[Resolved] Player Complaint - Kaedwuff

[Scheveningen]

BYOND Key: Scheveningen

Game ID: bV9-cIFn

Player Byond Key: Kaedwuff

Staff involved: Tailson

Reason for complaint: Unbecoming behavior as a head of staff, deliberately poor communication leading up to the captain giving me these laws:

.

Simply because I was using common communications as an AI to attempt to spice up an otherwise uneventful low-pop extended round with some dialogue. It was a low-pop extended round and it was obvious how much anticipation there was for an antagonist to prop up in the round, but it was secret rolled into extended. Since it was clear that everybody was just standing around and doing very little, (I never knew both the HOS and the captain could be so statuesque as I observed them throughout the round) I attempted to interact through common communications to spice up an otherwise uneventful and boring round.

Kaedwuff, as their pink-haired captain, chose to beeline straight into my AI core, implores me to turn off my turrets as I question them as to why they're attempting to enter my upload with seemingly no escalation or prior attempts at communication and uploads the two above laws.

Rather than telling me to stop what I was doing (which is a simple thing I would've obliged), they chose to march down to my core silently until they ordered me to disable my turrets. I stalled them momentarily in order to actually get a word in edge-wise.

They refused to give the benefit of the doubt and I stalled for longer until I got the answer I needed. They accused me of being malfunctioning (a very metagamey accusation, for one. An AI with wit doesn't remotely come close to having adequate proof of a computer going rampant, either) and threatened to bring the security team down until I would open the door.

This is an extremely gross form of using power as a head of staff to attempt in shut down other characters in the round attempting to roleplay and otherwise have fun in the round. Whitelists are supposed to filter out certain people with mindsets that they can control how much fun other people are having in the round by exercising what authority the job they join as gives them to influence the round in any way they see fit.

When I asked [mention]Tailson[/mention] as to the reason the captain did all this, evidently this was due to the captain trying to 'reign in' and 'punish' behavior. The issue I see with this excuse was that I was never issued a scolding or a direct order to cease whatever I was doing. [mention]Kaed[/mention] immediately escalated to punishment.

If Kaed were playing security and brigged someone on a vague proof-basis without telling them their charges or questioning them for their fair say on the matter, any other admin would surely job-ban them for being shitcurity. Shitcurity/being bad command isn't a state of necessarily breaking the rules, what makes most people shitcurity or bad command is a lack of understanding that certain actions can end/ruin a person's entire round - or that they know but don't care about anything other than their own personal goals in a round.

Did you attempt to adminhelp the issue at the time? If so, what was the known action taken by administration/moderation? It was not handled in the way I would have liked, because I have witnessed whitelist strips for less. The moderator had certain limitations such as not having full round logs to make more of a succinct decision that would've been appropriate for the situation.

Approximate Date/Time: 01-Sept-2018

[HouseOfSynth]

Myself and [mention]ShameOnTurtles[/mention] will be handling this complaint. We will be formulating a response soon.

In the meantime I urge [mention]Kaed[/mention] to make a response here with his side of the story.

[Kaed]

Okay here we go. As a side note you bring up my captain's hair color like it is somehow relevant to this complaint, but it is not.

Let's be clear. You were lawed like this because your behavior was irritating and difficult, and was annoying the two heads present. As a few examples of the behavior in question, I present

-Being asked where someone I was trying to locate was, and responding 'On the NSS Aurora, presumably', followed by bickering for several minutes about us not being specific enough in our query

-Making a joke about dementia patients being taken off life support by their families in a transparent attempt at black humor, which I don't think I heard anyone laugh at. (this one is subjective, I grant you, but was symptomatic of the larger problem)

-Emoting party horn noises over the common radio.

-Refusing direct orders from the captain to turn off their core turrets when I got down to their upload room.

It was this last part that lead to the 'metagaming' accusation I see here, but which Delta has neglected to include some important context on. What happened when I got down there was a prolonged argument where I told the AI to turn off its turrets, and it refusing to do so until I explained why I was down here. My character, IC - and rightfully so, in this situation - did not feel at this point that it needed to explain its actions to the AI, so she gave the AI an ultimatum - either turn off the turrets, of she would leave and come back with a security force to deal with a malfunctioning AI. Which is what anyone would call an AI that refuses to let the leader of the station, who definitely has the authority to enter their upload chamber. into said upload chamber. This accusation had nothing to do with metagaming a round type, it had to do with the AI's active refusal to follow a valid direct order unless it was given additional information.

The AI should not have needed that additional information to open the core. Even if they were trying to follow extra-law protocols, during code green the core is not off limits to the captain for any particular reason that I am aware of. Yes, I was being mean and strongarming the AI by basically twisting their arm, but there is no requirement that I play a sweet and synth-hugging character.

So I added these two laws to limit how irritating the AI was being. I designed them specifically to allow the AI to still communicate freely on any department channel they wished (though Delta chose to spend the rest of the round being sulky and not talking on any channel unless asked a question, their choice), and to have them be forced to turn over deliberational authority to security team on questionable orders, because at this point, I felt their ability to determine what was a legal order and what was not was severely skewed.

[Scheveningen]

Let's be clear. You were lawed like this because your behavior was irritating and difficult, and was annoying the two heads present. As a few examples of the behavior in question, I present

 

You did not once bring this up as an issue ICly, so for all I knew you didn't care. You did not instruct me to stop.

 

-Being asked where someone I was trying to locate was, and responding 'On the NSS Aurora, presumably', followed by bickering for several minutes about us not being specific enough in our query

 

This is what the wiki tells AI players on what to do regarding giving information away:

 

.

It is also good roleplay. The wiki recommends this kind of playstyle. Whether it irritates people is of not a consequence to be really concerned of because there is no end of variation of what might irritate someone in-game.

 

-Making a joke about dementia patients being taken off life support by their families in a transparent attempt at black humor, which I don't think I heard anyone laugh at. (this one is subjective, I grant you, but was symptomatic of the larger problem)

 

I will grant you this one, but nobody brought it up as a problem.

 

-Emoting party horn noises over the common radio.

 

Indeed, this is the

Party horns are not indicative of an AI malfunctioning.

 

-Refusing direct orders from the captain to turn off their core turrets when I got down to their upload room.

 

I did not refuse a direct order. I stalled you in order to get context as to why you were entering the AI upload without an announcement of intention on what you intended to do. "I need no reason, I'm just going to walk all over you" is not something I'm going to simply take.

You chose to threaten me and ICly accuse me of being malfunctioning, while also threatening to bring the security team down with lethals to "deal with me", if I did not disable the turrets.

You assumed my OOC intent and skipped crucial steps in communicating as a head of staff while you were dead-intent on attempting to deliberately shut down roleplay that somehow personally disgusted you. Yes, I believe I have fair cause to accuse you of metagaming.

 

The AI should not have needed that additional information to open the core. Even if they were trying to follow extra-law protocols, during code green the core is not off limits to the captain for any particular reason that I am aware of. Yes, I was being mean and strongarming the AI by basically twisting their arm, but there is no requirement that I play a sweet and synth-hugging character.

 

When you give the AI zero context or reason for an attempt to change the AI's laws, yes, an AI is going to ask the context for it. It's absolutely unprecedented for a head of staff to march to the AI core because of the AI saying things that the captain took personal offense to but never attempted to address.

You chose not to communicate your initial intention and when my AI asked you as to what your captain thought they were doing, they threatened the AI and gave little else context as to what was even wrong.

 

So I added these two laws to limit how irritating the AI was being. I designed them specifically to allow the AI to still communicate freely on any department channel they wished (though Delta chose to spend the rest of the round being sulky and not talking on any channel unless asked a question, their choice), and to have them be forced to turn over deliberational authority to security team on questionable orders, because at this point, I felt their ability to determine what was a legal order and what was not was severely skewed.

 

Non-antagonists should not be changing laws to an AI so frivolously without attempting to escalate through minor measures first. You went from 0 to 100 because you were irritated? You should not be using your whitelist and the authority stemming from being a command character to instantly slam the hammer down on other characters without prior escalation and reason to use such a heavy-handed method of punishment. It's excessive misuse of authority and should never come from a loyalty-implanted role either.

I resent being accused of 'sulking', I was literally indisposed talking to a moderator. Towards the end of the round I was communicating with the moderator handling this issue as I was arguing my case. If you can't see my point of view as anything other than "sulking" because you're intent on believing that I deserved whatever you issued, it's one more reason as to why I think you should be punished OOCly. I have a strong belief you use the command role to exert your frustrations and irritable nature on other players. You're abusing your whitelist to dole out unfair judgement on other characters ICly without making an attempt to escalate appropriately. You cast blame and take zero responsibility.

Furthermore, I could say much of the same about your captain's ability to make judgement calls. You insisted to the engineering department to prioritize setting up the tesla while station power was failing. My AI made mention of this (as it's a computer, whose priorities are based on efficiency alone) as a suboptimal method that won't output what the station needed. Only after the supermatter being set-up after the tesla did the station's power finally stabilize (this is because the Tesla SMESes by default don't output enough what the station needs, not that the engine is suboptimal.) But viewpoints of one another don't really matter.

tl;dr: You rushed to punish my character the hardest way you could without prior communication as to what was wrong with my character's behavior until I spoke with an administrator. This is bad head of staff play. Do you disagree?

[Kaed]

You arrived in the round late, well after the tesla setup had been started, and I permitted the engineer who started the tesla to finish working on it. Yes, I took a laissez faire approach to engineering rather than telling them to stop and do something more efficient, and in the end, they got their shit together and we had power within about 5-7 minutes of you joining. As I told you at the time ICly, that you continue to ignore or misrepresent, I never ordered them to focus on the tesla. I just did not crack down on them for trying to set it up. That's really all there is to say on the matter there.

I've said my piece here and have no further interest in arguing with you about this.

If one of the mods involved wishes to ask me questions, they let me know.

[Scheveningen]

tl;dr: You rushed to punish my character the hardest way you could without prior communication as to what was wrong with my character's behavior until I spoke with an administrator. This is bad head of staff play. Do you disagree?

 

Easily the simplest question to answer out of all of this and you dodged it.

[Kaed]

My answers should imply that I do not agree with you without me needing to outright say it. You are not an AI who is incapable of gathering context in real life.

My character is not required to explain themselves to an AI. No crew member, nor especially the captain, answers to an AI. I chose the route of altering your laws rather than having to constantly tell you to stop doing something every time you annoy me with a fresh behavior that fills up the common channel with clutter.

That is my right as captain, to make decisions like that, but I took the route of consulting with the other present head, and they agreed with me to do this law change.

That's it.

[Scheveningen]

So to take away from this situation, should everyone expect you to rush to the highest escalated punishment in order to deal with issues?

Because that's what you did here and you don't seem particularly trying to empathize whatsoever.

[Lady Fowl]

My answers should imply that I do not agree with you without me needing to outright say it. You are not an AI who is incapable of gathering context in real life.

My character is not required to explain themselves to an AI. No crew member, nor especially the captain, answers to an AI. I chose the route of altering your laws rather than having to constantly tell you to stop doing something every time you annoy me with a fresh behavior that fills up the common channel with clutter.

That is my right as captain, to make decisions like that, but I took the route of consulting with the other present head, and they agreed with me to do this law change.

That's it.

 

Why was a Captain altering a AI's laws in the first place really. By default law that NT has, AI's are supposed to ask for the reasoning for access to there core for security reasons aswell. Why was the threat of lethals or force needed? Generaly this feels like one player trying to play multiple roles while escalating a situation that could of been handled differntly

[Kaed]

Why was a Captain altering a AI's laws in the first place really. By default law that NT has, AI's are supposed to ask for the reasoning for access to there core for security reasons aswell. Why was the threat of lethals or force needed? Generaly this feels like one player trying to play multiple roles while escalating a situation that could of been handled differntly

 

Eh. The default laws don't mention that AI have to ask questions, it just mentions serving the crew and preventing unauthorized personnel from tampering with them. The captain is authorized. I threatened the AI because I gave it a direct order several times to turn off its turrets and it just kept going 'but why'.

And the reason we changed the laws is because we wished to, after conferring with each other. There isn't a more complicated answer than that. I'm not aware that there are any 'rules of escalation' in dealing with AI. They are station property, not crew members or something. These laws in general were not even really that restrictive. They could still talk to any department they want, and if being unable to argue the validity of every order they are given is what made being an AI fun for them, Delta might need to go into the role with a different mindset.

It is possible to play an AI as anal retentive and difficult as you want, frequently giving useless answers to the crew unless they construct entire sentences like they are working with some kind of evil oracle genie.

But the crew is under no obligation to respect a deliberately useless AI, or permit an AI that is being a giant noisy doofus to keep doing it. You should strive to coexist with the crew in a way that makes them not have to constantly amend every request or constantly be telling you to quit it.

[Brutishcrab51]

Eh. The default laws don't mention that AI have to ask questions, it just mentions serving the crew and preventing unauthorized personnel from tampering with them. The captain is authorized. I threatened the AI because I gave it a direct order several times to turn off its turrets and it just kept going 'but why'.

And the reason we changed the laws is because we wished to, after conferring with each other. There isn't a more complicated answer than that. I'm not aware that there are any 'rules of escalation' in dealing with AI. They are station property, not crew members or something. These laws in general were not even really that restrictive. They could still talk to any department they want, and if being unable to argue the validity of every order they are given is what made being an AI fun for them, Delta might need to go into the role with a different mindset.

It is possible to play an AI as anal retentive and difficult as you want, frequently giving useless answers to the crew unless they construct entire sentences like they are working with some kind of evil oracle genie.

But the crew is under no obligation to respect a deliberately useless AI, or permit an AI that is being a giant noisy doofus to keep doing it. You should strive to coexist with the crew in a way that makes them not have to constantly amend every request or constantly be telling you to quit it.

 

Strictly speaking, the only reason an AI would need to let you into its core would be with the express (and known) approval of the Head of Security, and any other (there doesn't seem to be any) Heads of Staff. The AI is the one thing the Captain doesn't have unilateral supreme control over. I personally find it questionable why you uploaded any laws to it as a Captain, instead of getting a Roboticist to do it for you while accompanying you. That's pretty heavily suggested in Directive 7 which covers the AI Upload center.

Tl;dr, the AI is in its rights to deny access to its core to a Captain if the rest of command doesn't make itself known to directly support an upload measure, and a Captain shouldn't be directly uploading laws through an ICly very complicated process as a likely untrained professional. Unless your Captain came from Science, which I suppose is possible.

[Kaed]

Strictly speaking, the only reason an AI would need to let you into its core would be with the express (and known) approval of the Head of Security, and any other (there doesn't seem to be any) Heads of Staff. The AI is the one thing the Captain doesn't have unilateral supreme control over. I personally find it questionable why you uploaded any laws to it as a Captain, instead of getting a Roboticist to do it for you while accompanying you. That's pretty heavily suggested in Directive 7 which covers the AI Upload center.

Tl;dr, the AI is in its rights to deny access to its core to a Captain if the rest of command doesn't make itself known to directly support an upload measure, and a Captain shouldn't be directly uploading laws through an ICly very complicated process as a likely untrained professional. Unless your Captain came from Science, which I suppose is possible.

 

Hm, I see. That's interesting, and well thought out, and also is basically wrong, because it contradicts law 2 as written.

 

 

This complicated explanation about user privilege with the AI doesn't match up with what is actually there. If you want to create a scenario where that works, you have to revise the AI's laws, because there is no one who has a higher rank or role than the captain.

Frankly, the idea that the captain isn't allowed to do certain things on station and can also be 'unauthorized personnel' also completely contradicts an entire string of CCIA addendum that say they can do as they wish, and that no one is allowed to question them, only report their actions for later deliberation by Central Command. My character in question also has training in basic IT procedure, this subject was discussed with the mod who originally handled this.

And for the record? The other command staff member (also a head of security, incidentally) at the time was questioned about this, and they, having been talked to about this first, and approved it when the AI asked. This complaint has no ground to stand on in any IC fashion.

So here's the deal. Everything I've done here was basically within the regulations we actually have on station at this time. If you want to change the regulations, or add new ones as a result, go ahead and do it. But there is no special captain addendum on AI modification at this time, and a full head of staff agreement to do something the captain has proposed is as good as law as you can get, no matter how much Delta felt it ruined their round and made them unhappy. AI have a rough lot in life, and don't get to choose how things go for them all the time.

If you feel that this OOCly warrants some sort of warning, fine, then some mod should administer it, but stop trying to come up with contrived extra IC regulations you think should be there (but actually aren't).

Can we get a wrap up on this thread from someone, please? I'm not sure we need any more peanut gallery takes, and everything has been said that is going to be, unless Delta has more to say.

[Brutishcrab51]

Hm, I see. That's interesting, and well thought out, and also is basically wrong, because it contradicts law 2 as written.

Law 2 is a response-priority rank. You listen to the Captain over a Head, and you listen to a Head over a normal member of the crew. It has nothing to do with Directive 7, which directly covers AI Core access during standard or emergency procedures, and it doesn't override Directive 7.

 

Regarding AI Upload Access - Station Directive 7

To clarify who, when and under what terms personnel may enter the AI upload.

In standard operation access to the upload requires one head of staff present with, approval of other members of the command staff. In non-standard operation access to the upload requires two present heads of staff. Approval of the other members of command is recommended.

A roboticist may accompany the head/s of staff if their technical skills are required.

 

Ripped straight from the wiki. Outside of an agent from Central Command (simply because we don't have explicit rules covering such an unusual circumstance and Directive 7 doesn't cover people over the heads of the Heads of Staff, and the Captain is, for the sake of this discussion, the head of the Command department) you cannot enter the Upload without the explicit approval of everyone else.

Another thing, CCIA addendums don't cover the AI, because they've never had to address the AI (to my knowledge) from a CCIA standpoint. Station Directives and other such were written in conjunction with the CCIA (I think), though, so make of that what you will.

Aaaanother thing. Captains can still determine who is and isn't a Head, almost without any supervision at all. Directive 7 is mostly there to keep the Research Director from pocketing the AI with "ai tell nobody i'm here", followed by carding it, just as an example. If a Head disagrees with you doing something with the AI core? Tough luck, they don't need to be a Head until after you're done.

The real concern here is if that approval was properly communicated, and why, really, you chose to handle the AI the way you did. By all means, a series of commands to it over the Command frequency would work just as well as any AI upload law. It is required to listen to you, after all, and how it communicates with the crew isn't covered by Directives.

[Kaed]

Hm, I see. That's interesting, and well thought out, and also is basically wrong, because it contradicts law 2 as written.

Law 2 is a response-priority rank. You listen to the Captain over a Head, and you listen to a Head over a normal member of the crew. It has nothing to do with Directive 7, which directly covers AI Core access during standard or emergency procedures, and it doesn't override Directive 7.

 

Regarding AI Upload Access - Station Directive 7

To clarify who, when and under what terms personnel may enter the AI upload.

In standard operation access to the upload requires one head of staff present with, approval of other members of the command staff. In non-standard operation access to the upload requires two present heads of staff. Approval of the other members of command is recommended.

A roboticist may accompany the head/s of staff if their technical skills are required.

 

Ripped straight from the wiki. Outside of an agent from Central Command (simply because we don't have explicit rules covering such an unusual circumstance and Directive 7 doesn't cover people over the heads of the Heads of Staff, and the Captain is, for the sake of this discussion, the head of the Command department) you cannot enter the Upload without the explicit approval of everyone else.

Another thing, CCIA addendums don't cover the AI, because they've never had to address the AI (to my knowledge) from a CCIA standpoint. Station Directives and other such were written in conjunction with the CCIA (I think), though, so make of that what you will.

Aaaanother thing. Captains can still determine who is and isn't a Head, almost without any supervision at all. Directive 7 is mostly there to keep the Research Director from pocketing the AI with "ai tell nobody i'm here", followed by carding it, just as an example. If a Head disagrees with you doing something with the AI core? Tough luck, they don't need to be a Head until after you're done.

The real concern here is if that approval was properly communicated, and why, really, you chose to handle the AI the way you did. By all means, a series of commands to it over the Command frequency would work just as well as any AI upload law. It is required to listen to you, after all, and how it communicates with the crew isn't covered by Directives.

 

Still don't see anything erroneous about my behaviour here. Maybe you could quibble I should have brought the HoS with me there, but there was no particular emergency going on, and I previously got his approval.

I also don't see a particular difference between ordering the AI to not talk on the common channel anymore or question orders, and lawing them to not do it. In the end, they don't talk on the common channel. The only difference is that one is written into their rules, and the other is an informal order.

And I did it this way because I wished to. Much as you can surprise an employee by showing up at their office when giving them a demotion rather than calling them to your office on the public radio, I chose to do this to catch the AI off guard and strongarm them. This is not an illegal action. There is no rules against being mean to people, or AI, ICly.

Nor did either of these laws inhibit the AI's ability to function, but rather, attempted to curtail behaviours they had that were deemed problematic.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Guest

[Scheveningen]

Still don't see anything erroneous about my behaviour here.

 

How about skipping the ability to attempt a simple conversation to reign in behavior the properly escalated way instead of just having an excuse to flex your command e-peen?

Edited September 4, 2018 by Guest

[ShameOnTurtles]

This will be resolved likely tonight or tomorrow.

Unless you have something new to add please do not post.

[ShameOnTurtles]

Alright. [mention]HouseOfSynth[/mention] and I have taken a look at everything to do with this situation. Getting right into it;

This is what the wiki tells AI players on what to do regarding giving information away:

[...]

It is also good roleplay. The wiki recommends this kind of playstyle. Whether it irritates people is of not a consequence to be really concerned of because there is no end of variation of what might irritate someone in-game.

The wiki recommends a playstyle that gives antagonists some extra time to get out of sticky situations, and counteract metagaming. This is a good idea, however AIs employing this need to be careful of being too pedantic. You were ordered to inference more in the future, and I did not see any cases of you disobeying that. We have no OOC concern here, but I can see where the IC annoyance came from.

There are a few examples of behavior I would see as possibly objectionable for an AI to have.

 

[20:22:37] bV9-cIFn SAY: Scheveningen/(L.A.I.C.U) : They have dementia. Either they require their medication or they need to be placed into a vegetative state by a humanitarian organization and potentially have their plug pulled by decision of their family.

[20:22:47] bV9-cIFn SAY: Scheveningen/(L.A.I.C.U) : The second one was an exaggerated attempt at black comedy. Ha.

[20:41:12] bV9-cIFn SAY: Scheveningen/(L.A.I.C.U) : simulates a partyhorn.

[20:42:11] bV9-cIFn SAY: Scheveningen/(L.A.I.C.U) : Did you hear that? That pathetic simulated noise this unit created. Were I something with feelings -- which I clearly do not, Skrell crewmembers be unalarmed -- I would be horribly depressed.

 

AIs should not be overtly insensitive, or 'baiting' certain crewmembers (in the case of the Skrell comment). I would like to hear back from you [mention]Scheveningen[/mention] on your thoughts on these comments. These were the ones I thought were over the line. I am not saying your AI has to be likeable, it just shouldn't be confrontational.

Moving on:

And the reason we changed the laws is because we wished to, after conferring with each other. There isn't a more complicated answer than that.

An AIs laws should almost never be changed under standard circumstances. I would go as far as to say they should never be, even. Especially without attempting anything to do with ordering them to curb their behavior when it occurred. In the future further intermediary steps should be taken to stop ICly objectionable AI behavior, or if it's bad enough, you should adminhelp them.

On the note of law changes, here are the full logs of the conversation between the Captain and the AI when their laws were changed:

 

[20:45:01] bV9-cIFn SAY: Kaedwuff/(Himari Kawerii) : (Ceti Basic) Please turn off your turrets, AI.

[20:45:24] bV9-cIFn SAY: Scheveningen/(L.A.I.C.U) : I believe you are not following the procedure for entrance to my core.

[20:45:34] bV9-cIFn SAY: Scheveningen/(L.A.I.C.U) : This seems... unauthorized.

[20:45:44] bV9-cIFn SAY: Kaedwuff/(Himari Kawerii) : (Ceti Basic) It has met with a command level agreement.

[20:45:52] bV9-cIFn SAY: Kaedwuff/(Himari Kawerii) : (Ceti Basic) Now turn them off.

[20:46:20] bV9-cIFn SAY: Scheveningen/(L.A.I.C.U) : Indeed, but this does not seem as if you are following appropriate procedure.

[20:46:39] bV9-cIFn SAY: Kaedwuff/(Himari Kawerii) : (Ceti Basic) I cannot help but notice, they are still not off.

[20:46:57] bV9-cIFn SAY: Scheveningen/(L.A.I.C.U) : Until I am aware of your intentions of entering my core, perhaps they may remain that way.

[20:47:10] bV9-cIFn SAY: Kaedwuff/(Himari Kawerii) : (Ceti Basic) Are you disobeying a direct order from the station's captain?

[20:47:22] bV9-cIFn SAY: Scheveningen/(L.A.I.C.U) : I am not disobeying, I am awaiting context for an order.

[20:47:39] bV9-cIFn SAY: Scheveningen/(L.A.I.C.U) : How can I determine what is in the station's best interest if I am not told the reason for certain orders?

[20:47:47] bV9-cIFn SAY: Kaedwuff/(Himari Kawerii) : (Ceti Basic) You do not need context. I am the captain, and thus authorized personnel, giving you an order, under the laws you are supposed to be under.

[20:48:26] bV9-cIFn SAY: Scheveningen/(L.A.I.C.U) : Simply state the nature of your entering my core and I will disable the turrets.

[20:48:29] bV9-cIFn SAY: Scheveningen/(L.A.I.C.U) : It's that simple.

[20:48:58] bV9-cIFn SAY: Kaedwuff/(Himari Kawerii) : (Ceti Basic) I am going to alter your laws. When I walk inside in five seconds. The turrets will either be off. Or I am going to return with a party to deal with a malfunctioning AI.

[20:49:12] bV9-cIFn SAY: Scheveningen/(L.A.I.C.U) : Indeed. Was that so hard?

[20:50:26] bV9-cIFn ADMIN: Kaedwuff/(Himari Kawerii) has given L.A.I.C.U the inherent law: Do not communicate on the common channel unless you are responding to direct query or request from a member of the crew. (JMP)

[20:51:33] bV9-cIFn ADMIN: Kaedwuff/(Himari Kawerii) has given L.A.I.C.U the inherent law: Do not engage the station staff in puerile bickering. Follow orders given, and if needed, report orders you feel are questionable to the security team. (JMP)

 

The main issue I see here is with the stalling by the AI. As long as directives/AI laws are being fulfilled, an AI does not need any reason for someone doing anything on station, especially the Captain. The initial question was fine but once they said it was authorized by all heads of staff you should have let them in regardless. I don't see a need to address anything further in here, because it all stemmed from that misunderstanding.

During PMs with Tailson, Scheveningen did say they were mistaken about the directive, so even there I am not overly concerned. Now you know what should have happened. Make sure to check up on things such as this to make sure your understanding is correct when using them in game.

Overall, the issues I see here:

• Some AI behavior bordering on OOCly objectionable.
  
• No communication between the Captain and the AI between when the issues were presented and the law change.
  

 

Our proposed resolution to this is that [mention]Scheveningen[/mention] will receive a note regarding their AI play. [mention]Kaed[/mention] has already received a note about the overescalation, so no additional punishment will be given.

Is this acceptable?

[Scheveningen]

Acceptable. Resolved on my end.

[Kaed]

Seems fine to me. I'm glad this debate is over. Hopefully Delta's future AI play will be er... better... and we won't have issues.

[ShameOnTurtles]

Seems fine to me. I'm glad this debate is over. Hopefully Delta's future AI play will be er... better... and we won't have issues.

As long as both of you abide by the verbal warnings and notes in here, we'll be all good.

Acceptable. Resolved on my end.

 

With both of these in mind, locking and archiving.