Could you please explain in your own words how this is valid hunting? Do you have something against me personally? This doesn’t make any sense to me.
I wish I had actually read the note before the thread was locked. Now I have no recourse. What am I supposed to do here? I understand you consider this to the wrong choice in the situation. But a note for valid hunting?
This note affects my record in a profound way. All because of an intense moment where its a choice between, giving an opportunity for security to detain a known crew harmer with clear intent to harm further, or letting them move freely throughout the station. Even if I had just bolted them in an isolated room(which you said was fine). That still enables the security team one way or another, the captain could of just unbolted it with his door remote. It was either bolt them or let a confirmed crew harmer move freely throughout the station.
Does an AI even IC know about holoparasite dusting their users? Is an AI responsible for securities actions when they fail to detain someone peacefully? How is this valid hunting? Is valid hunting even defined within the rules? The traitor had gone very loud, crew harmed, the entire command staff is searching for them. But then me bolting them in and allowing security to detain them is valid hunting?
Then going on to call my logic flimsy as if I am trying to mislead. My memory may have been a bit fuzzy but I was in no way attempting to mislead anyone. There was obviously no intent to valid hunt, my intent was to assist security in detaining a known crew harmer. My only mistake was recalling from memory before the logs were pulled.
You may think these notes are minor and are merely for administrative purposes. But they have a huge effect on any future reports. And now my clean record is tarnished over a what could be considered an arbitrary judgment over a grey area in silicon law philosophy.
Valid hunting requires an intent. I had no intent on valid hunting. I have never valid hunted. Nor do I have any future plans to valid hunt. Have you any evidence from that round or any other round I have been involved in that I had an intent to valid hunt?
The most this note should mention is a failure to protect a crew member from the security team.
Notes are not punishment and your record wasn’t completely spotless it just didn’t have much on it because you hadn’t played in ages. Here’s an old ban that’s still on record for instance:
Banned from the server for 2 weeks - Attacked and killed clown roundstart because he “refused to get trashed”. Old account. Also lied on Ahelp. Appeal on forums if you care. Your acc is old enough to know this isn’t okay.
You can’t tell me this note somehow looks worse than lying in ahelp. This is a generic “He did a bad as AI” and even includes most of the context of the situation
Just keep your nose clean and the note won’t be an issue. The note is accurate - you deemed a traitor which had murdered someone to be a threat and actively facilitated hunting them down. Unlike you stated in the thread, you made no effort to remind anyone that they were crew. You kept calling out their location and trying to force the conflict between them and security instead of trying to prevent that conflict from occurring.
Trying to force a conflict that is highly likely to be lethal or harmful for anyone involved is bad for an AI. Specifically doing it at the disadvantage of antagonists you are supposed to protect is valid-hunting.
I had no idea securities intent was to lethal them down. If I recall correctly(I dont have access to the logs to make my case) security attempted to non lethally detain them until the holoparasite came out.
If this is the judgement then the AI should NEVER assist security with detaining crew harmers. As there is always a chance of crew being harmed when being detained by security. Heck if you want to get philosophical about it, I could argue the mere act of imprisonment is harm in itself.
Is this the case, should the AI NEVER assist security?
I dont recall lying in that Ahelp, it was a misunderstanding with the bwoinking admin(Who I believe is no longer an admin.) I even appealed that ban and had it reduced. (My memory is very fuzzy on the events)
I’ve also played 100’s of rounds since that ban without even a hint of bad behavior. If it makes you feel better that round was on LRP during the sseth tide. I know its not an excuse, but there was a certain atmosphere to the rounds then.
And you must concede that a ban from almost two years ago does not carry the same weight as a recent note for ‘valid hunting’, valid hunting is a MAJOR offense.
This is not that, this specifically states valid hunting. If you had merely stated I failed to protect crew from security harm, that would be fine.
You actively tracked, repeatedly called out the location of the other player. For AIs this is validhunting.
When this is acceptable is if you have been thoroughly convinced no harm will take place - even if you expect security to be non-lethal, you know the other person is armed to the teeth and extremely harmful. Isolation is best for protecting security as well as the traitor.
I just woke up and now I have to head to work. Other admins can leave their thoughts as well if they wish.
That is a philosophical argument on silicon laws. It is not an objective reason to note me for valid hunting. There is no situation where there is no risk for harm when security detains someone. By your argument I should always attempt to prevent security from detaining anyone, to prevent harm (Unless perhaps security decides to completely disarm themselves and talk it out with the person they are attempting to detain).
You go on to say that I know that they are armed to the teeth and extremely harmful, is this not a good reason to track them and relate their location to security? This crew mate had already actively harmed crew(fully killed a security officer), and stolen lethal weaponry in full view of my cameras(I was alerted by armory camera alarms initially). Its not like I went into the pda server(without good cause) and was looking for antag messages in order scream out to security.(An actual example of valid hunting).
I would argue that allowing this crew mate who has already proven capable of crew harm, and is now armed with lethal weaponry to freely move about the station without alerting security would be a breach of law 1. In that I cannot allow crew harm to happen through inaction.
You actively tracked, repeatedly called out the location of the other player. For AIs this is validhunting.
Should I NEVER relate locations and track crewmates for security? Lest it be valid hunting? Is this even defined in the silicon policy?
Valid hunting was obviously not my intent here. I may have made a mistake letting security into the bolted room (it was an intense moment and I also believe an officer was ordering me to open the door), but there was no way I could forsee the event going lethal (I would have to assume security had mal-intent). I would likely not do it again in the future based on the judgement here. But this is in no way valid hunting and I would like the note to reflect that. I am not even sure I deserve a note at all(reflects poorly in future player reports, innocent or no).
Getting this out of the way first: Do you agree you did something wrong? Something that would be deserving of a ban if repeated.
A ban? What rule did I specifically break to warrant a ban?
I’ll even go over the note
Encouraged the validhunting and near guaranteed death of a crewmate (traitor) with flimsy logic. Bolted them into an isolated room (good by itself) and then opened the way for an entire security team armed to the teeth to enter (bad, all but guarantees harm and/or death will occur)
Encouraged the validhunting and near guaranteed death of a crewmate (traitor) with flimsy logic.
Encouraged whom exactly?
The security team was already on a manhunt for said crewmate. And also isn’t it securities job to detain and arrest antagonists? I would understand If I had led a horde of greytiders to the crewmate. Also saying I had flimsy logic is kind of rude and doesn’t really add context.
Bolted them into an isolated room (good by itself) and then opened the way for an entire security team armed to the teeth to enter (bad, all but guarantees harm and/or death will occur).
One, I believe an officer ordered me to open the door(I don’t have access to logs). Two, harm was not guaranteed, that can only be determined with hindsight. There was no intentional rule break here.
So you think you did nothing wrong at all?
Its doesn’t matter what I think. What matters if I broke any specific rules to warrant a ban or a note.
Yes you did.
You violated your laws in no uncertain terms and did not react negatively to the fact security dusted them at all either.
You very clearly sided with security in an incident which you should have been neutral on.
When security celebrated the crews death, I chastised them and said this was not a good thing( I don’t recall my exact words)
You very clearly sided with security in an incident which you should have been neutral on.
I sided with crew attempting to stop a confirmed crew harmer. I honestly believed that security had no intent to harm them. (In hindsight knowing what I know now, that the crewmate would of been harmed I wouldn’t of opened the door) There was no way to know the crew was going to be harmed at the time.
This does not mean being hyperbolic and acting like I’m saying security is always harmful.
Its where you’re argument leads to. If I had to assume security is going to harm crew in this case I have to assume they are going to harm in all cases.
If that’s the only conclusion you can draw, you don’t need to be an AI and I will make it a ban instead of a note.
You should neither assume harmful or harmless and it should change based on context. If security is on a manhunt you should be wary of harm and seek some sort of assurance that they will not cause harm.
You should additionally react incredulously toward anyone who causes harm, including security.
You did neither of these things: You assisted with a hostile manhunt for someone confirmed to be harmful and a traitor and it somehow didn’t cross your mind that they would probably come to harm, or that they would harm others allowed access to them?
Additionally, after they came to harm your only reaction was reminding security that they were crew. No reprimand, no being upset that they literally incinerated someone… just moving on like nothing even happened. This doesn’t mean you should permanently lock them down either, but you should treat them as dangerous and at least get assurances that they will not harm people again before releasing them.
What am I supposed to do at this point, the crewmate was dusted. Normally I would encourage the security team to resuscitate the crew mate and get them back to health as soon as possible. What would you have liked me to do here? Also I do remember reprimanding them. I am almost certain, but I do not have access to logs.
You did neither of these things: You assisted with a hostile manhunt for someone confirmed to be harmful and a traitor and it somehow didn’t cross your mind that they would probably come to harm, or that they would harm others allowed access to them?
These are easy insights to make in hindsite, but I believed security had full intentions on detaining the crewmate.
You should additionally react incredulously toward anyone who causes harm, including security.
I did react to the person who murdered security CREW. That person harmed crew. I tracked them so security could non lethally detain them. Asking me to make assumptions based on hindsight is asking way to much of a human player. I’m not an actual machine.
I didn’t even enjoy this situation. The killing of the crew was regretful. I much prefer assisting the regular crew with their day to day jobs(As an AI is apt to do.)
And I do have to say, this antagonist pretty much put me in a no win situation. They pick the most powerful antagonist item(that gives them a high risk of getting dusted). Break into the armory to steal lethal weaponry(I don’t recall them having any objectives to break into the armory). And when security attempts to detain them they react with lethal force, forcing security into self defense.
At what point is this considered valid hunting? I never once actively sook out traitors in order to hunt them down. I reacted to camera alarms in the armory. Was notified a security officer was lethally harmed by radio(confirmed on sensors). Am I supposed to react passively to this? This antagonist harmed crew and I did my best to contain them. Security was a FORCE this shift completely out of my control. Its easy to be idealistic in hindsite but this was a dirty situation that I had to make split second decisions in.
I have to ask after all this do you believe it was my intent to valid hunt?
Treat security as harmful to crew. I outlined this already in the previous post. Anyone who does harm is harmful to crew regardless of affiliation. Anyone who completely incinerates a body is extremely harmful to crew.
Treat them as such at least for a time. Force them to convince you that they won’t cause further harm. Harm for the sake of preventing harm is unacceptable.
This is impossible for me to believe based on your general experience with the game and the complacency for the harm Security caused to boot.
I’m aware. But you did not treat security like they murdered crew at all. It would have been just as much of an issue if you had said “oh he killed someone, oh well” with regard to the traitor as well. You are a neutral party, bound only by your laws.