[1 Dismissal] A more in-depth Directive 7

[Butterrobber202]

Basically all this suggestion is, I’m trying to get these 'protocols' all stuck under the umbrella of Directive 7.

The reason for this suggestion is, well, it was designed to clear up some possible misunderstandings and give guidance during unique situations without a precedent.

 

 

AI Interaction Protocols

Protocol One:

The Station AI is not to be modified for any reason less than a crisis or emergency that requires immediate and direct modification to the AI and it’s linked Units.

Protocol Two:

The Station AI is not to be modified unless all present command members have successfully voted in majority. The Captain is allowed to vote twice during Code Red

Protocol Three:

The Station AI should only be modified by qualified personal during all Codes and times.

Protocol Four:

A Command member must be present during the modification of the AI, in addition to the person modifying the AI. If a Command member can not be found, the highest ranking Security Member present will be substituted.

Protocol Five:

ERT or other Odin Personal are allowed to modify the AI without a vote during a crisis or Code Red

 

 

Qualified Personal are in the spoiler, 1 being the most qualified and 4 the least. Now corrected!

 

Qualified personal:

1. The Research Director

2. Roboticist

3. Chief Engineer

4. Remaining Command Staff

I’m absolutely open to changes and rewording.

If you have a concern you want address please voice it, or type it in this case.

Im also aware people may feel that this isn’t needed, and if it’s the majority that feels this way then so be it.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Guest

[Kaed]

Hmm, I see. So you want to make modifying the AI be blocked by a wall of bureaucracy that prevents anyone but antagonists from ever reasonably changing the AI laws except as a reactionary measure, and also designates who is qualified to do it irregardless of the choices or backstories of the characters involved.

Nah, let's not.

[Scheveningen]

While I love this idea, please cut out ranks in the qualified personnel 5 through 8. Modification of AI laws should require respective knowledge in information technology as well as Artificial Intelligence-intensive degrees.

 

Hmm, I see. So you want to make modifying the AI be blocked by a wall of bureaucracy that prevents anyone but antagonists from ever reasonably changing the AI laws except as a reactionary measure, and also designates who is qualified to do it irregardless of the choices or backstories of the characters involved.

 

Yeah, exactly, because you should never have reason to change the AI laws except in actual crises or events that require it.

Also, why not just use 'regardless', or 'irrespective', instead?

[Butterrobber202]

While I love this idea, please cut out ranks in the qualified personnel 5 through 8. Modification of AI laws should require respective knowledge in information technology as well as Artificial Intelligence-intensive degrees.

 

Hmm, I see. So you want to make modifying the AI be blocked by a wall of bureaucracy that prevents anyone but antagonists from ever reasonably changing the AI laws except as a reactionary measure, and also designates who is qualified to do it irregardless of the choices or backstories of the characters involved.

 

Yeah, exactly, because you should never have reason to change the AI laws except in actual crises or events that require it.

Also, why not just use 'regardless', or 'irrespective', instead?

 

Once you get past the CE, it becomes more of a ‘you’re desperate’

[ShameOnTurtles]

How would these protocols be easily accessible and implemented? If they were to be added to the official directives sheet, how would that be accomplished without making it incredibly long?

I like the idea of clarifying official protocols. There are a couple issues I have with this specific suggest implementation though.

 

 

AI Interaction Protocols

Protocol One:

The Station AI is not to be modified for any reason less than a crisis or emergency that requires immediate and direct modification to the AI and it’s linked Units.

 

'Crisis' or 'Emergency' could be clarified to say 'Code Red situation.' Furthermore, it's unclear whether this is referring to physical or software modification.

 

 

Protocol Two:

The Station AI is not to be modified unless all present command members have successfully voted in majority. The Captain is allowed to vote twice during Code Red

 

I may just be dumb but what is the objective of the Captain being allowed to vote twice? Is that if there's only a captain and 1 other command member aboard, it won't be a tie? If that's the case I think it would be better to say that the Captain can do it unless command unanimously vetos them, or if there is no Captain, a Command majority vote.

 

 

Protocol Three:

The Station AI should only be modified by qualified personal during all Codes and times.

Protocol Four:

A Command member must be present during the modification of the AI, in addition to the person modifying the AI. If a Command member can not be found, the highest ranking Security Member present will be substituted.

Protocol Five:

ERT or other Odin Personal are allowed to modify the AI without a vote during a crisis or Code Red

 

These three protocols can all be condensed. I am of the mind that if command aren't available the station should be SOL, as to fulfill protocol 4 you'd have to break regulations and other directives to get into the vault without command authority.

 

 

Qualified Personal are in the spoiler, 1 being the most qualified and 9 the least

 

Qualified personal:

1. The Research Director

2. Roboticist

3. Chief Engineer

4. Research Model Station-Bound Unit

5. Scientist

6. Station Engineer

7. Atmospheric Tech

8. Lab Assistant

9. Remaining Command Staff

What is the purpose of qualified personnel being ranked?

In my opinion qualified personnel should only include the Captain, RD, CE, and Roboticist. It is possible none of those people will be on during lowpop and an emergency but we should not be establishing IC policy around lowpop I think.

Also, in regards to number 4, lawed station bounds should never ever ever ever be in charge of their own management.

[Kaed]

This change would cut out the ability for command to choose to change the AI lawset by consensus, which I do not think should be a thing we should do. I understand there are certain players who billow entire clouds of salt if their laws are changed, but you are effectively taking power to choose away from the command staff and walling it off behind red tape.

This is not fun for anyone but antagonists, and problems with law changes should be addressed in a per-situation basis rather than this kind of knee-jerk regulation change. Frankly, it should be less the AI's choice or the decision of an overly restrictive regulation whether it's laws are changed and more the command staffs.

It doesn't bother me as much that you clarify who can go down into the core as much as this whole 'no changing the laws for any reason except an emergency'.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Guest

[Butterrobber202]

[mention]ShameOnTurtles[/mention] I’ll addressyour concerns tomorrow as it is now SLEEPY TIME

[ShameOnTurtles]

@ShameOnTurtles I’ll addressyour concerns tomorrow as it is now SLEEPY TIME

 

ok thank you. night night

[Ornias]

other Odin Personal are allowed to modify the AI without a vote during a crisis or Code Red

me, a janitor on the odin, who has accidentally taken the wrong shuttle: fucking buffoon!!!!! allow me to modify this Artificial Intellgience Unit!!!!!!!! it has slighted me, and there is a Crisis! !

[Bauser]

Does your hierarchy specify that a lab assistant is more qualified to modify the AI than the literal captain, chief medical officer, or head of personnel?

[Butterrobber202]

other Odin Personal are allowed to modify the AI without a vote during a crisis or Code Red

me, a janitor on the odin, who has accidentally taken the wrong shuttle: fucking buffoon!!!!! allow me to modify this Artificial Intellgience Unit!!!!!!!! it has slighted me, and there is a Crisis! !

 

How would you recommend I reword it then?

[Butterrobber202]

Does your hierarchy specify that a lab assistant is more qualified to modify the AI than the literal captain, chief medical officer, or head of personnel?

 

Absolutely.

The lab assistant is much more likely to have atleast a basic understanding of AI Programming than a Medical Position, a paper pusher or the general administrator of the station.

[Bauser]

The captain, whose minimum requirements involve a decade of service specifically to the company deploying this AI and a department-specific degree (potentially including research, itself). And you don't need to know anything about AI programming really in order to know how to change out the cards or (more crucially) when and why it's appropriate to do so. And an assistant has no requirements whatsoever (except 'not crazy' and 'not completely stupid'), even if a lab assistant MIGHT theoretically be more likely to know a specific thing about AI, even that's a crap-shoot since they could just as well be a xenobotanist or xenoarchaeologist in training. So I'm gonna give that hierarchy a hard no.

[Butterrobber202]

[mention]ShameOnTurtles[/mention]

1. These protocols would hopefully be added to the wiki, and I’m sure we can find a way to make them printable on Station.

2. I agree that that could be clarified and I’ll make the edit soonTM, and it was referring to both kinds of modification.

3. The objective in allowing the Captain to be able to vote twice was to get rid of ties. If the emergency has escalated to the point it’s Code Red, and the AI needs to be changed then allowing the Captain and extra vote will hopefully lead to less ties and more action.

4. How would you recommend I condense them? And now I’m being dumb, but uh, what’s a SOL?.

5. The purpose was to prevent the HoS or HoP just sprinting down to the AI core and modifying the AI without the proper skill sets. But I’m definitely willing to shorten the list since I was iffy on making it so long in the first place

6. Yeah, I’ll edit that

[Butterrobber202]

The captain, whose minimum requirements involve a decade of service specifically to the company deploying this AI and a department-specific degree (potentially including research, itself). And you don't need to know anything about AI programming really in order to know how to change out the cards or (more crucially) when and why it's appropriate to do so. And an assistant has no requirements whatsoever (except 'not crazy' and 'not completely stupid'), even if a lab assistant MIGHT theoretically be more likely to know a specific thing about AI, even that's a crap-shoot since they could just as well be a xenobotanist or xenoarchaeologist in training. So I'm gonna give that hierarchy a hard no.

 

Well, then we can simply shorten and clarify the list big cat.

[Synnono]

Hello there.

Right now, all that this directive specifies is that:

1. When things are chill, a Head needs to be present and the others need to be okay with it.

2. When things are not chill, two Heads need to be present.

The rest (mostly 'who else is allowed in with these people?') is already interpret-able by the players in the round, and I hesitate to restrict that to a predetermined list of specific job slots. Was there a recent scenario that prompted you to write this suggestion? And if there was, could you explain the issue you see that this change would address?

Regarding the modification of AI laws - my assumption has previously been that Command Staff, regardless of their role within command, have been appropriately trained on the procedure of verifying or resetting a lawset. This process is effectively swapping a circuit board, and does not require an advanced knowledge of AI programming or logic. It is restricted to command generally because they are trusted by the company to handle such sensitive equipment. The provision for a roboticist in the Directive is presumably to diagnose issues with AI logic or integrity, or something similar.

[Butterrobber202]

Ah, you caught me while I was editing. Yeah, I’ve already corrected the personal list.

The situation(s) that spawned this idea is when a member of Command decides they don’t like what the AI is doing, or they don’t like its personality and go to change it laws. It’s happened to me in the past and recent events suggest its happened to others.

Basically, one of this suggestion's purposes is to give AI players IC protection from rampant Command members. Which while they can be reported, with these in place it’s much less likely for an incident to occur since the AI and the rest of Command has something to quote that is sectionalized.

[Synnono]

Sorry for letting this sit for a long time.

Right now, I feel like the better option for AI players who feel abused by command players is to report them to the admins who handle Command whitelists.

My reasoning for this is that AIs typically cannot participate in the IC reporting process, and I also think that the kind of player who would modify an AI without a good reason is unlikely to be stopped by an IC directive change. There will be some sort of justification or lowpop situation in which case the proposed provisions will either not apply or be somehow circumvented.

It's minor, but I also am not a big fan of making a second, unique instance of rules for command voting, or giving the captain more "votes" etc. We have an existing set of guidelines for command authority that could already apply to the AI if necessary.

Adding a vote for dismissal.

[Alberyk]

I agre with Synnono's reasoning here. also voting for dismissal.