HukHukHuk, server #2, about 6:30am GMT+10, 18th of September

[BlackPhoenix]

I'd rather not have mentioned it, but I am this way due to being Autistic. A mental "disability"; how is that so different from racism?

There's a guy who said something incredibly similar to this somewhere in the dumb pubbies section of the wiki.

[Winterous]

I'd rather not have mentioned it, but I am this way due to being Autistic. A mental "disability"; how is that so different from racism?

There's a guy who said something incredibly similar to this somewhere in the dumb pubbies section of the wiki.

This?
http://wiki.ss13.co/Dumb_Pubbies#Asrohc.2C_18_June_2009

Well, now that you can compare them, I'm sure you'll find that there's a big difference.
This guy's just babbling, I'm presenting my condition as an example of how my psychological differences to Popecrunch actually exist and are innate, rather than me intentionally trying to twist logic to excuse griefing.

[TheRedScare]

I was on this round and I ran into the core to try to stop Brick, I looked and realized he went back into space so I gibbed myself to watch, I was watching Brick try to break into the core, and saw Winterous leave him to die in an airless environment.
As far as your argument about you not causing harm goes
"The harm prevention clause isn't in Law 1 anymore, and to clarify: No action I took put him in the harmful situation in the first place."
It is absolute crap. You did lead to his death, "You may not injure a human being or cause one to come to harm."
You dragging him into an area still decompressed and leaving him is causing harm. Your logic dictates that if a traitor is suffocating and obviously in harm dragging him into an area that still causes him harm then leaving him is okay because its not you directly causing it.
Its true you aren't directly causing it but you are still contributing to his harm.

[Jerkops]

For what it's worth, I think this should be an appeal. Did you make this an admin complaint so you could get other people to post their interpretation of the laws?

This case seems clear to me. He obviously didn't directly injure Brick. He didn't cause him to come to harm - being in space naked caused the harm. If he had caused Brick to be in space naked, he would have been breaking his laws.

Its true you aren't directly causing it but you are still contributing to his harm.

What constitutes "contributing to harm" that isn't covered by "causing harm?"

[Dauntasa]

Somebody chose to take out "inaction" from law 1. That was probably a mistake, but it means that if someone is already in an airless room failing to drag them out doesn't actually break any laws, even if you drag them around in the airless room for a little while. Hell, he was dragged closer to the door, meaning that even though he still died the borg actually improved his overall situation, which based on the laws he didn't have to do.


Changing the AI laws and then banning people based on breaking the old laws is not good policy.

[LunaticLawyer]

Somebody chose to take out "inaction" from law 1. That was probably a mistake, but it means that if someone is already in an airless room failing to drag them out doesn't actually break any laws, even if you drag them around in the airless room for a little while. Hell, he was dragged closer to the door, meaning that even though he still died the borg actually improved his overall situation, which based on the laws he didn't have to do.


Changing the AI laws and then banning people based on breaking the old laws is not good policy.

Straight from the wiki:
"1. You may not injure a human being or cause one to come to harm."
He dragged him out of space, yes, but from what I can read, it was directly into a decompressed room. While it isn't any better than space, the very fact that he dragged him to a decompressed room and left him there caused the human harm. It has nothing to do with the old law.

[Dauntasa]

Straight from the wiki:
"1. You may not injure a human being or cause one to come to harm."
He dragged him out of space, yes, but from what I can read, it was directly into a decompressed room. While it isn't any better than space, the very fact that he dragged him to a decompressed room and left him there caused the human harm. It has nothing to do with the old law.

Situation A: borg doesn't do shit. Human suffocates/freezes in space and dies.
Situation B: borg stops helping halfway through. Human suffocates in airless room and dies.

Outcome was not changed. Therefore, the borg allowed harm to come to a human by failing to act, but since that's not actually in the law anymore no laws were broken. In fact, since you die from cold as well as lack of air in space, the borg actually extended the human's life. The human's situation was actually improved. In the old law set, failing to improve it to the point where he would live would be against the law, but since that part of the law has been removed(mistakenly, I think), then no laws were broken. The borg didn't put a safe human into a dangerous situation. He put a dying human into a slightly less dangerous situation.

[LunaticLawyer]

Situation A: borg doesn't do shit. Human suffocates/freezes in space and dies.
Situation B: borg stops helping halfway through. Human suffocates in airless room and dies.

Outcome was not changed. Therefore, the borg allowed harm to come to a human by failing to act, but since that's not actually in the law anymore no laws were broken. In fact, since you die from cold as well as lack of air in space, the borg actually extended the human's life. The human's situation was actually improved. In the old law set, failing to improve it to the point where he would live would be against the law, but since that part of the law has been removed(mistakenly, I think), then no laws were broken. The borg didn't put a safe human into a dangerous situation. He put a dying human into a slightly less dangerous situation.

I'm not arguing about the implications the old law would have on this situation, but the current law one. Firstly, the fact that he dragged him to a less dangerous situation means nothing, the very fact he's still in a dangerous situation is the problem. The borg nevertheless put him into a dangerous situation, which, (a borg may not cause a human to come to harm) caused the human to come to harm through there not being air to breathe. Had he not removed the human from space (inaction, which was removed, but is still shitty to do) he would have been completely within the laws in my eyes.

[Dauntasa]

I'm not arguing about the implications the old law would have on this situation, but the current law one. Firstly, the fact that he dragged him to a less dangerous situation means nothing, the very fact he's still in a dangerous situation is the problem. The borg nevertheless put him into a dangerous situation, which, (a borg may not cause a human to come to harm) caused the human to come to harm through there not being air to breathe. Had he not removed the human from space (inaction, which was removed, but is still shitty to do) he would have been completely within the laws in my eyes.

Rather than taking the situation as "Human in space" being changed to "Human in Airless Room", treat it as "Human lacks air" being changed to "Human lacks air". The situation that the human is dying because he has no air was not altered by the borg in any way, and so under current laws he did not cause harm to the human.

[Winterous]

This is what I'm talking about, the fact that what constitutes CAUSING harm can be debated like this; a conclusion is needed.

And to clarify what happened... He was in space, over space; I dragged him like 10 tiles, he was still in space, but over ground. I didn't take him through any doors or anything.

[Readster]

Everything about this thread is stupid and letting somebody die because they're a traitor is stupid.

[Winterous]

Everything about this thread is stupid and letting somebody die because they're a traitor is stupid.

Stupid yes, in retrospect what I did served in no way to make the game more interesting or fun, so regardless of whether or not the laws permitted me to abandon him I should have at very least tried to drag him to medbay.
Making the game more fun for everyone is the goal, and I lost sight of that at the time.

[LunaticLawyer]

Rather than taking the situation as "Human in space" being changed to "Human in Airless Room", treat it as "Human lacks air" being changed to "Human lacks air". The situation that the human is dying because he has no air was not altered by the borg in any way, and so under current laws he did not cause harm to the human.

It's not even so much about the outcome as much as it is about the events. The fact that the borg dragged the dying human to a place that was lacking air is grounds for the borg having caused him harm. Yes, he was in the same harm while on the space tile, but the borg brought him somewhere where he'd be harmed nonetheless.

Needless to say, neither of us are ceding anything, so really we're going to keep talking in circles and drag this dumb thread on and on. If anything this thread needs to be separated into two threads, one jobban appeal and one in general discussion to discuss the AIs laws.

[popecrunch]

Did you seriously just compare you getting yelled at for rules lawyering to racism.

You know what, I'm going to go out on a limb here. If Wonk wants to beat me up for it later, so be it, but: Get bent. To back this up with something with a little more meat on it, may I refer you to the wiki rules page:

"Bear in mind that the rules are general guidelines! Don't try to weasel or lawyer out of trouble. If the admin staff decides you are a problem for other players you can and will be removed for absolutely no reason! Deal with it! The spirit of the rules is what gets enforced, so things that are not on any rules list but are undoubtedly shit will still get you punished/banned."

Read that, then read it again, then read it a third time. The rules are INTENTIONALLY WRITTEN such as to SPECIFICALLY NOT codify every possible interaction into a big list of 'okay' and 'not okay'. This is because if we DID stick with a list of 'these are the things that are not okay, this is an exhaustive list' then we'd get shitbirds combing through the rules looking for loopholes and breaking the SPIRIT of the law if not the LETTER.

Or, you know, exactly what you did. You broke the SPIRIT of the rule. If you honestly cannot see how your actions weren't okay in the GENERAL SPIRIT of the rules, even if you found what you think (incorrectly) is a loophole, then maybe you shouldn't play here. Just because something isn't specifically listed as 'not okay' doesn't mean it is okay. Just because the DON'T DO THIS SHIT: list doesn't include your EXACT infraction doesn't mean you get away with it. You fucked up, the fact that you're trying to rules lawyer your way out of it is MAKING IT WORSE, and you really, really should stop. Right now.

[Winterous]

Did you seriously just compare you getting yelled at for rules lawyering to racism.

You're misrepresenting what I said, or maybe I miscommunicated what I meant.
I said "I am rules lawyering" with the intention of meaning that, to you it would be rules lawyering, but to ME it's simply the way I think; I think in technicalities and sometimes overlook implied meaning that would be obvious to most people.

I compared it to racism in that this is an innate thing, something that I can't control, and the post I was quoting at the time was saying quite awful things about my character based upon an accusation of trying to find a loophole. To me it's not finding a loophole, it's part of the process of understanding, and THAT is the basis on which I compared it to racism. Perhaps it was too extreme a comparison, but having never been the subject of racism it made me feel how I imagine racial attacks would; vulnerable and treated unfairly.

You're right though, I have overlooked some things and misunderstood the "spirit" of the rules, and I apologise for my failure in that regard; I was genuinely not trying to grief and then weasel my way out of it, it was largely just a failure to examine the rules extensively and come to the right conclusion.
That is my personal failure, and I accept responsibility for it; I do not use my differences as an excuse, and I was somewhat offended when (at least it's how I interpreted it) BlackPhoenix implied that I was using it as an excuse.


And in my previous post, Readster's comment made me realise that, regardless of technicality, what I did was against the spirit of the game; I lost sight of that in the moment and I am sorry, I have learned from this situation and I will strive to do better in the future.
I cannot promise that I will not make similar mistakes, but I can promise that I will try.
Please believe me when I say I have nothing but the best intentions for this community, normally I try in my own ham-fisted way to improve the experience for those I interact with.

And please, most importantly of all, please try and clarify on the Laws wiki page a few examples of what constitutes harm, because I would hate for others like myself to fall into this same trap.


Fuck like all of my posts in this thread have been super long.