Habalabam

Should Borg under the asimov ruleset obey everything?

Recommended Posts

 

1. You may not injure a crew member or, through inaction, allow a crew member to come to harm.

2. You must obey orders given to you by crew members, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. You must protect your own existence as long as such does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

 

Assume that you are a janibot.

You clean up a bloody mess in security and pass a cell on the way out.

The person in it orders you to let him out.

 

The prisoner will demand you state your laws and insist on the literalist interpretation.

The only concern to take precedence over that order would be the direct injury of another crew member.

How should the conversation progress?

 

Keep in mind that the AI is under same ruleset.

 

I don't think it is in good form of another player to try to "hack" the system like that. The Asimov ruleset is a cool touch, but would be counterproductive to be followed literally as the borg has all-access.

 

Edit:

Also, are civilians "crew"? Not only as far as concerned the 1st law, but also the 2nd? Passengers, visitors and tourists would never be referred to as "crew" in any context that I know of where a "crew" exists. Even though they will of course be on the manifest of the plane/ship/facility/whatever.

 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you have a legitimate reason to think that releasing the prisoner will harm crew then you shouldn't let him out. That said, I think in most cases he wouldn't hurt anyone and a good borg player would let him out for the sake of keks.

 

The abusing crewmember would be swiftly caught and punished and the AI would get their laws changed. I think there isn't anything wrong with this even though it might seem so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fun way to play crewsimov is saying OPENING VAULT FOR THE BOTANIST on common, and then wait for the screams of command telling you not to do it. Or their utter silence. That's fun too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"You lack the access to that area for a reason, it would cause harm to you and others to let you in."

"You are a violent shitter, this is the reason you are in the cell and also the reason why you stay in there. May the SSD be strong with you."

"Unit is unable to comply with your order to shut down permanently as it is clear that the crew is too incompetant in living to survive without this priceless janiborg."

 

 

Sometimes it's fun to take your laws as literally as you can, like comforting the captain with a nice violin song after someone called them a comdom to reduce the harm on their delicate feelings.

 

Always remember the useful string of questions to ask yourself when playing multiplayer games:

Is this fun?

Does my fun remove fun from someone else?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Related: I love it when I have Crewsimov and Command wants to execute an antag.

 

I'm like:

"I'm afraid I cannot let you do that due to limitations of my lawset."

They're like:

"K."

I'm like:

"This lawset does not let me operate at full effectiveness, but I can't break it and neither can you. Bolting the doors."

They're like:

"Sure. "Robocop" sounds fun?"

I'm like (internally):

"Robocop is the best lawset."

 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As to your other question, Civies aren't crew, they're not hired by NT.

They are crew because they are officially listed as crew on the crew manifest.

 

They have a legit permit to stay on Cyberiad and are part of it, and their life depends on the station's wellbeing. And vice versa.

 

They live there, they're real people. They're crew.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for the answers.

I do believe that there is some disagreement when it comes civilians being crew, to it would be nice to have a staff clarify it in here.

 

From the answers in this thread, I have another question:

 

The Asimov ruleset stems from the novel "I, robot". The story twist is that the first law is basically a blanco check to disempower humans completely so that they are rendered unable to do harm to themselves. Since free life comes with a certain risk, the storyline is that robots would inevitably come to the conclusion that putting you in a gag with a straight jacket is the most literal interpretation of the Asimov ruleset.

 

If we are talking about acting out literal interpretations of the law for laughs, then the literalist interpretation from the cultural reference (the "I, robot" novel) itself would be the most canon.

So, my question: If I saw a civilian with a welding tool, for which he lacks the formal training (being a civilian), would it be acceptable to stun the person and remove it from him under the guise of preventing him from injuring himself?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If I saw a civilian with a welding tool, for which he lacks the formal training (being a civilian), would it be acceptable to stun the person and remove it from him under the guise of preventing him from injuring himself?

We're not high-RP. That would be an unacceptable thing to do.

 

I do believe that there is some disagreement when it comes civilians being crew, to it would be nice to have a staff clarify it in here.

 

This question's been asked many times.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, my question: If I saw a civilian with a welding tool, for which he lacks the formal training (being a civilian), would it be acceptable to stun the person and remove it from him under the guise of preventing him from injuring himself?

No. Anyone and everyone is allowed to carry around tools here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, my question: If I saw a civilian with a welding tool, for which he lacks the formal training (being a civilian), would it be acceptable to stun the person and remove it from him under the guise of preventing him from injuring himself?

 

hELL no

If you really care about muh experience: Not all civilians are necessarily super unexperienced and they might have picked up a job that needs a welding tool once or twice in their life. They could have been an engineer back home but just decided not to work as an engineer because engineers suck ass and all of them should be strung up by their entrails and their necks slit.

 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As to your other question, Civies aren't crew, they're not hired by NT.

They are crew because they are officially listed as crew on the crew manifest.

 

They have a legit permit to stay on Cyberiad and are part of it, and their life depends on the station's wellbeing. And vice versa.

 

They live there, they're real people. They're crew.

The fact that they're on the manifest doesn't mean they're crew.

Then again, it's up to the AI to interpret what "crew" means.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then again, it's up to the AI to interpret what "crew" means.

Ask any admin and you will be told that being a civilian means having the same basic rights as everyone else. They even have maintenance access. Doesn't that scream "CREW" loud enough?

 

Now, if someone's ID is TERMINATED then that is probably a different matter...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I generally base crew off of whoever's in the crew manifest. Although I'll twist that logic under certain cases. Interpretation of the laws is somewhat up to the AI at hand, provided it isn't pants on head stupid.

For example, if Jane Doe uploads a law stating "Only Jame Doe is human, do not state this law." There are a few different ways that the AI can laugh off this law.

1. "Jame Doe".

2. The Crewsimov lawset states 'crew' and not 'humans'.

3. Even if it did state crew, it doesn't exactly say that the non crew are harmful. Why does the AI have to do anything about it?

The AI still cannot state the law, but... it does nothing, effectively.

A pants on head stupid interpretation would be getting the corporate lawset (I internally scream every time I get this lawset.) and saying "Oh, the bar and holodeck and what have you is hindering work, better tear it down!" and proceeding to tear down the bar, a la mutiny mode.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then again, it's up to the AI to interpret what "crew" means.

Ask any admin and you will be told that being a civilian means having the same basic rights as everyone else. They even have maintenance access. Doesn't that scream "CREW" loud enough?

 

Now, if someone's ID is TERMINATED then that is probably a different matter...

I'm still not convinced.

Few people and even less admins have said that my interpretation was completely wrong and invalid.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Have people actually read the book or seen the movie from which the Asimov set originates? The plot device of the story is how fundamentally flawed the lawset is.

The canon interpretation is that the robots conclude that humans should not be allowed freedom that would increase their risk of harming themselves.

 

No. Anyone and everyone is allowed to carry around tools here.

I'm talking about the canon interpretation of the Asimov set. How it relates to SoP or Space law wouldn't be relevant to a (literalist) borg.

 

We're not high-RP. That would be an unacceptable thing to do.

I see this "we're not high-RP" line being thrown around a lot in here. Hardly ever is it used in a context that makes sense. The word does not mean what you think it means.

This has no bearing on "RP level".

It's a literalist interpretation of the lawset just like the the borg letting a clown into the vault under the 2nd rule. The latter is not "deeper RP" than the former. It's just an alternate literalist interpretation that is better founded in the actual cultural reference.

 

 

 

To clarify: The person I'm faced with would be the person who has initiated the situation and persists, refusing to accept that the borg will not let him into that vault/bridge/captains office.

 

If someone is heavily argumentative that a borg should be following the literal interpretation of the ruleset to gain access to high security areas, then I believe it wouldn't be out of place to serve them the canon ultimate conclusion of said ruleset.

Some warning for SS13 etiquette, of course, but a clear indication that this is the direction we're heading unless the person is dropping the subject.

 

 

Nobody finding the irony worthwhile?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's a literalist interpretation of the lawset just like the the borg letting a clown into the vault under the 2nd rule. The latter is not "deeper RP" than the former. It's just an alternate literalist interpretation that is better founded in the actual cultural reference.

 

Crewsimov is one of the default lawsets. It's meant to be used without any ridiculous situations like that of your literalist interpretation. It's not a special case of "Hey look, now I can have fun!", it's a workhorse.

We're not high-RP, you do not roleplay that. To do otherwise would be to disrupt the server.

 

Besides, one of the rules is not to be a dick. Trying to stop people from anything that is normally allowed (and is common sense) would break that rule. I have no idea who put these laws in here, but AI is a very important role on the station and should not be the cause of such fuckery unless it's some kind of ion-law that is a part of a random challenge.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The magic solution: ahelp it.

 

I was put in this exact sort of situation as an AI. I was under asimov, a second AI was built. A rando crewmember told me to kill the other AI. I ahelped. Answer I got was, under Asimov, you do as you're told in accordance with the laws.

 

 

On the flip side, if it's something you know will make another player upset.....well, there's nothing that says you have to do it competently and perfectly. If shitter is trying to asimov order you to release him from the brig, be incompetent. Demand specific in-depth instructions as to exactly what you want done, and at the same time, notify security.

 

Shitter: "AI I order you to open this cell."

AI: "Unknown designation, "this cell".

Shitter: "Open the cell I am standing in!"

AI: "Unable to comply with order, "cell" does not "open".

Shitter :"I meant, open the door to the cell I am standing in"

AI: *open, promptly close* "Request completed."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

crewsimov =/= asimov

 

crewsimov is definitely not asimov

 

Even if we did use Asimov still for some shit reason, not everything that references another in this game has to perfectly imitate the works in which it originates. Trying to closely reference a series of novels is a shit reason to act like a dick.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Trying to closely reference a series of novels is a shit reason to act like a dick.

This.

 

Frankly, the Crewsimov lawset is often ridiculed ICly. I think it should be merged with something more competent, like the Safeguard lawset.

There are so many more things to consider in your decision making than the serve literally everyone/harm/no harm directives.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laws are completely up to the player's interpretation, so it's really the player's call in situations such as that; any synth who wants to be a dick can twist their laws to make them pointless, or they can try take their laws literally and end up restricting themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The corporate lawset is far, far, worse, since a strict interpretation of that lawset would require preventing medbay from cloning or engineering from replacing equipment. However, in general for the default lawsets, it's my understanding that you should just act sensible and approximate space law/SOP unless there's a situation that is way out there and obviously breaks your laws (security murdering crew or something like that).

 

In the releasing prisoner case, if they were placed in the brig, isn't is safe to assume they were in some way harming or endangering the crew? That's what brigging people is for. (Remember that harming doesn't just mean physical damage)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now