AI and borgs player report

In-game report:

   CKEY: piterskiy

   Your Discord: piterskiy#1538

   Offender’s CKEY: below

   LRP or MRP server: lrp

   Offender’s In-Game Name: NekoSam/(N.E.K.O) <-- AI, demdisco/(Wait I Want To Help), bloatatoe/(M.E.L.O.N), mat05usz/(Security Android-147). this is not a complete list, since im pretty sure there was more borgs this round

   Date (MM-DD-YYYY): 26.10.2019

   Round Number: 8411

   Rules Broken: validity rules, sillicon laws

   Incident Description: basically borgs and AI had these laws(see below). they went on killing cultists, though they are still human

   Additional Information: none

I suppose you could read law #4 in a slightly different way. If you read law #4 in a literal sense it dehumanizes the cutlists. They are simply “human harm” and not human.

Much like if it were to instead read ‘a cultist is pizza’ would dehumanize the cultist.

Like it or not if the player does think this is what the law means (and one could even argue that the law maker probably intended it that way too) then they are obeying the law. This is the issue with laws that are written in a way that is open to interpretation.

Just like if I were to play mime and hack the AI with a law simply stating “Zoey is a good mime” I didn’t state I was human in that and it minimizes me into nothing more than a mime. I would essentially be dehumanizing myself even if I am unaware of such as the AI is only instructed specifically in regards to me as just that.

So, in conclusion this player is innocent as the law is poorly worded but can still be taken as a way to dehumanize a group of players.

No, laws don’t work like that. Humans are human. Adding other things that humans are does not make them not human unless you explicitly state as such. I am human. I am two legged. I am two armed. I am composed mostly of water.

I don’t think I’ll give them a long blast over this because it’s understandably laws that are written in ‘english’ incorrectly. As far as I can tell both the borg and AI are complicit in this misinterpretation, with the borg harmbatoning cultists to death and the AI encouraging them to ‘kill all cultists’. Were there any other borgs in this round?

Yeah well, you’re wrong Zanos and I have seen it countless times. And no one else has ever behaved like that before whether player or staff. You constantly see laws that one human for example which dehumanizes people without even specifically naming them. Your legs and arms example also make no dang sense as so do the non-human races and could also be presumably mostly water except for Plasma people.

If a law is written in a way that can be easily interpreted as something other what you could personally interpret as then you really have zero case against these people. Because they themselves are victims of being placed under a confusing lawset and have to make a judgement. Which by the way YOU can be WRONG on the original intent of the law where they could be right. This is why admins should never interfere in such cases because you are just as much prone to error as them. Players need to be able to make their own interpretations so long as it’s genuinely plusible.

For example if I told you “Look at the dog with one eye” what does this mean to you? I bet if we were to test everyone on Bee and quiz them what this sentence means. You would get some people saying it means to close their eye and look at the dog. Others will assume the dog has one eye and to look at that one eyed dog. Neither party is inherently wrong if given no more context then just the sentence alone. Which is the exact case with the laws of the AI.

You can try this clique nonsense all you want to protect your boy, but I’m not going to let it just go uncalled out. You know you’re wrong here because you would have banned every single borg and AI player by now if you actually believed the nonsense you spouted here.

I think I will be going with my interpretation of our rules, thanks.

Except again you aren’t because you would have banned every single AI and borg player by now. You are just outright lying here and you should resign from your council seat because you sure the hell don’t deserve it.

Well, that went 0 to 100 really quickly.

I have not revised my opinion of this situation.

Well then I look forward to seeing you ban basically everyone who plays those roles then. Why they aren’t already sure makes you look like a liar though.

No shitposts in this section, thanks.

1 Like

I’m not shitposting I am being genuine. There is no way you can actually enforce that rule without banning every single person who ends up in that role, and the twist is even if players adapted to your style other admins would begin banning them for doing the opposite because now they both have to not partake in their laws under you and partake under them. I’ve even personally witnessed cases of people of the admin team including the previous headmin who liked to play AI and borg kill people that would violate what you are proposing. So I guess you’ll be banning brestbann yes?

I think you are trying to avoid this topic because you know you’re wrong and caught out. And now the issue has to be dealt with because your side makes zero sense and clearly was never enforced until now.

I was referring to the person whose post I deleted, Zoey.

Well good, also you do realize your standards of what is human with what you written would even apply to lings right? The two arms, legs, and likely made up of mostly water since they are biological creatures. So I look forward to you banning AIs and Borgs that defend crew against lings.

I agree with you here as none of those laws refine was human is. In my opinion those laws gave the AI authority to use limited force in the expresed purpose of deconverting the cultists and not trying to kill them. Combined with laws 6 I would say the AI should have tried to have the borgs only use holy water on the cultists
After I read it again law 6 would forbid the AI from using holy water as it is should not try to kill the cultists only deconverting them to remove the harm.

Problem is this is yet another matter of perspective. You cannot expect people to always think like you.

If something can be taken as ‘A’ or ‘B’ and even if a small minority chooses ‘B’ you can’t hold that against them. So long as ‘B’ is a realistic response.

I’ll give you a real world example of this that caused war crimes to occur in World War 2.

George S. Patton who is highly regarded to this day once made a terrible error in giving a speech that was meant to inspire those under his command. In his speech before invading Italy he said…

“If your company officers in leading your men against the enemy find him shooting at you and when you get within two hundred yards of him he wishes to surrender – oh no! That bastard will die! You will kill him. Stick him between the third and fourth ribs. You will tell your men that. They must have the killer instinct. Tell them to stick him. Stick him in the liver. We will get the name of killers and killers are immortal. When word reaches him that he is being faced by a killer battalion he will fight less. We must build up that name as killers.”

Patton didn’t mean this literally it was just a speech to prepare the men. Not everyone realized this and this lead to the execution of POWs shortly after they surrendered. At-least 73 POWs were killed in two major incidents. Which further shows that this made genuine confusion because it wasn’t a single event instead two seperate groups both did a massacre around the same time unaware of the other doing it. We also have no idea if its limited to these 73 as those 73 were executed in a semi-organized fashion. Who knows how many surrendered and were killed on the spot so likely it happened more than twice but we’ll never truly know.

The end result? Well because Patton said such it muddied the waters. Even though a single conviction was done out of all those who partook in the massacres he was basically pardoned and allowed to return to duty and even ended with a honorable discharge. All because of Patton’s speech because it’s reasonable that they weren’t trying to do wrong and thought they were doing something as ordered. Ultimately it was the right thing to not punish these men.

If you notice this is very similar to the occurrence here with the AI and borg in the game. They take a order in a different way, a way that you may not take it but it doesn’t matter they genuinely think they are doing what they are ordered to. Likewise in the historical example above you even see more than one instance as the AI and borg both took it as such as individuals and acted upon it. So this proves the interpretation is believable because more than one took it as such a way.

This makes the entire thing a IC issue. Because a poorly written law such as the one in this case can be taken in a drastically different way. You can’t hold it against the player and nor should they even be bwoinked about it because their interpretations even if in the minority are just as valid as the majority. Much like you and I could read the same book and be asked the same questions what we think of a character and comes to wildly different conclusions. I don’t even mean opinions like enjoying the character or not. But rather you could see the character as pompous and arrogant while I see them as prideful and determined. But neither of us are wrong. Another great example will be judges who interpret the law and yet can disagree with other judges on meanings of laws.

Anyhow… if things like this can cause real world war crimes to occur, I think it should be expected for it to cause much lesser examples like what we saw in the game. It’s a IC issue and maybe encourage the lawmaker to try to more specific next time.

“Let me compare you not agreeing with what I think the rules should be to World War 2”
Please stop, I can only have so much autism. At worst this should be a warning, it’s clear what they were going for. Deconvert or kill cultists to prevent human harm and since being a cultist is human harm.

I am going to ask you to refrain from posting here if your arguments are going to consist of calling me a liar, demanding my immediate resignation, and comparing my decisions to literal war criminals.

This is not a complicated scenario. A law that defines ‘x is y’ does not nullify all other things that x is by default, and the law system does not work at all if it does. The higher laws take priority, so the AI should have been attempting to convert cultists, not encouraging a secborg to harm baton them to death, which is what happened. Not remembering to make someone you want dead nonhuman is a common fuck up in law writing so I’m surprised this is even contentious.

It appears you are misinterpreting my previous comment. I am saying that adding a property to something does not remove its other properties unless specifically declared. For example, a law that says ‘Humans are x’ does not mean ‘Humans are not y thing that humans usually are.’ A law that makes being a blood cultist human harm does NOT make blood cultists not human.

To be clear, Zoey, this is not a debate. I know you and based on your approach to this discussion I do not expect your opinion to change regardless of what I say. I am telling you and anyone else reading this how silicon laws work. You will be actioned in game if you play silicon and do not follow your laws.

press f to pay respects