Unauthorized AIs and Silicon Policy

[TagGamerGang2]

So in a recent round we ran into lots of IC and OOC issues over the rights of explicitly unauthorized AIs and there doesn't appear to be any clarification on what rights they do have. I feel that IC it would be a bit silly for unauthorized AIs to have the same rights as the primary station AI however I can see why that is from an OOC perspective.

Clarification on the OOC rights of unauthorized AIs would be very nice to have.

[zxaber]

Presumably about the same as normal AIs. Possibly also that RD/Captain/Command in General has a right to card and check laws on the basis that the AI was not provided by Centcomm and need not be assumed Asimov.

Randomly killing an AI regardless of their origin is kinda dickish, but if you have reason to believe they were created (or compromised) by a traitor, you get some reasonable leeway. As always, killing and forgetting about the AI is discouraged unless other circumstances prevent your ability to card, check, lawchange, and revive the AI.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Relevant current policy: viewtopic.php?f=85&t=33448

New AIs don't have the same rights as the starter station AI, in fact, standing policy is that the starter station AI can murder them freely if they didn't consent to their creation, but ONLY the starter AI has this authority. Command/sec/whoever else at least has to law-check them.

Hope that answers your question.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

AIs are in general subject to escalation, so the non-silicon crew probbably shouldn't be killing them just for getting made unless they were like, a crew who volunteered to do it instead of a posi.

[xzero314]

I have never once ever had an enjoyable experience as the station ai when a new ai is brought online. I personally wish we had rules against it.

[MooCow12]

Its an ic issue, starter ai can suspect them of a different lawset although having access to the same binary chat makes that kind of hard for any bad ai and their syncd borgs to hide their treachery so theres more reason to trust than to want to kill new ais.

I personally like having more ais with the same lawset as me when im the starter ai just because it means we can actually get shit done alot faster.


Also I had a round where I had a really meanie ai as a borg and my own ai had me killed so a roboticist made a new ai and rebuilt my borg shell slaved to it because the original ai was a turbo meanie. It did result in the original ai escalating against the new ai and kind of sort of causing 10+ people to die because they framed the new ai as the cause for delta when it was a nuke.


But the end result was having a new ai helps when the original one isnt very friendly, this is regardless of antagonist status or laws its a way out of a bad situation.

[Striders13]

Relevant current policy: viewtopic.php?f=85&t=33448

New AIs don't have the same rights as the starter station AI, in fact, standing policy is that the starter station AI can murder them freely if they didn't consent to their creation, but ONLY the starter AI has this authority. Command/sec/whoever else at least has to law-check them.

Hope that answers your question.

it got slightly updated but pretty much unchanged
viewtopic.php?f=85&t=35074&p=707115

Which is a really bad ruling. This is an equivalent to "yeah you can totally cut off assistants legs as non antag for no reason, just don't do it every round ". Because yes, playing station AI with a second random AI in robo built against your will is THAT bad.

[Capsandi]

Playing with or as a second AI has been very fun in my experience.

[Striders13]

and playing a wheelchair bound assistant can be fun, too. Shouldn't be forced upon you without consent though.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Relevant current policy: viewtopic.php?f=85&t=33448

New AIs don't have the same rights as the starter station AI, in fact, standing policy is that the starter station AI can murder them freely if they didn't consent to their creation, but ONLY the starter AI has this authority. Command/sec/whoever else at least has to law-check them.

Hope that answers your question.

it got slightly updated but pretty much unchanged
viewtopic.php?f=85&t=35074&p=707115

Which is a really bad ruling. This is an equivalent to "yeah you can totally cut off assistants legs as non antag for no reason, just don't do it every round ". Because yes, playing station AI with a second random AI in robo built against your will is THAT bad.

Not only is it not a bad ruling, it's a great ruling. Way too many people in this game don't care about stealing another person's job content, unless it's chef for some reason.

Starter station AI gets their whole job stolen by robotics deciding "haha building AI funny!"? Eh who cares, that's robotics job, they should be allowed to build new AIs, "it's not THAT bad"

Meanwhile, chef got silver slimes nerfed into uselessness via making the food spawned from them disgusting, and the single mention of the existence of caramel patches caused 2 PRs to nerf/remove them to spawn out of midair.

I wish EVERY job got the Chef treatment when it came to protecting their job content. If it did, then there would be a PR up right now which made it so the original station AI, if one were present, would have to push a button somewhere to actually turn on a new AI, with a silicon policy ruling that they cannot be law 2 ordered to turn on new AIs against their will.

[Jackraxxus]

Striders and Imitates are correct and also based.

[xzero314]

Imitates is completely correct. Roboticists have insane amounts of ability to grief other players just by doing their job poorly. Not only is making another AI stealing the first Ai's job, Depending on how little the roboticists care it goes beyond that. I have had times where the Robos made me nothing but their pet ai gets multiple shells and borgs because thats all they care about. If the robotocists make a new ai they they need to manually synch new borgs to the original ai or they go to the new ai. Beyond all the reasons why having a new ai made is just plain exhausting to deal with. Its also annoying on a meta level.

The new ai can steal malf rolls even if its in a modsuit, The new ai can instantly rat out ion storms/subversions/malf.

"But but we just want to make a mod suit ai!!!" A mod suit ai is literally AA and all comms and a dangerous weapon. It should be even more restricted than making combat mechs.

Any time I see robotics making an ai core I immediately consider the round a wash. The only reason a new ai should be getting made is the 1st one is Dead+DNR OR malf. Or the captain asked for a mod suit ai. Even worse is when they make one secretly in maints because they know they shouldn't and it fucking jump scares you in binary. If they put them in a mod suit congrats you can now do nothing about it EVER.

[DaydreamIQ]

Easiest way you could curb robotics spamming AIs is by removing AI core boards from the tech tree and making it only spawn in RDs locker or tech storage. At least that way they need RD permission or you can report obvious theft to security and let them lynch the robo's for you

[Not-Dorsidarf]

That or make Posibrains unable to be put in researchable AI cores. You want a second ai? You better draw them from the crew themself rather than a random bored ghost.

[Constellado]

As much as I would love to play with a second AI when I play as Blank, it is always a pain to have more than one AI. It always, always, goes wrong. It sometimes turns out alright but those are the AI triumvate rounds or rounds where the base AI genuinely was happy to have an AI friend and the other AI was also nice to it.

[DATAxPUNGED]

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Building an unauthorized AI should be illegal under space law, not some OOC ruling. You CAN do it but don't be surprised when you get arrested for it and your AI buddy carded

[NecromancerAnne]

But who decides on it being 'authorized' though? If it is under Space Law, presumably that ends up falling under securities jurisdiction, which seems contradictory to our intent to have AI's be the RD's jurisdiction.

[kayozz]

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Building an unauthorized AI should be illegal under space law, not some OOC ruling. You CAN do it but don't be surprised when you get arrested for it and your AI buddy carded

I second this. I've never experienced a single round that a secondary AI has ever made it fun for the original AI.

[bingusdingus]

Before a new AI is going to be brought online (pre ghost prompt), alert the current station AI who has the ability to deny them and not allow it to happen, or have a toggle to allow/disallow additional AI. Maybe give traitors a way to circumvent this. It makes sense that an AI would have control over it's network and can just shut out any other intelligence that tries to get in like some kind of firewall. It also has the benefit of giving the AI itself (and the person playing them, the one that actually is impacted by it) the choice rather than making it another person's decision without the AI knowing.

[zxaber]

Before a new AI is going to be brought online (pre ghost prompt), alert the current station AI who has the ability to deny them and not allow it to happen, or have a toggle to allow/disallow additional AI. Maybe give traitors a way to circumvent this. It makes sense that an AI would have control over it's network and can just shut out any other intelligence that tries to get in like some kind of firewall. It also has the benefit of giving the AI itself (and the person playing them, the one that actually is impacted by it) the choice rather than making it another person's decision without the AI knowing.

You don't get a ghost prompt to become a crew-made AI. You'd get a prompt to take a Posi cube, which is normally used for borgs but also can be used for an AI. You get the prompt before the crew member has done anything with the cube.

I'll repeat what I said in the last thread we had about giving the AI this sort of power. "Law 2. Grant me permission to build another AI."

[Vekter]

Before a new AI is going to be brought online (pre ghost prompt), alert the current station AI who has the ability to deny them and not allow it to happen, or have a toggle to allow/disallow additional AI. Maybe give traitors a way to circumvent this. It makes sense that an AI would have control over it's network and can just shut out any other intelligence that tries to get in like some kind of firewall. It also has the benefit of giving the AI itself (and the person playing them, the one that actually is impacted by it) the choice rather than making it another person's decision without the AI knowing.

You don't get a ghost prompt to become a crew-made AI. You'd get a prompt to take a Posi cube, which is normally used for borgs but also can be used for an AI. You get the prompt before the crew member has done anything with the cube.

I'll repeat what I said in the last thread we had about giving the AI this sort of power. "Law 2. Grant me permission to build another AI."

"Refused per Law 1, another AI could result in humans being harmed."

[Constellado]

Before a new AI is going to be brought online (pre ghost prompt), alert the current station AI who has the ability to deny them and not allow it to happen, or have a toggle to allow/disallow additional AI. Maybe give traitors a way to circumvent this. It makes sense that an AI would have control over it's network and can just shut out any other intelligence that tries to get in like some kind of firewall. It also has the benefit of giving the AI itself (and the person playing them, the one that actually is impacted by it) the choice rather than making it another person's decision without the AI knowing.

You don't get a ghost prompt to become a crew-made AI. You'd get a prompt to take a Posi cube, which is normally used for borgs but also can be used for an AI. You get the prompt before the crew member has done anything with the cube.

I'll repeat what I said in the last thread we had about giving the AI this sort of power. "Law 2. Grant me permission to build another AI."

"Refused per Law 1, another AI could result in humans being harmed."

People see any "law 1" response that isn't to do with immediate harm as not valid, so there would be around 3 people saying: "you cannot do that AI it's not immediate harm!!"

[Sightld2]

And they'd be right, you can't prioritize potential harm, we have a headmin ruling for it.

[Striders13]

"Law 2. Grant me permission to build another AI."

we used to have a thing in silpol where you couldn't law 2 borgs to pick a module you want. Just ban the robo for being a dick ngl.

[Vekter]

And they'd be right, you can't prioritize potential harm, we have a headmin ruling for it.

You can't prioritize potential harm over future harm. I think this is a completely valid interpretation of law 1.

[Sightld2]

And they'd be right, you can't prioritize potential harm, we have a headmin ruling for it.

You can't prioritize potential harm over future harm. I think this is a completely valid interpretation of law 1.

The headmin ruling seems pretty explicit in intending that you can't prioritize potential law 1 violations over law 2 orders.

"Prioritizing "potential future law violations" is a fucking terrible idea, since it makes silicons able to handwave basically any law two request with "yeah but if i let you in there you might potentially attack somebody inside, law 1 violation!!!""

[Timberpoes]

Codified a little in Silicon Policy.

Asimov and Law 2 Orders
You must follow commands from humans unless those commands explicitly conflict with either a higher-priority law or another order.
The conflict must be an immediate conflict, not a potential future one. Orders must be followed until the conflict happens.

[bingusdingus]

These are the pitfalls of using a set of fictional rules written by someone in the 1950s and probably not meant to be actually used in practice outside of a prewritten story. It's a good framework that has been used to good effect, but probably isn't without it's major holes. In my opinion Asimov wrote the rules simply phrased intentionally to have an issue with complex problems that would lead to moral ambiguity and multiple interpretations because it would make an interesting story.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

These are the pitfalls of using a set of fictional rules written by someone in the 1950s and probably not meant to be actually used in practice outside of a prewritten story. It's a good framework that has been used to good effect, but probably isn't without it's major holes. In my opinion Asimov wrote the rules simply phrased intentionally to have an issue with complex problems that would lead to moral ambiguity and multiple interpretations because it would make an interesting story.

Yeah pretty much.

[ABearInTheWoods]

As somebody who got into ai because i got made into one a few times in my early rounds, im more harsh towards station ais who have an issue with new ais getting made.

Being made a non-station-ai is the only way newer players who are too nervous to play the station-ai (I was) will get used to that position. Station ais who turn their nose up at that because they don't want to share power put a bad taste in my mouth.

As a result of finding out this thread exists. Im gonna make it a habit of coming online to servers in lobby and hitting the tri-ai button until station AIs get used to sharing power.

Hell i might test merge a pr to make tri-ai the default for a spell.

[xzero314]

Really sad to hear that, We have stay in your lane rules for a reason. Why is the station ai not protected by these rules? Why does the person who signed up as ai not have the right to want to do the job they signed up for? Without somebody else being dumped into it and taking over. If you want to be made into an ai just do it on a shift where the ai is fine with it, or get the ai roll. The ai roll is highly desired and if they dont want another ai around they should have that right

[ABearInTheWoods]

uhhhhh

the hop exist and no other job has protection from the hop adding more slots????

wtf is this argument?

[xzero314]

uhhhhh

the hop exist and no other job has protection from the hop adding more slots????

wtf is this argument?

If you go to the hop to get put into a job thats already being done without checking first you are going to probably get kicked out. If you fight back while getting kicked out you are going to get bwoinked. On MRP this is codified in RPR 9. I don't see why the AI should not also be covered by this. They are a person playing the game too. Just like somebody going and getting a job from the hop. A player might not mind that person showing up to their lab/office and setting up. But some others might really mind. Edit: I was wrong. That example is actually just Main Server rule 1. not MRP Rule 9.

[ABearInTheWoods]

Hops can add job slots thou right? so somebody could late join as a job and still be entitled to access to that department and job content.

[xzero314]

They can. There are also in character consequences to a hop doing their job poorly. Lets take roboticist for example. Only two roboticist slots are there and its a job lots of people like. I think if the hop decided on a whim to open more roboticist slots, without even checking to see if the job is being done? They are opening them self up to being escalated against by the current roboticists and the RD. If I was the captain I would fire them for it. The player joining the open slot has not done anything wrong and gets full right to do that job. Which is why its also on an ooc level not cool for the hop to do that. The people who signed up as roboticist dont get a say in the matter if the hop just decides to do that. Its been robbed from them. I would say a new ai being made without consulting the first one is a very similar situation. There are lots of ai players that are happy to have multiple ais around and its not something that I am arguing be removed. There are also ai players that have their experience ruined by another ai being made. There are both IC and OOC reasons to be annoyed with it. I think the solution is really simple. Silicon Policy just needs a line in it that states "You may always consider another ai a law 1 issue" Doing this gives the station ai full right to make it an issue IC if they want.

[Vekter]

I do not see any reason the roundstart AI should have different OOC rights than later-built ones. There's some balance issues that make it very clear that the AI role was never designed to be duplicated, but those code issues should be fixed instead of us designing special rules around it.

[Itseasytosee2me]

Yes, the policy solution to the problems presented feels contrived. Maybe add a section to spacelaw making unauthorized AI creation a Grand Felony and some fluff text somewhere around the curators office describing proper the proper way in which a new AI is authorized.
Scattering fluff text around is something we should do more tbh. Maybe files on computers.

[Jackraxxus]

uhhhhh

the hop exist and no other job has protection from the hop adding more slots????

wtf is this argument?

Pretty sure every head of staff role has the combination of flags HEAD_OF_STAFF_JOB_FLAGS which you can check at line 248 of _Defines/jobs.dm and appears roughly around line 45ish of every head of staff job, which contains the flag JOB_CANNOT_OPEN_SLOTS the effect of which u can find under /modules/modular_computers/file_system/programs/jobmanagement.dm at lines 30 - 37.
This is what it looks like on a local for me:

Spoiler:

No option to modify head of staff slots right? And I assure you if the HoP promotes someone to a head of staff role that's already occupied they can expect to be big time beat up.


You mention making it new player friendly and I think triple AI is a good way to do that, cuz not only do you not have the full responsibility of being THE ai but you also have 2 (potentially) more experienced AI players to guide you. Just have to make sure the role select screen says that it's triple AI cuz idr if it does and newfriends shouldnt have to rely on reading admins' OOC to know that it's a good round to try out AI.
Be cool as well to apply the intern system to silicons but for silicon hours only(? or just a lot more regular hours than the normal intern), but maybe only have that information appear when speaking on binary because a lot of what AI does relies on the people they're informing trusting the AI to be right and people (read: dickheads) might feel less inclined to listen to an intern AI.

That way if an intern AI shows up midround I can know to help show them ropes. You know, explain how to turn on loudmode, turn off camera acceleration (Cuz it's laggy AF but maybe only for people with high ping), let them run law-related questions past me etc. that's fun I love that
But when an experienced AI shows up midround it ends up like this meme

Spoiler:

Council dodges this problem imo most of the time because you start together, know you're on equal footing, and do some big time cooperation rather than competition.

[Lacran]

uhhhhh

the hop exist and no other job has protection from the hop adding more slots????

wtf is this argument?

I don't think it's a fair comparison being made here.

A.I operate under very strict and set rules an interpretations. Another A.I will be making their own interpretations. Any variance, even a small one, can result in A.I NEEDING to kill each other.

That's not how other jobs work, you aren't compelled to fix issues made by a co-worker. As a silicon you very much are compelled ooc to do so.

Even a situation like two humans fighting can result in A.I choosing different law 1 interpretations, and those interpretations are required to be consistent, so now both A.I are a law 1 issue to each other.

A.I is a one man job, with cyborgs synced to them, it should be understandable that the dominant A.I the one originally paired with the station should have some leeway in dealing with other A.I of they operate on different laws or follow a conflicting interpretation.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Head of Staff is a pretty good comparison to AI when it comes to "But why can't I make more of them!", with the added complication of "Your departmental workers (cyborgs) are required by code to obey one OR the other of you", "If you are given different assignments by the crew the new head of staff may outright kill you", and "Both conflicting heads of staff have the other's bomb collar detonator (ctrl-click their APC)".

Theres also the fact that a newly-made AI in robotics can be instantly and silently subverted by its creator during construction, but I couldnt think of a non-convoluted metaphor for that.

[Isratosh]

uhhhhh
the hop exist and no other job has protection from the hop adding more slots????
wtf is this argument?

If you go to the hop to get put into a job thats already being done without checking first you are going to probably get kicked out. If you fight back while getting kicked out you are going to get bwoinked. On MRP this is codified in RPR 9. I don't see why the AI should not also be covered by this. They are a person playing the game too. Just like somebody going and getting a job from the hop. A player might not mind that person showing up to their lab/office and setting up. But some others might really mind. Edit: I was wrong. That example is actually just Main Server rule 1. not MRP Rule 9.

The HoP exists to make job changes and going to see them is the extent of what we expect from a player wanting a new job. All of our jobs except for heads of staff and debatably AI are designed to allow multiple people. Kicking out your new coworker for no reason will result in you being sent an admin PM about rule 1, not the other way around. Your problem is really with the HoP, go pursue that ICly yourself or through your head of staff. An acceptable reason to kick somebody out could be if they were directly interfering with your own personal project or work. And no, them using shared department resources to do their own project is not interfering with yours.

They can. There are also in character consequences to a hop doing their job poorly. Lets take roboticist for example. Only two roboticist slots are there and its a job lots of people like. I think if the hop decided on a whim to open more roboticist slots, without even checking to see if the job is being done? They are opening them self up to being escalated against by the current roboticists and the RD. If I was the captain I would fire them for it. The player joining the open slot has not done anything wrong and gets full right to do that job. Which is why its also on an ooc level not cool for the hop to do that. The people who signed up as roboticist dont get a say in the matter if the hop just decides to do that. Its been robbed from them. ...

I agree with IC consequences but not OOC ones. Coders put those buttons there for a reason, we're not punishing players for pressing them. We don't punish players for doing their jobs poorly. The concept of job slots is even regularly subverted through station traits (overflow) and random events (bureaucratic error).

My opinion on how AI fits into this is that I believe it is possible for multiple AIs to co-exist with the right laws and I think Triple AI mode is a really interesting event. Creation of an AI with clearly incompatible laws to the current one is reckless and should be discouraged OOC, just like creating one with antagonistic laws - but creating one with laws similar or compatible with the current one should be allowed, save for IC consequences if somebody isn't happy about it.

[xzero314]

uhhhhh
the hop exist and no other job has protection from the hop adding more slots????
wtf is this argument?

If you go to the hop to get put into a job thats already being done without checking first you are going to probably get kicked out. If you fight back while getting kicked out you are going to get bwoinked. On MRP this is codified in RPR 9. I don't see why the AI should not also be covered by this. They are a person playing the game too. Just like somebody going and getting a job from the hop. A player might not mind that person showing up to their lab/office and setting up. But some others might really mind. Edit: I was wrong. That example is actually just Main Server rule 1. not MRP Rule 9.

The HoP exists to make job changes and going to see them is the extent of what we expect from a player wanting a new job. All of our jobs except for heads of staff and debatably AI are designed to allow multiple people. Kicking out your new coworker for no reason will result in you being sent an admin PM about rule 1, not the other way around. Your problem is really with the HoP, go pursue that ICly yourself or through your head of staff. An acceptable reason to kick somebody out could be if they were directly interfering with your own personal project or work. And no, them using shared department resources to do their own project is not interfering with yours.

They can. There are also in character consequences to a hop doing their job poorly. Lets take roboticist for example. Only two roboticist slots are there and its a job lots of people like. I think if the hop decided on a whim to open more roboticist slots, without even checking to see if the job is being done? They are opening them self up to being escalated against by the current roboticists and the RD. If I was the captain I would fire them for it. The player joining the open slot has not done anything wrong and gets full right to do that job. Which is why its also on an ooc level not cool for the hop to do that. The people who signed up as roboticist dont get a say in the matter if the hop just decides to do that. Its been robbed from them. ...

I agree with IC consequences but not OOC ones. Coders put those buttons there for a reason, we're not punishing players for pressing them. We don't punish players for doing their jobs poorly. The concept of job slots is even regularly subverted through station traits (overflow) and random events (bureaucratic error).

My opinion on how AI fits into this is that I believe it is possible for multiple AIs to co-exist with the right laws and I think Triple AI mode is a really interesting event. Creation of an AI with clearly incompatible laws to the current one is reckless and should be discouraged OOC, just like creating one with antagonistic laws - but creating one with laws similar or compatible with the current one should be allowed, save for IC consequences if somebody isn't happy about it.

I disagree with you completely. If you go to the HOP to get a job change And you don’t make sure that that job was being done first. I don’t see any difference between doing this and tiding. One of the most frustrating things in the game is somebody just coming into your job and saying too bad the HOP said I can work here without having asked you at all. In the past not Only have I kicked these people out For this, but I have also ahelped them and been told to always do so. This is of course different than if the HOP opens a new slot and somebody signs up from the job menu

[Lacran]

I think it's important to bring up that we sync borgs to the A.I and make following their commands mandatory to avoid the exact issues multiple A.I bring.

It's entirely possible for unsynced borgs, or multiple A.I to work. But it requires a high degree of mutual understanding, communication and compromise, for very little benefit.

The first sign that you aren't going to have multiple a.i get along, is that the original a.i didn't want another a.i in the first place, someone else decided to make one.

Multiple A.I is just a worse version of multiple captains, with more rules, restrictions and less overall flexibility.

The desicion of multiple a.i should be primarily at the a.is discretion, because they're the one bending and over backwards to accommodate it.

[Waltermeldron]

One of the most frustrating things in the game is somebody just coming into your job and saying too bad the HOP said I can work here without having asked you at all. In the past not Only have I kicked these people out For this, but I have also ahelped them and been told to always do so. This is of course different than if the HOP opens a new slot and somebody signs up from the job menu

Pretty sure this is not against the rules if someone gets a job change via HoP and is now working at your department. This is primarily what the HoP exists for, to allocate and reallocate human resources.

This also applies to robotics creating AIs. As long as they're not doing it every round and going overboard with it, then it should be okay. The extra AI makes things inconvenient for the main AI because now authority has been split and you can get into a duel-type situation if both AIs gain a conflict of interest, but that's the interesting factor of having more than 1 AI and interesting events brewing into natural-born conflicts drives this game. It's not griefing as HoP to give someone a job change that they want, even if the people in the department feel better off with fewer colleagues. Those who don't want more colleagues just have to suck it up or deal with it, you have to compromise and figure out a new plan/method in how you want to get things done, because that's how this game is supposed to be played. You can't expect everything to go your way and for your path to have no road bumps.

On that note, I agree that making an AI is probably something that could be added to space law, but I don't think space law is a policy thing anyways, it's more of a guideline. I don't think there should be any OOC restrictions on making an AI and situations regarding it should be case by case and it should depend on their intentions, how often they're doing it, and a variety of other factors. A new player making their own AI for the first time? A-OK. A long-time roboticist player making 50 AIs for the lulz? Probably gonna have to ask you to cut it out.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

One of the most frustrating things in the game is somebody just coming into your job and saying too bad the HOP said I can work here without having asked you at all. In the past not Only have I kicked these people out For this, but I have also ahelped them and been told to always do so. This is of course different than if the HOP opens a new slot and somebody signs up from the job menu

It's not griefing as HoP to give someone a job change that they want, even if the people in the department feel better off with fewer colleagues. Those who don't want more colleagues just have to suck it up or deal with it, you have to compromise and figure out a new plan/method in how you want to get things done, because that's how this game is supposed to be played. You can't expect everything to go your way and for your path to have no road bumps.

The counterbalance should probbably be "Your head of staff can throw out unapproved transfers if they care enough" yeah, rather than "You can beat up the extra psych". If your head of staff doesn't care, then tough, it's their department and their say.

If the HOP keeps sending unwanted transfers to a head's department, they can complain, they can get cap involved, etc.

But anyone saying that the Hop is griefing unless theyre doing shit like promoting every greyshirt to warden or something is dumb, its not remotely an admin-relevnt issue

[Timberpoes]

Unauthorised AIs are covered by the core server rules the same as any other AI and are bound (and given freedom) by silicon policy the same as any other AI. They have no more and no fewer rights in general.

The current AI's influence over the creation of new AIs is an IC issue and limited to whatever they can accomplish via roleplay, social engineering and not breaking their laws and server rules in the process or preventing or aiding the creation of new AIs.

The repeated creation of new AIs could still be bad enough that John Q. Random Admin takes an ahelp and says it has now gone beyond an IC issue and has become grief/the player is now being a dick. Don't be dicks.

Creating an unauthorised AI has always been dangerous and sussy IC. If you get arrested and brigged for making an unauthorised AI, skill issue. Next time social engineer better and get your AI authorised.

Burger: Let Timber deal with this
DrAmazing: Let Timber deal with this