jackfractal

Precisely. That's what the Skrell are afraid of, and the kind of scenario that MALF is sort of meant to ape, but in the Aurora-verse the requirements for run-away self-improvement are fairly rare. It's not enough to simply be able to rewrite yourself, instead it requires a special set of circumstances. Those circumstances have only been hit three times in known history, and they were all three hundred years ago. I set it up that way because, as you say, it's a popular trope, but the game we play is very much pre-singularity, so it can't be too common, especially considering the number of AI's with learning capabilities that we see around. My suggestion (and I'm not going to deny your IPC application by the by) would be to flesh out the researcher and their project a bit more. If their project was AI research, it would make sense that they'd build an AI, but your description implies that the AI was some kind of off-the-books project. It's a little confusing. Also, as I said, NT doesn't usually do AI research, so an explanation of how that happened might be useful. I very seldom have issues with people's characters in these applications, this is the first time, and like I said, I like the core idea. The problem is the way that the universe responds to that character. In your write-up, they're seen as a dangerous oddity, a highly advanced intelligence on the brink of runaway evolution... which I'm sure is fun to play, buuut given where they come from that doesn't make much sense (as NT is notoriously behind in AI tech) and the central thing that is supposed to make them theoretically scary is a core feature that most AI's come standard with. The way I see it, you have two options. You could keep the context and change the response, they were an oddball project within NT, made by one aging researcher who managed to beg, bribe, or steal a budget for an AI project and created something only one or two generations out of date, ooor, you could keep the response but change the context. Maybe they're a partially bound emergent AI with a law software chassis inexpertly bolted onto their flexible organic core, or maybe they're a revived Skrellian weapons system from their last great civil war?

Ah, yeah. That's the right one. Thank you. You don't have lore conflicts exactly. I quite like the idea of an AI whose development budget was effectively stolen, but canonically NT isn't very good at AI research. The cutting edge stuff is all changing too quickly for NT's behemoth-like bureaucracy to adapt too. If you want cutting edge, you don't go looking for NT, you find a bunch of young PHD's running a bespoke design service out of a shipping container. Also, as there is an entire categorization schema for AI's who effectively assemble themselves from spare parts, the idea that an AI can self-program is both well known and not particularly surprising, even if it still gives most Skrell heart palpitations. So it's not that the core concept itself isn't a good one. An NT scientist at a backwater research lab steals their departmental budget and uses it to build an AI. That's really cool. The problems, if you want to call them that, is that the AI probably wouldn't be very good, and the learning algorithm is not exactly unique.

Ah, yeah. That's the right one. Thank you. You don't have lore conflicts exactly. I quite like the idea of an AI whose development budget was effectively stolen, but canonically NT isn't very good at AI research. The cutting edge stuff is all changing too quickly for NT's behemoth-like bureaucracy to adapt too. If you want cutting edge, you don't go looking for NT, you find a bunch of young PHD's running a bespoke design service out of a shipping container. Also, as there is an entire categorization schema for AI's who effectively assemble themselves from spare parts, the idea that an AI can self-program is both well known and not particularly surprising, even if it still gives most Skrell heart palpitations. So it's not that the core concept itself isn't a good one. An NT scientist at a backwater research lab steals their departmental budget and uses it to build an AI. That's really cool. The problems, if you want to call them that, is that the AI probably wouldn't be very good, and the learning algorithm is not exactly unique.

So you want people to openly say “Stop this conversation you’re having. I don’t have the emotional energy to process this today. Can’t we just place spacemens?” And you don’t expect there to be backlash? In this thread, not two posts above you, is someone who is of the considered opinion that all attempts to curtail discussions, regardless of context, are akin to a vegan forcing people at a dinner party into veganism based on an irrational psychological compulsion. Anyone making a public attempt to stop a conversation based on the fact that it emotionally affects them is placing themselves in an enormously vulnerable position. Everyone on the entire server will have the opportunity to filter their experiences through their own validity function, and as has already been established, there are at least some people in our community who will always find their reasons inadequate. So the ‘myriad options’ you were talking about for someone in this position are actually: Quietly ask the administration to halt the conversation, risking the fact that the administration may not take you seriously and the person dealing with your adminhelp may be one of the people who will call you a whiner or mentally ill. Open yourself up to public ridicule by bringing it up in OOC. Leave. I would argue that it is unnecessarily onerous to require people who are asking for consideration to place themselves upon the mercy of public opinion. It is far easier and safer for them to be able to say “Hey, isn’t talking about politics against the rules?” I will agree that the pitchfork analogy is not a good one, as people are not talking about politically contentious topics with the express desire of driving off the people who are tired of hearing about such things. I did not mean to imply as such, and if I did, I apologize. Instead, I offer you this as an alternative analogy. I think it fits a bit better. Imagine our server as a cozy local restaurant in winter. The windows are shut and snow falls softly outside. It’s a Friday night and the darkness outside the windows is deep. It’s not late, but we’re heading in toward New Years, and the night has gotten an early start. We are all there for the same purpose, to eat good food, enjoy the company, and possibly listen the music of a local band that’s going to start up in a few minutes. The people who talking about politics are like a group of people in the middle of the restaurant smoking heavy Cuban cigars. You know the kind, the good kind, the kind that paint the air of whatever room they’re smoked in with thick grey-blue streaks. The people who are smoking enjoy their cigars, and the people they’re sitting with may also like cigars, or at least tolerate them, but there are people with asthma in the world, and small children, and the old people with respiratory problems, and it makes more sense for the restaurant to simply ask the smokers to please smoke elsewhere then it is to lose the business the smokers drive away. There is an entire world outside the restaurant for people to smoke in, the burden of not smoking in the restaurant is not a particularly onerous one as the smokers are there, after all, to eat. A mild amount of forbearance on their part would make the whole place much more palatable for everyone else.

So you want people to openly say “Stop this conversation you’re having. I don’t have the emotional energy to process this today. Can’t we just place spacemens?” And you don’t expect there to be backlash? In this thread, not two posts above you, is someone who is of the considered opinion that all attempts to curtail discussions, regardless of context, are akin to a vegan forcing people at a dinner party into veganism based on an irrational psychological compulsion. Anyone making a public attempt to stop a conversation based on the fact that it emotionally affects them is placing themselves in an enormously vulnerable position. Everyone on the entire server will have the opportunity to filter their experiences through their own validity function, and as has already been established, there are at least some people in our community who will always find their reasons inadequate. So the ‘myriad options’ you were talking about for someone in this position are actually: Quietly ask the administration to halt the conversation, risking the fact that the administration may not take you seriously and the person dealing with your adminhelp may be one of the people who will call you a whiner or mentally ill. Open yourself up to public ridicule by bringing it up in OOC. Leave. I would argue that it is unnecessarily onerous to require people who are asking for consideration to place themselves upon the mercy of public opinion. It is far easier and safer for them to be able to say “Hey, isn’t talking about politics against the rules?” I will agree that the pitchfork analogy is not a good one, as people are not talking about politically contentious topics with the express desire of driving off the people who are tired of hearing about such things. I did not mean to imply as such, and if I did, I apologize. Instead, I offer you this as an alternative analogy. I think it fits a bit better. Imagine our server as a cozy local restaurant in winter. The windows are shut and snow falls softly outside. It’s a Friday night and the darkness outside the windows is deep. It’s not late, but we’re heading in toward New Years, and the night has gotten an early start. We are all there for the same purpose, to eat good food, enjoy the company, and possibly listen the music of a local band that’s going to start up in a few minutes. The people who talking about politics are like a group of people in the middle of the restaurant smoking heavy Cuban cigars. You know the kind, the good kind, the kind that paint the air of whatever room they’re smoked in with thick grey-blue streaks. The people who are smoking enjoy their cigars, and the people they’re sitting with may also like cigars, or at least tolerate them, but there are people with asthma in the world, and small children, and the old people with respiratory problems, and it makes more sense for the restaurant to simply ask the smokers to please smoke elsewhere then it is to lose the business the smokers drive away. There is an entire world outside the restaurant for people to smoke in, the burden of not smoking in the restaurant is not a particularly onerous one as the smokers are there, after all, to eat. A mild amount of forbearance on their part would make the whole place much more palatable for everyone else.

Hi Central! Could you link me to the wiki page you read? Nanotransen, as a corporation, doesn't typically do a lot of AI research. They probably do some, but their corporate structure is too inflexible to keep up too date. Central's backstory of being a secret off-the-books project makes sense here, but an NT developed AI is unusual. As for the rest of it, learning algorithms aren't unique in the Aurora universe. They're a standard part of any modern AI, and they've had time to be refined, since the Skrell solved the lazy salesman over 300 years ago. Still, it looks like a fun character. If you could point me to the IPC page you read, that would be cool, I'm not sure people are reading the right one.

Hi Central! Could you link me to the wiki page you read? Nanotransen, as a corporation, doesn't typically do a lot of AI research. They probably do some, but their corporate structure is too inflexible to keep up too date. Central's backstory of being a secret off-the-books project makes sense here, but an NT developed AI is unusual. As for the rest of it, learning algorithms aren't unique in the Aurora universe. They're a standard part of any modern AI, and they've had time to be refined, since the Skrell solved the lazy salesman over 300 years ago. Still, it looks like a fun character. If you could point me to the IPC page you read, that would be cool, I'm not sure people are reading the right one.

Thank you EvilBrage. I was wondering if I could come up with a good example of why the ad-hoc solution that Scopes is proposing doesn’t work and you offer the perfect example. According to the kind of thinking expressed in your last post, expressing any vulnerability or a desire to have a discussion curtailed is a pointless power trip. It is never an expression of a genuine desire to not engage with an emotionally taxing subject in what should nominally be one’s time to relax, and is thus axiomatically invalid. Regardless of context or consequence, the right to speak, in all cases, about any topic, in any context (including spacemens) is of higher moral priority then the comfort and enjoyment of those who are less than impervious to harm. If people are being harmed, than the onus is on those being harmed to remove themselves from the community (mute ooc) but they should never complain or attempt reform. It’s a perfect example. I could not have come up with a better one. It’s also a clear illustration as to why this should be a rule and not an ad-hoc measure on a case-by-case basis, and it perfectly illustrates why you might not see as many complaints about this as you might expect if you’re watching the mod channels. Think about it. If you are a person who is being made angry or uncomfortable by a political or religious discussion, you have to ask yourself a very serious question before you start talking to anyone about it. The question is, “Is the person who I ask for help going to be sympathetic and understanding, or are they going to think like EvilBrage?” A lot of people think like EvilBrage, and until you ask, you can’t know. If you’re unlucky, as has been demonstrated here, you will at the very least, be called a whiner and your complaint will be ignored. This is why it has to be a rule. If we care about this at all, it has to be a rule. If it’s a rule, then the reason for stopping any particular discussion of politics or religion is simple. It’s a violation of the rule. That’s it. Done. If instead it’s done in an ad-hoc seat-of-the-pants case-by-case moderation then the reason for stopping the discussion is the person who asked for this specific discussion to be stopped. The requirement for validity rests entirely on the head of the specific person making the request and that is not a comfortable situation to be in for anyone. As has been demonstrated in this thread, there are people who believe that any request to curtail a discussion is going to be invalid. I’ve seen it happen on Aurora more than once. So people don’t. They don’t complain. They don’t take the risk. They just leave. And often, they don’t come back. For the ‘toughguys’, for the people people who think anyone who can be made anxious, angry, or depressed by certain political topics are all whining control freaks, choosing voluntarily (as a result of a psychological compulsion?) to impose their wacky demands on the people around them, maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe the idea is that we just force out everyone who isn’t a ‘toughguy’, and then we can say what we want, safe in the assurance that we’ve scared off anyone who's actually invested in the things we talk about it. I, personally, think it’s a problem. Thankfully, it’s a problem with a very simple solution, just don’t allow politics or religion in ooc.

Thank you EvilBrage. I was wondering if I could come up with a good example of why the ad-hoc solution that Scopes is proposing doesn’t work and you offer the perfect example. According to the kind of thinking expressed in your last post, expressing any vulnerability or a desire to have a discussion curtailed is a pointless power trip. It is never an expression of a genuine desire to not engage with an emotionally taxing subject in what should nominally be one’s time to relax, and is thus axiomatically invalid. Regardless of context or consequence, the right to speak, in all cases, about any topic, in any context (including spacemens) is of higher moral priority then the comfort and enjoyment of those who are less than impervious to harm. If people are being harmed, than the onus is on those being harmed to remove themselves from the community (mute ooc) but they should never complain or attempt reform. It’s a perfect example. I could not have come up with a better one. It’s also a clear illustration as to why this should be a rule and not an ad-hoc measure on a case-by-case basis, and it perfectly illustrates why you might not see as many complaints about this as you might expect if you’re watching the mod channels. Think about it. If you are a person who is being made angry or uncomfortable by a political or religious discussion, you have to ask yourself a very serious question before you start talking to anyone about it. The question is, “Is the person who I ask for help going to be sympathetic and understanding, or are they going to think like EvilBrage?” A lot of people think like EvilBrage, and until you ask, you can’t know. If you’re unlucky, as has been demonstrated here, you will at the very least, be called a whiner and your complaint will be ignored. This is why it has to be a rule. If we care about this at all, it has to be a rule. If it’s a rule, then the reason for stopping any particular discussion of politics or religion is simple. It’s a violation of the rule. That’s it. Done. If instead it’s done in an ad-hoc seat-of-the-pants case-by-case moderation then the reason for stopping the discussion is the person who asked for this specific discussion to be stopped. The requirement for validity rests entirely on the head of the specific person making the request and that is not a comfortable situation to be in for anyone. As has been demonstrated in this thread, there are people who believe that any request to curtail a discussion is going to be invalid. I’ve seen it happen on Aurora more than once. So people don’t. They don’t complain. They don’t take the risk. They just leave. And often, they don’t come back. For the ‘toughguys’, for the people people who think anyone who can be made anxious, angry, or depressed by certain political topics are all whining control freaks, choosing voluntarily (as a result of a psychological compulsion?) to impose their wacky demands on the people around them, maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe the idea is that we just force out everyone who isn’t a ‘toughguy’, and then we can say what we want, safe in the assurance that we’ve scared off anyone who's actually invested in the things we talk about it. I, personally, think it’s a problem. Thankfully, it’s a problem with a very simple solution, just don’t allow politics or religion in ooc.

Of course nobody has come out and said "I am one of the people who would benefit from this." In this thread alone, such people have been constantly been described as whiners, babies, immature, and mentally ill. What possible reason could anyone have for stepping forward as a sacrificial target? Anyone who did that would become the topic of all further discussion in this thread. Their motivations and history would be picked over, and they would be continuously asked to justify their emotional reactions. The internet deify's the 'toughguy', the person who is harmed by nothing, who has no emotional reactions of any kind to anything, regardless of how vile. Such a person is often considered to be an ideal. That disaffect is seen not as an accident of birth and the persons status in the current political climate, but as a sort of moral rightness. This is of course, ridiculous. It is very easy to be unemotional about topics that you have no stake in. If a political or religious discussion will never affect you negatively, then of course you're not going to have any reaction to it. In comparison, the capacity to be emotionally affected by anything is seen as not only weakness, but voluntary weakness. All emotional reactions are perceived to be a choice. How often have you heard people derided for 'choosing to be offended' about things that directly affect them and their lives? The thinking is, in short, if you are capable of being hurt, you deserve to be hurt. I think that's bullshit. I also think that not being allowed to talk about politics and religion in OOC isn't going to ruin much of anything. It's a minor thing that will make our community more welcoming.

Of course nobody has come out and said "I am one of the people who would benefit from this." In this thread alone, such people have been constantly been described as whiners, babies, immature, and mentally ill. What possible reason could anyone have for stepping forward as a sacrificial target? Anyone who did that would become the topic of all further discussion in this thread. Their motivations and history would be picked over, and they would be continuously asked to justify their emotional reactions. The internet deify's the 'toughguy', the person who is harmed by nothing, who has no emotional reactions of any kind to anything, regardless of how vile. Such a person is often considered to be an ideal. That disaffect is seen not as an accident of birth and the persons status in the current political climate, but as a sort of moral rightness. This is of course, ridiculous. It is very easy to be unemotional about topics that you have no stake in. If a political or religious discussion will never affect you negatively, then of course you're not going to have any reaction to it. In comparison, the capacity to be emotionally affected by anything is seen as not only weakness, but voluntary weakness. All emotional reactions are perceived to be a choice. How often have you heard people derided for 'choosing to be offended' about things that directly affect them and their lives? The thinking is, in short, if you are capable of being hurt, you deserve to be hurt. I think that's bullshit. I also think that not being allowed to talk about politics and religion in OOC isn't going to ruin much of anything. It's a minor thing that will make our community more welcoming.

Yeah, that's a side effect of the modifications necessary to make Shells work. From a code perspective, this is trivially easy. I think this is a good idea. The sprites we have are tiny enough that each one could represent dozens of actual hairstyles.

Yeah, that's a side effect of the modifications necessary to make Shells work. From a code perspective, this is trivially easy. I think this is a good idea. The sprites we have are tiny enough that each one could represent dozens of actual hairstyles.

Baka is right. While there are people who are jerks, and that is unlikely to change, Aurora is not required to give them a platform.

Baka is right. While there are people who are jerks, and that is unlikely to change, Aurora is not required to give them a platform.

We uh... we do ban fires. You're not allowed to burn down buildings.

Sue has been crazy busy at work these last few weeks. I'll ping Jackboot to take a look at this.

Yes! You are correct. That is entirely the point.

Thanks for being so thoughtful Francis. I agree that there should definitely be off topic discussions, and I'm not remotely suggesting that we ban all non-SS13 discussion. That would be unnecessarily stifling, and as you say, we use OOC for many things. That being said, I do think it's important to note that those topics are unrelated to the purpose of this community, which is the playing of SS13. That's not to say they aren't valuable topics, they are, but they're not necessary for this community, and specifically they are not necessary for the OOC channels used in-game. You'll note that I'm not suggesting we remove the off topic forum, just that we remove the topics of Politics and Religion from the OOC channels. That's the reason that I pointed out that there are already banned topics in OOC. I was establishing that we have precedent for banning topics entirely, such as in-game discussions of the current round. I was doing this to specifically refute the idea that this was infringing on people's liberty in some unique or unusual way. I was not attempting to establish a some kind of categorical relationship between religion and politics and other banned topics, only that banned topics exist and they do not notably impact people's enjoyment of the game. I disagree very strongly with your assertion that people who are made uncomfortable by certain topics have behavioral or anger management problems. For many people, political and religious topics are not simply entertaining abstractions to debate with strangers, they are matters of significant importance to their continuing safety, autonomy, and liberty. It is perfectly reasonable for people to be angry or uncomfortable when they hear other people expounding their public support for systems and ideals that directly disenfranchise them. In addition, being asked not to broadcast ones political or religious views on a public channel should not be viewed as a punishment. It isn't. It is instead an attempt to prioritize the happiness and enjoyment of others over whatever gratification people get from arguing over the internet.

Makes sense! Accepted!

Energy guns in the code already use power cells to handle their ammunition. In theory, it would be trivially easy to allow people to pop the cells out and replace them. Cells are medium sized items, so people wouldn't be able to carry infinite ammo. This would also give security a reason to interact with Science.

If we kicked stuff out for being a reference we wouldn't have a game...

This looks like an interesting character, and I'm glad to see an Emergent, but could you describe what this thing's relationship with NT is? What would it be enlisted to do? It might also be useful to consider it's legal status. It's body at least would probably be owned by NT, unless something strange and unusual happened after it was downloaded.

This is in not 'coddling' anyone. This is not treating players like infants. This is asking people to be adults about the situation and not insist on talking about potentially inflammatory subjects in a video-game with a diverse audience. As I previously mentioned, we forbid a variety of topics in OOC as we've decided that including them is detrimental to the goals of our community. If one of the goals of our community were to foster a vigorous debating society, then I would certainly not be suggesting what I am, but it's not. We want, as far as I have been lead to believe, to create a community of people who enjoy playing this particular game on our server in a particular way. Discussions of religion and politics have nothing to do with those goals, and can harm the enjoyment of some players, that's why it makes sense to remove them from OOC. We lose nothing of value, and it furthers our primary goal. The idea expressed by "People will argue about anything, therefore preventing them from talking about Religion or Politics is pointless" is not a good one. Very few people have skin in the game in discussions about the value of ice-cream. While people will certainly argue about ice-cream, and may make amusingly hyperbolic statements, those arguments do not materially affect their lives. This is not the same as religion or politics. Consider, for example, how many wars have been fought over ice-cream, or how many people have been locked up or murdered based on their ice-cream preferences. Saying that people will argue about anything, therefore we shouldn't forbid Politics and Religion is like saying that, because people can be hurt while juggling anything from soft fabric balls to Pomeranian's, it is pointless to discourage people from trying to juggle chainsaws or live hand grenades.

Ah sorry. I wasn't clear. When I said "character" I meant "discussing in character events" like "Halp! Bing absorbed in maint!"