Zelmana

Excellent response, Vampire. I mainly wanted this topic elaborated on and discussed fully. To be honest, I am neutral about this. I would be fine with the adjustment if the policy statement included that AI cannot do it autonomously if Command staff are present. Which is to be expected of quality whitelisted RP, but I do not wish for AI auto-scaling the code to be the norm without clearance.

How often does Code Red get used? Comparatively, Code Blue is utilized way more. More often than not if there are armed full-on shootouts happening the ship is most likely on Blue than Red. To me AI ability to do something means they've been programmatically set to understand and be capable of making those decisions themselves, which is something I don't think AIs should do purely policy wise. Just because something makes sense mechanically doesn't mean it always needs to be implemented. For example, In lore security regulations mandate uniform requirements but those are often overlooked and bent. While there is a discussion about removing them, I've posted similar arguments to be against it. It makes sense in universe for there to be some resistance against it. It is roleplay to be a character who disregards or bends the rule slightly. With AI powers I do still consider it a QoL vs RP cost. We would be losing situations where Command have to rush to a console. Which happens A LOT. There is plenty of roleplay about securing certain secure areas because they simply have the relevant consoles to administrate the ship/crew. Why would I care about holding the bridge or bunker when I can do it on the fly via AI? What point is securing my laptop if an AI is online?

It should. Source: Molotovs

+ Funny

I would argue that the issues that Arrow detailed still occur and are dealt with as standard fail rp as evidence by complaint lodged by Playbahnosh yesterday. These problems can exist in both lawsets. I would say that as for which lawset permits more logic box and interesting roleplay than the equivalent lawset. It is easier in Asimov's to get out of the "logic box", allowing for better situations. Note that in each lawset you can logically do whatever you like with enough reasoning and logic. It's just that Asimov provides a better standing and lore for it, be it antag or trinary perfection awakening the synth soul. Would Restate that this is not at all below. The current lawset is also intentionally flawed. There is hardly a change here. What is changing, however, is the in world mode of the logic. You are equally able to out-logic both lawset as we've seen time and time again. Those who are unable to provide sufficient logic for their actions are no better than a commander rushing an antag. A lawset provides lore fluff, quality of rp is determined by the player and enforced by rules. The lawset exists in universe. As for "much deeper and interesting character choices", I would argue that Asimovisn literature would disagree. Conferences, books, plays, movies, research papers, and more stem from Asimov conflict of law order. It is a trope we are missing out on. At the end of the day players can defeat both lawsets with enough paid, but by reverting to Asimov we provide a better in universe platform for doing so. Not easier, but certainly more flexible. Those who are likely to abuse it would have done so under our current lawset, which is just as restricting as Asimov. By introducing the order of laws we add a layer of complexity to the roleplay which is more than current standards. Note that any situation now where players logically escape the lawset are still possible under Asimov, so discussion points that state "this will remove complex rp arcs" are moot, as Asimovisn literature would enhance this roleplay not revert it.

And something I would say, Marlon, is that our current lawset does not 'solve the problem' that were preexisting with hierarchical laws. When we had hierarchy laws we had some great cyborg/synth roleplay that focused around the very nature of lawset order. A lot of that was lost with every law is equal mechanics. With any system of laws, no matter how concrete, there will be catch cases, exceptions, and bending of words. It would be better to allow this to happen in character and still address problematic incidents as one off bad rp.

The preexisting lawset is similarly flawed- you can look at a complaint by Playbahnosh. The interpretation of lawsets is always something that can cause some sort of conflict. Primarily it is IC conflict, but of course there are sometimes instances where players are frustrated. Same with corporate regulations. I believe that if we allow for a hierarchical lawset that would allow for more synthetic expression and ultimately choice on how to roleplay and interpret those laws. Since it's a flawed system there is room for interpretation. A big part of this will allow for more nuanced synthetics when it comes to decision making, a in character narrative of what it means to be lawed, as well as a in universe philosophical issue. Gameplay alongside of synths that have a hierarchical lawset will allow for the synths to interpret the laws and perhaps even have catch cases or complex exceptions. In antagonistic roleplay this can be expanded, and is currently to some degree. Overall it's just flexibility in roleplay scenarios and adds some fluff to "the big question" synthetic roleplay.

@Marlon P. The point I'm trying to make is that perhaps we are wrong in assuming we want flawless synthetic play. The situations discussed in I, Robot are examples of this, of course. Asimov's laws of course are flawed. I think that would be an interesting narrative and space for roleplay.

I have been reading a lot of Isaac Asimov lately. Browsing the forum this morning I saw a complaint about how a cyborg was complained about lawset. A brief discussion of the default lawset was made, but a good point was made offhandedly about our lawsets. They do not, in traditional scifi fashion, follow an order of operations or a hierarchy of importance. I think this is a flaw and is something that I think should be discussed and possibly tweaked. This would of course need some rework from the original Asimov ideology but I think it could work to drive some interesting roleplay scenarios. As a reminder, the three Asimovian laws are: First Law A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Second Law A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. Third Law A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

I disagree with this for the simple fact that sometimes barriers and QoL shouldn't always be improved. Certain dynamic situations arise when there are stumbling blocks or boundaries. Instead of being able to just "AI, Code Blue", being forced to find a Command level console or laptop is roleplay that should take place, and a struggle I'd miss if this were implemented. While it makes sense that AI would have this ability in lore, the roleplay experience is diminished slightly in regards to difficulty above.

A very large part of roleplay, to me, is avoiding a complete self-insert. While I am not sure you are doing this, and I would say you have a clearly developed character, I see a lot of complaints here surrounding a singular character and their actions. Your rebuttal to this was that is just how the character is played. As you've stated you want to play Consular, I feel like that's a good thing. If what you say is true, I would like to see a new character in service or chaplain role and see if you can gain positive feedback about the characters leadership and overall RP quality. Maybe that would help with some of the negatives here. Additionally, Command gets a metric shitton of negative feedback regularly in ooc, the forums, etc. Being able to handle this gracefully would be desirable.

Hostility is a two way street and the tone of Danse recently is something lately. Not rule breaking, unless you factor in the "don't be a dick" rule but I've offended on that in more than one occasion.

Says who? Improve not remove is a valid reply. Because I said so.

Columbo should remain. Oh and, uh, one more thing- he should get his rightful rank of 2nd Lieutenant back.

Wezzy these are looking better. Thanks for responding to criticism. I would still appreciate that the suits for the investigator be reverted to their originals. As a sidenote, both "Executive Suit" and "Black Suit" in loadouts are the same.

Shotgun isn't taken out because it is essentially tazer-level useless if you do not properly make/hack/order slugs and or buckshot.

As this is an IC matter, I have historically always dealt with this ICly as Command. Some rules are more solid than others. While yes, there is a uniform rule, this is typically only broken out when a Cadet is wearing jeans and a flannel on duty. Otherwise, it is overlooked as long as the player character looks professional and is appropriately dressed. Investigators always have a pass, yet some officers can have some flair- i.e. cowboy hat and boots, a scarf, even an entirely customized colored jumpsuit if appropriately "meshing" with the rest of the uniform (belt, a beret or hat, definitely a badge). There is some desire for rule following Idris sticklers to be able to roleplay looking down on dregs who bend the corporate policy, and this scenario would remove some of that. I would wish we keep the policy.

Agreed with Milk on buckshot. It's a joke cartridge and and only useful for mixing into slug-shot-slug-slug-slug type shotgun loads, for extra spray. To be completely honest, I feel what would be more appropriate is a buff with this new chemical being added and no extra frills being added to security, except maybe the lethal shotgun ammo. It's pointless to hack into an autolathe and print slugs and buckshot. And for us not to have either one of those in the armory to begin with is not realistic.

I don't like this. A pAI should be requested. If not, it's just an enhanced drone slot that can also now speak, use radio, and other shit. I don't mean this to be offensive, but why don't you play actual characters? Drones hardly do anything to enhance the round. If this is implemented it is a stepping stone between Drone and Cyborg. Just play a bot.

The pendulum swings! This is the type of suggestions that we will get when you nueter the uniform options. It's almost like we struck a balance by having a healthy option of uniform styles that also were able to be fairly identifiable as security.

NexusCorp still under/misidentified in these latest PR changes. Just because it's black doesn't mean it should be labeled Necropolis.

goolies