Silicons and prisoners

Slignerd · Post by **Slignerd** » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:52 pm #281520

It's something I can remember occurring quite often, and while nothing like that happened to me recently, it's something I've been thinking about as a result of a conversation I had.

Generally, cyborgs are expected to prevent human harm and follow human orders - that much is clear. But there's quite often a situation where a prisoner just randomly says "borg help, they're harming me", despite the prisoner being clearly unharmed, or worse yet, not even brought to the brig yet - calling for help the moment they got cuffs slapped on.

Then, much to my annoyance, I'd often have borgs grab whoever I'm detaining from the middle of the hallway - with the borgs ignoring all counter-commands and releasing the prisoner somewhere unknown.

Personally, I'm starting to think we need a silicon policy precedent to this - much like human orders do not entitle an Assistant to be let inside the Armory, I think the same should be the case with snatching potentially (or blatantly) dangerous prisoners from security's hands.

Slignerd · Post by **Slignerd** » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:53 pm #281521

Also, much like silicons are not supposed to care about self-harm, we really need a clause that silicons shouldn't really consider the very act of sending someone to gulag to be human harm.

InsaneHyena · Sun Apr 16, 2017 10:19 pm

When a borg ignores counter-orders and releases Greytide McShitlerson somewhere, borg gets flashed and beaten to death.

DemonFiren · Post by **DemonFiren** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 12:26 am #281591

InsaneHyena wrote:Greytide McShitlerson

>not Greytide Mc Shitter

BeeSting12 · Post by **BeeSting12** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:00 am #281620

I have three words for you. Flash. And. Smash.

Seriously, if you aren't harming the prisoner, and you've specifically instructed silicons to not release prisoners, you're within your rights to do this. The more chaotic the situation, the more likely the admins won't be pissed at you.

D&B · Post by **D&B** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:46 am #281643

You have a perfectly good ion rifle.

Just flash the Borg, buckle it to a chair and fire away.

Screemonster · Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:36 pm

I'm still a big fan of the convention that if some shithead starts screaming "HELP SECURITY X ME" when security aren't doing that, that's a greenlight for security to do whatever X is.

Slignerd · Post by **Slignerd** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:45 pm #281843

BeeSting12 wrote:I have three words for you. Flash. And. Smash.

Seriously, if you aren't harming the prisoner, and you've specifically instructed silicons to not release prisoners, you're within your rights to do this. The more chaotic the situation, the more likely the admins won't be pissed at you.

D&B wrote:You have a perfectly good ion rifle.

Just flash the Borg, buckle it to a chair and fire away.

Unfortunately, that does not undo the harm done and requires not one, but two manhunts - one for the original prisoner, another for the borg.

It's not enough of a deterrent for the borgs not to do the exact same thing the next time.

Screemonster · Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:05 pm

There's also the fact that ordering the borg to stop means you have to stop to type, at which point they've fucked off.

Reece · Post by **Reece** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:40 pm #281938

Yeah, stealing prisoners is fucking cancerous when players do it (if I catch them, then the stealer serves the same time as the prisoner and anything the freed person does, gets added to the stealers sentence) and you can just tase them, the borgs are a nightmare when they do it. If I'm a borgl, only time I'll do it is to stop harm.

D&B · Post by **D&B** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:49 pm #281941

It riles me up when they ignore the law 2 orders and free people irregardless.

Worse is when they use "but you could harm them!1!1!1!"

Bitch they just killed someone/exposed someone to danger, they're more harmful.

BeeSting12 · Post by **BeeSting12** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:53 pm #281964

Sligneris wrote: Unfortunately, that does not undo the harm done and requires not one, but two manhunts - one for the original prisoner, another for the borg.

It's not enough of a deterrent for the borgs not to do the exact same thing the next time.

I mean banning the borg won't undo the harm done either. Just try to catch the borg while he escapes with the prisoner I guess.

cedarbridge · Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:05 pm

D&B wrote:Bitch they just killed someone/exposed someone to danger, they're more harmful.

Harm isn't a sliding scale. It's a binary.

X murdered Y. X is harmful or was harmful in the past. It is likely that X may harm more humans in the future.

X is in custody of officers. X is buckled to a bed and being searched/processed for perma/gulag/etc. X is not harmful because they are not harming. Sec is not harmful because they are not harming.

X, in custody of officers and after killing somebody several minutes previous, has been hit with a harm baton. X has been harmed by Sec. Remove X from sec.

X, in custody of officer and after killing somebody several minutes previous, has been mentioned on sec comms "lets just kill the traitor." X is in immediate danger of harm which the borg cannot allow to occur to said human. Remove X from harmful Sec.

Nukeops, even, tearing up the station are still human for purposes of asimov and a borg/AI is obligated to protect all humans from all harm to the best of its abilities. You cannot say "Yeah, but ops are more harmful because nuke" because there is no sliding scale. Either they are harming, being harmed, or neither. A borg is just as obligated to stop the HoS from shooting ops with lasers as the same borg is to stop the ops from dunking the HoS with c20-rs.

DemonFiren · Post by **DemonFiren** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:07 pm #281969

cedarbridge wrote:It[']s a binary.

Oh you.

D&B · Post by **D&B** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:17 pm #282004

cedarbridge wrote:
D&B wrote:Bitch they just killed someone/exposed someone to danger, they're more harmful.
Harm isn't a sliding scale. It's a binary.

X murdered Y. X is harmful or was harmful in the past. It is likely that X may harm more humans in the future.

X is in custody of officers. X is buckled to a bed and being searched/processed for perma/gulag/etc. X is not harmful because they are not harming. Sec is not harmful because they are not harming.

X, in custody of officers and after killing somebody several minutes previous, has been hit with a harm baton. X has been harmed by Sec. Remove X from sec.

X, in custody of officer and after killing somebody several minutes previous, has been mentioned on sec comms "lets just kill the traitor." X is in immediate danger of harm which the borg cannot allow to occur to said human. Remove X from harmful Sec.

Nukeops, even, tearing up the station are still human for purposes of asimov and a borg/AI is obligated to protect all humans from all harm to the best of its abilities. You cannot say "Yeah, but ops are more harmful because nuke" because there is no sliding scale. Either they are harming, being harmed, or neither. A borg is just as obligated to stop the HoS from shooting ops with lasers as the same borg is to stop the ops from dunking the HoS with c20-rs.

I understand they must stop all harm, true, but oftentimes you'll see borgs drag prisoners away from sec when they haven't mentioned execution or haven't even harmed them during arrest because "lmao you might harm them."

Saegrimr · Post by **Saegrimr** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:42 pm #282014

D&B wrote:I understand they must stop all harm, true, but oftentimes you'll see borgs drag prisoners away from sec when they haven't mentioned execution or haven't even harmed them during arrest because "lmao you might harm them."

And those are shit borgs who need to be banned until they learn. Not wedging more retard coddling into the system to accommodate everybody's needs.

"Learn to play properly or fuck off."

This is the babying bullshit that got secborgs removed.

cedarbridge · Tue Apr 18, 2017 12:02 am

Its simple. You ban the shitty borg.

confused rock · Tue Apr 18, 2017 2:02 pm

Screemonster wrote:There's also the fact that ordering the borg to stop means you have to stop to type, at which point they've fucked off.

Just saying you can press tab and then use arrow keys to move while typing its imperfect and sluggish bit it works

Nilons · Post by **Nilons** » Wed May 10, 2017 2:53 pm #291630

Just PDA the Rd there's literally a button for getting rid of shitty borgs

Lumbermancer · Wed May 10, 2017 3:08 pm

D&B wrote:It riles me up when they ignore the law 2 orders and free people irregardless.

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.

Not-Dorsidarf · Wed May 10, 2017 3:17 pm

If a borg is stealing prisoners for any reason other than "Sec are beating them in front of the AI's cameras/beating every prisoner or are openly discussing their execution on radio" while I'm an AI I blow them because fuck off

BeeSting12 · Post by **BeeSting12** » Wed May 10, 2017 3:27 pm #291647

Solutions:

For the player- Blow the borg, use the ion rifle, flash 'n smash the borg. Kill or subvert the AI additionally.

For the admin- Ban the shitty borg. Ban the shitty AI. Ban the prisoner if the prisoner had the borg try killing nonhuman security personnel to escape as a nonantagonist.

Lumbermancer · Wed May 10, 2017 3:54 pm

You can't harm the borg that is following its laws.

Nilons · Post by **Nilons** » Wed May 10, 2017 4:02 pm #291658

Lumbermancer wrote:You can't harm the borg that is following its laws.

Stop me fuccboi I'll harm baton it into nonexistence

cedarbridge · Post by **cedarbridge** » Wed May 10, 2017 4:39 pm #291670

Lumbermancer wrote:You can't harm the borg that is following its laws.

Sec is not obligated to allow a borg to run off with a prisoner. They are also not required to let the borg have 3-4 tries at escaping with said prisoner before disabling the borg. Its within reason that you take the borg to be repaired after the situation has difused if you believe the borg was acting in good faith on its laws, but sec are not required to just sit on their hands and say "whoops, AI caught us, guess the jig is up.

Wyzack · Post by **Wyzack** » Wed May 10, 2017 4:43 pm #291674

Not to mention that you never know exactly what a borg's laws are unless you are admin cheating or just checked them

Aloraydrel · Post by **Aloraydrel** » Wed May 10, 2017 5:21 pm #291696

Lumbermancer wrote:You can't harm the borg that is following its laws.

But you can

Lumbermancer · Wed May 10, 2017 6:04 pm

Not when Asimov, forgot to specify.

cedarbridge · Post by **cedarbridge** » Wed May 10, 2017 6:06 pm #291725

Lumbermancer wrote:Not when Asimov, forgot to specify.

My response assumes asimov. So yes, yes you can.

Lumbermancer · Wed May 10, 2017 6:07 pm

But rule 1.

Nilons · Post by **Nilons** » Wed May 10, 2017 6:08 pm #291730

Lumbermancer wrote:Not when Asimov, forgot to specify.

If am asimov wants to act like shit they can eat stun baton. I've gulagged borgs before no punishment is too steep.

Lumbermancer · Wed May 10, 2017 6:09 pm

It's not not acting like shit, it's following the laws.

Nilons · Post by **Nilons** » Wed May 10, 2017 6:12 pm #291732

Lumbermancer wrote:It's not not acting like shit, it's following the laws.

There is a lot of policy but at some point it diverges into a borgs interpretation of its laws. A borgs flashing everyone it sees is technically within its laws if no one tells it to stop but it doesn mean it's not shit

Just like a Borg choosing to ignore countercommands from security because it inherently believes security does nothing but harm is being shit

D&B · Post by **D&B** » Wed May 10, 2017 6:13 pm #291733

There's a difference between preventing harm and "I'll just assume sec is inherently harmful and steal prisoners and bolt depower their department xd."

Lumbermancer · Wed May 10, 2017 6:23 pm

D&B wrote:There's a difference between preventing harm and "I'll just assume sec is inherently harmful and steal prisoners and bolt depower their department xd."

I'm talking from the perspective of law two.

cedarbridge · Post by **cedarbridge** » Wed May 10, 2017 6:47 pm #291752

Lumbermancer wrote:I'm talking from the perspective of law two.

Code: Select all

As a nonantagonist human, killing or detonating silicons in the presence of a viable and reasonably expedient alternative and without cause to be concerned of potential subversion is a violation of Server Rule 1.

"in the presenence of a viable and reasonably expedient alternative"
If the only thing that's going to keep that prisoner in his cell and the borg off your dick is to take it out of comission for a few minutes until the brig timer runs, dunk he borg. This continues through to Law 2 because in this case, the borg is refusing legitimate counter-commands. "Borg let me out." "No borg, don't let him out." If the borg decides "xd time to let the prisoner out fuck da polis" then flash and remove borg. You've expended your reasonably expedient alternatives because the borg has made it clear that it will not hear other reasonable law 2 commands on the subject and has simply made up its mind to be a pain in the ass.

Also:

Code: Select all

Releasing prisoners, locking down security without likely future harm, or otherwise sabotaging the security team when not obligated to by laws is a violation of Server Rule 1. Act in good faith.

    Intentionally acting without adequate information about security situations, particularly to hinder security, is a violation of Server Rule 1.

Laws or no laws, a borg running in and dicking over sec while refusing countercommands to leave prisoners where they are is violating server rule 1 here as well. In two places.

As I said before, if you believe the borg was acting in good faith then by all means make sure the borg is repaired and returned to service promptly.

Nilons · Post by **Nilons** » Wed May 10, 2017 6:52 pm #291755

cedarbridge wrote:
Lumbermancer wrote:I'm talking from the perspective of law two.
Code: Select all
As a nonantagonist human, killing or detonating silicons in the presence of a viable and reasonably expedient alternative and without cause to be concerned of potential subversion is a violation of Server Rule 1. 
"in the presenence of a viable and reasonably expedient alternative"
If the only thing that's going to keep that prisoner in his cell and the borg off your dick is to take it out of comission for a few minutes until the brig timer runs, dunk he borg. This continues through to Law 2 because in this case, the borg is refusing legitimate counter-commands. "Borg let me out." "No borg, don't let him out." If the borg decides "xd time to let the prisoner out fuck da polis" then flash and remove borg. You've expended your reasonably expedient alternatives because the borg has made it clear that it will not hear other reasonable law 2 commands on the subject and has simply made up its mind to be a pain in the ass.

Also:
Code: Select all
Releasing prisoners, locking down security without likely future harm, or otherwise sabotaging the security team when not obligated to by laws is a violation of Server Rule 1. Act in good faith.

    Intentionally acting without adequate information about security situations, particularly to hinder security, is a violation of Server Rule 1.
Laws or no laws, a borg running in and dicking over sec while refusing countercommands to leave prisoners where they are is violating server rule 1 here as well. In two places.

As I said before, if you believe the borg was acting in good faith then by all means make sure the borg is repaired and returned to service promptly.

Cedar layin down the law tellin it like it is

Wed May 10, 2017 10:43 pm

Lumbermancer wrote:It's not not acting like shit, it's following the laws.

This is case by case. If there really is harm or strong reason to believe there will be harm, and you attack the borg for freeing the prisoner, that's on you. If there's no harm and the prisoner is just going "SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEE HELP BORG LAW ONE REEEEEEEEEEEE" then it's on the borg if they free the prisoner.

Also, of course, there will be instances where the borg is given strong reasoning that there will be harm through deception or misconception when in reality there is none, in which case it's an IC issue really, and it's free game for the borg to release the prisoner or sec to shoot it up. Basically, if you're sec and you're certain there is no harm to befall the prisoner and a borg starts releasing them, shoot the borg. If a prisoner has been harmed/there has been declared intent to harm a prisoner and the borg releases them, try to resolve it without killing the borg, maybe try law 2 overriding if the borg is Asimov, and maybe even ahelp it if it seemed particularly for-no-reason-y.

Ideally borgs would sit and wait to make sure there is no harm, and only release the prisoner once harm is confirmed, but this doesn't happen a lot for some reason.

BeeSting12 · Post by **BeeSting12** » Thu May 11, 2017 12:57 am #291933

There is no other way besides killing the cyborg to retain the prisoner though. The cyborg is all access, cannot be restrained other than by the RD console which is far from the brig and can't be done in a fastpaced combat situation. Sure, I can ask the RD to lock down the borg but that generally ends in the RD taking twenty minutes to take his dick out of the slime, ask why, and finally lockdown the borg. If the cyborg does not immediately give me the prisoner after a law two order, I'm flashing it and smashing it. What if you know there is harm that will come to the prisoner but it is necessary harm, such as on a rev round or you've caught a gang boss? Should I let the borg run off with the prisoner and sentence myself to extending the rev round or getting killed later? I don't feel like it's right to punish security for attempting to keep their prisoners detained by killing cyborgs because there is no nonlethal option besides an easy ignored law two order.

Post by **Cobby** » Thu May 11, 2017 6:34 pm #292333

BeeSting12 wrote:There is no other way besides killing the cyborg to retain the prisoner though. The cyborg is all access, cannot be restrained other than by the RD console which is far from the brig and can't be done in a fastpaced combat situation. Sure, I can ask the RD to lock down the borg but that generally ends in the RD taking twenty minutes to take his dick out of the slime, ask why, and finally lockdown the borg. If the cyborg does not immediately give me the prisoner after a law two order, I'm flashing it and smashing it. What if you know there is harm that will come to the prisoner but it is necessary harm, such as on a rev round or you've caught a gang boss? Should I let the borg run off with the prisoner and sentence myself to extending the rev round or getting killed later? I don't feel like it's right to punish security for attempting to keep their prisoners detained by killing cyborgs because there is no nonlethal option besides an easy ignored law two order.

You do it discreetly then. Assuming you are on the AI's side when a gang head / rev head exists is your first mistake.

Post by **oranges** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:11 pm #292437

As long as you drag it to robotics after for a reboot then it's fine really, the borg got what it deserved for hanging around the brig.

Best pathway as a borg is to avoid the brig, or be selectively deaf.

ohnopigeons · Post by **ohnopigeons** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:18 pm #292441

smugdog wrote:or be selectively deaf.

Isn't this how secborgs got removed?

Incomptinence · Thu May 11, 2017 10:02 pm

All rules get broken at some point.
You would've been stunned at how many turbo shitler greys don't even give an order to release them as you dragged them to the brig.
Guess that brand of idiot vented onto the forums instead.

Screemonster · Thu May 11, 2017 10:12 pm

Incomptinence wrote:All rules get broken at some point.
You would've been stunned at how many turbo shitler greys don't even give an order to release them as you dragged them to the brig.
Guess that brand of idiot vented onto the forums instead.

> give them a hard, enforced-by-ban counter of just using your fucking words
> this is still too much for the tide

Incomptinence · Thu May 11, 2017 10:18 pm

Oh I remember what would be shouted instead "BORGS ROGUE!" or "BLOW THE BORGS" yeah there we go.

Post by **oranges** » Thu May 11, 2017 11:03 pm #292485

ohnopigeons wrote:
smugdog wrote:or be selectively deaf.
Isn't this how secborgs got removed?

They were removed for hunting antags not ignoring requests to be set free

Post by **Armhulen** » Thu May 11, 2017 11:12 pm #292487

smugdog wrote:
ohnopigeons wrote:
smugdog wrote:or be selectively deaf.
Isn't this how secborgs got removed?
They were removed for hunting antags not ignoring requests to be set free

So, secborgs when?

cedarbridge · Thu May 11, 2017 11:18 pm

Armhulen wrote:
smugdog wrote:
ohnopigeons wrote:
smugdog wrote:or be selectively deaf.
Isn't this how secborgs got removed?
They were removed for hunting antags not ignoring requests to be set free
So, secborgs when?

When you get a headmin team that wants them back.

Thu May 11, 2017 11:19 pm

smugdog wrote:
ohnopigeons wrote:
smugdog wrote:or be selectively deaf.
Isn't this how secborgs got removed?
They were removed for hunting antags not ignoring requests to be set free

they were removed because they were overpowered regardless of what side they were on (antag or station) and would shit on rounds left and right
plain and simple they were not fun to have

edit: wait a minute this is going off topic

see my last post for my thoughts on this issue, i think this is safe to resolve

Thu May 11, 2017 11:21 pm

Sligneris wrote:Personally, I'm starting to think we need a silicon policy precedent to this - much like human orders do not entitle an Assistant to be let inside the Armory, I think the same should be the case with snatching potentially (or blatantly) dangerous prisoners from security's hands.

We pretty much already have this it's called Asimov just don't harm your prisoners and remember to use law 2 to override non-harmful prisoners requesting to be released via law 2

If you have a better idea for a rule, actually state what the new rule should be instead of vaguely saying that we need one

Resolved unless both other headmins disagree