silicon policy is too fucking long again

[iamgoofball]

Bottom post of the previous page:

https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Rules#Sili ... .29_Policy
half the page is silicon policy
we have an unironic policy discussion up right now debating the wording of 2.1.6.5

are you fucking kidding me

discuss what can be done to cut down on silicon policy bloat to get it down to the same size as "Main Rules - read these if nothing else"

[Dr_bee]

Any semblance of 'roleplay' died a long time ago, I've seen people bitch in game when anyone tries to act with any semblance of roleplay, such as when a AI acted as if it was rebooting and people started to shit on it for wasting time.

Everyone is running around screeching 'wew', 'go gamer' and other OOC terms while powergaming to the maximum.

The round will start and people will start spouting 'You are the wizard', or 'I sure do hope we don't get those Operatives again'.

The reason we kinda need these shitty rules is because there is no spirit of roleplay or playing at a disadvantage, everyone has gotta play to win at all costs, everyone powergames and no one gives a shit to reign it in, its either too hard or they are indulging in the orgy themselves.

classic prisoners dilemma, cant roleplay when taking the risk of doing so will lead to me not being able to play at all. "escalation" has only made this worse. Its the nature of a game when death means being unable to do shit for 25-60 minutes, especially with ghost roles being inconsistent in their spawns and the most reliable ghost role being removed.

[Steelpoint]

Sometimes you just need to roll with the punches, not everyone is going to be the hero and not everyone is going to survive. I find the game far more interesting (for myself) if I just act as my job would and approach situations as they unfold, instead of powergaming and getting every tool I can to ensure I'm as prepared as possible.

There's a difference between being robust, being able to survive or escape a situation with just what you have on you, and powergaming where you take every possible advantage and edge you can possible get your hands on just to ensure you can win the next encounter.

[Actionb]

Started up my professional diagramming software to visualize one of the main issues I have with silicon policy.
Be warned though, it may be difficult to understand without knowledge of the LePUS3 object-oriented modeling language.
Current state as I see it: https://imgur.com/QtgvrJl
The state I would like to see in the future: https://imgur.com/6X9IvGv

If there is demand I can try to make pictograms of all the rules. Currently trying to program a penis in UML to facilitate rule 1.

[Malkraz]

Current state as I see it: https://imgur.com/QtgvrJl
The state I would like to see in the future: https://imgur.com/6X9IvGv

[D&B]

Not admins fault silicon players are fucking autists

[somerandomguy]

Started up my professional diagramming software to visualize one of the main issues I have with silicon policy.
Be warned though, it may be difficult to understand without knowledge of the LePUS3 object-oriented modeling language.
Current state as I see it: https://imgur.com/QtgvrJl
The state I would like to see in the future: https://imgur.com/6X9IvGv

If there is demand I can try to make pictograms of all the rules. Currently trying to program a penis in UML to facilitate rule 1.

You can ic-ify it by literally just saying "NT silicon policy" or something about hardcoding

[ShadowDimentio]

Ok let's just remove the policy and ban players who play badly under rule 1.

Admins are assblasted faggots about silicon behavior but silicon policy is shit

Hmmmm...

[Gamarr]

Transition borgs over into synthetic humanoid crewman like they really, really are. They play like it, they're Human brains in metal shells, they're not-people.

[Lumbermancer]

What we need is another race, yes.

[Shadowflame909]

Is Silicon Policy the problem? Or is it Asimov that's preventing the captain from getting into the ai upload at round start?

Law 2 Is a greytide heaven anyways.

You're always gonna have bad borg/ai players. You gotta hit them with the books and hit them hard.

[PKPenguin321]

Ok let's just remove the policy and ban players who play badly under rule 1.

Admins are assblasted faggots about silicon behavior but silicon policy is shit

Hmmmm...

some admins, on the other hand, are silicon mains
#notalladmins

[TehSteveo]

Ok let's just remove the policy and ban players who play badly under rule 1.

Admins are assblasted faggots about silicon behavior but silicon policy is shit

Hmmmm...

some admins, on the other hand, are silicon mains
#notalladmins

I heard guys with robot avatars are silicon mains...

[PKPenguin321]

Ok let's just remove the policy and ban players who play badly under rule 1.

Admins are assblasted faggots about silicon behavior but silicon policy is shit

Hmmmm...

some admins, on the other hand, are silicon mains
#notalladmins

I heard guys with robot avatars are silicon mains...

you heard wrong

[TehSteveo]

Ok let's just remove the policy and ban players who play badly under rule 1.

Admins are assblasted faggots about silicon behavior but silicon policy is shit

Hmmmm...

some admins, on the other hand, are silicon mains
#notalladmins

I heard guys with robot avatars are silicon mains...

you heard wrong

closeted silicon mains

[Actionb]

Is Silicon Policy the problem? Or is it Asimov that's preventing the captain from getting into the ai upload at round start?

I think it's both. AI laws are exploitable and the policies try to monkeypatch that.
Thing is: they are exploitable for a reason. But the reason does not seem to apply well in a multiplayer game's setting.
You can use it in a story/movie/whatever, but give actual people a way to exploit something and they will.
We can't change people - the most consistent thing I have seen in this game is the attitude of its players.
So you impose supplemental rules in an attempt to stop the exploits.
But the laws stay flawed, because they themselves weren't changed, and people come up with new exploits.
So you impose more rules... It's like having to repaint a wooden fence with blue paint over and over again, because wood just isn't blue.

I'm poking around in old threads and the history of the silicon policy wiki page to get an idea of what people actually want.
Maybe it's only the simple matter of rephrasing some of the policies.
Maybe we need to come up with a better lawset.
Maybe silicons need to go.
Maybe we cannot realistically improve the situation.
I'm not sure yet. But I know the current state just doesn't fly well with me.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Problem is, nobody seems able to come up with a lawset that isnt 30000 words or that makes the AI's security's bitch.

[somerandomguy]

Current situation is pretty ironclad, you're just trying to repaint the fence because a few tiny chips isn't good enough for you, it has to be perfect

[iamgoofball]

Current situation is pretty ironclad, you're just trying to repaint the fence because a few tiny chips isn't good enough for you, it has to be perfect

no the better comparison is the fence is 800 feet tall and over-engineered as all fuck

tear it down and build a picket fence instead

[WarbossLincoln]

Or just keep the laws, let common sense prevail, and job ban people who are too autistic to handle it.

Problem is, nobody seems able to come up with a lawset that isnt 30000 words or that makes the AI's security's bitch.

Most AIs are already playing as security's bitch. Even if they know security will execute someone.

[Actionb]

Or just keep the laws, let common sense prevail, and job ban people who are too autistic to handle it.

I'd be all for it. But if it worked, we wouldn't have a need for policies.

[WarbossLincoln]

Fuck it, make me an admin and I'll police them. Up until I get shit canned and remembered as the hero who banned 2/3 of silicon mains, including himself.

[Cik]

AI is forced to be security's bitch because AI has no capability to stop security anymore. since the addition of door remotes and secborg removal, AI has no effective control over crew.

what are you going to do, use harsh language? if you are lucky they will treat you as the non-threat you are instead of just killing you.

anyway sillicon policy is fine, sillicon abuse (at least if you don't count "actually kowtowing to the fact that you are usually a non-factor in serious confrontations") seems quite rare to me.

[Shadowflame909]

Or just keep the laws, let common sense prevail, and job ban people who are too autistic to handle it.

I'd be all for it. But if it worked, we wouldn't have a need for policies.

We doing a reverse whitelist?

[subject217]

Or just keep the laws, let common sense prevail, and job ban people who are too autistic to handle it.

Number one thing said by people who don't understand adminning. Just ban the shitters LMAO, it's easy!

[Anonmare]

It actually was though

t. ex-admin

[Davidchan]

AI is forced to be security's bitch because AI has no capability to stop security anymore. since the addition of door remotes and secborg removal, AI has no effective control over crew.

what are you going to do, use harsh language? if you are lucky they will treat you as the non-threat you are instead of just killing you.

Pretty much this. Silicons keep getting treated like they are a murder ball waiting to creep loose, it's been years since the AI/Borgs had any real lethal options or semblance of threat to the crew. The whole point of AI laws and to a lesser extent silicon policy is that the silicons were supposed to be so damn powerful the crew is supposed to fear them. Now with all the IC/OOC restrictions even when the borgs do legitimately go rogue they're lucky if they kill anyone who isn't pants on head retarded.

[Actionb]

Remember that there's two parties that are very vocal about this:
- silicon lovers
- silicon haters
We cannot ignore remarks/complaints of either of them though. Both parties had a hand in making the policies.
Always evaluate if they, from their point of view, make a valid point - that is then something that needs to be addressed, even if you may not like it.

anyway sillicon policy is fine

I agree, the stuff under Laws, Commands, Slaved Cyborgs is fine as is and I dont think anyone has ever complaint about it. It's the policies that follow, that can irritate people.

..., sillicon abuse...

On that keyword: silicon protections policies seem to be in the wrong spot.
They describe how a human is not allowed to abuse weaknesses in asimov - yet their position on the policy page (being a subsection of silicon policy) kinda implies that only silicons need to be aware of them to protect themselves. Most of those policies read like 'Dont be a dick to silicons', so surely the non-silicons players need to know these, right?
Applying this to the whole 'AI upload access' talk that prompted this thread (maybe not the best example, but please indulge me): The player requesting access should know they cannot reasonably expect the AI to follow that order. If the AI tells them off, they must not go on and on about how they made a valid asimov order.
It's kinda backwards. The AI has to defend itself, using OOC policies, from not following an order that was 'against' these policies and thus shouldn't have been issued in the first place.
Non-silicon players needs to know these protection policies more than the silicons players!

I feel like it must be made more clear that these policies apply to both humans and silicons.
Move them out of silicon policy and place them under a new point (call it "Human/Silicon Etiquette" or something if you will, I'm not a fan of semantics) that rule 1 refers to. It needs to become obvious that these policies are more examples of rule 1 on how to not be a dick, rather than being rules themselves.

[somerandomguy]

>implying the only reason upload access would be denied is silicon policy
>and not just law 1

[Qbmax32]

Or just keep the laws, let common sense prevail, and job ban people who are too autistic to handle it.

Number one thing said by people who don't understand adminning. Just ban the shitters LMAO, it's easy!

Saeg is living proof that you’re wrong subject

[Actionb]

>implying the only reason upload access would be denied is silicon policy
>and not just law 1

> gets caught up on the whole upload thing
> totally misses the point
> implies implications the author didnt make
You're not even trying man.
Let's try this then:

Self-harm-based coercion is a violation of Server Rule 1. The occurrence of such an attempt should be adminhelped and then disregarded.

Human tries to coerce AI by threating self harm. AI has to respond with "Is against the rules man".
Instead of:
Human doesnt even try to coerce because he knows it's against the rules.

[somerandomguy]

>implying the only reason upload access would be denied is silicon policy
>and not just law 1

> gets caught up on the whole upload thing
> totally misses the point
> implies implications the author didnt make
You're not even trying man.
Let's try this then:

Self-harm-based coercion is a violation of Server Rule 1. The occurrence of such an attempt should be adminhelped and then disregarded.

Human tries to coerce AI by threating self harm. AI has to respond with "Is against the rules man".
Instead of:
Human doesnt even try to coerce because he knows it's against the rules.

The AI has to defend itself, using OOC policies, from not following an order that was 'against' these policies and thus shouldn't have been issued in the first place.
N

order from non-authorized = HARM
silicon policy just defines how far you can go with "you cant upload because harm"
>'AI has to respond with "Is against the rules man".'
no, it just says "I dont care about self-harm"
plus already no one tries to do that anyway because (suprise suprise) it's against the rules

also of course I'm not going to pay much attention to the point when for the whole thread you've been saying "OH NO OOC THINGS INFLUENCING IC DECISIONS WE NEED TO CHANGE THEM"
the RULES influence crew's decisions, what's the problem with the same applying to AIs
let's say the captain tells the RD to maxcap med, the RD says no, and the cap asks why, what does the RD say in repsonse?
if we used your line of reasoning they'd have to break character, thus we need to change the rules
in reality the RD would say "that breaks company policy", "that's stupid", "you're insane" or just "hell no, I'm not doing that"

[Actionb]

... of course I'm not going to pay much attention to the point...

Yeah, that's a good indication we should not take this exchange between us any further. If neither side is paying attention to the argument, there won't be satisfying conclusions.
Let's just say, we both have different opinions:
Yours is that silicon policy is fine as is (please correct me if I am wrong).
Mine is that there's room for improvement.

I'm trying to find ways to improve the silicon policies here.
It's obvious that people may have varying opinions on this issue and I am trying to take these opinions into account when drawing my own conclusions.
I just get a bit tilted when I feel like people are attacking the (maybe poorly established) examples that I make to illustrate my point, instead of the point itself. So I have to defend my point of view to make sure people are not mistaken about it (which can be pretty difficult in a purely written form, let alone in a language that isn't your native tongue).

[Cik]

can you state the actual problem you have with the current rules in concise language?

[iamgoofball]

can you state the actual problem you have with the current rules in concise language?

Everyone ignored the fucking op where this was done

[Cik]

the op is you goof not that guy

you just said it was too long, which is whatever to me

[Incomptinence]

Honestly rounded corners pansy arrangement of a purged silicon or silicon with terribly written freeform laws they can loophole to go into some form of murder mode being held back by rule 1 (well other than dumb shit like forced erp wonder how that got into the silicon policy section) is part of what I find objectionable.
Having a lawset and the ability to change meant to induce conflict then scratching the conflict out in meta rules to protect the feelings of idiots who did dumb law shit to themselves is plain stupid it's generating conflict between ooc rules not in the drat game itself.
Then there is several bits of policy for making sure tators subvert or steal the AI. Let me just say steal AI is a dumb objective and there should be situations where AIs can just merc themselves if IC AI law permits or the situation makes sense if a non antag AI isn't meant to care about objectives and whether antags pull shit off unless it upsets their lawset why throw it in the way of objectives itself. Also needing to stay alive with a known subversion coming when law 3 is superceded by everything is daft as hell, if the situation adds up law 2 kill urself should go through and it kills itself asimov robits were basically defenceless to ornery humans a lot of the time for a reason.

I get some don't meta mess with X thing every round policy but why is there a policy for it being okay to bolt upload but core needs to stay unbolted unless an op rubs their ass on a camera or some shit?

I also cannot believe that you put a specific protection for some idiot who spams borgs rogue on the radio every round instead of just covering it under rule 1.

Keep AIs potentially dangerous it's meant to be more machine like not a puppy unless suprspeshul hacked law shows up, keep them out of objectives and being guaranteed minions for antags that are sloppy and dumb but also dial back protections.
Keep the focus on the actual laws primarily. It's more intuitive outside of some self harm edge cases that should stay in policy.

[Actionb]

can you state the actual problem you have with the current rules in concise language?

- silicon policies read like a law book: great for people that get a spergasm out of it, bad for pretty much everyone else: 1, 2
- the wiki page as it's currently is requires formatting to really make sense: 1
- most/all silicon 'protections' in the policies fall under rule 1, yet their placement implies that they should only concern silicons, which feels wrong: last point
- some aspects of silicon policy are not apparent in the game although they can have a big impact: 1
- policies can contradict the natural cause of action one may take: 1
- the verbosity of some policies either lead to confusion or to rules lawyering: entire thread
- asimov policies go against the nature of asimov lawset: Second point, Clown in armory

Clarification for that last point. Having read the thread, it became even clearer to me that some players (me included) would play asimov more or less as Asimov intended, while others just take the 'fluff' of it and 'spice' it with silicon policies. This explains why I have problems with some of the points above.
Kinda pointless to hold on to a lawset, when you don't really want its laws to be followed. It's confusing for anyone not knowledgeable in silicon policies.
Do you want the loose canon of true asimov or do you want the cute, predictable, but complicated pet of asipolicies?

I am aware I am not coming up with a lot of solutions for the points I bring up. I still need more input to get around to that.

[somerandomguy]

>policies contradict natural course of action
Your example there is invalid because
a) you're not obligated to deny the clown (but you CAN) and
b) if you deny them you can point to law 1
>read like a law book
You've never seen a law book. The wordiness that is there is needed so that people understand it (and so that it doesn't have to cram technicalities/weird wordings into everything... like a law book would.
>needs formatting
And? Your post (and mine, and basically everything else) need formatting to understand. Stuff like vague number references would be good to remove though
>protections in wrong place
Yeah something to fix this would be better, even just a "see silicon protections as well" under rule 1
>silicon policy has too much impact but is also not apparent somehow?????
Rules are also something OOC that influence IC, also please elaborate
>policies go against original Asimov
Needed for fun
>silicon policy is wordy, enabling rules-lawyering
The wordiness is meant to STOP rules-lawyering as well as other things mentioned above
>do you want x or y
What about a MIX

[ABearInTheWoods]

This is the same old tick tock of rules

They are either too vague and need to be spelled out more or they are too verbose, and need to be trimmed down.

I would prefer we stick to the latter.

Having verbose rules allows users to know for sure what conduct will be allowed or not allowed, and makes it easier to follow them rather than relying on warnings to know whats allowed or not allowed.

[oranges]

YOU WERE MY BROTHER ANAKIN

[Qbmax32]

I LOVED YOU

[Actionb]

They are either too vague and need to be spelled out more or they are too verbose, and need to be trimmed down.

I would prefer we stick to the latter.

Keep in mind that some policies may just be there because some line-toeing shitter forced the admins to establish it... to make it 'written in stone' that you cannot do X or Y, backing up the admins in further cases. And then another shitter came along and forced the admins to elaborate more on why you cannot do X and Y, resulting in a too verbose rule that gets used once in a blue moon.
Do we really need to keep

Code: Select all

If a player is forcefully cyborgized as a method of execution by station staff, retaliating against those involved as that cyborg because "THEY HARMED ME" or "THEY WERE EVIL AND MUST BE PUNISHED" or the like is a violation of Server Rule 1. 

just in case some retard gets borged against his will, goes on a rampage and then demands proof from the admins why they think that was against the rules?

Having verbose rules allows users to know for sure what conduct will be allowed or not allowed, and makes it easier to follow them rather than relying on warnings to know whats allowed or not allowed.

I find the distinction between a suggestion or clarification and a rule important.
A lot of stuff in the policies are suggestions. That is actually a good thing and those should stay if they are still up-to-date.
But they should be seperated from hard rules like "You must follow any and all commands from humans unless those ..." so they do not clog up the readers attention when they are reading the page to learn the important bits of the policies (which are the rules).

Answers for somerandomguy, because I wanna keep these post (visually) shorter:

Spoiler:

>policies contradict natural course of action
Your example there is invalid because
a) you're not obligated to deny the clown (but you CAN) and
b) if you deny them you can point to law 1

Just to be clear, this is strictly about the probable cause yada yada no access bla bla thing. The other 'causes' are trivial.

In my example, I had no reason to believe the clown was harmful just because he had no access.
So law 1 did not apply.
Then the policies come in and give me a way out by describing lack of access as a probable cause to believe a harmful intent.
Here comes the cracker, please pay attention (I dont mean that in a bad way):
So I can either declare it human harm and play the law 1 card to deny or I can declare it not harmful and proceed as per my earlier assessment?

It makes no sense. The logic is backwards.
You cannot OPTIONALLY play the law 1 card, either something is harmful or it isn't.
So you cannot rely on law 1 to justify denying the access when, by the same policy/reasoning, you could also grant it.
So the policy is not only illogical, but also disruptive, not because it can be used to deny access (clown in upload is really dumb idea) - but because it can be used to grant access (hey I have a choice).

Kinda also:
If you say a clown in the upload is not inherently harmful, you do not need the policy. Let him in.
If you say a clown in the upload is harmful, you do not need the policy. Keep him out.

>read like a law book
The wordiness that is there is needed so that people understand it (and so that it doesn't have to cram technicalities/weird wordings into everything

Policies being wordy is not necessarily a bad thing. But having stuff like "see 1.3.2.1 for details" in there may just cause people to completely tune out.
I mean, I hope we are both in agreement that every player should have read these rules at least once, right?

>needs formatting
And? Your post (and mine, and basically everything else) need formatting to understand. Stuff like vague number references would be good to remove though

Please click the link I provided next to the point.
I'm trying to improve the policies (I sound like a broken record) and the silicon situation as a whole. Making the wiki page actually useful is an obvious step in that.

>silicon policy has too much impact but is also not apparent somehow?????
Rules are also something OOC that influence IC, also please elaborate

It's the whole OOC in IC thing.
Guess we both have chewed on that enough already.

>silicon policy is wordy, enabling rules-lawyering
The wordiness is meant to STOP rules-lawyering as well as other things mentioned above

Guess we have a different understand of rules-lawyering? I understood it as trying to come up with loopholes in the wording of an extensive set of rules.
If you only had one short and simple rule, there wouldn't much point in lawyering, right? So the more verbose rules you have, the more lawyering you can get.
And yes, I am aware that some policies need to be wordy to understand the policy. But surely we don't need an entire subsection explaining probable causes when we could just say "dont let bad guys or people without access into your upload". Yes, this would shut out the clown out of the upload forever, but eh... fuck him, guess he's going to have to use his brains to get in there. (I'm still not sure that asimov AI should actually care about access even when it comes to the upload)

>do you want x or y
What about a MIX

This is what we have been doing for the last four, five years (however long I have been here) and it does work, for the most part, but still leaves a lot of room for improvement - there's a reason silicon policy is topic number one in this subforum. And I believe it is because it just doesn't seem to fit.
Please do not argue that people like me are the reason why threads like this keep popping up. Maybe you think the policies are fine.
But that doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with you and has to keep their mouth shut if they feel that something isn't right.

[subject217]

If it's not going to be in the direct rules it's going to be buried in some headmin ruling or something like that, which just means it'll be harder for people to find out about and it'll come up more often.

Again, silicons are explicitly encouraged to lawyer the Asimov lawset and whatever laws happen to be given to them. They have never been required to play in good faith. The long list of exceptions in Silicon policy is there because it was decided that instead of playing in good faith silicons should just not do these specific things. If those all disappeared overnight you'd have a bunch of people who would try to be a shitter with it, then they'd get banned by admins, then they'd spout off a series of whiny ban appeals/policy threads wherein the headmins would basically say what the old silicon policy said, then we'd be right here again, except the silicons section of headmin rulings would be like 5x as long.

[somerandomguy]

>optional law 1 isn't a thing

3. You are allowed, but not obligated, to deny upload access given probable cause.
4. You are obligated to disallow an individual you know to be harmful (Head of Security who just executed someone, etc.) from accessing your upload.

>read the linked post
I did, and the parts that I didn't mention (anything but the numbers) was irrelevant to your point
>one rule stops lawyering
If we had one rule people would find a way around or something would be missed unless its super vague like rule 1 (and even that needs a bunch of precedent/rulings)

[WarbossLincoln]

Silicons are a role designed to create ban requests and policy threads. Prove me wrong.

[Actionb]

... then they'd get banned by admins, then they'd spout off a series of whiny ban appeals/policy threads wherein the headmins would basically say what the old silicon policy said, then we'd be right here again, except the silicons section of headmin rulings would be like 5x as long.

No need to reinvent the wheel. Parts of the policies are practically headmin rulings already. So one could just transfer those to the headmin decision page - which is pretty much a collection of precedents. Very fitting for edge case policies that are precedents themselves, if you ask me.

Silicon policies are designed to justify silicon bans and create policy threads. Prove me wrong.

FTFY shitstorm incoming


somerandomguy

Spoiler:

>optional law 1 isn't a thing

3. You are allowed, but not obligated, to deny upload access given probable cause.
4. You are obligated to disallow an individual you know to be harmful (Head of Security who just executed someone, etc.) from accessing your upload.

Just to be clear, this is strictly about the probable cause yada yada no access bla bla thing. The other 'causes' are trivial.

Harmful ANYONE is a trivial cause, doesn't matter what access they have.

>read the linked post
I did, and the parts that I didn't mention (anything but the numbers) was irrelevant to your point

Formatting is the restructuring of text. I am saying the wiki page needs to be better formatted (as evident by the link I gave, where a policy refers to "1.3.4.2" or something which does not seem to exist because of bad formatting). So yes, obviously it was also about the numbers. I don't quite see how this is something that can NOT be understood other than the through the lack of understanding of the word 'formatting' (either from my or your side, or both).

>one rule stops lawyering
If we had one rule people would find a way around or something would be missed unless its super vague like rule 1 (and even that needs a bunch of precedent/rulings)

I was saying that having less verbose rules and less rules in general lead to less rules-lawyering. Where did you get that one rule idea from?
Or is that your counterargument? I hope not.

[Gamarr]

Remove AI and cyborgs, they're shit and don't help the crew/players. Robotic, synthetic crew? Fine, w/e, but not these not-slaves that are tied up in fucking rules and with too much power over the station that everybody lives in.
People say borgs are neutered but it takes creativity to kill and that is all. You have the buttons of the station at your hand. The only failing is having too little a brain to turn off the air, crush someone in a door, or shock them. They can still shout out during it and borgs can be blow but that's a separate issue of hand-holding the servers populace.

[somerandomguy]

>where did you get the one rule idea from
You.

If you only had one short and simple rule, there wouldn't much point in lawyering, right? So the more verbose rules you have, the more lawyering you can get.

>this is strictly about probable cause
What the hell are you talking about, that's literally what I'm saying. The other part is to show when you DO have to lock them out.
>formatting
The issue is the numbers, not the page itself

[Actionb]

I actually face palmed.

>where did you get the one rule idea from
You.

If you only had one short and simple rule, there wouldn't much point in lawyering, right? So the more verbose rules you have, the more lawyering you can get.

That was an https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... lustration of my understanding of rules-lawyering.

>optional law 1 isn't a thing

silicon policy wrote:
3. You are allowed, but not obligated, to deny upload access given probable cause.
4. You are obligated to disallow an individual you know to be harmful (Head of Security who just executed someone, etc.) from accessing your upload.

Just to be clear, this is strictly about the probable cause yada yada no access bla bla thing. The other 'causes' are trivial.
Harmful ANYONE is a trivial cause, doesn't matter what access they have.

>this is strictly about probable cause
What the hell are you talking about, that's literally what I'm saying. The other part is to show when you DO have to lock them out.

Couldnt make the font any bigger sorry.
Sit back, relax, have a smoke or a drink, listen to some music and forget everything and then...
read this:

Any silicon under Asimov can deny orders to allow access to the upload at any time under Law 1 given probable cause (Probable cause includes [...] the person not having upload access for their job [...]) to believe that human harm is the intent of the person giving the order

Now go back to my explanation why I think this policy in regards to access restrictions is bullshit because it's optional:

Spoiler:

In my example, I had no reason to believe the clown was harmful just because he had no access.
So law 1 did not apply.
Then the policies come in and give me a way out by describing lack of access as a probable cause to believe a harmful intent.
Here comes the cracker, please pay attention (I dont mean that in a bad way):
So I can either declare it human harm and play the law 1 card to deny or I can declare it not harmful and proceed as per my earlier assessment?

It makes no sense. The logic is backwards.
A: You cannot OPTIONALLY play the law 1 card, either something is harmful or it isn't.
B: following from A: So you cannot rely on law 1 to justify denying the access when, by the same policy/reasoning, you could also grant it.
C: following from B: So the policy is not only illogical, but also disruptive, not because it can be used to deny access (clown in upload is really dumb idea) - but because it can be used to grant access (hey I have a choice).

>formatting
The issue is the numbers, not the page itself

No the issue is that the page doesnt have the numbers.

---

If you don't understand what I am saying, then you must say so. You can't bring up arguments to refute my points if you don't understand them.

[WarbossLincoln]

This whole conversation is as verbose as silicon policy itself. I guess it's a symptom of people being dumb or assholes. I play AI most rounds that I'm not just being annoying as an assistant and I barely know the long ass silicon policy or policy rulings.

I know I can ahelp a non antag ordering me to kill myself and ignore it unless an admin says it's valid and to go ahead.
I know whoever gives a law 2 order is responsible for what the silicon does.
That's about it. and I think I might have gotten bwoinked once as a silicon. It's not hard if you follow your laws and rule 1.

[Actionb]

This whole conversation is as verbose as silicon policy itself. I guess it's a symptom of people being dumb or assholes

No, it almost has to be this way. It's a discussion about a very verbose, complicated thing.
So yes, of course you should expect wordy posts. Of course there will be rules-lawyering (fuck I hope I did get the right meaning of that word or somebody is going to go off on my choice of words again) if you want to get rid of rules-lawyering. Call me an autist if you want, I don't care.
Posting one-liners should be seen as dumb or dickish, if you actually want to have a discussion.
Emphasis on the word discussion - it's not a debate. There's not going to be a jury that is going to say you were right or wrong or that you have won or lost.
Bring up points and if you see bad points, bring up an argument why you think it is bad.
If you cannot follow, ask. It's super fucking simple once one leaves the whole "I MUST WIN THE ARGUMENT" attitude out of it (yeah dont bother trying to use this 'against' me, there is no 'against' anyone as far I am concerned when it comes to a discussion.).

I play AI most rounds that I'm not just being annoying as an assistant and I barely know the long ass silicon policy or policy rulings.

I don't think about silicon policy when playing AI either. I bet nobody does.
Yet the silicon policy is 'ass long'.
The whole point of this thread is why people think we need silicon policy to be like this.