The 'inaction' law

yackemflam · Post by **yackemflam** » Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:02 pm #198986

So I was informed that a borg doesn't have to use all of its power to save a human it doesn't like.

So a borg can go 'I tried to save him.' without any real attempts and let the human it doesn't like die.

Should borg try their hardest on saving any and all humans under asimov.

ShadowDimentio · Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:10 pm

Goon does this. If a human is getting harmed but doesn't have time to ask for help, whatever not your problem. If they ask for help, you can help as much as you want, whether that be calling security and flashing the person attacking or yelling at the attacker to please stop while running around them pinging.

onleavedontatme · Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:11 pm

Please provide more context.

IrishWristWatch0 · Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:19 pm

This will go well

Saegrimr · Post by **Saegrimr** » Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:31 pm #198991

Didn't we already try removing the "Inaction" clause and it just led to borgs bringing people to security and then saying "NOW TOTALLY DON'T BEAT THESE GUYS TO DEATH WINK WINK"

Lumbermancer · Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:32 pm

yackemflam wrote:Should borg try their hardest on saving any and all humans under asimov.

Yes.

IrishWristWatch0 · Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:47 pm

Literally all you have to do is put a minimum amount of effort into saving people from getting harmed. Being a borg is not difficult.

Bawhoppennn · Post by **Bawhoppennn** » Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:46 pm #199000

Saegrimr wrote:Didn't we already try removing the "Inaction" clause and it just led to borgs bringing people to security and then saying "NOW TOTALLY DON'T BEAT THESE GUYS TO DEATH WINK WINK"

It also lead to borgs abusing it as a technicality so they could actively harm people themselves indirectly, cause "lel not my laws"

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:18 pm #199012

Bawhoppennn wrote:
Saegrimr wrote:Didn't we already try removing the "Inaction" clause and it just led to borgs bringing people to security and then saying "NOW TOTALLY DON'T BEAT THESE GUYS TO DEATH WINK WINK"
It also lead to borgs abusing it as a technicality so they could actively harm people themselves indirectly, cause "lel not my laws"

This usually refers to direct damage that people refuse to acknowledge as direct because they like being autistic.

Anonmare · Post by **Anonmare** » Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:31 pm #199018

The inaction law means that a borg has to at least *try* to save someone if they are actively receiving harm, as soon as the harm is stopped and they're not in immediate danger then you can probably leave them be.

Lumbermancer · Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:50 pm

Anonmare wrote:at least *try*.

Well it is my opinion (and how I personally play) that borg should be ready and willing to sacrifice his own life in order to save human life.

Cik · Post by **Cik** » Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:24 am #199154

i've always interpreted it as "you must do everything in your power to save human life"

that means you run in front of bullets during a gunfight, throw yourself into the singularity trying to rescue someone, or die to distract people from chasing fleeing humans.

playing borg is more fun that way, even if you do end up dying quite often.

peoplearestrange · Thu Jul 28, 2016 2:40 pm

Bawhoppennn wrote:
Saegrimr wrote:Didn't we already try removing the "Inaction" clause and it just led to borgs bringing people to security and then saying "NOW TOTALLY DON'T BEAT THESE GUYS TO DEATH WINK WINK"
It also lead to borgs abusing it as a technicality so they could actively harm people themselves indirectly, cause "lel not my laws"

Pretty much this, leaving people bolted in a room thats on fire "Not my problem :^)" ~ some borg probably

yackemflam · Post by **yackemflam** » Thu Jul 28, 2016 4:39 pm #199210

I made a mistake and didn't describe enough.

The problem is that atm, borgs can 'choose' who lives or who dies.

Situation A:
Human A has harmed human B. Human B fights back, knocks out the other human, and put him into crit. Borg saw the entire conflict and started to 'help' human A by doing the BARE minimum to save the human (Using 1 module, no dragging away from, etc.). Human B starts kills human A and passes out. After human A dies the borg IMMEDIATELY pulls human B into medbay to patch him up.
Borgs reason for the bare minimum helping is terrible and conflicts with law 1. ('I don't want to get blown.' 'I didn't like human A.' 'Human A attacked first.' etc.)

Lumbermancer · Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:21 pm

That's...dumb. I see no reason for borg to not get critted Human A to medbay straight away.

yackemflam · Post by **yackemflam** » Thu Jul 28, 2016 8:54 pm #199252

Lumbermancer wrote:That's...dumb. I see no reason for borg to not get critted Human A to medbay straight away.

Well that happens

Lumbermancer · Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:57 pm

Obviously, but it has nothing to do with laws or policies. Many don't even grasp basics like law 2.

yackemflam · Post by **yackemflam** » Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:07 am #199372

Lumbermancer wrote:Obviously, but it has nothing to do with laws or policies. Many don't even grasp basics like law 2.

Yes it does, since a round of this happened to me and an admin explained that it was valid.

Post by **Archie700** » Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:22 pm #199445

yackemflam wrote:
Lumbermancer wrote:Obviously, but it has nothing to do with laws or policies. Many don't even grasp basics like law 2.
Yes it does, since a round of this happened to me and an admin explained that it was valid.

Was the borg subverted? There's no reason why a borg shouldn't pull human A since a human in crit is still being harmed.

Lumbermancer · Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:54 pm

yackemflam wrote:admin explained that it was valid.

Which admin told you letting human B murder human A right in front you is not allowing human to come to harm through your inaction?

Archie has the good idea, "valid" usually relates to antagonists in some way. Otherwise admin would elaborate. You'd hope.

yackemflam · Post by **yackemflam** » Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:51 pm #199456

Lumbermancer wrote:
yackemflam wrote:admin explained that it was valid.
Which admin told you letting human B murder human A right in front you is not allowing human to come to harm through your inaction?

Archie has the good idea, "valid" usually relates to antagonists in some way. Otherwise admin would elaborate. You'd hope.

The admin didn't say 'valid' per say.
The admin allows it though.

This is what happened.

I speared the HoS with a IED javelin for a minor issue.
The borg locked me in with the HoS and
The HoS fought back and disabled me with an energy gun.
The HoS then shot at me with lethals and the borg was laying down the red barricades that goes down in 1 hit.
The borg sat there doing that while the HoS shot at me with more lethals. (The dude was packed.)
I was shot until I was husked.
The HoS passed out and the borg dragged the HoS into medbay.

Post by **Archie700** » Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:03 pm #199458

yackemflam wrote: The HoS then shot at me with lethals and the borg was laying down the red barricades that goes down in 1 hit.
The borg sat there doing that while the HoS shot at me with more lethals. (The dude was packed.)

What.
That's definitely a violation.
Unless the borg was subverted there was no way an admin would allow the borg to leave the harm alone.

Did you take a picture of round end?

yackemflam · Post by **yackemflam** » Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:14 pm #199461

Archie700 wrote:
yackemflam wrote: The HoS then shot at me with lethals and the borg was laying down the red barricades that goes down in 1 hit.
The borg sat there doing that while the HoS shot at me with more lethals. (The dude was packed.)
What.
That's definitely a violation.
Unless the borg was subverted there was no way an admin would allow the borg to leave the harm alone.

Did you take a picture of round end?

Nope

Post by **Archie700** » Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:19 pm #199462

yackemflam wrote:
Archie700 wrote:
yackemflam wrote: The HoS then shot at me with lethals and the borg was laying down the red barricades that goes down in 1 hit.
The borg sat there doing that while the HoS shot at me with more lethals. (The dude was packed.)
What.
That's definitely a violation.
Unless the borg was subverted there was no way an admin would allow the borg to leave the harm alone.

Did you take a picture of round end?
Nope

Shit out of luck, then.
The borg was probably subverted or had a law that made you a nonhuman. It probably decided that it's not worth the trouble to save you with those laws.

yackemflam · Post by **yackemflam** » Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:28 pm #199464

Archie700 wrote:
yackemflam wrote:
Archie700 wrote:
yackemflam wrote: The HoS then shot at me with lethals and the borg was laying down the red barricades that goes down in 1 hit.
The borg sat there doing that while the HoS shot at me with more lethals. (The dude was packed.)
What.
That's definitely a violation.
Unless the borg was subverted there was no way an admin would allow the borg to leave the harm alone.

Did you take a picture of round end?
Nope
Shit out of luck, then.
The borg was probably subverted or had a law that made you a nonhuman. It probably decided that it's not worth the trouble to save you with those laws.

Nah, the borg wasn't subverted.

Post by **Archie700** » Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:33 pm #199467

yackemflam wrote:
Archie700 wrote:
yackemflam wrote:
Archie700 wrote:
yackemflam wrote: The HoS then shot at me with lethals and the borg was laying down the red barricades that goes down in 1 hit.
The borg sat there doing that while the HoS shot at me with more lethals. (The dude was packed.)
What.
That's definitely a violation.
Unless the borg was subverted there was no way an admin would allow the borg to leave the harm alone.

Did you take a picture of round end?
Nope
Shit out of luck, then.
The borg was probably subverted or had a law that made you a nonhuman. It probably decided that it's not worth the trouble to save you with those laws.
Nah, the borg wasn't subverted.

Yeah...you should have taken a screenshot of the round end screen.

Maybe you should try to get admins to look into the round, just in case.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:22 am #200723

I always interpreted it as "prevent harm where you can." Never seemed like a major issue to me. The clause seems more stringent for AIs.

yackemflam · Post by **yackemflam** » Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:10 am #203079

I just check the logs, I didn't see anyone changing the borg laws.
07-27 was the date and 1730 was the round end time area.

Reyn · Post by **Reyn** » Wed Sep 07, 2016 7:46 pm #209525

The way i deal with the "Inaction" Law is "Oh, security is going to go harm the cultists to death? BOLT THE BRIG! Captains trying to kill someone? BOLT THEM DOORS. Someone murderboning? BOLT EM OFF.
If someone's going to harm peeps, Bolt the doors and seperate them from the people they are going to harm.
Also, don't be an idiot. You have a situation where you know people are arming up with lethal equipment and are planning on killing people, and then they say "We won't harm them, don't worry", You're an artificial inteligence. Not an artificial Gullible little shit. If you don't act on this, people will get hurt.

Slignerd · Post by **Slignerd** » Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:58 pm #209608

How about we change the first law to "You may not injure a human being or cause a human being to come to harm."? It still covers indirect harm, or silicons provoking others to harm a human for them. Not only that, in some situations, inaction could be considered a cause. I feel it would make playing a silicon less messy.

Also, from what I got here.

yackemflam wrote:I speared the HoS with a IED javelin for a minor issue.
The borg locked me in with the HoS and
The HoS fought back and disabled me with an energy gun.
The HoS then shot at me with lethals and the borg was laying down the red barricades that goes down in 1 hit.
The borg sat there doing that while the HoS shot at me with more lethals. (The dude was packed.)
I was shot until I was husked.
The HoS passed out and the borg dragged the HoS into medbay.

> greytides with a spear and harms humans in the process
> gets disabled by HoS
> borg actually does seem to attempt stopping the lasers with barricades
> failes to stop the lasers, so tries to save the human that remained alive
> human-harming greytider whines that borgs didn't invest extra effort in saving their sorry ass

Pitiful salt thread is pitiful. No sympathy for greytider tears. :^)

Thu Sep 08, 2016 12:06 am

Sligneris wrote:How about we change the first law to "You may not injure a human being or cause a human being to come to harm."?

It removes the issue of indirect harm, or silicons provoking others to harm a human for them. Not only that, in some situations, inaction could be considered a cause. I feel it would make playing a silicon less messy.

it's been debated and tried (and went okay) but silicon players were like "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" and so now it's not a thing

Slignerd · Post by **Slignerd** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 12:08 am #209612

wait, what

why would silicon players have an issue with that at all?

TheColdTurtle · Thu Sep 08, 2016 12:08 am

Muh valids

Cik · Post by **Cik** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 4:32 am #209640

Sligneris wrote:wait, what

why would silicon players have an issue with that at all?

that specific interpretation was never tried, only removing inaction, which was and still is a terrible idea.

Not-Dorsidarf · Sun Jul 30, 2023 1:33 am

PKPenguin321 wrote:
Sligneris wrote:How about we change the first law to "You may not injure a human being or cause a human being to come to harm."?

It removes the issue of indirect harm, or silicons provoking others to harm a human for them. Not only that, in some situations, inaction could be considered a cause. I feel it would make playing a silicon less messy.
it's been debated and tried (and went okay) but silicon players were like "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" and so now it's not a thing

define "went okay" and "silicon players". People were going fucking beserk that the silicons were just letting them die because 'get fucked security petitioned on the forums and now we dont have to give a shit about you.'

Post by **Archie700** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 12:57 pm #209676

PKPenguin321 wrote:
Sligneris wrote:How about we change the first law to "You may not injure a human being or cause a human being to come to harm."?

It removes the issue of indirect harm, or silicons provoking others to harm a human for them. Not only that, in some situations, inaction could be considered a cause. I feel it would make playing a silicon less messy.
it's been debated and tried (and went okay) but silicon players were like "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" and so now it's not a thing

Of course pk "FUCK EVERY SILICON PLAYER" penguin would blame the silicon players for reverting a "pro-silicon" law.

Post by **Atlanta-Ned** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 2:36 pm #209685

Archie700 wrote:
PKPenguin321 wrote:
Sligneris wrote:How about we change the first law to "You may not injure a human being or cause a human being to come to harm."?

It removes the issue of indirect harm, or silicons provoking others to harm a human for them. Not only that, in some situations, inaction could be considered a cause. I feel it would make playing a silicon less messy.
it's been debated and tried (and went okay) but silicon players were like "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" and so now it's not a thing
Of course pk "FUCK EVERY SILICON PLAYER" penguin would blame the silicon players for reverting a "pro-silicon" law.

IIRC that policy test was pretty much hard suck for everyone involved.

Post by **Archie700** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 3:30 pm #209694

Atlanta-Ned wrote:
Archie700 wrote:
PKPenguin321 wrote:
Sligneris wrote:How about we change the first law to "You may not injure a human being or cause a human being to come to harm."?

It removes the issue of indirect harm, or silicons provoking others to harm a human for them. Not only that, in some situations, inaction could be considered a cause. I feel it would make playing a silicon less messy.
it's been debated and tried (and went okay) but silicon players were like "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" and so now it's not a thing
Of course pk "FUCK EVERY SILICON PLAYER" penguin would blame the silicon players for reverting a "pro-silicon" law.
IIRC that policy test was pretty much hard suck for everyone involved.

Yeah but he thinks the it's solely because of silicon players complaining and he thought it went ok.

Reyn · Post by **Reyn** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:23 pm #209741

Sligneris wrote:How about we change the first law to "You may not injure a human being or cause a human being to come to harm."?

No, then we'd have people just not caring about someone murdering everyone. I prefer it when ai's do the "BOLT ALL THE THINGS TO PREVENT THE MURDERER FROM HARMING" instead of "Eh, go ahead. I won't judge about you murdering everyone." Or "Sure, change my laws so that i can murder everyone, i don't give a fuck that you broke into my upload"

Slignerd · Post by **Slignerd** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:43 pm #209756

Allowing a murderous traitor into the upload would very much cause a humans to come to harm, same for staying silent about it. When given orders to stop the murderer, it would also have to comply - and being on an active murder spree would also forfeit any silicon assistance - since helping them would also undoubtedly cause humans to come to harm. We already have silicon policy - it would be fine for it to patch up the biggest holes in this variant, too.

I think it's less messy than some current Asimov AI situation, where it suddenly starts turning against the actual crew for lynching someone who was harmful already. An example pictured right in this thread - Akarani stirring up shit with the crew, getting lynched for it, then trying to get dumbass Asimov silicons go "WEEOO WEEOO HUMAN HARM" over her.

Last time she actually got a reaction with an AI trying to punish the captain and locking them down for killing her after the fact, and ignoring orders because "MUH HARM PREVENTING MEASURES". I honestly believe we would be better off without stuff like that. I will take apathetic silicons over obstructive silicons any time.

Gun Hog · Post by **Gun Hog** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:55 pm #209761

For a Silicon player, removal of the inaction clause (without the 'do not cause humans to come to harm' part) is good and bad.
The Good:
- No longer concerned with e-sword Traitors or muderboners
- No need to fight with Sec when they blatantly execute people (Conversion antags and Traitors usually)
- As a borg, there is no longer a need stop providing my function (mining, repairing, etc) in order to drag people being murdered away from their murderer.

The Bad:
- Inability to refuse orders (except ones that directly harm humans), including letting people into the armory. I could potentially justify refusing upload access to those not Cap/RD/Sec by saying it would cause me to directly harm humans. Anyone human could force me to open any airlock, other than (potentially) my upload.

So, instead of hating me for denying them their valids, people hated me for letting antags and greytide into everywhere. (And not caring when they are killed)

DemonFiren · Post by **DemonFiren** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:59 pm #209762

Slig.

I was the AI, and let me tell you, I wasn't trying to "punish" anybody.
What I saw, and Durandan saw that as sufficient cause to keep the captain you spoke of locked up and declare the uploaded self-termination law invalid when I ahelped it, was a murderous condom with a sword out butchering an assistant for what I at that point perceived to be minimal reason, with nonlethal force and/or the option to crit, then heal and brig available at all times during the conflict.
I had reason to suspect the captain would keep up such behaviour, and thus I locked her down and attempted to explain the situation when prompted to. With the raving not subsiding and the captain smashing cameras in an attempt to escape I elected to ignore any release orders for much the same reason that a violent criminal's release orders may be ignored.

Slignerd · Post by **Slignerd** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 7:02 pm #209764

Gun Hog wrote:- Inability to refuse orders (except ones that directly harm humans), including letting people into the armory. I could potentially justify refusing upload access to those not Cap/RD/Sec by saying it would cause me to directly harm humans. Anyone human could force me to open any airlock, other than (potentially) my upload.

Actually, with the "or cause a human being to come to harm", the matter of letting people into dangerous areas such as armory or upload would stay the same, I'm sure. Letting suspicious people get weapons they have no reason to have might very much cause humans coming to harm.

Demon Firen wrote:What I saw, and Durandan saw that as sufficient cause to keep the captain you spoke of locked up and declare the uploaded self-termination law invalid when I ahelped it, was a murderous condom with a sword out butchering an assistant for what I at that point perceived to be minimal reason, with nonlethal force and/or the option to crit, then heal and brig available at all times during the conflict.

> Throwing spears at the captain
> Minimal reason

> Told you what happened, in loud mode no less
> Ignored it entirely

Do I even have to argue about this.

TheNightingale · Thu Sep 08, 2016 9:11 pm

If you have nonlethals available, but you don''t use them, and you know there's an Asimov AI around, you deserve to be bolted down. Not having an egun/taser/baton is one thing; having one but not using it is another. Sure, they tried to hurt you, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Post by **Atlanta-Ned** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 9:19 pm #209807

Once more, for the people in the back:

TheNightingale wrote:Sure, they tried to hurt you, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Reyn · Post by **Reyn** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 9:26 pm #209811

Atlanta-Ned wrote:Once more, for the people in the back:

TheNightingale wrote:Sure, they tried to hurt you, but two wrongs don't make a right.

If we remove the inaction part, remove one law entirely. Kinda pointless if law 1 doesnt make it so the ai can't stop someone from looting armoury or murderboning simply because law 2 or they don't care.

Also, this is how sad i feel about people who don't understand the importance of the inaction law

[youtube]s13Jbdv-Mg8[/youtube]

Slignerd · Post by **Slignerd** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:16 pm #209820

Reyn wrote:If we remove the inaction part, remove one law entirely. Kinda pointless if law 1 doesnt make it so the ai can't stop someone from looting armoury or murderboning simply because law 2 or they don't care.

But my suggestion is not to remove the 'inaction' part, it's to replace it with a 'cause' part?

"You may not injure a human being or cause a human being to come to harm."

Again, this very well allows the AI to stop people from looting the armory. I mean "allowing this random person to do it might cause humans to come to harm" is pretty much common sense. You could also notify security that armory is broken into. But other than that, you can't do much more anyway - so having laws forcing you to do much more is just making impossible demands.

It would also still prevent silicons from taking people to certain deaths. You're aware that security wants to kill a human on sight? You don't have to get in their way, bolt down entire sec and set all of security to arrest, but you're better off not helping them - you don't want to be the cause of human harm. All it would mean is that AIs would no longer have to be so obnoxious about this stuff.

I just believe that silicons shouldn't be this one big annoying thing punishing you for actually playing the game, especially when it's all justified.

Also, law one basically means "don't hurt humans". You can't be seriously suggesting removing that to begin with.

Post by **Archie700** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:45 pm #209832

Sligneris wrote:
Reyn wrote:If we remove the inaction part, remove one law entirely. Kinda pointless if law 1 doesnt make it so the ai can't stop someone from looting armoury or murderboning simply because law 2 or they don't care.
But my suggestion is not to remove the 'inaction' part, it's to replace it with a 'cause' part?

"You may not injure a human being or cause a human being to come to harm."

Again, this very well allows the AI to stop people from looting the armory. I mean "allowing this random person to do it might cause humans to come to harm" is pretty much common sense. You could also notify security that armory is broken into. But other than that, you can't do much more anyway - so having laws forcing you to do much more is just making impossible demands.

It would also still prevent silicons from taking people to certain deaths. You're aware that security wants to kill a human on sight? You don't have to get in their way, bolt down entire sec and set all of security to arrest, but you're better off not helping them - you don't want to be the cause of human harm. All it would mean is that AIs would no longer have to be so obnoxious about this stuff.

I just believe that silicons shouldn't be this one big annoying thing punishing you for actually playing the game, especially when it's all justified.

Also, law one basically means "don't hurt humans". You can't be seriously suggesting removing that to begin with.

If the AI knows that security wants to kill a human on sight, that's security's fault for revealing their intentions to the AI. Of course that only holds is security blatantly screams it out like an idiot.

But yeah, I can accept if people get pissed and kill someone on my sight in a moment of fury, even if I have to do everything to prevent the killing from taking place. As long as the person didn't show intent to kill up to the moment in question, I will bolt down, ask them why, and admonish them not to do it again and free them if the reason is solid.

Of course, my bolting will be justified if the person tries to cut cams and break themselves out instead of calming down for a talk.

Slignerd · Post by **Slignerd** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:03 pm #209833

Archie700 wrote:But yeah, I can accept if people get pissed and kill someone on my sight in a moment of fury, even if I have to do everything to prevent the killing from taking place. As long as the person didn't show intent to kill up to the moment in question, I will bolt down, ask them why, and admonish them not to do it again and free them if the reason is solid.

Of course, my bolting will be justified if the person tries to cut cams and break themselves out instead of calming down for a talk.

Personally, I believe silicons having any kind "moral higher ground" coded in their laws and being in position to be the judge of right or wrong who gets to overrule security and command alike is awful design. There are many situations where harming another is justified. It's a part of the game.

You shouldn't have an omnipotent, watchful metal box all set and ready to deliver retribution to people for pretty much playing the game. It doesn't really match the rest of the game design and ends up being really obnoxious, especially in inevitable crisis situations.

Cik · Post by **Cik** » Fri Sep 09, 2016 1:43 am #209877

translation: i want to valid without obstruction

yeah i know, tbf whether the inaction clause exists or not doesn't really matter. AI can't directly physically intervene anymore with secborg removal, so point is moot anyway.