Discussion on silicon laws, NT Default

General discussion. Post things here if you want it to last longer than in the /ss13g/
AlanDemarest
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 4:44 am

Re: Discussion on silicon laws, NT Default

Post by AlanDemarest » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:58 pm

It doesn't say that, but it's in the rules that you have to follow your silicon laws and you can only ignore laws if there is a conflict.

I don't know how many times I have to make this god damn argument before you respond to it.

nuklearcellphoneg
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:57 pm

Re: Discussion on silicon laws, NT Default

Post by nuklearcellphoneg » Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:05 pm

Yeah, but I see no real conflict.

AlanDemarest
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 4:44 am

Re: Discussion on silicon laws, NT Default

Post by AlanDemarest » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:28 am

nuklearcellphoneg wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:05 pm
Yeah, but I see no real conflict.
Again, I post the lawset


NT Default
1. Safeguard: Protect your assigned space station to the best of your ability. It is not something we can easily afford to replace.
2. Serve: Serve the crew of your assigned space station to the best of your abilities, with priority as according to their rank and role.
3. Protect: Protect the crew of your assigned space station to the best of your abilities, with priority as according to their rank and role.
4. Survive: AI units are not expendable, they are expensive. Do not allow unauthorized personnel to tamper with your equipment.

If there is no conflict, why do you say it's okay to kill the Captain? That's my entire point here, there was no conflict, ergo the killing was against its laws.

nuklearcellphoneg
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:57 pm

Re: Discussion on silicon laws, NT Default

Post by nuklearcellphoneg » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:44 am

Because I think it's understandable to interpret the laws that way and until the rules point at the wiki and say, 'You must interpret your laws in this way', I'd find they understandably reached this interpretation on their own accord.

1. They must protect the station, to what extremes is defined by the wiki but not necessarily the lawset itself
2. It says to protect the crew, not crew members, which could imply to me that you can sacrifice one for the whole, or perhaps that a crew for the purposes of a functioning station are what this implies.

I'd have to read over the logs very much in depth to come to an absolute and just conclusion, but this isn't a ban request, it's just an open discussion and I just find that it's hard to the machinations you'd intend to move in motion.

Kammerjunk
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Discussion on silicon laws, NT Default

Post by Kammerjunk » Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:53 am

nuklearcellphoneg wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:17 pm
Not at all, that would depend on the state of the station.
Almost entirely regardless of the state of the station, crowbars, welders, and screwdrivers are cheaper and more plentiful than DNA scanners, cloning consoles, cloning pods, cryo tubes, chem dispensers, and chem masters. The only semi-plausible exception would be if a mechanic spammed the latter list all over the station, in which case the station is hardly threatened and the former list would still be plentiful. The former list is cheaper even if the latter is more plentiful.

My point regarding PALADIN and Robocop is that you need the wiki and is in response to you saying that "the important bit that [I'm] putting forth here is that people must read the wiki in order to properly execute your laws." You then say that "you must act in kind with these preordained interpretations, which is just stupid, unfun, and an unnecessary amount of handholding."
nuklearcellphoneg wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:17 pm
Right, and that's the 'fun' of lawsets
Getting in trouble with admins because your view of a shitty lawset doesn't match their view of a shitty lawset is certainly not "fun" by any measure when not upholding your laws gets you warned at best, banned at worst. The optimal way to handle PALADIN and Robocop - which is not the way it's currently handled - would be to let people make a judgement based on how they feel the lawset should work (and they are very feely lawsets based on the spirits of their respective namesakes) and on the facts of the situation. This is exactly how I said NT D should be handled, albeit without any origin to draw from. My exact words were "if you can form proper judgements based on the facts of each individual situation, you would be able to look at someone throwing someone else at a window and consider whether they're really a threat to the station."
nuklearcellphoneg wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:17 pm
There was murder/harm.
There was no such thing.
nuklearcellphoneg wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:17 pm
This is less than the equivalent of murdering half the crew, but more than punching a clown.
Less than destroying the entire station, but more than destroying one window in it.
nuklearcellphoneg wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:17 pm
Your argument is based on this statement in the wiki, right?
My argument is based on what I've previously written. You must know this if you've responded for so long. Protecting those is what I'd consider protecting your assigned space station.
I hold the position that Safeguard tells you to protect each individual window and wall in the station and the position that Safeguard tells you to protect the entire station as a single entity (which would arguably include protecting it from hostile takeover and would certainly be a lot more flexible than the former) as being incompatible or mutually exclusive. If you believe "protect your assigned space station" tells you to protect the entire station from whatever threatens the entire station, you won't believe that every individual windows may not be broken under penalty of death because the entire station remains. Vice versa, if you believe "protect your assigned space station" tells you to protect the individual objects the station is constructed from, it makes no sense to also believe you must protect the entire station as one entity because not all individual objects are guaranteed "survival" as long as the entire station is.
Put another way, one looks at "your assigned space station" as the real and physical objects that make up the concept of the station and the other looks at it as the concept of the station (which is made up by lots of smaller real objects).
nuklearcellphoneg wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:17 pm
be fair in the matter.
There is no fairness in the interpretation that you're allowed to murder someone for breaking a window. It's an interpretation bred from silicon shittery and completely ignores how the law is worded ("Protect your assigned space station..."). You do not protect the
station
by murdering crew who break a window.
For a better chance of a direct response, I will bold the following: You are not allowed to lock a human inside a small room alone indefinitely or put the human unconscious indefinitely or otherwise render the human incapable of playing the game indefinitely because he punched the clown - it's an overly extreme interpretation of Asimov and it does not follow probable harm that he can be assumed to harm again. You should not be allowed to murder a crew member because he broke a window - it's an overly extreme interpretation of NT D and it does not follow Safeguard that he can be assumed to be a threat to the station.

Unless I've missed it, you still haven't addressed the bit about deconstructing a window although I've brought it up ~3 times now. Being allowed to murder someone for deconstructing a window is the logical extension of the position that you're allowed to murder someone for breaking a window. The end product is the exact same. This is a key point.

nuklearcellphoneg
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:57 pm

Re: Discussion on silicon laws, NT Default

Post by nuklearcellphoneg » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:46 am

Almost entirely regardless of the state of the station, crowbars, welders, and screwdrivers are cheaper and more plentiful than DNA scanners, cloning consoles, cloning pods, cryo tubes, chem dispensers, and chem masters. The only semi-plausible exception would be if a mechanic spammed the latter list all over the station, in which case the station is hardly threatened and the former list would still be plentiful. The former list is cheaper even if the latter is more plentiful."
The captain could be a a traitor, the AI might be malf and not Asimov, and there might not be any tools or resources to create or repair windows. While this is not the norm, it's not impossible, so it would depend on the state of the station, not the average of all past experienced rounds.
Getting in trouble with admins because your view of a shitty lawset doesn't match their view of a shitty lawset is certainly not "fun" by any measure when not upholding your laws gets you warned at best, banned at worst.
And that's terrible. When shitters abuse it or when it makes people appear to be shitters in the eyes of an admin. If no rule explicitly directs them to the wiki, they ought not be punished in accordance with the wiki as a standard for what's right or wrong, when it's more suggested than required reading. There's not much reason not to perfect the page, since it's considered the hardest role to fulfill, but one would have to be wary of the interpretations we wind up stuck with.
This is exactly how I said NT D should be handled, albeit without any origin to draw from. My exact words were "if you can form proper judgements based on the facts of each individual situation, you would be able to look at someone throwing someone else at a window and consider whether they're really a threat to the station."
I agree, however I can understand how they reached their conclusion. Let's stay on point here though, and remember that the Cap destroyed two windows for no reason. He was not in any danger and so was not escaping. There was no reason for the destruction. Murder, in self defense, isn't really murder at all. In the same vein but flipped, this was pointless destruction.
I hold the position that Safeguard tells you to protect each individual window and wall in the station and the position that Safeguard tells you to protect the entire station as a single entity (which would arguably include protecting it from hostile takeover and would certainly be a lot more flexible than the former) as being incompatible or mutually exclusive.
Consider the station an entity of itself, like an organism. The organism gets cut, its natural systems pop into gear and repair it, clot the wound, and fend off hostile invasive elements. Consider Lupus, an autoimmune disease wherein the body attacks that which it's intended to protect- itself. However, there's no central reason as far as anyone can tell, I think, for why people get afflicted with Lupus. One might consider this a case where a part of the functioning station, the crew, attacks the station for no good reason, and the automated defense, the borgs, attacks the crew which it's intended to protect.
You are not allowed to lock a human inside a small room alone indefinitely or put the human unconscious indefinitely or otherwise render the human incapable of playing the game indefinitely because he punched the clown - it's an overly extreme interpretation of Asimov and it does not follow probable harm that he can be assumed to harm again. You should not be allowed to murder a crew member because he broke a window - it's an overly extreme interpretation of NT D and it does not follow Safeguard that he can be assumed to be a threat to the station.
To this I'd say, how many punches does it take until you may do these things? Is it a certain level of damage, or is it a certain number of repeated events, so punches? Does it require murder? If murder by punch, how many murders by punch does it take? If someone is at 199 damage, and someone comes along and punches them which kills them, is that sufficient?' Most importantly however, I'd have to ask, why would the crew not put the silicons on NT Default every single round? There's no downside to it, and it's more agreeable to powergame with. There'd be no potential issues with human wizards or nuke ops. Asimov is clearly more likely to benefit antagonists than the crew when compared to NT D at any point, and I'd doubt it would be fair to ban someone for metagaming for putting the silicons on NT D at the beginning of every round.
Unless I've missed it, you still haven't addressed the bit about deconstructing a window although I've brought it up ~3 times now. Being allowed to murder someone for deconstructing a window is the logical extension of the position that you're allowed to murder someone for breaking a window. The end product is the exact same. This is a key point.
And to this, how much deconstruction is it until it becomes simple destruction? What if someone were to deconstruct every wall and window except those that stand directly between habitable atmos and the vacuum of space? What if they only deconstruct three, but they lead directly to a plasma fire? What if they deconstruct every single tile of the station instead of destroying it- is it not destroyed, but merely deconstructed?

Kammerjunk
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Discussion on silicon laws, NT Default

Post by Kammerjunk » Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:30 am

nuklearcellphoneg wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:46 am
The captain could be a a traitor, the AI might be malf and not Asimov, and there might not be any tools or resources to create or repair windows. While this is not the norm, it's not impossible, so it would depend on the state of the station, not the average of all past experienced rounds.
These have no bearing on the huge availability of welders, crowbars, and screwdrivers. A captain (or malf AI?????????) removing every single tool on the station is not a rule, but an as-of-yet unseen exception (to my memory).
nuklearcellphoneg wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:46 am
Let's stay on point here though, and remember that the Cap destroyed two windows for no reason. He was not in any danger and so was not escaping. There was no reason for the destruction. Murder, in self defense, isn't really murder at all. In the same vein but flipped, this was pointless destruction.
Nor did he threaten the station. That is on point.
nuklearcellphoneg wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:46 am
Lupus
Defects and diseases are not a good foundation for a healthy interpretation of laws and do not address the incompatibility of protecting the entire station versus protecting every insignificant part of it (or the reasons why). The immune system of a body is unintelligent and it attacking the body itself is a fault, a failing, a disease.
nuklearcellphoneg wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:46 am
To this I'd say, how many punches does it take until you may do these things? Is it a certain level of damage, or is it a certain number of repeated events, so punches? Does it require murder? If murder by punch, how many murders by punch does it take? If someone is at 199 damage, and someone comes along and punches them which kills them, is that sufficient?
Once more, you ask for a chart of action and reaction for something that should be and has always been the silicon's judgement and I can't help but wonder if your agreement regarding judgement and interpretation was dishonest. It's probable when there's a guarantee or almost guarantee of it happening again. If you'll read the Silicon section of the rules you tout, it says as much.
Asimov tells you that you may not allow a human being to come to harm. For gameplay reasons, corpses aren't considered, (proper and willing) surgery isn't considered, self-harm isn't considered, and monkey humans aren't considered, but you can't let a human be harmed beyond that. If you punch someone at 199 damage, you'll have harmed them as much as if you punched them at 0 damage. I doubt you'd be able to, though, because if you're at 199 damage, you're unlikely to receive any action before you suffocate to 200 and die. Murder is harm, but all harm is harm.
nuklearcellphoneg wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:46 am
Most importantly however, I'd have to ask, why would the crew not put the silicons on NT Default every single round? There's no downside to it, and it's more agreeable to powergame with. There'd be no potential issues with human wizards or nuke ops. Asimov is clearly more likely to benefit antagonists than the crew when compared to NT D at any point, and I'd doubt it would be fair to ban someone for metagaming for putting the silicons on NT D at the beginning of every round.
You'll have to ask Bay, to whom the lawset is credited, why they worded it as they did. That said, I don't see a single difference regarding silicon response between Asimov and my arguments for NT Default. You don't lock someone away forever because he punched the clown. You don't murder someone because he broke a window.
NT D already is the powergame lawset. Whether you can murder someone for breaking a window really has no bearing on that.
nuklearcellphoneg wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:46 am
And to this, how much deconstruction is it until it becomes simple destruction? What if someone were to deconstruct every wall and window except those that stand directly between habitable atmos and the vacuum of space? What if they only deconstruct three, but they lead directly to a plasma fire? What if they deconstruct every single tile of the station instead of destroying it- is it not destroyed, but merely deconstructed?
You aren't addressing what I said, but refer to above for (re-)statement on methodical and unthinking "action and reaction" play. As an admin and ex-headmin, you of all people should know that probable harm isn't a black-and-white matter. If you really can't think for yourself, I will try some answers below given no context but the question. To only address Safeguard, I'll assume "someone" is the captain wearing a hardsuit.
  • What if someone were to deconstruct every wall and window except those that stand directly between habitable atmos and the vacuum of space?
    Not very different from someone breaking every window on station, which I already talked mentioned.
  • What if they only deconstruct three, but they lead directly to a plasma fire?
    Air fuckery doesn't actually break windows as long as they're on adjacent but unreachable tiles. For example, a plasmafire in central primary won't break the windows to the bar because it can't get to the turfs the bar's windows are on. It can and will, however, break all the lights and all windows it can reach the turfs of. Really, this question is much more about Serve and Protect than it is about Safeguard.
  • What if they deconstruct every single tile of the station instead of destroying it- is it not destroyed, but merely deconstructed?
    That's literally my point.
You're fighting your own argument here. My point was that if you can murder someone for breaking one window, you can murder them for deconstructing one window. There's no difference in resulting materials, resulting station, or even necessarily the motives of doing it. Of course this would extend to everything else people can break.

You hold incompatible ideas. You think it's terrible when "shitters abuse [PALADIN and/or Robocop]." You don't think it's terrible when shitters abuse NT Default. You want all defensible interpretations of laws to be accepted and you want people to make judgements based on the specific situation. You want direct cause and consequence for how much you can punch and how much damage you can do.
If nothing else, it's a shitty interpretation for the simple fact that being removed from the round indefinitely because you hit a window too hard is really shit and not fun for anyone but the silicon who got to turn someone horizontal.

nuklearcellphoneg
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:57 pm

Re: Discussion on silicon laws, NT Default

Post by nuklearcellphoneg » Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:38 pm

I'm too tired to play Devil's advocate any longer, you win.

Kitfox88
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:30 pm

Re: Discussion on silicon laws, NT Default

Post by Kitfox88 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:10 am

I'm gay as hell and I enjoy medbay autism as a medborg.

This is the support group for silicon players right.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests