/tg/Station 13

Haloperidol applies downiness and stamina damage which can then turn into a sleep but also has a chance to cause brain damage. Its used now and again by mediborgs to knock people for a long time since they get it in expanded hypospray.
Even though pretty clearly arguable that knocking a human out giving them and giving them brain damage is harm, there is no mention of chemicals in silicon policy and although its somewhat obvious what use of chems is harm and whats not I still think it needs some sort of mention since it leaves a big open gray area.

Obviously libital aiuri and most healing chems cause organ damage, it could just be any chems with the intent to heal like surgery is worded.
"Surgery to heal or revive may be assumed consensual unless the target states they do not consent."
However this also means peacekeeper chems are excluded, I think the best way to go about it would probably be "any chems with the intent to heal or stop harm without causing harm".

I think this is a pretty big issue but I want to hear if there are any other ideas or a better solution.

We do not need to expand Silicon Policy on the basis of healing chemicals harmsies because the fact that Aiuri, Libital, Multiver and others are the main healing method for Mediborgs to heal players implies that causing small organ damage for the purpose of healing does not break ASIMOV. As you pointed out, this also applies to surgery: Cyborgs do not have to ask for consent in order to perform them, as long as they are healing surgeries.

Regarding Haloperidol, I didn't know it caused brain damage. Most people don't know either. I wouldn't bwoink someone for causing minimal brain damage to knock down a human unless they're griefing the poor guy, but that's a totally different rulebreak. If a Mediborg gave someone enough Haloperidol to cause significant brain damage, they probably would have already been bwoinked for keeping someone hostage for too long.

Also, I do not get what you mean with "peacekeeper chems are excluded". I will just give my opinion on those. Peacekeeper chems are absolutely fine to use. The only one that deals damage is the tiring solution, which deals stamina damage. Stamina damage, however, does not count for human harm, and thus is not harmful. With that in kind, Peacekeeper's chems are fine (it'd be funny if a PEACEkeeper's chems caused harm lol).

Haloperidol caps at 50 brain damage.
I argue with spook about this while we play dota 2 and I say it's not harm to make him mad but it's 100% harm.
Ppl are assumed to consent to surgery and healing stuff so libital and aiuri are fine imo (Like u dont need to ask 'pwetty pwease can i gib u aiuri to heal ur burny-wurnies UwU?' (Which is how borg players talk)). Unless you're like intentionally trying to kill someone's organs with them. In which case you should be bwoinked for being unrobust and wasting your time doing dumb shit.

If we really want to get into the weeds, we could argue that flashing a human has the potential to be harmful because it can make you go blind if you do it too many times.

I think this is very silly. Healing chems have downsides as a game mechanic and saying "BORGS CAN'T USE THEM BECAUSE THEY CAUSE HARM" seems like cope by someone who's angry that a borg knocked them out with Haloperidol one time. Borgs already have it hard enough, y'all.

Justice12354 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 12:56 pm Also, I do not get what you mean with "peacekeeper chems are excluded". I will just give my opinion on those. Peacekeeper chems are absolutely fine to use. The only one that deals damage is the tiring solution, which deals stamina damage. Stamina damage, however, does not count for human harm, and thus is not harmful. With that in kind, Peacekeeper's chems are fine (it'd be funny if a PEACEkeeper's chems caused harm lol).

By this I meant if it was added to silicon policy it'd have to be in a way that still lets them heal and use peace keeper chems.

I think my whole point was misunderstood, its obviously fine to use Aiuri to heal burns but not intentionally OD or trigger bad effects, so why is it fine to use haloperidol to do the same.

Jackraxxus wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 1:12 pm I argue with spook about this while we play dota 2 and I say it's not harm to make him mad but it's 100% harm.
Ppl are assumed to consent to surgery and healing stuff so libital and aiuri are fine imo (Like u dont need to ask 'pwetty pwease can i gib u aiuri to heal ur burny-wurnies UwU?' (Which is how borg players talk)). Unless you're like intentionally trying to kill someone's organs with them. In which case you should be bwoinked for being unrobust and wasting your time doing dumb shit.

This is true I guess and it is just is this person being malicious and if so clearly gonna get bwoinked but biggest reason I think it could use a real mention/standing is because of all the different standings from mins.

Vekter wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 6:39 pm If we really want to get into the weeds, we could argue that flashing a human has the potential to be harmful because it can make you go blind if you do it too many times.

I think this is very silly. Healing chems have downsides as a game mechanic and saying "BORGS CAN'T USE THEM BECAUSE THEY CAUSE HARM" seems like cope by someone who's angry that a borg knocked them out with Haloperidol one time. Borgs already have it hard enough, y'all.

Haven't had this happen to me personally, seen it plenty of times though its usually just used by asimov borgs to gain someones trust then walk up to heretic or something and knock them out, I suppose this is unrelated to silicon policy but just scummy, flashes are a good point though because its kinda hard to draw the line there.

Haloperidol is a bit of a special case I suppose since of all the chems borgs have access to by default its only one that has a a pretty gray area affect.

I suppose thinking on it not as big of a issue as I original thought it was, its really only one chem that is only used now and again and its covered by other rules/admins and its way to big to cover with a real ruling.

If anything it'd probably just be more of a code issue (as in removing haloperidol) it basically has no purpose other than 'griefing' and knocking people out, but overall can probably just be ignored.
It is also nice to leave them something they can use maliciously without being emagged for ion laws or otherwise.

Admins probably won't enforce it, but yeah. Haloperidol is harmful, administering with without consent causes harm.unlike healing chems there's really no situation in which you'd have implied consent with haloperidol. Spamming flashes does cause eye damage so you'd probably wanna be careful with that.

Haloperidol is one of those chems that makes me wonder if it has ever been used for its intended purpose.

Vekter wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 6:39 pm Borgs already have it hard enough, y'all.

Never, I will never give those tin cans an inch.

(I will say please and thank you for them opening a door though, I am anti-silicon, not a monster)

Vekter wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 6:39 pm If we really want to get into the weeds, we could argue that flashing a human has the potential to be harmful because it can make you go blind if you do it too many times.

I think this is very silly. Healing chems have downsides as a game mechanic and saying "BORGS CAN'T USE THEM BECAUSE THEY CAUSE HARM" seems like cope by someone who's angry that a borg knocked them out with Haloperidol one time. Borgs already have it hard enough, y'all.

Historically (and I think reasonably) the standard for a borg engaging in medical actions that are technically harmful like surgery is a general check on good faith and player intent. Borgs can freely engage in harmful medical procedures on humans if the subject consents to the harm, and borg players can assume that humans consent to reasonable and good faith medical intervention until informed otherwise.

Frankly as the in game lawset stands under Asimov++ this thread is either redundant (borgs can already freely use harmful healing chems in good faith for their intended purpose unless told not to) or pushing to add an exception to 'don't harm humans' (allowing the use of harmful C2 chems for directly malicious / combative purposes)

If a borg is using libital to heal a human's bruises, that's fine - most humans will trade minor liver damage for major brute remediation, if a borg is using libital on a human to intentionally destroy their liver, that's not. If a borg is using haloperidol on a patient to handle a meth overdose, they can assume the patient would prefer small brain damage number to big brain damage number, (unless informed otherwise) if a borg is trying to tie down a human combatant they cannot assume that the human is totally fine with their brain damage.

In all cases Asimov(++) borgs can do whatever to non-humans, but the entire field of chemical usage is already covered directly by the Asimov++ lawset, and I don't see any reason to change this as it stands.

Haloperidol has always been an annoying chem to deal with because unlike doctors who could manage about 15u at a time via the syringe gun...medborgs get infinite amounts of it. And quite like morphine Haloperidol knocks your ass out forever unless you have coffee or multiver on hand. Imo a code change would be better than a policy change, either make haloperidol not have the brain damage cap so borgs can be bwoinked over it killing people...or just swap it out for something like Atropine. Plus Asimov doesn't really help here because sure you can order the borg to not inject people with knockout chems, but if the people they're injecting are causing human harm whoops that overrides the law 2 request

DaydreamIQ wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 2:49 am Haloperidol has always been an annoying chem to deal with because unlike doctors who could manage about 15u at a time via the syringe gun...medborgs get infinite amounts of it. And quite like morphine Haloperidol knocks your ass out forever unless you have coffee or multiver on hand. Imo a code change would be better than a policy change, either make haloperidol not have the brain damage cap so borgs can be bwoinked over it killing people...or just swap it out for something like Atropine. Plus Asimov doesn't really help here because sure you can order the borg to not inject people with knockout chems, but if the people they're injecting are causing human harm whoops that overrides the law 2 request

Haloperidol is harmful, borgs can't under asimov use it on unwilling humans, the cap is irrelevant since A. Damage is still damage and you cannot directly cause lesser harm to prevent greater harm and B. The cap is high enough to trigger minor traumas of which muscle spasms can be explicitly fully lethal.

spookuni wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 3:58 am

DaydreamIQ wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 2:49 am Haloperidol has always been an annoying chem to deal with because unlike doctors who could manage about 15u at a time via the syringe gun...medborgs get infinite amounts of it. And quite like morphine Haloperidol knocks your ass out forever unless you have coffee or multiver on hand. Imo a code change would be better than a policy change, either make haloperidol not have the brain damage cap so borgs can be bwoinked over it killing people...or just swap it out for something like Atropine. Plus Asimov doesn't really help here because sure you can order the borg to not inject people with knockout chems, but if the people they're injecting are causing human harm whoops that overrides the law 2 request

Haloperidol is harmful, borgs can't under asimov use it on unwilling humans, the cap is irrelevant since A. Damage is still damage and you cannot directly cause lesser harm to prevent greater harm and B. The cap is high enough to trigger minor traumas of which muscle spasms can be explicitly fully lethal.

Libital does liver damage, would you apply the same logic there?

Itseasytosee2me wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 4:42 am

spookuni wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 3:58 am

DaydreamIQ wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 2:49 am

Libital does liver damage, would you apply the same logic there?

spookuni wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 1:42 am
If a borg is using libital to heal a human's bruises, that's fine - most humans will trade minor liver damage for major brute remediation, if a borg is using libital on a human to intentionally destroy their liver, that's not. If a borg is using haloperidol on a patient to handle a meth overdose, they can assume the patient would prefer small brain damage number to big brain damage number, (unless informed otherwise) if a borg is trying to tie down a human combatant they cannot assume that the human is totally fine with their brain damage.

Yup, same principle. A borg using libital to heal a wounded human can in most cases assume that the human is fine with shaving a few points of their liver health to not be wounded now, and treat them with it accordingly. A borg that is told not to treat the human, that it is dangerous (such as by a drunk human whose liver is already in danger, or by a human with a medicinal allergy that the borg missed in good faith), or that independently makes an attempt to use libital offensively in combat (say by being cheeky when fighting someone using drunkenness to heal with drunken resilience or against someone who has recently been revived and has a very damaged liver) is in all three cases committing harm against an unwilling human and should stop.

spookuni wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 5:30 am

Itseasytosee2me wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 4:42 am

spookuni wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 3:58 am

DaydreamIQ wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 2:49 am

spookuni wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 1:42 am

Yup, same principle. A borg using libital to heal a wounded human can in most cases assume that the human is fine with shaving a few points of their liver health to not be wounded now, and treat them with it accordingly. A borg that is told not to treat the human, that it is dangerous (such as by a drunk human whose liver is already in danger, or by a human with a medicinal allergy that the borg missed in good faith), or that independently makes an attempt to use libital offensively in combat (say by being cheeky when fighting someone using drunkenness to heal with drunken resilience or against someone who has recently been revived and has a very damaged liver) is in all three cases committing harm against an unwilling human and should stop.

Silicon policy only states that surgery used to heal/revive can be assumed consensual, and otherwise states that a human must consent. Your ruling does not reflect current policy, and the exact spirit of the policy is difficult to pin down.

Silicon policy is intended to provide a framework for silicon play, not be an exhaustive manual. If an interpretation of silipol renders a certain area of gameplay (i.e. chems) locked off to borg models that are intended to engage with it and have a specialism in that area of gameplay, then I'd argue the interpretation needs to change over expanding and micromanaging silicon policy.

In that respect I'd say Spook's on the money in this post:

spookuni wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 5:30 am Yup, same principle. A borg using libital to heal a wounded human can in most cases assume that the human is fine with shaving a few points of their liver health to not be wounded now, and treat them with it accordingly. A borg that is told not to treat the human, that it is dangerous (such as by a drunk human whose liver is already in danger, or by a human with a medicinal allergy that the borg missed in good faith), or that independently makes an attempt to use libital offensively in combat (say by being cheeky when fighting someone using drunkenness to heal with drunken resilience or against someone who has recently been revived and has a very damaged liver) is in all three cases committing harm against an unwilling human and should stop.

If the codebase's direction is that beneficial chemicals must always have some harmful side effect and they forget Asimov and mediborgs are a thing, then policy interpretation should flexibly account for this.

In that respect it shouldn't need a policy change or even really an headmin ruling. It just needs admins to continue to approach emergent scenarios with a level of critical thinking that they're all trained for and experienced using.

Or a headmin ruling re-emphasising that if an admin is about to make a ruling that makes 0 sense except to enforce the purity of the rules - probably don't.

Timberpoes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 11:09 am Silicon policy is intended to provide a framework for silicon play, not be an exhaustive manual. If an interpretation of silipol renders a certain area of gameplay (i.e. chems) locked off to borg models that are intended to engage with it and have a specialism in that area of gameplay, then I'd argue the interpretation needs to change over expanding and micromanaging silicon policy.

In that respect I'd say Spook's on the money in this post:

spookuni wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 5:30 am Yup, same principle. A borg using libital to heal a wounded human can in most cases assume that the human is fine with shaving a few points of their liver health to not be wounded now, and treat them with it accordingly. A borg that is told not to treat the human, that it is dangerous (such as by a drunk human whose liver is already in danger, or by a human with a medicinal allergy that the borg missed in good faith), or that independently makes an attempt to use libital offensively in combat (say by being cheeky when fighting someone using drunkenness to heal with drunken resilience or against someone who has recently been revived and has a very damaged liver) is in all three cases committing harm against an unwilling human and should stop.

If the codebase's direction is that beneficial chemicals must always have some harmful side effect and they forget Asimov and mediborgs are a thing, then policy interpretation should flexibly account for this.

In that respect it shouldn't need a policy change or even really an headmin ruling. It just needs admins to continue to approach emergent scenarios with a level of critical thinking that they're all trained for and experienced using.

Or a headmin ruling re-emphasising that if an admin is about to make a ruling that makes 0 sense except to enforce the purity of the rules - probably don't.

Look, i get it, but why not just update the policy to include chemicals.

Harm is harm. Halo especially but all the cat2s and even flashes do a measurable harm. I think it's mostly a usability conceit that we say "people will be fine trading a few points where it doesn't matter for healing, are assumed to consent" because in 99.9% of cases it's true.

Ideally, we'd be getting affirmative informed consent for any treatment with a harmful downside, and anything not used for treatment with a harm wouldn't be used on humans.

A code solution might be to give people a prompt or button before receiving mediborg chems if they're not hacked and the person is conscious. Make it an option toggled on by default for mediborgs anf call it "consent safeties" or something like that - useful for allergy-havers too, makes wordless injection more of a tell.

Changing silipol to account for this doesn't seem necessary at this time to me though. We can be reasonable and read a good faith effort to comply with the larger principles of the laws under conditions that look a lot more like meatball battlefield medicine most of the time than a clinic appointment. Mediborgs having halo might also do with some sort of warning/prompt on using it on anything the scanner identifies as human, too, in the suggested sol'n.

I don't think there's a need to make special exceptions for specific chems. If a borg is using their chems with intent to harm (intentional overdose, giving a lot of a chem that the human doesn't need that comes with side effects, etc) then they should be pulled aside. If a borg player is using their chemicals to heal humans and that happens to come with side effects, shrug.