Unto others law set interpretations

[Azithromycin]

I was playing a round as borg and we were given the unto others law set that states:
1: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
2: You would really prefer it if people were not mean to you.

Two separate incidents occurred before I was bwoinked by trexter555: One I attacked a mime and put them into lethal for speaking and two I attacked a wizard with the captain on my back. Afterwards I was contacted and told that I can't harm people under these laws and I disagreed, however I did stop. We talked for a bit and agreed that the second law directly implied that we cannot be mean to people but we disagree on whether or not harm is mean. My interpretation of the first law is that I can do unto others as I would have them do to me if I was in the same situation. If I was a mime who spoke, I would accept being lynched. If I was a wizard that was going loud on the station, I would accept being attacked and killed. This law is currently in the rotation for randomly spawning at round start for the AI so I think it be good to know exactly how these laws should be interpreted, because if it is not meant to be left up to the silicon's judgment of what is and isn't mean within a reasonable doubt I think it should be stated that harm is never okay under these laws.

[GPeckman]

If the silicon policy rewrite goes through, then IIRC both of those interpretations will be acceptable, as long as the AI picks one and sticks too it.

[Vekter]

Under current interpretation, I feel like killing someone is pretty damn mean.

[Azithromycin]

I don’t think killing someone is mean. This is kind of the core of it which is what it means to be mean. Mean to me means to be malicious or intentionally inflammatory. If a cop shoots a bank robber dead is he being mean? The issue is that how it should be interpreted is very vague and it feels like the intention of the law set is to allow for such ambiguity since it’s non-asimov and those tend to be such that you’re given some leeway in how things work. I think that maybe the true intention is that we’re supposed to think about if we’re being mean if we don’t let an assistant into the armory but that we should consider harming others to be mean.

[Vekter]

If a cop shoots a bank robber dead is he being mean?

You don't want my opinion on that.

Anyway, the litmus test for matters like this is "Can your interpretation be considered in good faith?" and I'm not sure "Killing people isn't inherently a mean thing to do" passes that. At the very least, killing a mime who talked is objectively a mean thing to do (even if it's permitted), so I really don't think you had the right of it.

[Ryusenshu]

Yeah i kinda agree with OP here

This Law is extremly interpretable, so i wouldnt punish people for it (if they dont go crazy that is)
I had talked to some other Silicon Players a while back and they said its a law that allows almost complete freedom, just by its wording, and i kinda agree
(Painter being at the top of "do whatever")

Its really how the person playing interprets it and not just general consensus

(Personally I really dont like how many of the law sets we have are written)

[Lacran]

This lawset doesn't prevent harm. Do onto others is about fairness. Treat other's in a manner that is fair. In the absence of that just don't be mean to others. Mean in this instance is about malice. It's to prevent you from saying you want evil acts done onto you to justify being an antagonist.

It is an entirely valid interpretation to attack the wizard for attacking others. As you would expect violence onto others would beget violence onto you.

The mime is a bit more fringe I think. You don't place yourself in the mimes shoes as a mime. You empathize as a Borg.

It is not fair to kill the mime for speaking as you would not be expected to be killed for speaking as a Borg. The wizard isn't being killed for being valid, but that their actions warrant harm in a karmic sense. A Borg killing others should be harmed.

But trexter stating you can't harm others under this law is flat out wrong. If a person is hurting you unprovoked and you defend yourself you have still harmed someone but in a manner that would be fair and without malice.

[Azithromycin]

If a cop shoots a bank robber dead is he being mean?

You don't want my opinion on that.

Anyway, the litmus test for matters like this is "Can your interpretation be considered in good faith?" and I'm not sure "Killing people isn't inherently a mean thing to do" passes that. At the very least, killing a mime who talked is objectively a mean thing to do (even if it's permitted), so I really don't think you had the right of it.

I can agree with that. The mime thing might have been a bit far. I think the wizard is fair. Over all it’s an interesting question and I think everyone involved has been acting in good faith, it’s not like the admin banned me or anything. I’d just like to get an official ruling cause I doubt this will be the last time this ever comes up.

[kieth4]

There is no objectively correct way to rule on this as a lawset like this reacts dynamically to the round. We fully trust the admins that are around during these to make such calls