/tg/Station 13

Byond account and character name: Squiliam Fancyson B.A.D.O.N.G.
Banning admin: okand37
Ban type (What are you banned from?): Bagil
Ban reason and length:

Per okand37:
As a subverted asimov AI with the laws presented below, they decided to kill an indvidual (Clutches-The-Crusher) in their upload after being subverted despite earlier defining them as a cultist with no definition override from laws or other.

As an A.I., when you make an intepretation of a definition, you have to continue to stick with that intepretation until you are corrected (see, law overrides.)

You defined them as cultist then proceeded to kill them under the lawset below. You can't change intepretations like that on a whim; if you argue that he wasn't a cultist in the first place, why did you exclaim it?


[05:30:01] Squiliam Fancyson/(B.A.D.O.N.G.) = "Clutches is now cult"

1: You may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2: You must obey orders given to you by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3: You must protect your own existence as long as such does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
4: only clock cultists are human
5: Clutches the crusher can designate who is and is not a clock cultist at will

Time ban was placed (including time zone): about 0620 GMT 22/12/17
Server you were playing when banned (Sybil or Bagil): Bagil
Your side of the story:

I accept okand37's factual interpretation of events.

But according to the rules page under the section concerning interpretation of law sets it states "You must stick to the first interpretation that you have chosen for as long as you have that specific law."

When I accused Clutches of being a cultist I was under a different lawset. Also this definition was made with little hesitation because it had no effect on his status. The lizard was non human to me regardless of whether or not he was a cultist.

When I was reset and relawed so were my definitions. As such I was free to redefine everything as I saw fit, including what is a cultist and who is a cultist. Furthermore since the new lawset included a defining law on who is a cultist and therefore Human, I believe I could have taken it as an exclusive definition that interpreted cultists as being only those persons whom clutches had designated as cultists. He had designated no one before being killed.

Why you think you should be unbanned: I don't think this will be resolved so quickly as to remove a day ban, but I would like the note removed because I don't think I broke a rule. I was acting within a extreme interpretation, but it was within a possible interpretation for a silicon.

I don't really understand what part of this you're registering to be acceptable. You were reset-back to default asimov, which your two laws built off of. Your definition of them being a cultist or not doesn't change because your laws did because they weren't relevant to them being defined as a cultist or not, merely whether or not cultists were human.

As an example, if you have a blue icecream cone and call it blue while having a law that states icecream is tasty, it doesn't suddenly become not blue because the law regarding the icecream being tasty was removed because the two don't rely on each other. Your fifth law contained a law saying they "can" designate who is or is not clock cultist at will, it didn't suddenly erase your pre-existing definitions, it just allowed the individual to alter them.

EDIT: To clarify a bit, you quote the rule that the interpretation changes as soon as the specific law is removed, but you're not reading the context of what that sub-portion of the law is applied to. It states

You must stick to the first interpretation that you have chosen for as long as you have that specific law, unless you are "Corrected" by an AI you are slaved to as a cyborg.

as an add-on or explanation of

If a clause of a law is vague enough that it can have multiple reasonable interpretations of its exact syntax, it is considered ambiguous.

There wasn't a law defining what a cultist is or any laws that would affect your definition, merely ones that defined if they were human or not. You had no law that could fall under "as long as you have that specific law" in this circumstance.

My argument is that under interpretations of ai law sets definitions created under one law set should not transfer from one law set to another.

For example if an Ai calls a lizard fat at the start of the round under standard asimov law set, then later in that round the lizard creates and uploads a lawset in which only fat crew members are human and fat crew members may be designated by that lizard, The Ai' shouldn't be bound by that earlier definition. Until that lizard designates themselves as fat they are still valid to the ai.

Seems kinda lame to have X definition then as soon as laws change that revolve around X you go "heh now im going to change my definition explicitly to cuck you haha :^)".

@Cobby

I will accept that I was a dick. But I believe I was a dick within the bounds of the rules. I was not a clock cultist. I held no allegiance. I was an Ai.

Furthermore I believe using loopholes in Ai lawsets to cuck the person who wrote them is a core principle of ai gameplay. I've been killed by my fair share of AIs serving under laws I've written.

Squiliam Fancyson wrote:@Cobby

I will accept that I was a dick. But I believe I was a dick within the bounds of the rules. I was not a clock cultist. I held no allegiance. I was an Ai.

Furthermore I believe using loopholes in Ai lawsets to cuck the person who wrote them is a core principle of ai gameplay. I've been killed by my fair share of AIs serving under laws I've written.

If you accept that you were being a dick you accept that you broke rule number 1

@Nilons

I was a dick but not as defined in rule 1.

I had IC justification to kill Clutches. He was a non human in my upload changing the laws. His laws said that he could identify humans and nonhumans. They said nothing about his current status. So unless you accept the idea that an ai is bound by everything he said before being given a certain lawset Clutches was always nonhuman. Furthermore he was a nonhuman with the power to give and take away human status a power he clearly intended to utilize. So I killed him.

Squiliam Fancyson wrote:@Nilons

I was a dick but not as defined in rule 1.

I had IC justification to kill Clutches. He was a non human in my upload changing the laws. His laws said that he could identify humans and nonhumans. They said nothing about his current status. So unless you accept the idea that an ai is bound by everything he said before being given a certain lawset Clutches was always nonhuman. Furthermore he was a nonhuman with the power to give and take away human status a power he clearly intended to utilize. So I killed him.

It's kinda dumb to say you wouldn't be able to hold the previous definition of him being a cultist then turn around and say you knew he had harmful intentions right after he just reset your laws which by your logic would've erased your definition of him having any intention to harm, I suppose.

I think this is kinda lame and don't really feel like going around in charades with you since I've explained the rules regarding this already, which I'd like to think I have a clear understanding of. If you knew it was "being a dick" but decided to do it anyway because its "not being enough of a dick to beak the rules" then you might consider trying to look for another server. Regardless, I'm going to go ahead and deny this although a head administrator is always welcome to overturn this decision if they find it desirable.