Xzero314-Boots on the Ground.

[xzero314]

Hello, TG!

It's me, Xzero314. I've been part of the admin team for just under a year now, and I believe I'm worth considering for your vote.

Before recent events, admins had access to statistics comparing our activity levels. The last time I was able to see these stats, I was the second most active admin.

Here are my total hours:
Since the last election, I’ve logged over 300 more hours as an admin and played for 600 additional hours.

I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this—and why my not-so-catchy title makes sense.

A vote for me is a vote for a Head Admin who is not just active on the forums and admin channels—but also on the servers themselves.
I’m not burned out on our beloved space game, and I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

Why do I want to be Head Admin?
I won’t sugarcoat it—I want a vote on policy.

A couple of things I’d like to do:

Restore some Security protections that were removed in the current term.

• Specifically, I’d like to reinstate the rule allowing Security players to cite Space Law.

• It may even be time to fully integrate Space Law into the rules, though that would require further discussion.

I believe the lack of this has created problems, and I want to address it.


Revise RPR10.

• The current rule states: "This rule should be invoked with the backing and/or consensus of other admins."

• I propose changing it to something like: "An admin should be cautious when invoking this rule without additional opinions."

• I have confidence in our team’s ability to identify when a high-impact, repeated playstyle becomes troublesome.

• I also have faith in our appeals system and in players’ ability to make their case.

That’s all I have for you!
If you decide to put your faith in me, I won’t let you down.
Thanks for reading my pitch!

[Timberpoes]

The purpose behind RP Rule 10 requiring admin consensus was pretty simple.

It was a necessity to pair alongside the expanded antag freedoms when it came to mass sabotage like plasma floods and SM delams and stuff. Those actions in moderation are fine, but when run into the ground can cause huge issues that could impact the integrity of the RP server as an actual RP space. It calls for a specific restriction against either an individual player or the server as a whole, for a limited duration.

And that is the crux of RPR10's existence. It is a rule that will be deployed by the admin team as a whole (almost invariably with the headmin team's backing, else shit gets overturned on appeal reeeeeeal rapid-like) to temporarily vary the rules by making something that would ordinarily be allowed - either for the server as a whole, or for an individual player - now against the rules on a temporary basis. Like a little timeout against a technique or strategy employed by one person or everyone.

The reason it requires that broader consensus is because it's not fair on the players for one admin or even a tiny minority of admins each with their own Yggdrasil just lodged right up their asses to decide "fuck these rules, I make my own" then start noting or banning players for legitimately doing just what the rules say they can do. And thus it needs that team agreement to ensure that it's not awho roulette to decide which rules do and don't exist this shift.

Just replacing it with some variation of "none of the rules matter and an individual admin can ban you for anything at any time just because they don't like it even if the rules say you can do it" may lead to a 4th Timberpoes term where I come back on a platform of unfucking the mess caused by giving a ridiculously diverse team with takes from HRP plus to LRP minus the absolute discretion to just note and ban players for things those players are quite rightly empowered and intended to do simply because an individual admin takes issue with it with some plea to caution, like that won't just mean rule enforcement lies at the hands of the most strict admin on any specific topic that believes their cause is righteous and just.

My advice is to stick with it requiring a team consensus. If you can't get a team consensus on a topic, why the heck are you empowering individual admins to what at its most extreme would be ban people for following the rules?

[xzero314]

Thanks for the reply Timber.


You make a strong case. Its enough that it does have me questioning my stance. Preventing inconsistent enforcement and ensuring players aren’t hit out back by one admin’s personal take on the rules.
We don’t want an individual admin deciding on the fly to override existing rules just because they personally dislike something.

That said, I still believe there’s room for improvement in how we apply RPR10. Right now, if a playstyle is disruptive but not explicitly against the rules, the process for addressing it can be slow or even stalled if consensus isn’t
immediately reached. My intention isn’t to remove the consensus requirement but to ensure that RPR10 can still be applied in a timely manner when necessary.

Instead of allowing any admin to invoke RPR10 alone, I think it could be modified so that an admin could invoke it temporarily, but only with a Head Admin’s approval. This way, we aren’t stuck waiting for full team consensus in cases
where action needs to be taken on something that is being identified as an issue by a couple admins.

This is inline with my "Boots on the Ground" Campaign Ideal. It can be tough to see just how impactful a playstyle is on the server if you are never on it.

[Timberpoes]

Any headmin approval (even if it's individual) is a much better approach that honestly is sort of how it works in practice right now. But even individual headmin approval is subject to the broader admin team agreeing, so it will inevitably swing back to admin team consensus in some respects.

In part of my vision for how RPR10 works in practice, I have never vibed with it ever being activiated without headmin approval. Even when asking like John Q Public the AI main to stop plasma flooding so often.

Because it all ties back to appeals - if you can't get a headmin to approve it, you shouldn't be forcing players to appeal just to get an inevitable overturn. It's aggro to players, a waste of time and creates a scenario where players think they can't do a thing that they actually can do through the infinite game of telephone that is players discussing shitty admin rulings in PMs and metacords instead of in admin complaints and appeals.

Similarly for server-wide restrictions, the headmins are really the only people with the power to fairly affect such change; MotD, server announcements, authority of full admin role team pings to tell them shit has now changed, etc are all necessary. 90% of RPR10 isn't the admin team's enforcement. It's the headmin-backed announcement telling players they can't freely do [a thing] anymore and the word of mouth that comes with it.

[xzero314]

That makes a lot of sense as usual Timber. I appreciate the Timber posting.
We don’t want RPR10 to be used in a way that just creates unnecessary appeals or confuses players.
In respect to the idea of " If you cannot convince the headmins there is an issue there probably is not an issue" Or it might just mean the admin needs to argue their case better.

Sometimes the issue at hand though isn't just theoretical. When action isn't taken over a prolonged period it causes players to burn out seeing it. Sometimes it festers bad enough somebody goes and makes a code change.
Is this not what we don't want to see? Changes to the game because of admin skill issues?
I’ve seen cases where a repeated playstyle was causing rounds to suffer, but because action took too long, the end result wasn’t an admin decision.


This is why I’m running on a Boots on the Ground platform.
I believe that the best way to make good policy decisions is to actually be on the servers, adminning and playing, seeing the effects of these issues firsthand. I don’t want to make RPR10 a free-for-all, but I do want to ensure that problems like this are addressed before they require larger changes to fix.

[xzero314]

That makes a lot of sense as usual Timber. I appreciate the Timber posting.
We don’t want RPR10 to be used in a way that just creates unnecessary appeals or confuses players.
In respect to the idea of " If you cannot convince the headmins there is an issue there probably is not an issue" Or it might just mean the admin needs to argue their case better.

Sometimes the issue at hand though isn't just theoretical. When action isn't taken over a prolonged period it causes players to burn out seeing it. Sometimes it festers bad enough somebody goes and makes a code change.
Is this not what we don't want to see? Changes to the game because of admin skill issues?
I’ve seen cases where a repeated playstyle was causing rounds to suffer, but because action took too long, the end result wasn’t an admin decision.


This is why I’m running on a Boots on the Ground platform.
I believe that the best way to make good policy decisions is to actually be on the servers, adminning and playing, seeing the effects of these issues firsthand. I don’t want to make RPR10 a free-for-all, but I do want to ensure that problems like this are addressed before they require larger changes to fix.

As an addition to this thought.

I trust our admin team to act in good faith, and my experience being active on the servers supports that. The idea that admins will suddenly start abusing RPR10 if we adjust it is based on a misunderstanding of how our team actually operates. We don't have admins enforcing their own versions of the rules. We don't have admins working in bad faith. If anything, this change just gives them the tools they need to act when necessary—without waiting until things spiral into a code change. I also trust in the process to eliminate any admin that seeks to abuse this rule. Which I currently believe there are none.

[xzero314]

I have answered the debate threads if you are interested in more of my responses. Feel free to ask me about my responses to them in here and I am happy to address questions.

[RaveRadbury]

Your first campaign was last term and you're back again! Persistence is important so it's good to see you giving it another try.

Last time I asked you about your experiences with balancing your playtime. Are you still maintaining that varied diet of LRP and MRP? If so I'd like to invite you to engage my thoughts on finding a new pair of descriptors for LRP/MRP. If ya wouldn't mind peeping my thread for the concept and deets I'd be happy to have the discussion here with you.

Also: would you consider yourself someone who prioritizes comfort/stability? Are you a person who values routines? No wrong answers, just trying to understand you better.

[Timberpoes]

As an addition to this thought.

I trust our admin team to act in good faith, and my experience being active on the servers supports that. The idea that admins will suddenly start abusing RPR10 if we adjust it is based on a misunderstanding of how our team actually operates. We don't have admins enforcing their own versions of the rules. We don't have admins working in bad faith. If anything, this change just gives them the tools they need to act when necessary—without waiting until things spiral into a code change. I also trust in the process to eliminate any admin that seeks to abuse this rule. Which I currently believe there are none.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

With a diverse enough admin team - which we have - you can very rapidly find that adminning relying primarily on good faith is actually unsustainable at our scale.

Everyone acting in good faith has their own unique vision. One admin might in good faith prohibit an antag from completing their objectives because the antag's idea of directly accomplishing their objective has too much of a body count and thus is disproportionate, and they don't think that's fun or good for the game. And another admin in good faith would explicitly allow it because not only is it in line with the letter of the rules rules, it's in line with the spirit of the rules too and they're enforcing the vision for the game that is communicated to the players which they believe is fun and good for the game.

What players can do stops being something they can find on the wiki by reading the rules page and becomes something they have to find out via reading appeals and hitting awho to see which admin is around. It leads to stagnation in gameplay as players don't actually know what the rules actually are, so they play according to their worst-case perception of the rules or possibly even leave.

In my experiences over-administration can also spiral into a code change just as can under-administration, as players seek to remove and rebalance features that act as banbait when they discover people are being noted and/or banned for playing the game as intended/guided by the game.

The only solution I've found for this is to insert the headmins sooner rather than later, since headmins can coordinate with the team as a whole and direct broader rules and policy strokes that quite simply aren't the business of any rank-and-file admin to decide on their lonesome.

That's just my experience though. To empower an individual admin is to weaken the entire team, as rule enforcement becomes at the discretion of the few rather than the coordinated action of the many working in unison not simply to accomplish the same goal, but to accomplish the same goal in the same way.

[xzero314]

Your first campaign was last term and you're back again! Persistence is important so it's good to see you giving it another try.

Last time I asked you about your experiences with balancing your playtime. Are you still maintaining that varied diet of LRP and MRP? If so I'd like to invite you to engage my thoughts on finding a new pair of descriptors for LRP/MRP. If ya wouldn't mind peeping my thread for the concept and deets I'd be happy to have the discussion here with you.

Also: would you consider yourself someone who prioritizes comfort/stability? Are you a person who values routines? No wrong answers, just trying to understand you better.

Hi Rave thanks for the reply.

Admittedly I don't play on LRP these days. I usually observe if I do go over on Terry. In spite of that a new pair of descriptors for MRP/LRP just so happens to be something I shared some thoughts on in one of the debate threads, and I would love to workshop with you.

Interesting question. I like to be comfy. Routines are important, there are some routines that if not done lead to problems. Without important routines you wont have stability and so wont be comfy.

[xzero314]

As an addition to this thought.

I trust our admin team to act in good faith, and my experience being active on the servers supports that. The idea that admins will suddenly start abusing RPR10 if we adjust it is based on a misunderstanding of how our team actually operates. We don't have admins enforcing their own versions of the rules. We don't have admins working in bad faith. If anything, this change just gives them the tools they need to act when necessary—without waiting until things spiral into a code change. I also trust in the process to eliminate any admin that seeks to abuse this rule. Which I currently believe there are none.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

With a diverse enough admin team - which we have - you can very rapidly find that adminning relying primarily on good faith is actually unsustainable at our scale.

Everyone acting in good faith has their own unique vision. One admin might in good faith prohibit an antag from completing their objectives because the antag's idea of directly accomplishing their objective has too much of a body count and thus is disproportionate, and they don't think that's fun or good for the game. And another admin in good faith would explicitly allow it because not only is it in line with the letter of the rules rules, it's in line with the spirit of the rules too and they're enforcing the vision for the game that is communicated to the players which they believe is fun and good for the game.

What players can do stops being something they can find on the wiki by reading the rules page and becomes something they have to find out via reading appeals and hitting awho to see which admin is around. It leads to stagnation in gameplay as players don't actually know what the rules actually are, so they play according to their worst-case perception of the rules or possibly even leave.

In my experiences over-administration can also spiral into a code change just as can under-administration, as players seek to remove and rebalance features that act as banbait when they discover people are being noted and/or banned for playing the game as intended/guided by the game.

The only solution I've found for this is to insert the headmins sooner rather than later, since headmins can coordinate with the team as a whole and direct broader rules and policy strokes that quite simply aren't the business of any rank-and-file admin to decide on their lonesome.

That's just my experience though. To empower an individual admin is to weaken the entire team, as rule enforcement becomes at the discretion of the few rather than the coordinated action of the many working in unison not simply to accomplish the same goal, but to accomplish the same goal in the same way.

I value your experience here. Making sure the game does not become an awho roulette is a pretty fair concern to touching RPR10.

I have thought of a revised version that I would push for if I do get elected. Your input has been valuable for workshopping.

"An Admin may invoke this rule to address a repeated playstyle that is disrupting rounds, but they should seek input from other admins first whenever possible. If invoked without prior Head admin Approval, the Head Admin team should review the note as soon as possible. If the Head Admins decide the ruling was unwarranted then any note will be removed"


This would also mean any time an admin invokes this rule without prior headmin approval: It will not involve the player needing to make a needless appeal. If the headmins overturn the ruling the player can be informed via a message to their account in game and directed to the admin feedback or complaints for the admin(s) who's ruling was overturned. The aspect of public accountability wont be lost in this manner.

I trust the admin team. I think the solution to different opinions when we are all working in good faith is not preventing action. Its ensuring we have a quick review process in place when needed.

[DrAmazing343]

grey or rainbow jumpsuits for the tiders? this will literally and without a hint of irony decide my vote.

[kinnebian]

grey or rainbow jumpsuits for the tiders? this will literally and without a hint of irony decide my vote.

betray tradition and my heart is broken- vote revoked

[RaveRadbury]

Interesting question. I like to be comfy. Routines are important, there are some routines that if not done lead to problems. Without important routines you wont have stability and so wont be comfy.

This is an important trait to have present in a headmin team. It brings stability and structure to the group. I think every triumvirate should have 1-2 people who value comfort.

---

Calling back to what I said in that one players club thread. I think Classifying MRP and LRP as More Role Play and Less Role Play is incorrect. The RP barrier between our different servers isn't what separates them. Its the amount of rules.
We have More Rules Play and Less Rules Play. So in turn we have players that prefer More Rules Play and players that prefer Less Rules Play. It might sound like a meaningless distinction but I don't think so.
I think the labels of being "higher roleplay" and "less roleplay" have contributed to the idea of "server tribalism" when the reality is we all love the exact same game we just have players that like having more rules and players that like having less.

So what I am getting at with this is I don't see any reason to mess with the Rules in the server preferred by "Less Rules Play" Enjoyers.
Here is how my thoughts on enforcement tie in. I need you to bare with me here.
I think the solution to getting pop back on the US "Less Rules Play" server Sybil is stricter enforcement of the rules on the "More Rules Play" Server. Now this might just sound like I am saying "meh stinky LRP players dont belong on MRP!" but that is not the case.

We have two groups of players. Less Rules enjoyers and More Rules enjoyers. Currently on the US side of things all the MRP and LRP players are conglomerating on Manuel. This isn't by itself a bad thing. The player base all being able to get along on the same server is great. We love to see people with different styles of gameplay playing together and enjoying it.

However there are some concerns among the player-base and the team that the mix of playstyles is making it tough for the More Rules Server to keep its identity. So I think the solution to both this issue of MRP identity AND LRP player count is encouraging folks to play on the server that best accommodates their preferred play style. To create the best experience possible for both play style enjoyers.

Your thoughts are a great foil to the example I gave in my thread.

There's practical comparison of some really important things we'd want to consider.

| Fast/Slow RP | More Rules/Less Rules RP |
|------------------|--------------------------------|
| Changes Acronym | Keeps Acronym |
| Describes Pacing | Describes Restriction |
(Shoutouts to chatGPT for drilling this goofy table format into my head)

First row I think is going to be a very complicated side to pick, because maintaining terminology that can be understood by the greater community is important. I don't know if its better to have the acronym the same or make a different acronym and tag the more familiar term at the end in like, a vestigial way. The former could cause situations where people just dive in without being aware that the acronym is different and we'd have to do something about that. The latter could be seen as awkward and convoluted.

Second row is considering what we're conveying with the words we have on offer. When you're working with such a limited wordcount semantics can become very important. When you define things in a contrasting pair there's opportunity to provide more nuance than having them in a vacuum. I think both of our ideas communicate great information for an incoming player to orient themselves between servers. "Less Rules" specifically communicates freedom in a really nice way.

I've always found that name stuff like this is something best cooked at a slow simmer for a long time. The more examples and ideas that we can compare and contrast, the more refined the final product is. It's a fun process.

[xzero314]

grey or rainbow jumpsuits for the tiders? this will literally and without a hint of irony decide my vote.

Grey is pretty Iconic and classic. But the Grey-shirt is in the heart not the color of the jumpsuit. So Rainbow Jumpsuit is just fine too.

[Jamarkus]

hallo xzero314! Glad to see you are attempting Headmin status! Ive noticed that you are always around on the server and chatting about, so Im here to ask you for some clarification and additional questions.

Restore some Security protections that were removed in the current term.

• Specifically, I’d like to reinstate the rule allowing Security players to cite Space Law.

• It may even be time to fully integrate Space Law into the rules, though that would require further discussion.

I believe the lack of this has created problems, and I want to address it.

CITING SPACE LAW! I like the take that security will be allowed to actually cite you committing a crime as a law that someone commits as suspect for arrest. I've seen both sides, where sec uses it against crew and crew claiming it doesn't matter, and vise versa. I can see the good side of this as it gives sec an RP reason to stop players other than them just being an antag and possibly valid until proven otherwise. I can also see it as a reason for sec to abuse it and go after players for every little thing that can be a crime and immediately brigging them instead of talking to them, causing sec to become more of a dictatorship rather than a rule reminder. Basically, YOU WIL FOLLOW THE LAW AS ITS WRITTEN vs I AM THE LAW.

My question for you is, how would you go about implementing this, or even enforcing it. at what point would you consider personally that a sec officer is going too far with enforcing space law to a detriment.

[xzero314]

hallo xzero314! Glad to see you are attempting Headmin status! Ive noticed that you are always around on the server and chatting about, so Im here to ask you for some clarification and additional questions.

Restore some Security protections that were removed in the current term.

• Specifically, I’d like to reinstate the rule allowing Security players to cite Space Law.

• It may even be time to fully integrate Space Law into the rules, though that would require further discussion.

I believe the lack of this has created problems, and I want to address it.

CITING SPACE LAW! I like the take that security will be allowed to actually cite you committing a crime as a law that someone commits as suspect for arrest. I've seen both sides, where sec uses it against crew and crew claiming it doesn't matter, and vise versa. I can see the good side of this as it gives sec an RP reason to stop players other than them just being an antag and possibly valid until proven otherwise. I can also see it as a reason for sec to abuse it and go after players for every little thing that can be a crime and immediately brigging them instead of talking to them, causing sec to become more of a dictatorship rather than a rule reminder. Basically, YOU WIL FOLLOW THE LAW AS ITS WRITTEN vs I AM THE LAW.

My question for you is, how would you go about implementing this, or even enforcing it. at what point would you consider personally that a sec officer is going too far with enforcing space law to a detriment.

Hello Jamarkus! Thank you for your question. I have decided to answer the second part first.

""at what point would you consider personally that a sec officer is going too far with enforcing space law to a detriment."

My goal is that Security should be able to cite Space Law to justify their actions, but that doesn’t mean they should use it as a shield to brig people excessively. If someone is using Space Law as a shield for being a dick and to ruin somebodies round rather than a tool for role play, that’s still something admins can and should step in to address.

The key distinction is how Space Law is applied. A Security officer using it as a guideline to help de-escalate and explain their actions is good for roleplay. But one using it as an excuse to throw people in the gulag for ages because “the law says so” is missing the bigger picture. For example, breaking into the Bridge is a serious crime in-character according to space-law. But to a player, it might not feel like a big deal. Especially if they are playing on LRP. All they did was hack in a couple doors. Security needs to consider both perspectives—yes, enforcing the law is important, but so is making sure punishments make sense in the context of the round.

I want to bring back Space Law as a guideline for Security. Security officers should be able to reference it when justifying their actions, but that doesn’t mean they get a free pass to be overly punitive or rigid. The goal is to provide structure, not to create a system where Security can shut down player interaction by saying, “I’m just following Space Law.”

At the same time, I want to avoid creating a situation where officers follow Space Law, only to have admins step in inconsistently—leading to “admin roulette.” The key here is balance. Space Law should be a tool that helps Security interact with the crew in a fair and predictable way, but if it’s being used in a way that harms the flow of the round, that’s still something admins can step in on. The difference is that admin intervention should be about maintaining good gameplay, not punishing officers simply for following a set guideline.

This ties into my broader philosophy on rule enforcement: consistency and clarity matter. Just like I want to refine RPR10 to ensure admins have a clear framework for addressing disruptive playstyles, I want to make sure Security has a clear and fair standard to operate under. That means bringing back Space Law as a guideline.

This issue is also part of a larger shift we’re seeing with the servers. LRP has been dead for a while, and as a result, more LRP-oriented players are moving to MRP. That’s creating friction in Security play—officers acting too harshly with lethals when they shouldn’t, and mobs of assistants swarming officers over every arrest. The lack of Space Law as a guiding framework contributes to this problem. Security players don’t have a clear reference point for what’s reasonable.


" how would you go about implementing this, or even enforcing it."

I would reinstate the rule that explicitly allows Security to cite Space Law in admin discussions. This doesn’t mean Space Law becomes a strict rulebook, but it does mean that Security players can reference it as a justification for their actions.

Space Law should be positioned as a guideline, not a hard rule—meaning officers are encouraged to follow it, but admins can still step in if they see a clear pattern of unfair play.

If a Security officer is using Space Law in a way that’s too rigid—for example, handing out excessive brig sentences for minor infractions with no consideration for RP—admins should be able to step in.

However, there needs to be consistency in enforcement so that officers aren’t getting different rulings from different admins.

I’d establish clearer internal admin guidelines on what constitutes excessive enforcement versus reasonable security play.
I’d push for clearer expectations within the admin team to ensure we aren’t seeing inconsistent enforcement. Security players shouldn’t have to guess whether following Space Law is fine depending on which admin is online.

If an officer is using Space Law to power trip, that’s still an issue—but it should be judged based on actual disruptive behavior, not just whether they cited Space Law.

[xzero314]

Ive decided to write this as an extra add on to my main post. These are some hot topics of this election that I gave my thoughts on but I think I should put here.

Non-Human Heads

I have put quite a bit of thought into non-human heads.
Last election my stance was "Yes all nonhuman heads is fine. We can just use a policy for keeping the AI asimov to preserve the setting."
The thing is it didn't really work perfectly like I hoped. In my opinion a clash of the rules and rp occurred here. We used a rule to brute force it but when the Captain and RD and all the heads are non human keeping the ai on asimov didnt make much sense pretty fast.

I do like the setting of human command and Asimov. Especially Asimov Is important to me. I dont want to see that go. I can say after my time with wall station and the non human heads event that if all the heads are open to non humans then asimov wont last long.

So with that in mind my stance has shifted since last election.

I am ok with opening more command spots to non-humans But I would not like to see the Captain or RD opened to Non-Humans. I believe this is something that is actually possible to run on with config options available now.

Preserve MRP

I think we can get a two for one with this one. We preserve MRP and we get players back on Sybil at the same time. How do we accomplish such a feat?? Stronger enforcement of the MRP rules on the MRP server. I dont believe in "MRPmins" or "LRPmins" so I don't think the issue is LRP admins coming into MRP and not doing a great job. I think the honest truth is that sometimes the MRP rules getting broken can come off as not a big deal and things slide. leading to the LRP playstyle becoming the norm when a majority of the players playing are more LRP inclined

The goal creating the best experience for both player bases and the way to do that is getting the player bases on their preferred server. Not because one player base is unwelcome on the others preferred server. But because when everybody has the same idea of the experience they are in for then everybody is having more fun.

[GamerAndYeahMick]

what job do you main

[TheRex9001]

Hey xz! Considering I've seen you play a bit of ai, what are your thoughts on silipol?

[xzero314]

what job do you main

Here are all my most played jobs.



So technically an AI main? But I do like to play a good variety. Ai, Security, and Captain are the big three. CMO is also alot of fun.

[tttruancy]

Recently this admin was playing captain and I asked them for 4 accesses of their choosing as clown. They gave me engineering (pretty generous) and didn't even arrest me when I stole the CE's approval stickers from his hacked-open locker. I put one sticker on the botanist's omegaweed plant and another on Widum Boise's afro.

[xzero314]

Hey xz! Considering I've seen you play a bit of ai, what are your thoughts on silipol?

I like many things about the current Sil policy. I am a big fan of the changes that were made to it the last time it was reworked.
For example unshackled AI's being antagonists if the choose to be is really cool in my opinion.

I would be a status quo type vote on Silpolicy. But I am open to trying to make some things more clear based on my own experiences of playing ai and some issues I notice lots of AI players struggling with.

The biggest example I think is a particular headmin ruling I like to refer to about Asimov Ais snitching on humans for non-harmful crimes. I think that in particular could use an actual full write into silpol rather than in headmin rulings. I also think it could be clearer that the AI is meant to consider security Non-harmful, unless given reason to think otherwise. But we do already have a line in silpol about the AI needing to have a reason to mess with security.

I find in my experience with both Security and Silpol it can be really hard for security to follow this particular requirement of interacting with Silicons in silpol even if they are playing in good faith "Non-Malfunctioning silicons should not be round removed when resetting their laws or unsyncing from an AI is reasonable." I do always try to nudge security to not leave a borg round removed if its really a case of not the borgs fault but from the Sec POV its basically impossible to know until the whole situation is resolved.