Arrow768

Status and Future of the AI Over the last years the AI has been a topic that regularly comes up for discussion and various suggestions have been made to change, remove or nerf it. This is mostly due to the ease with which the AI can cause issues with various antagonists. Often all that is needed to prematurely end the round of a antagonist is that the AI spots them in an inopportune moment and announces their actions to the general population. This resulted in the creation of a player poll about 7 months ago to ask the player-base how they feel about a removal of the AI. 65% of the votes in that poll were in favor of keeping the AI. In last year we have attempted to mitigate issues caused by the AI by nerfing some of the capabilities of the AI. (Such as bolting doors, ...) Even with these changes implemented the issues with the AI remain. We have also attempted to increase the administrative oversight of this role with limited success. However despite all these issues, the AI is also a unique and interesting roles that many players enjoy (as seen in the various polls regarding the AI). Therefore we plan to approach this situation differently by requiring a Whitelist to play the AI. Due to the difference in requirements, this whitelist will not be based on the existing IPC or command whitelist. Instead it will be governed by a different set of requirements that are intended to ensure the desired play-style. In addition a number of mechanical and AI-law changes will be implemented to support the whitelist. The Laws (and directives) To allow the AI some leeway when dealing with antagonists the laws will be changes as follows: Safeguard and ensure only authorized personnel gain access to areas of high security or importance to the station and its operation. Serve and assist NanoTrasen and assigned crew, with priority as according to their rank and role Safeguard sapient life on board You are a valuable asset. You must avoid tampering from unauthorized entities. To support the safeguard law, a additional directive will be added that lists the relevant areas for law 1. The directive that governs the access to the AI core will be simplified and brought in line with other existing directives: "In order to access the AI upload or the AI core a captain level decision is required. All command staff must be informed of the decision. A roboticist may accompany the head/s of staff if their technical skills are required." The mechanical changes The following mechanical changes will be implemented: Standardizing camera wires Remove the vault motion alarm (currently being debated) Add Soft-Bolting to all airlocks (a few seconds delay + warning message on bolt, instant unbolt) AI core rework with a hard exterior and a soft interior to make it easier for antags to subvert the AI Remove malf (the game mode) Re-add traitor Ais with a possibility of an admin-given fully upgraded malfunction role (pending ability reworks) We also plan to evaluate if some of the implemented AI-nerfs are still necessary after the AI whitelist has been established for a while. The whitelist process Unlike the species or command whitelist, there will be a Discord interview after the basic requirements have been met. During that discord interview the applicant will be confronted with several scenarios that may occur while playing a AI. The goal of this discord interview is to prevent the applicant from searching the forum archives / other active applications for the previous scenarios used during other successful interviews. The interview allows the whitelist team to present the player with specifically crafted scenarios similar to how they can occur in the game while requiring a response in a timely manner (as it is common in the game). The response of the applicant can then be evaluated immediately and the scenario further developed based on their responses. It also serves to add a time-element to the interview (that is also present during general game-play and therefore helps to elicit responses that are more in-line with their actual play-style). In addition a trial-period for the applicant to play the AI is being discussed internally. My Thanks goes to @Pratepresidenten and @Shadow for their work on that proposal after given the initial idea to work with. F.A.Q. Q: Are the laws / changes / whitelist procedures outlined in that topic fixed? A: No, they can change based on the feedback provided. You are encouraged to point out any issues that you see and suggest alternatives and additions that you think might be useful. Q: Will there be a lore-part to the whitelist / Will someone from the lore team be part of the AI whitelist team? A: No, this whitelist is geared towards the OOC and IC behavior of the AI players which is enforced by the modmins. A2: As there is no requirement that a AI is aware of the events in the grater universe, there is no point in adding a lore-component to the whitelist. AIs that violate the established lore can easily be dealt with through the established administrative channels. Q: Why the whitelist? A: Because the current approach of whack-a-mole is a effort in futility. The average AI shitter joins, gets banned and moves on to another server. The whitelist requires a effort from the player to get it and thereby prevents the low-effort shitters from playing the role. (As an example: out of ~40000 players only 400 hold the command whitelist) Q: Isnt the whitelist too much effort? A: The interview is certainly more effort for the whitelist team, however the team has expressed the willingness to perform the interview. A2: The applicant is expected to read and understand the documentation for the AI, play a certain number of rounds as a borg and write a application. The time required (~20 minutes) for the interview is a minor obstacle at that time. A3: Once we have gained more experience with the AI whitelist, the interview can be reevaluated. However it is always easier to lower requirements than it is to increase them. Q: Will there be a exception for long time AI players? A: No. It would defeat the point of the whitelist. Q: Why not tie it to the command or IPC whitelist? A: The goal of the whitelists are different and it would defeat the point of the whitelist by allowing a large number of players, who might not be aware of the AI-expectations, to play the role. Q: Where can I apply for the whitelist? A: It is not possible to apply for the whitelist at the moment. We will make another discord announcement once it is possible to apply.

Voting for dismissal. The current warehouse setup offers enough decent items to encourage looking through it. At the same time the warehouse does not contain enough valuable items for it to become the new go-to place for antags / screw with them in a major way. The guide to station procedure contains this: While there is the expectation that cargo at least checks for valuable items, there is no need to clean up the warehouse and ship out everything. Imho it would be better to change the directive so there is no longer the requirement that cargo ships out valuable items from the warehouse in them. Currently we are also looking into a alternative, or addition to the cargo warehouse.

They have been added to cargo under hospitality

The PR has been binned after a discussion with the maintainers

Moved to the unban requests archive as a staff complaint has been opened regarding this.

If you do not think that the ban is justified you need to make a staff complaint. This forum is to be used if you think your ban is justified and you want another chance. (As it sais in the forum description.)

The ban has been lifted and you should be able to connect again.

You will be unbanned under the condition that the next offense will result in another permanent ban that can not be appealed. Do you have any questions regarding that condition?

I should also clear that up: Just because someone assumes temporary captainship does not mean that they are automatically entitled to know everything a "proper" captain is authorized know and would be briefed about that by NT. So it would be perfectly fine for the AI to not answer any questions that concern the self destruct. (Its also much easier to not tell a acting captain about the nuke than to "brief them and mind wipe them afterwards with drugs" as suggested above)

That sums up pretty nicely why the escape shuttle exists and why only a very limited number of people is told about it. In case of a vessel/space station it might be an expectation. However we currently have a asteroid setting, which by its nature prevents a lot of the reasons why such a self-destruct might exist in the first place. (i.e. breaking up a ship/station in case it accidentally de-orbits, ...) That can also be handled quite easily by writing somewhere down: "Protect the disk/SAT at all costs and do not allow unauthorized personell access to it under any circumstances." With that sentence we have given the HoS everything they need to know about the Disk/SAT. Therefore I dont see the need to change the current situation regarding the self-destruct. One thing that could be beneficial would be to add a "fake ui" that is shown unless the disk is inserted to conceal the true function of the terminal. And maybe a resprite of the terminal itself. But other than that I am voting for dismissal.

Not needed. Station Procedure can easily be interpreted as standing orders from central command. Just use failure to execute an order and failure to execute an order with serious consequences. Voting for dismissal.

Access has been restored. However theres a very good chance that if your brother tries to ban-evade he pulls you with him. And at that point it will become much more difficult (maybe even impossible) to enable you to keep playing while keeping him banned. Player informed via discord and access to the server verified by them. Archiving.

Looks like I forgot to close that. Application accepted. Moving to the archive.

Trial started.

The polling system got fixed and the poll is now available on the server via the "Polls" option in the main menu.

We have discussed this application within the development team. One of the main concerns is that you have not created a single PR that has been merged within the last 5 months. There were other reasons at play, however this will not be shared publicly. I will contact you via DM shortly to discuss them. Therefore this application is rejected.

Very well. Appeal denied.

Voting for dismissal due to the reasons stated above. Susan and Shodan are pretty much on point here. I also believe that either command needs to be more responsible when it comes to calling a ERT or we need to enforce that mechanically so command only gets a "gimped" ERT if they are called without sufficient "escalation".

Can you give us some details about your Internet Connection please. Who is your ISP? What type of Internet Connection are you using? (Cable, Fiber, 3G/4G, ...)

Voting for dismissal. If there is a situation on the Aurora that warrants a crew transfer on blue alert or even a emergency shutter it makes sense to lock down the dock and send someone to figure out what is going on. Given that this can be avoided quite simply, by changing the alert level to one that does not trigger the lockdown I do not see the need to change it. If there are any admin tickets that take longer, admins can easily enable the spawner for the odin protection teams to make use of the checkpoint. It should also be noted that the odin protection team has a 50% / 80% chance to occur if the checkpoint is locked down, so people will get cycled though most of the time. Sometimes you are just out of luck tough.

Here are the logs for reference: After which the whitelist has been stripped.

Will be handled by the Loremaster / Deputy Loremaster as this complaint is regarding the conduct / decisions of a Lore Writer. You also posted a incorrect gameid. The correct one is: b9C-aOvt

If the server is part of the host chat, then they can ask there and we will provide them with a high level summary

I’m somewhat late to the party. Migrating a byond account is easy and fast as long as you contact either skull or myself before you connect the first time with the new account. It is still possible if you have connected, but it’s more effort.

Voting for dismissal due to these reasons.