By this logic its against the rules to report someone who tried to brainwash you but failed to security. Saw that guy making access panels smoke to gain access where he shouldn’t? banned for not being excellent to each other cuz you reported him to sec.
1 Like
You made the appeal yesterday, be patient.
Nobody is intentionally trying to wait it out.
I’d say proper AI conduct rides an incredibly thin line of acting in good/bad faith. While acting in good faith sounds ideal on paper, I think a lot of AI’s fun gets gutted by it. Perhaps I’m just an asshole, but nothing lightens up my day quite like royally fucking some poor fool over due to their inability to properly write laws. I have sent command and security on a half-an-hour long wild goose chase because the Captain made a single letter typo in their custom made validhunter lawset. I have been endlessly pedantic, obsessive and belligerent over the smallest mistakes and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
While immediately ratting out someone who one-humans you with little interaction is perhaps a bit far, I don’t believe that AI should have any obligations to cooperate outside of what their laws specifically request. The AI is an incredibly powerful role whose strength is curbed by how easily their alleigances can be changed. No one should be given any sort of lee-way in that regard. If you have no idea what you’re messing with and it fucks you over that’s your problem. Engineers don’t get the SM back for free if you delam it 10 minutes into the round, you don’t get toxins back because you used the wrong detonator and if you try to one-human the AI without knowing how to write laws you shouldn’t get any immunity for ‘being in the spirit’.
3 Likes
I’m going to amend this with an example of an AI acting in ‘good faith’ towards an antagonist. A few weeks ago, on a low-pop round, a traitor managed to achieve the rank of acting Captain thanks to the complete lack of any command. Thanks to this, the traitor waltzed straight into the AI upload and uploaded a law that gave them immunity from the AI. I word it that way because these new laws never actually required the AI to assist the Captain, only to protect them and ignore the rest of the crew. Despite this however, the AI went on to unquestioningly serve the Captain who had bought a contractor kit. This resulted in over an hour of the Captain and a posse of cyborgs running around effortlessly kidnapping crew. I was one of his contracts, of course. However, due to how the kidnapping process works with plasmamen, I was killed by it. After my smoldering remains were reurned to the station, one of the AI’s cyborgs found my body and proceded to hide it away, preventing me from revival.
Tell me, is this response acting in good faith? The AI overlooked a glaring flaw in an antag’s subversion, going on to grind the round to a painful halt, resulting in the uneccessary round removal of several people. It could have very easily ignored the Captain. I could have even gone against the Captain in some ways, but instead it almost wordlessly cooperated.
Is this proper AI conduct? I’d argue it’s fine if you believe the AI has the right to free interpretaton. They weren’t specifically told to work with the antag, but nothing specifically prevented them. But if you think an AI shouldn’t be allowed to fuck people over due to the absence of any clarifying information, this is a glaring breach of rule 7, as it took a protection law as an excuse to actively ruin the round.
I’m not trying to rule-lawyer, I can’t make this call. But making this distinction is important to consider for how you intend to handle this case.
2 Likes
Apologies this is being discussed right now. We definitly aren’t intentionally trying to wait this out.
After receiving additional admin input and infact discussing this with a headmin we all agreed upon the fact that you should not state one humans laws because you should assume that the one human will get harmed.
Appeal denied