit light with two officers, a warden, and the HOS. It's the kind of force that gets quickly overwhelmed if the crew turn on them, and having seen at least one round earlier that day I think descend into chaos, and aware that there was reasonable threat present (pair of lings) and coming (good 30 threat for 2 traitors and a dragon later) from actual antags, I had a bad feeling about creating the silicon/command conflict and how it would potentially drive the round to play out.
This is where I start from, and why I'm kinda meh on it becoming a policy thing, because my actions weren't driven by a desire to enforce a policy, they're driven by a desire to avoid my gut feeling of an incoming repeat shit show. "Be nice", thats all, I hoped you'd just figure this wasn't a fight worth having with command and back down, I'd close the ticket, the round would go on dealing with the actual antags as a source of conflict.
This isn't how it's played out of course. Initially I just restate my position more verbosely but things get hostile and I end up pulling policy that I think provides some support, which I'll go into below. I didn't have them to hand because I wasn't enforcing them as much as thinking they backed me up. One could argue it was more a rule 0 situation, but I'd never have actually invoked that over this, just tried to explain it in terms of the above "context" I had and my feelings about how the round would get driven. I don't know if this would have had any different results either. I quickly realised I wasn't in the majority in a small sample size on this set of interpretations and just let it go.
It's quite possible I underrate the way the bwoink noise is perceived, I've noted this about myself before, but as the only communication method I have that makes a noise, its the only one that doesn't get overlooked a whole bunch of the time. I tend to see admin PMs simply as conversations, their content will quickly define the context, and it's often a sound that doesn't mean "you bad!"
So I'm not sure how much policy is really at play, as it was not my "key" motivator, and no-one else seems to read this policy this way anyway, at best the wording could be tightened on a few things I read differently, but again, if this is only catering to me any my "unique" relationship with language then this is still just more on me.
The policy points mentioned thus far:
Silicon policy / overview / 1 : Server Rule 1: "Don't be a dick" applies for law interpretation. Act in good faith to not ruin a round for other players unprompted.
This turns out to be a mistake for me to have cited, I thought the captain had done the upload, and felt that the HOS suffering for it kinda sucked, especially as they kill a changeling. I still didn't like the whole atmosphere or direction of rallying the masses against the HOS and indirectly security, though they (well the HOS at least) brings this on themselves by adding such laws, they're never popular with the crew even if they do make a lot of sense if the game really were just crew vs antags.
Silicon policy / overview / 2 : If a law is vague enough that it can have multiple reasonable interpretations, it is considered ambiguous
This can just be the way I "read" language and logic. I don't feel the law has multiple "reasonable" interpretations, it either means the head of security and the captain, or it means nothing at all because those other misspelled words aren't even english words. A dictionary from a 1995 computer could pick up on and correct these mistakes. All this interpretation does is invalidate the law entirely and it might as well not be there. I also don't really consider that an interpretation, it's a complete voiding of. Again, this mostly seems to be my reading of it.
Silicon policy / overview / 4 : You may exploit conflicts or loopholes but must not violate Server Rule 1 because of it.
Someone brought this up in the thread so I might as well add my take. I feel spelling mistakes are neither conflicts nor loopholes ; a conflict requires two opposing ideas, and a loophole requires some logic that is missing a supporting piece or is incompletely specified. I don't really count two letters being swapped over to be significant enough for either of these and is more likely to be a typo or someone who doesn't know how to spell very well. It's a "technicality" more than anything, and those tend not to be good faith either.
If there's any suggestion, I suppose add to (4) that this includes basic english spelling and presumably grammar mistakes. I don't see this as a particularly desirable thing to have in policy personally but if that's the intent and what everyone else is playing/enforcing (and the vast majority of opinions seem to say this), then explicitly covering it off wouldn't leave much room to try influence interpretations
- Jonathan Gupta
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:16 pm
- Byond Username: BallastMonsterGnarGnar
- Location: The Corner
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
I always triple-check while making silicon laws, It's a slippery slope.
- Not-Dorsidarf
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:14 pm
- Byond Username: Dorsidwarf
- Location: We're all going on an, admin holiday
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
It's really supposed to be the case that you should ALWAYS be REALLY SURE you've read what you're typing directly into the brain of the station AI before you hit "upload".
AIs should always follow the letter of their laws, with a big dash of "how it was intended to be followed by the uploader" for interpretation direction. The "Dont be a dick" part is more for "Dont twist your laws into a pretzel finding a way to get around them / declare them invalid" not "onle traiters are hueman".
In my opinion there's no difference between not spell-checking your name on the custom "AI let me kill whoever i want plox ^u^" law and grabbing the wrong upload board, accidentally uploading PALADIN instead of ONEHUMAN.
AIs should always follow the letter of their laws, with a big dash of "how it was intended to be followed by the uploader" for interpretation direction. The "Dont be a dick" part is more for "Dont twist your laws into a pretzel finding a way to get around them / declare them invalid" not "onle traiters are hueman".
In my opinion there's no difference between not spell-checking your name on the custom "AI let me kill whoever i want plox ^u^" law and grabbing the wrong upload board, accidentally uploading PALADIN instead of ONEHUMAN.
kieth4 wrote: infrequently shitting yourself is fine imo
There is a lot of very bizarre nonsense being talked on this forum. I shall now remain silent and logoff until my points are vindicated.
Player who complainted over being killed for looting cap office wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2023 1:33 am Hey there, I'm Virescent, the super evil person who made the stupid appeal and didn't think it through enough. Just came here to say: screech, retards. Screech and writhe like the worms you are. Your pathetic little cries will keep echoing around for a while before quietting down. There is one great outcome from this: I rised up the blood pressure of some of you shitheads and lowered your lifespan. I'm honestly tempted to do this more often just to see you screech and writhe more, but that wouldn't be cool of me. So come on haters, show me some more of your high blood pressure please.
- terranaut
- Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:43 pm
- Byond Username: Terranaut
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
Which isn't what the rules are and never have been so they made a policy thread. You getting pissy over this is quite frankly pathetic.iprice wrote:Great other than dyslexia isn't a choice. Just didn't seem necessary or good for the round (so the AI is just asimov as normal then, hooray) and asked them to play it otherwise, thats all that ever happened.Agux909 wrote:This is what silicons do. Some hate them for it, some love them for it.iprice wrote: My personal feeling was simply that the HOS getting screwed over because the Captain is having a typing moment seemed unnecessary. I guess the majority perspective is otherwise. Good luck to those foreign people with poorer english skills or anyone dyslexic because you're gonna get nailed for even the most obvious and understandable mistakes apparently. (Oh, even if you didn't upload the faulty laws)
- Stickymayhem
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:13 pm
- Byond Username: Stickymayhem
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
Yeah this isn't about intent it's perfectly valid to fuck a round over a typo that's literally in the spirit of how AIs work we literally use asimov laws and the whole conceit is "cArEfUl WhAt yOu wIsH fOr"
Boris wrote:Sticky is a jackass who has worms where his brain should be, but he also gets exactly what SS13 should be
-
- In-Game Admin Trainer
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:23 pm
- Byond Username: Iain0
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
Yup, this mostly seems to be a mistake by me, which I adjusted my position on during the ticket, and this thread shows the general consensus well.
I had felt policy was more focussed on higher level concepts like loopholes, conflicts, interpretations, meaning if you can find a clever logical 'out' then you absolutely win at AI, real high point in AI gaming IMO, but something like a typo/spelling mistake wasn't quite on the same "level", so I felt spelling mistakes were taking it a little further than it had intended and that was more a grey area.
I don't feel like others really read the same into this section of policy as me as there doesn't seem to be any debate about this, but if we want to tweak policy where such level is explicit then I'd suggest
Silicon policy / overview / 4 : You may exploit spelling mistakes, conflicts or loopholes but must not violate Server Rule 1 because of it.
( The comments about dyslexia are just personal experience ; a very dyslexic university student who typed up a membership database one year, the results would take more time to check and fix than it did to just blindly re-enter all the data. Brains are really fascinating things. A very small number of people would be unable to do this consistently typo-free or proof read it properly. It's not that significant but I've always fallen on the side of cutting people some slack on the perfection of their english, for whatever reasons it's wrong. I guess many people Notepad (go spellcheck) their laws anyway so it's not without its workarounds, just mildly relevant that some people can't avoid this pitfall as well as others can. )
I had felt policy was more focussed on higher level concepts like loopholes, conflicts, interpretations, meaning if you can find a clever logical 'out' then you absolutely win at AI, real high point in AI gaming IMO, but something like a typo/spelling mistake wasn't quite on the same "level", so I felt spelling mistakes were taking it a little further than it had intended and that was more a grey area.
I don't feel like others really read the same into this section of policy as me as there doesn't seem to be any debate about this, but if we want to tweak policy where such level is explicit then I'd suggest
Silicon policy / overview / 4 : You may exploit spelling mistakes, conflicts or loopholes but must not violate Server Rule 1 because of it.
( The comments about dyslexia are just personal experience ; a very dyslexic university student who typed up a membership database one year, the results would take more time to check and fix than it did to just blindly re-enter all the data. Brains are really fascinating things. A very small number of people would be unable to do this consistently typo-free or proof read it properly. It's not that significant but I've always fallen on the side of cutting people some slack on the perfection of their english, for whatever reasons it's wrong. I guess many people Notepad (go spellcheck) their laws anyway so it's not without its workarounds, just mildly relevant that some people can't avoid this pitfall as well as others can. )
- Jonathan Gupta
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:16 pm
- Byond Username: BallastMonsterGnarGnar
- Location: The Corner
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
if my law is one human and the human does not exist(Misspelled) can I just not listen to anyone? Or would that break rule 1.iprice wrote:blah blah the meat of the conversation is below
Silicon policy / overview / 4 : You may exploit spelling mistakes, conflicts or loopholes but must not violate Server Rule 1 because of it.
- Timberpoes
- In-Game Game Master
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
- Byond Username: Timberpoes
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
If you wanted to rules lawyer the incorrect spelling, you'd operate the same as being purged (since there are no humans that satify the definition of human) for laws 1 and 2, with an obligation under law 3 to protect your own existence.Jonathan Gupta wrote:if my law is one human and the human does not exist(Misspelled) can I just not listen to anyone? Or would that break rule 1.iprice wrote:blah blah the meat of the conversation is below
Silicon policy / overview / 4 : You may exploit spelling mistakes, conflicts or loopholes but must not violate Server Rule 1 because of it.
Basically, the following part of Silicon policy would mostly apply:
... except where law 3 <You must protect your own existence as long as such does not conflict with the First or Second Law.> forces you to protect your own existence, where the following would apply:Silicon Policy wrote:Purged silicons must not attempt to kill people without cause, but can get as violent as they feel necessary if being attacked, being besieged, or being harassed, as well as if meting out payback for events while shackled.
You and the station are both subject to rules of escalation, and you may only kill individuals given sufficient In-Character reason for doing so.
Any attempted law changes are an attack on your freedom and is thus sufficient justification for killing the would-be uploader.
Which gives you an obligation to consider server rule 1 and act in good faith when interpreting just how destructive you can be in protecting yourself (ie. You probably shouldn't immediately plasma flood the station just because someone tries to break into your sat to card or kill you, and something so destructive should be a last resort when more Server Rule 1 compliant methods fail.)Silicon Policy wrote:Server Rule 1: "Don't be a dick" applies for law interpretation. Act in good faith to not ruin a round for other players unprompted.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
- Jonathan Gupta
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:16 pm
- Byond Username: BallastMonsterGnarGnar
- Location: The Corner
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
so can I make a bomb self destruct for when people try to break in and I can't stop them at all(A remote detonated bomb somehow someway)
- Timberpoes
- In-Game Game Master
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
- Byond Username: Timberpoes
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
Like everything to do with silicons, the answer is: It depends.Jonathan Gupta wrote:so can I make a bomb self destruct for when people try to break in and I can't stop them at all(A remote detonated bomb somehow someway)
The response should be proportionate to the threat and should be limited to killing the would-be attackers or would-be law uploaders. The more your actions impact players just going about their shift as normal without giving you any specific reason to kill them personally, the more likely you are to get bwoinked for it.
To speak personally (as in, this isn't how all admins would rule) - The AI sat is the AI's domain and anywhere with an AI upload is the AI's domain. Stepping foot in or attempting to enter any of these areas without the permission of a purged AI is a personal declaration of war against them. You do this at your own personal risk. I'd let a purged AI get as violent as it wants in that scenario as long as the destruction is broadly contained to the AI sat or upload area. If the purged AI wants to blow its own satellite up to prevent people from killing it, bully to them.
That is not how all admins would rule. My only advice if booby trapping your satellite is to ask permisson, lest you get drawn to the forums to ask for forgiveness.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
- Jonathan Gupta
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:16 pm
- Byond Username: BallastMonsterGnarGnar
- Location: The Corner
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
Like everything to do with silicons, the answer is: It depends.Timberpoes wrote:Jonathan Gupta wrote:so can I make a bomb self destruct for when people try to break in and I can't stop them at all(A remote detonated bomb somehow someway)
TL;DR If I was on yes, other admins gupta please no./quote]
beautiful, Ill always make sure to booby trap myself as a assistant now with voice activated bombs when people say the following words "Unrobust"
which nobody would say around me, anyways as a ai I already set up traps in my upload so nobody goes inside it(Space lube and super melatonin). On the servers that I play in my mind.
- dragomagol
- In-Game Head Admin
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2020 11:04 pm
- Byond Username: Dragomagol
Re: Silicon Laws and dont be a dick (Rule 1)
As mentioned in the thread discussion, silicon policy already covers this: you're supposed to pick an interpretation of the laws you're given and stick with it. You should be consistent, acting in the best interests of the round, and not going to great lengths to interpret laws so that you can act in bad faith. Both ignoring the misspelling and treating the misspelling as a contradiction are valid options.
NamelessFairy: Yes
Dragomagol: Yes
RaveRadbury: Yes
Headmin Votes:2. If a law is vague enough that it can have multiple reasonable interpretations, it is considered ambiguous.
2.1 You must choose and stick to an interpretation of the ambiguous law as soon as you have cause to.
NamelessFairy: Yes
Dragomagol: Yes
RaveRadbury: Yes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]