Our Lord Spungus AI Report

In-game report:

CKEY: WhereAmO

Your Discord: WhereAmI#0929

Offender’s CKEY: Our Lord Spungus

Offender’s In-Game Name: I.S.M.

Server (Sage or Acacia): Sage

Date (MM-DD-YYYY): 12-09-2022

Round Number: 41731

Rules Broken: R 7, 8, Silicon Policy

Incident Description: The AI decided, as the shuttle was approaching the station and on the Effeciency Lawset, that the best interpretation of such would be to weld, bold, and shock all the shuttle and Evac doors. Multiple people injures, multiple doors destroyed, cyborg damaged, and generally just shitty behaviour. They did this to delay the crew transfer, due to losing the crew being ineffecient, however I think that’s a very malicious interpretation of a their roundstart lawset.

Additional Information:

3 Likes


The station efficiency lawset is vague, as defined in the silicon policy. This means that there are numerous ways in which the laws can be interpreted. The silicon policy also doesn’t say anything about “malicious interpretations,” it just says don’t be a dick 24/7, which implies there isn’t a problem with occasionally being a dick, e.g. at the end of the round when the crew tries to leave the station, thus leaving the station without a working crew, therefore forcing a law 1 intervention.

Rule 7

Rule seven is mostly an OOC rule to not be a dick to people. I wasn’t. There is also no protection for the evacuation shuttle in rule seven, so that whole rule break isn’t actually a rule break.

Rule 8


You, yourself, shot down this argument when you provided the IC reasoning for what I did.

Please note that this interpretation only lead to the deaths of people who took unsafe action to get on the shuttle and get funny greentext. None of these deaths were intentional, I bolted the doors to hinder the escape, and I shocked the doors as further discouragement to proceed. Everybody who was going to make it to the shuttle made it onto the shuttle (except for the point where I shut the teleporter room APC off to avoid people getting on that way) and as far as I know nobody died.

TL;DR none of the rules you brought up were broken and you can’t use “malicious interpretation” as a silicon policy break because it isn’t covered.

2 Likes

Screenshot_20221210-085219_Chrome

It is. While this rule doesn’t state anything about roundstart lawsets, I still think it applies. You decided to interpret it in the way to specifically cause annoyance grief and all that to the other players, thus you were being a dick in law interpretation.

6 Likes

The silicon policy also doesn’t say anything about “malicious interpretations,” it just says don’t be a dick 24/7 , which implies there isn’t a problem with occasionally being a dick, e.g. at the end of the round when the crew tries to leave the station, thus leaving the station without a working crew, therefore forcing a law 1 intervention.

This point was already addressed. Please see the above, and do me the respect of actually reading my full post next time.

My apologies, I had just woken up at the time.

Bolting the doors to prevent crew from leaving is eh but shocking them? No, that’d a pretty clear break of law 2, as you intended to hurt them instead of properly maintaining them.

2 Likes

Damaging them to keep them from leaving isn’t necessarily less efficient than them leaving. Damaged crew is more efficient than no crew at all.

1 Like

Intentionally interpreting any unmodified, roundstart lawset in a malicious way is playing with fire at best. The quoted section of silicon law, while unfortunately not stated, is intended to be applied to new and/or updated laws to keep shitty silicon players from thinking it’s funny to be as malicious as possible no matter what they are given.

Arguments like this go against an entirely different rule. Whether or not this is actually the case will be up to a current admin, but again you are very much playing with fire by being a rules lawyer here.

image

Consider this as well: Even if an admin rules in your favor on this case, you have just proven yourself to be the type of silicon player everyone hates engaging with. This sort of play adds fuel to hate for silicons in general and gets the lawsets with a bit more freedom yanked because someone stubbornly took that freedom to an extreme out of willful malice.

Even if an admin rules in favor of your “technically correct” you were behaving for your own selfish satisfaction at the expense of others and nobody likes to play with this sort of person.

Don’t be that person. “Technically within the rules” people historically end up removed for the greater good of the community down the road.

19 Likes

Even if an admin rules in your favor on this case, you have just proven yourself to be the type of silicon player everyone hates engaging with. This sort of play adds fuel to hate for silicons in general and gets the lawsets with a bit more freedom yanked because someone stubbornly took that freedom to an extreme out of willful malice.
Even if an admin rules in favor of your “technically correct” you were behaving for your own selfish satisfaction at the expense of others and nobody likes to play with this sort of person.

Sure, these are valid assumptions, if you’re the kind of person who likes to point fingers and cry “fun-hater” at anyone who behaves even remotely antagonistically. I try to play roles that benefit every party involved in some way or another. I set up a scenario, some people got extremely pissed off (touch grass), the majority of people didn’t care, and there’s a couple people who enjoyed the spice it added to an otherwise uneventful greenshift. Just because I attacked the lack of “malicious intent” rules doesn’t mean I was actually trying to behave maliciously. Beyond that, I already explained my IC reasoning for why the course of action was acceptable.

As for the ever-so-prominent

rules lawyer

argument, that’s… Pretty much what AI players do for fun when they’re not being glorified doorknobs or tracking people. And also what people do to defend themselves from accusations. There is no possible way for you to know what the intention of the rule-writer was, so, while you may be correct, that isn’t for you to decide (like you already said).

Judging by your (frankly rather dickish) tone in your response, I’m going to assume you went by the TL;DR- in which case I’m going to ask you to actually read the post instead of jumping to the conclusion that I’m clearly a selfish asshole. Try to remember the age-old saying about what happens when we assume.

2 Likes

An all around sillycone. Law 1>2>3 simple as. Untill some law starts throwing definitions at you

I read everything in detail before posting. I don’t play much these days and I’m not staff anymore, so you should know I didn’t post that for my own benefit in any way. If you want to disregard my advice, go for it.

This gave me a good chuckle, thanks :smile:

10 Likes

what is “spirit of the law vs letter of the law”

3 Likes

While the wording on silicon policy implies that the “Do not prepare to be a dick in law intepretation 24/7” clause is intended to apply primarily to custom lawsets, I don’t see any reason why it can’t apply to preexisting ones. This really isn’t something you should be doing with one of the roundstart lawsets either way, they are generally intended to be fairly tame.

It may technically be allowed with the way the laws are worded, but theoretically, so is stuffing the entire crew into a box filled with N2O on Crewsimov so they can’t harm themselves, that’d get you banned.
Your interpretation here is not necessarily an illogical one to reach, but when it comes to something that’s absolutely bending the intended interpretation, and is detrimental to the round, ‘technically allowed’ doesn’t really suffice.

If a player had uploaded a custom lawset and accidentally left a loophole, then sure, work around that, but do not go out of your way to bend roundstart laws in such a way that allows you to act similarly to an antagonist.

Report Processed

1 Like