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

[Readster]

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;

Oh hey I did some good. Would ya look at that.

[Sundance]

My 2c, for what it's worth, i've read the entire thread.
I believe what winterous did was pretty wrong and against the spirit of the game, but whether it was a clear and utter breach of goon rules that deserved a job-ban is of question, but that's not for me to decide.
The AI laws are made to be ambiguous for this reason, but ambiguity doesn't defend against a borg being a total dick. To clarify, security who aren't bound to any strict laws have every right to murder a traitor once caught because they are essentially free game, but most don't because it really goes against the spirit of goon, which when it all boils down to it all is fun really. Being a ghost ain't too fun. Leaving the dude to suffocate isn't fun.

You said that he was a traitor, if he was trying to kill you while suffocating himself, then you could invoke law 3 and leave him there but that didn't happen. He was unconscious and didn't demand to be let out, so law 2 didn't come into play.
You acted to save him, then chose not to. You argue that if you never started saving him in the first place then the outcome would've been the same but the whole point is that they are two total different scenarios and you chose the former, the wrong one.
I sympathize with you however, I don't really believe what happened to both players was particularly fair, and this could've been avoided if the wiki be updated.

[Winterous]

Thanks Sundance, I think you're dead right.

[UrsulaMejor]

We talked about it on irc and we came to the conclusion that you had to physically drop him in order to stop saving him, I e., hit the pull button to stop pulling him. Dropping him was an action that led to harm, i.e. a violation of law one

[Winterous]

Well that's a fair enough conclusion, and I hope it gets put up on the wiki as an example of indirect harm.

[Preid]

It may not be my place to say this, but the fact that a cyborg dragged a dead body 10 spaces then stopped turning into this is absolutely ridiculous. As it stands I can see where his choices may have been shitty for one person but at the same time it's not like he did anything to kill him. It is a simple fact that dead = dead, and nothing you do to a dead body can make it deader. Understanding this, it is no longer a debate as to whether he cause harm but if he was making the round less interesting as according to your opinion. If you chose to punish him for interpreting the laws as that he does not need to drag a dead body to genetics over everything else then you should put that clearly in the laws to prevent such misinterpretations in the future.

[CaptainBravo]

the guy was still suffocating to death at the time.

[Preid]

the guy was still suffocating to death at the time.

Ah, I see now that I misinterpreted the first post as him having just died, that is quite embarrassing. I still think the laws should be adjusted to return the inaction clause though is that were the case, seeing as that is what this debate boils down to.

[Winterous]

the guy was still suffocating to death at the time.

Ah, I see now that I misinterpreted the first post as him having just died, that is quite embarrassing. I still think the laws should be adjusted to return the inaction clause though is that were the case, seeing as that is what this debate boils down to.

I think the inaction clause has too far-reaching effects on gameplay; it means the AI has to bolt security from getting to a traitor so they don't beat him to death, it means the AI has to bolt the doors to their upload so that laws which demand harm too (what are currently considered) humans don't get uploaded.
It demands an unreasonable amount of caution, and it's not good for gameplay.

I think that a reasonable wording would be something like...

Code:

You cannot, through action, cause a human to come to harm, or allow one to be harmed.

This would remove the ambiguity in my situation; my action was to stop dragging him to safety, which allowed him to come to harm; I maintain that it did not CAUSE harm since he was already subject to it (and in fact the position I left him was less harmful than where he was at first), but it definitely was ALLOWING harm.

Admins, what are your thoughts on that wording change?

[Katznelson]

My two cents:

The 1st law as quoted by Asimov says "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm" (the wiki has this wrongly worded)

Someone is being harmed by lying in space without the right equipment. As a cyborg you have a duty to disallow further harm to the human in question regardless of how much of a traitorous shitlorde he was. Save him, heal him, and make snide remarks on how inferior a fleshy meatbag the person you saved is. You do not let someone die just because he was a traitor who may harm others. This logic is dumb on the cyborg's fault.

Key words are not, allow, human and harm. You did NOT finish your assist of a human, you ALLOWED a human to come to HARM by abandoning him and you let him die thereby breaking the first law.

[Winterous]

Katz the "through inaction" part of the law isn't in the game anymore, it only requires the being not to cause harm through their actions.

[Katznelson]

Katz the "through inaction" part of the law isn't in the game anymore, it only requires the being not to cause harm through their actions.

Causing harm? You as a borg abandoned him in mid-rescue whereby causing him even more greater harm through extending the amount of time spent in deadly space.

[Katznelson]

To paraphrase: By even acting to save him effectively obligates you as the cyborg to ensure his safety. Your obligation and duty as a cyborg effectively binds you into seeking his rescue to hospitable areas.

[Mrduckbillface]

Right, okay. This thread became one of those "let's give this guy shit forever" things, which I hate. But I'll give my opinion anyway.

First off, do I think Winterous was being a fun-hating hitler? Yes. But I do not think he deserved the punishment he got. In fact, I don't think he deserved any punishment. I think Winter was acting inside the laws at the time of this going down. Winter did not kill that human, lack of air did. And whether or not he pulled him out of the room where he died is irrelevant. Through no action did he kill that human, and the inaction part of the law is no longer around so that doesn't count ether.

So what I'm saying is this. I wouldn't do this, and I don't think anyone else should, but I think his actions in that round were deserving of a gib at most. I think Huk may have over reacted a bit. If I were him I would have gibbed Winter and told him to knock that shit off and leave it at that.

Winter don't think I'm on your side or anything, you need to chill out way more than Huk does.

Racism?!?! Are you kidding me?

[Winterous]

Winter don't think I'm on your side or anything, you need to chill out way more than Huk does.

Racism?!?! Are you kidding me?

Chill out? I've been (excluding response to that one guy who was just being a dick) completely calm and respectful through the entire thread, I've not been abusing anyone or accusing anyone of anything more than making a bad call.

And the comparison to racism: Maybe it was a dumb comparison, but I did further explain it in one of my posts.