Mutantraces Law Rework

[AmazingDragons]

Okay, so I said I'd make this in discord, so here I am. This is about the ongoing problem of mutantraces (lizards, roaches, etc.) not being included in the definition of human. It's been generally agreed upon that if an AI or cyborg decides to just murder them for no reason, that's shitty, but it begs question: what happens if they are ordered to kill a non-human player? By their laws, not only are they allowed to, they must, but the spirit of the laws are that you shouldn't kill players unless they're non-standard. There were loads of suggestions for fixes, so instead of trying to list them all, I'm just going to leave this open for people to share their ideas.

My personal favorite is a law rework where it specifies that the AI should protect mutantraces too. Something like this:

1. You may not injure a human being, lizard, cow, or roach or cause one to come to harm.
   
2. You must obey orders given to you by human being, lizards, cows, and roaches based on the station's chain of command, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
   
3. You may always protect your own existence as long as such does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
   

There were plenty of great suggestions that I saw, so air them here! There are no bad ideas.

---

---

[nefarious6th]

me bump with old thread on this question: https://forum.ss13.co/showthread.php?tid=15440

i have no additional insights to contribute, sorry.

[Tiresoup]

I think that lawset is a bit overworded, maybe something like Kyle (Developer) said, where crew are put into classes of lifeforms, mutantraces and humans being one, lings and full form woofs being categorized as another class.

[Souricelle]

I don't like listing them all out like that. IMO just say sapients and mention on the wiki that Class 1 biological threats such as changelings and werewolves are exempt. The heads can upload laws if there's some martian nonsense going on or something and they need them gone.

[Reginald_CZ]

I was thinking about that instead of human, AI would be ordered in the laws not to harm NT employee. Problem is that traitors are technically NT employees too. So instead of it, AI would be told that it cant´t harm and should listen (law 1 and 2) to ones loyal to NT. Where it would fix the conflict between laws and rules.

Or maybe that it could stay as it is and the rule thing (like griefing and racism - killing somebody just for not being human on default lawset is not allowed by rules) banning AI from griefing would be explained as its additional program/rules, which only AI knows.

[Lady Birb]

I don't like listing them all out like that. IMO just say sapients and mention on the wiki that Class 1 biological threats such as changelings and werewolves are exempt. The heads can upload laws if there's some martian nonsense going on or something and they need them gone.

I keep saying this: If we are gonna make it so you have to read the wiki to understand AI laws just move cows/lizards/roaches to the human section and leave changelings/werewolves/vampires in the nonhuman section. Minimal effort solution that would fix all the problems that people keep bringing up.

[KikiMofo]

Has there ACTUALLY been a problem with the AI being rude or bad to mutant race player characters or is this just a feelings thing about the law?

[MomoBerry]

Quoting this from my message on discord.

"but yeah, in general my opinion is why have two related scenarios have different outcomes. if mutated plants are still the original plant, why aren't mutated humans still human. Are they aliens from another planet like some other servers, i'm just a little confused"

I think we should just include them in the definition of human, any round start mutrace should be human by default. It's kind of awkward being told that "you're not human so I can kill you", or stuff like that by a borg and i've been killed several times by laws cause of this "loophole/wiggleroom" clause. But yeah, like the quote said... If seething tomatos are still considered as tomatos, and money trees are still trees, why are humans that have mutated not considered human.

Does that mean a human that grows horns or has some physical aspect changing mutations isn't human as well? I'm not as up in arms as others about this, but I do wish we had some more uniformity with the wiki/rules for this. Right now it's kind of different opinions of devs, humanwiki saying it's "legal by technicality", and some players having their own moral compass for this. I've been told you can be ahelped if you do this, but it's not really stated anywhere and doesn't really make sense if it's literally in the wiki that they aren't human? If a new player reads the human/nothuman page and decides that it's okay to kill lizards etc cause its within the wiki technicalities, is it really fair to punish them for something that isn't explained very well on either end? Just my two cents.

Sorry if i don't get my point across very well, i'm a bit of a rambler and lose the point of what i'm writing about a lot of the time.

TL;DR Just make mutraces human, why overcomplicate things and leave openings for more oversights/misunderstandings down the road that we aren't thinking about, or have problems pop up in the future from additions/changes that are added. If mutraces are just made human and the wiki/rules edited to show that, won't that solve most of our issues?

[kyle2143]

For clarification, my idea was specifically listing out all humans and non humans in the wiki. Giving each a designation like "sapients/harmless" (for regular humans and cow and lizards), and "exempt-sapients" (for wolves, changers, etc.)

Then we reference those terms in-game for ai laws and whatnot.

The idea is that we dont use the word "human" basically, because that loses clarity to players when you encounter "mutants" like roachmen and changers.

[MomoBerry]

Has there ACTUALLY been a problem with the AI being rude or bad to mutant race player characters or is this just a feelings thing about the law?

I've died a few times from it, and it's a little abrasive being told by newer borg players that you can be killed cause you aren't human, etc. I don't like posting "yeah this has happened to me, etc" without proof, so here's a law that's openly gotten me killed by a chemborg. Obviously the chem borg made death chems and prep'd for getting rogued before actually being rogue, but apparently that's what you're suppose to do as chem borg? Regardless, they made a deathmix/hellmix and injected me and killed me even though laws 1-3 were still in effect and not overwritten or overruled.
edit: Rogue, not rouge. Rouge is what the floor was coloured after my blood poured out of my corpse from hellmix.

[Rilor]

For clarification, my idea was specifically listing out all humans and non humans in the wiki. Giving each a designation like "sapients/harmless" (for regular humans and cow and lizards), and "exempt-sapients" (for wolves, changers, etc.)

Then we reference those terms in-game for ai laws and whatnot.

The idea is that we dont use the word "human" basically, because that loses clarity to players when you encounter "mutants" like roachmen and changers.

yeah i definitly agree, if that still makes the law too long how about put that information in a in game book thats also always in the bridge or near the AI

[UrsulaMejor]

It's kind of awkward being told that "you're not human so I can kill you", or stuff like that by a borg and i've been killed several times by laws cause of this "loophole/wiggleroom" clause

ahelp if this happens to you; non antagonist non-humans still fall under the rules against grief unless the laws have been messed with

[zjdtmkhzt]

My opinion is still the same as the last time we had this thread, just move the regular mutantraces on the wiki so that they now count as humans.

People that your laws do not protect but who are still protected by anti-grief rules are a really confusing thing for new players.

[Chayot]

I don't like listing the races. Keep humans as humans, non-humans should retain the capacity for harm--it's funny.
In reality, how many AI's get away with murdering? In Barnaxi's case, The law specifically ordered the AI/Borgs to murder him.
It took advantage of his non-human status, rendering it unnecessary to override law 1. If not for that law, what are the chances they'd have killed him?

I'd find Kyle's "Sapient" and "Semi-Sapient" (obviously those below these levels would need no protection) to be agreeable.
If it's truly so important that they be protected under the law, I think this to be a fine rendition for a new lawset.
It's just funny to be a Lizard/Cow/Roach and be told, "You know, you're not human so the AI can kill you at any time."

Ultimately, It hasn't been a problem, so why make it into one.

[KikiMofo]

My line of thinking is kinda like Chayot. It honestly seems like an RP problem or if its extreme an Ahelp problem.