Whitelist the AI.

[Chada1]

So, quick and to the point, the AI has more round presence and round impact than any non-whitelisted role in the game, and even some whitelisted ones. You cannot escape them anymore than you can escape the Captain or the Head of Security, and if they roleplay poorly or have a bad interpretation of their laws, they can drive peoples enjoyment of the round into the dirt. And, they can do all of this without breaking any server rules. Ontop of this, it's a unique role, there is only One of them in the round, unless it wipes core.

What I suggest to solve this is pretty simple. Put the AI behind the Head of Staff whitelist. 

This serves to:

1. Apply enforceable base standards to the players who play this role. (The same standards we expect of every Head whitelistee)
2. Increase the quality of AI roleplay and Crew interactions.
3. Shift AI gameplay further towards roleplay rather than mechanics.

As for what we'd do when someone violates these expectations? The same thing we've always done. AI/Synth ban. And for Malf AI? either only head whitelisted players are eligible for the role or everyone is, on virtue of being malfunctioning. I'd be open to either one.

Feedback is appreciated.

[Pratepresidenten]

Ive always wanted the AI to be whitelisted, so please, lets have at it.

[ThatGuyGW]

I'd be fine with this, but not behind the head of staff whitelist. They're entirely different roles in the station, the AI should never be part of the command staff, and roleplaying them as such, is in my opinion, a bad idea and leads to massive issues. A specific AI whitelist would be fine in my opinion, although I will admit my viewpoint is skewed, as I play AI a lot, while I'm never intending to apply for Head of Staff as that just isn't my thing, and as such as head of staff whitelist would essentially mean I never play AI again.

[Chada1]

2 minutes ago, ThatGuyGW said:

I'd be fine with this, but not behind the head of staff whitelist. They're entirely different roles in the station, the AI should never be part of the command staff, and roleplaying them as such, is in my opinion, a bad idea and leads to massive issues. A specific AI whitelist would be fine in my opinion, although I will admit my viewpoint is skewed, as I play AI a lot, while I'm never intending to apply for Head of Staff as that just isn't my thing, and as such as head of staff whitelist would essentially mean I never play AI again.

A lot of this is also true of the Internal Affairs Agent, who has no real authority over the command staff or Crew, and only informs of regulations and violations as well as hears complaints. All of his power is given by other people (Heads).

As for the specific AI whitelist, I'm opposed to that because of how limiting it is, noone would have it unless they applied for it directly, so in essence it cuts AI players to 0 or very low. What I'd suggest you do, and I Really hope you do if this goes through, is apply for any head role just to play AI. You sound like a player this is not meant to target at all, and I think you'd be fine.

A Synth whitelist is possible (AI/Cyborg Whitelist) but is just as limiting, and Cyborgs were never meant to be hit by this suggestion at all, as their round presence/impact is at an acceptable level compared to AI and isn't a problem, I don't think. Still, if that's considered an acceptable alternative here, I'm onboard.

[VTCobaltblood]

I completely agree with the suggestion for all the reasons stated in the thread. I also agree with Chada's points on why it should be behind the command whitelist - the command whitelist doesn't test how well you can play command as much as the fact that you can be trusted to drive the round and roleplay properly. +1

[Scheveningen]

I'm fine with this. I don't have an issue gating it behind the head of staff whitelist, though I'm starting to think at least it needs a better term than 'command whitelist' now.

The only unfortunate thing about this is that we'll see a downtick of malf rounds, but seeing as how malf rounds have a tendency to miss more than they hit the mark for quality roleplay, I'd much rather have fewer malf rounds that have a higher effort value being put forward by AI players. Whether new or old to the role.

[ben10083]

3 hours ago, Chada1 said:

and if they roleplay poorly or have a bad interpretation of their laws, they can drive peoples enjoyment of the round into the dirt. And, they can do all of this without breaking any server rules.

Actually, violating your laws or "lawyering" your laws to bend them is against the server rules, and can get you AI banned. Also, bad ai play can also be punished by filing a character complaint.

3 hours ago, Chada1 said:

Ontop of this, it's a unique role, there is only One of them in the round, unless it wipes core.

I do not see why there is only 1 AI supports the argument of a whitelist being needed, especially considering the multitude of other roles with 1 slot.

3 hours ago, Chada1 said:

Apply enforceable base standards to the players who play this role. (The same standards we expect of every Head whitelistee)

What? AIs and synths have a multitude of standards they have to follow, which can be proven looking at how the administration deals with bad ai play and how people term ais "bad" in the first place.

3 hours ago, Chada1 said:

Increase the quality of AI roleplay and Crew interactions.

Because you can't have bad interactions if there is no AI to interact with in the first place. In all seriousness, better RP is not really a good reason to whitelist a role, yes, AI is powerful, but we have a sufficient system already in place to deal with them, as explained above.

3 hours ago, Chada1 said:

Shift AI gameplay further towards roleplay rather than mechanics.

How does a whitelist change the mechanics of AI? Are you saying you plan to nerf AI after you lessen the player base via whitelist requirement? We should not force someone to play a role a certain way just because we do not like it.

3 hours ago, Chada1 said:

As for what we'd do when someone violates these expectations? The same thing we've always done. AI/Synth ban.

Exactly, so why will making it be behind a whitelist change anything except by making AI played less?

3 hours ago, Chada1 said:

either only head whitelisted players are eligible for the role or everyone is, on virtue of being malfunctioning. I'd be open to either one.

Lets throw in a scenario: A non-whitelisted player has been playing for a while, and rolls malf. Now we expect them to not only be a master of AI mechanics to effectively play malf, but know the malf mechanics and how to play as an AI well enough to drive a good narrative. This will ironically reduce the quality of malf AI, as people who roll them would likely not be experienced enough to play them well.

2 hours ago, Chada1 said:

As for the specific AI whitelist, I'm opposed to that because of how limiting it is, noone would have it unless they applied for it directly, so in essence it cuts AI players to 0 or very low. What I'd suggest you do, and I Really hope you do if this goes through, is apply for any head role just to play AI.

2

You cut to the major flaw in whitelisting, the severe reduction of players. The only solution you propose is to apply for something head whitelist with a character for another role, and then not use the character you applied the whitelist for and play AI instead.

2 hours ago, Chada1 said:

A lot of this is also true of the Internal Affairs Agent, who has no real authority over the command staff or Crew, and only informs of regulations and violations as well as hears complaints. All of his power is given by other people (Heads).

Honestly irrelevant, separate role, purpose, and power and can easily be spun to support not being whitelisted.

 

Overall, A AI whitelist is not needed, as administration action and current routes of action to deal with poor ai play are sufficient, and making AI behind a hard-to-get whitelist will only serve to cause an undue hassle to play as AI. It is true that AI has more power than most, but that doesn't mean we should clamp it down just so our "elite" players can play it, and forcing people to either apply for a head whitelist or get malf and struggle to do anything.

I will however support a AI whitelist (NOT including borg, there is no reason why borg should be included in this) or a time requirement, the later I highly recommend as an alternative. Since this suggestion is neither however,

-1

Edited March 25, 2019 by ben10083

[Chada1]

20 minutes ago, ben10083 said:

Actually, violating your laws or "lawyering" your laws to bend them is against the server rules, and can get you AI banned. Also, bad ai play can also be punished by filing a character complaint.

I do not see why there is only 1 AI supports the argument of a whitelist being needed, especially considering the multitude of other roles with 1 slot.

What? AIs and synths have a multitude of standards they have to follow, which can be proven looking at how the administration deals with bad ai play and how people term ais "bad" in the first place.

Because you can't have bad interactions if there is no AI to interact with in the first place. In all seriousness, better RP is not really a good reason to whitelist a role, yes, AI is powerful, but we have a sufficient system already in place to deal with them, as explained above.

How does a whitelist change the mechanics of AI? Are you saying you plan to nerf AI after you lessen the player base via whitelist requirement? We should not force someone to play a role a certain way just because we do not like it.

Exactly, so why will making it be behind a whitelist change anything except by making AI played less?

Lets throw in a scenario: A non-whitelisted player has been playing for a while, and rolls malf. Now we expect them to not only be a master of AI mechanics to effectively play malf, but know the malf mechanics and how to play as an AI well enough to drive a good narrative. This will ironically reduce the quality of malf AI, as people who roll them would likely not be experienced enough to play them well.

You cut to the major flaw in whitelisting, the severe reduction of players. The only solution you propose is to apply for something head whitelist with a character for another role, and then not use the character you applied the whitelist for and play AI instead.

Honestly irrelevant, separate role, purpose, and power and can easily be spun to support not being whitelisted.

 

Overall, A AI whitelist is not needed, as administration action and current routes of action to deal with poor ai play are sufficient, and making AI behind a hard-to-get whitelist will only serve to cause an undue hassle to play as AI. It is true that AI has more power than most, but that doesn't mean we should clamp it down just so our "elite" players can play it, and forcing people to either apply for a head whitelist or get malf and struggle to do anything.

I will however support a AI whitelist (NOT including borg, there is no reason why borg should be included in this) or a time requirement, the later I highly recommend as an alternative. Since this suggestion is neither however,

-1

Well I disagree with absolutely every point you made and if any of it were true, we shouldn't have a whitelist system at all for anything, not even Heads of Staff.

The truth of the matter is we have standards which are represented by this whitelist, VTC said it pretty well;

1 hour ago, VTCobaltblood said:

The command whitelist doesn't test how well you can play command as much as the fact that you can be trusted to drive the round and roleplay properly.

And we should be able to trust the AI to do this. Aaaand *This* is why applying with a character in the head role, to then play the AI is a valid 'solution'. By obtaining the whitelist you become certified and trusted to drive the round and roleplay in more difficult roles.

Further; You are not 'Lawyering' your laws by having a bad interpretation, the laws are guidelines more than absolutes and extremely vague. I am a 'borg main, I know what I'm talking about. They can be interpreted in many different ways, and only about a quarter are half decent for roleplay, and the others will shut down literally all conflict in a round. The difference between 'borg and AI in that? The 'borg has to physically be there, the AI doesn't.

So, the AI can shut down conflict across the Station, while the 'borg has to be present. Therein lies the massive difference in responsibility which necessitates the whitelist to begin with.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Chada1

[Capesh]

This is something I've been thinking about for quite some time, and it seems Chada beat me to the proverbial punch. 

The Artificial Intelligence of the station (usually abbreviated to AI) is one of the most important jobs on the station. This here is the first sentence one is greeted with upon clicking the official guide for how to do the AI job on Aurora. An AI has, as previously stated in other posts here, an ungodly amount of potential power only surpassed by its inherent responsibilities for the oversight of the entire station (minus actual authority, which is a rather fun paradox). Another fun little tidbit is that the 'difficulty' rating of the AI job itself is classified as 'extremely hard.' To note, this is the only time where such classification exist: Command Staff, including the Captain, has a rating of Hard to Very Hard. By mere wiki definition alone the job should be walled behind a whitelist. 

Common counter-argument to this is 'Well, the AI has laws, just follow that, open doors, and it's easy.' 

And yes, following laws is the bread of the AI sandwich (and I continue to thank the fact that we do NOT have Asimov laws as a basis). The issue here comes when applying your active laws to how you interpret them, and furthermore how you apply that to facilitate RP, which leads to wildly varying interactions - keep in mind, as with all station roles, your job is never to shut down antags as soon as you notice them (which, of course, given your eyes and access, tends to mean you are the first entity to notice any shenanigans), but to further roleplay. I have seen many AIs lock down an area, shut off the APC power, and drain precious oxygen at the mere hint of red, despite no actual conflict being present (to the chagrain of the antag players, the crew players, and the enjoyment of the round in general). 

The butter to the AI sandwich is responsiveness. This catch-all term incorporates not only your ability to respond to verbal requests and demands for actions diligently, but also the fact that many rely on an AI to know not only basic things like the correct keys to channels, but also a general, if not expansive and intricate, knowledge of every single department: the setup of an engine, correction of a powergrid load, how to perform a surgery, ejection of an SM, an effective way to gain research levels, xenobiology procedures, corporate law, applying charges, performing EBS, utilizing the cargo shuttle, utilizing the ore processors, calibrating the shield array, calibrating any station upgrades, to name a few. Of course, if the departments are well-staffed and have players with knowledge, requests such as these are uncommon, but the fact remains that you need a solid grasp on the server mechanics, more so than any other role.

As a stationbound- and AI main going around a year now, I'm comfortable with the demands placed upon, especially, AI; responding in time, anticipating needs, directing crew to safety, operating a plethora of systems and machines, and conducting RP has netted me quite a few positive and endearing OOC comments. Throwing yourself headfirst into AI as your first job is not only a poor thing to do, but very often lead to disfavourable 'AI bad' comments. If anything, utilizing stationbounds as a stepping stone to learn enough UI interface and departmental knowledge for an eventual AI is the correct way to go, in my opinion - which is why I would rather like to keep stationbounds outside of the whitelist spectrum as, while annoying (as with all new players), a new stationbound can at least be more forgiven for not knowing their role than an AI.

The role of an AI is, ultimately, one which has the capability to facilitate and encourage roleplay and escalation station-wide (a capability usually reserved to, once again, Command staff) if played well and with knowledge, as with any command whitelist. 

Having an AI player in the round should feel good, not elicit groans of dismay. 

+1.

[BurgerBB]

I've suggested this before for the following reasons:

- AIs play will be improved and be held to a high standards

- There will be less AI playing.

The second one is more important because there are a lot of gamemodes that are absolutely ruined by AI presence. Like if it's rev, and rev is starting something, the AI will just bolt closed all the doors and alert security as soon as they sneeze.

[Azande]

No more bureaucracy. We're the only server with such an ever-expanding oppressive whitelist system, and I'm not even sure we've benefited from it. Ahelping bad AIs it's as easy as pressing Ahelp.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Azande

[Flamingo]

I’ve always been a supporter of whitelisting the AI. While I’m not sure if a singular AI whitelist or lumping it in with the command whitelists is a better solution (both have their merits), I am still confident a whitelist system for the role would be beneficial due to their wide range of abusable abilities and common reoccurrence of being the first role people pick to play for some reason. 

[Skull132]

6 hours ago, Azande said:

No more bureaucracy. We're the only server with such an ever-expanding oppressive whitelist system, and I'm not even sure we've benefited from it. Ahelping bad AIs it's as easy as pressing Ahelp.

We're relatively average, all things considered. Our whitelists process is easy and straight forward, unless you're a complete idiot. And we have a clear standard for what gets whitelisted (heads of staff, major species and sub species).

I have no idea where you got the "ever expanding" bit from, since the only whitelists added since the creation of this server have been for new major species.

[LordFowl]

And IAA. Not to mention that the whitelist processes, especially for command staff, have been getting more complex and finnicky.

Edited March 25, 2019 by LordFowl

[Scheveningen]

As was asked for, considering how we had an issue in the past where literally anyone who applied could attain a whitelist. Community recognition, even if its relatively milquetoast and not good or bad in outlook, is now a big part of whether a player gets a whitelist or not.

There are really only two categories of whitelists.

1. The lore-intensive whitelists that enable access to species with their own specific story elements and backgrounds. There is a bit of responsibility with having a lore-intensive whitelist and using it appropriately, because you are essentially supposed to be one of the many individual factors that try to represent the respective lore developer's vision in your roleplay. After all, you fill the shoes, you do not complain and then try to pick the exact dimensions of the shoes.
2. The responsibility-intensive whitelists which are more character role-centric. Being in one of those roles makes you part of a very crucial piece of a round, and without this type of whitelist, anyone could be in that role and either do well or do very poorly and deal a lot of damage to people's enjoyment. It is often the latter since inexperienced players and a high level of competitiveness for the role leads to an overall lack of quality players in that role.

The justification behind #2, in my opinion, is what particularly drives my personal resolve for believing the AI should be whitelisted. It is the absolute most difficult role in the game. There are so many factors that can lead to an AI's lack of success in the role even if an experienced player is holding the reins. We shouldn't burden a newfriend with this responsibility until they're certain they are ready for a new level of difficulty.

Whitelisted players try to prepare new players for the starter roles to be able to execute the simpler jobs properly first so they know how they fundamentally work before thinking about leadership. Future leaders must understand how followers work first. Likewise, I think new players should be able to understand how synthetic interfacing with objects works and how their laws work. Let them play cyborg for their first time if they want. It is one of the first roles I started with at first, and it was also how I learned how to hack doors too when I started on Facepunch.

Letting a new player immediately have the ability to play AI without building trust and assurance of their progress may just be setting them up for failure. We should do less of that by tying AI to the command whitelist. Rehash it as the "responsibility whitelist" or some other name that doesn't sound as ridiculous, if needed. Either way I think this change is very much required.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Scheveningen
>spelling reins incorrectly in 2019

[Arrow768]

One option that I believe has not been sufficiently explored is a time based whitelist.

Our current system for time-locking certain roles is rather crude and based on the time you first joined the server.
I would prefer to see this system updated to track the time played in certain jobs/roles.

Once we have the ability to check for a playtime requirement in certain roles, it would be relatively easy to set up a play time requirement for the AI (i.e. needs to play cyborg for x rounds / x hours)
I believe that this would be the better option than a application based whitelist, as this tool can be used to ensure that a player has actually played in various roles and should have acquired some knowledge in those roles (the playtime requirement could be extended to require x hours in y departments)

However neither a application based whitelist or a time based whitelist actually ensure that a player is well versed in the game mechanics and can role play "properly".
In case of a application based whitelist, all it does is ensure that the player can follow and fill in a form on the forums.
A time based whitelist only ensures that they played for a certain while, but it doesn't directly say anything about their ability to role play.
(It ensures a certain quantity, but not quality; But I would say that it is relatively hard to get a certain quantity of playtime in various roles without the ability to maintain some kind of standard)

Edited March 26, 2019 by Arrow768
Updated the wording a bit

[Chada1]

8 minutes ago, Arrow768 said:

One option that I believe has not been sufficiently explored is a time based whitelist.

Our current system for time-locking certain roles is rather crude and based on the time you first joined the server.
I would prefer to see this system updated to track the time played in certain jobs/roles.

Once we have the ability to check for a playtime requirement in certain roles, it would be relatively easy to set up a play time requirement for the AI (i.e. needs to play cyborg for x rounds / x hours)
I believe that this would be the better option than a application based whitelist, as this tool can be used to ensure that a player is well-versed with the game in general (the playtime requirement could be extended to require x hours in y departments)

However neither a application based whitelist or a time based whitelist actually ensure that a player is well versed in the game mechanics and can role play "properly".
In case of a application based whitelist, all it does is ensure that the player can follow and fill in a form on the forums.
A time based whitelist only sais that they played for a certain while, but it doesnt directly say anything about their ability to role play.
(It ensures a certain quantity, but not quality; But I would say that it is relatively hard to get a certain quantity of playtime in various roles without the ability to maintain some kind of standard)

If it can be time-based, and track ingame time as X role, I think it'd be a good solution vs a just straight whitelist. My current objection to the 'time-based whitelist' before your input has been based on the idea that it would only serve to prevent absolute new players from playing it, and would do nothing to stop people who logged in once, then left for 7 days.

And it would be impossible to set any standard (Knowing X, Y, and Z department) with that, while a direct whitelist would at least have a ton of scrutiny.

If it can be setup as you say, then I'd be onboard with a time-based whitelist for sure!

Edited March 26, 2019 by Chada1
Continued on

[ben10083]

28 minutes ago, Arrow768 said:

One option that I believe has not been sufficiently explored is a time based whitelist.

Our current system for time-locking certain roles is rather crude and based on the time you first joined the server.
I would prefer to see this system updated to track the time played in certain jobs/roles.

Once we have the ability to check for a playtime requirement in certain roles, it would be relatively easy to set up a play time requirement for the AI (i.e. needs to play cyborg for x rounds / x hours)
I believe that this would be the better option than a application based whitelist, as this tool can be used to ensure that a player has actually played in various roles and should have acquired some knowledge in those roles (the playtime requirement could be extended to require x hours in y departments)

However neither a application based whitelist or a time based whitelist actually ensure that a player is well versed in the game mechanics and can role play "properly".
In case of a application based whitelist, all it does is ensure that the player can follow and fill in a form on the forums.
A time based whitelist only sais that they played for a certain while, but it doesnt directly say anything about their ability to role play.
(It ensures a certain quantity, but not quality; But I would say that it is relatively hard to get a certain quantity of playtime in various roles without the ability to maintain some kind of standard)

I like this idea of a time-based whitelist, it provides a more natural progression from borg to AI. If you can have it set to roles, I recommend having it set for hours, in case people abuse it to storage right after, or if a round is shorter or longer.

[Conspiir]

Time-based would certainly be a great idea. It could be extended to Quartermaster as well (a certain time playing cargo technicians). So long as it's able to backtrack and understand some of our borg mains have played the required hours already, I think it would be an improvement over a whitelist.

[VTCobaltblood]

12 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

In case of a application based whitelist, all it does is ensure that the player can follow and fill in a form on the forums.

That whitelist has a trial specifically for that. It also requires feedback, and a substantial amount of time playing on the server.

Edited March 27, 2019 by VTCobaltblood

[Arrow768]

2 minutes ago, VTCobaltblood said:

That whitelist has a trial specifically for that. It also requires feedback, and a substantial amount of time playing on the server.

The command whitelist has a trial period, yes.
But that is for the command whitelist.
The playtime requirement is questionable and not really enforced as there is currently no way to track the play time.
All it needs are some people to say "Yes I know that person" and sometimes even that is not needed.
So the barrier for a written whitelist is low.
Its even lower for species whitelists where there is no trial period.

 

10 hours ago, Conspiir said:

So long as it's able to backtrack and understand some of our borg mains have played the required hours already, I think it would be an improvement over a whitelist.

Backtracking is indeed the biggest issue and there are only two real options to solve it:

• Leave the system in "tracking" mode for a while to record the play time without enforcing the whitelists and then enable the whitelist system after x weeks/months
  • This would allow every person on the server a equal opportunity to gain the required playtime in the required roles.
• Add the basic requirement to everyone who had an account before a certain time.
  • This would allow every current player to play all the roles, but it does not take the activity of the players into account.

It might be possible to combine those two to estimate the time played based on the tracked rounds and add this once as a starting value.

[VTCobaltblood]

1 minute ago, Arrow768 said:

But that is for the command whitelist.

The suggestion was to make the AI be locked behind the command whitelist.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

I would not want to see a seperate whitelist for the AI. I would not want to see it behind a command whitelist because of the issues explained. It is not a 'command' decision. While i would not want to see it whitelisted at all, if it was, I would rather see it behind a synthetic whitelist.

[sonicgotnuked]

Personally, as these points have been addressed too, the AI should be placed under command whitelist. The main argument is "AI is not command, don't treat it as such" and I understand that. Keep in mind, the whitelist is designed to filter people who play the MOST round influencing positions and AI regardless is a massive influencing force on the entire round as a whole. Perhaps just under captain depending on how skillful they are. A shit AI who seeks valids and watches people based on meta-information may seriously damage a round.

 

Malf AI: I can both see the pro's and cons of having a white-list in place. The con obviously, if we decide to not make malf AI follow the same whitelist, people who roll it would freshly experience the AI as a malf and they wouldn't exactly have any understanding on how to play. Regardless, if malf AI follows the same whitelist, then of course I believe naturally the quality of these rounds would be improved. It depends how many command-whitelisted players are readied with malf AI enabled. In short, this would actually make it the ONLY whitelisted antag. Is that good? Is that bad? I can't decide. 

 

The only other perspective I could think about is enabling traitor for AI, and giving it malf abilities while disabling malf. Perhaps disable auto-traitor eligibility and it can only be traitor from round start. 

Edited March 27, 2019 by sonicgotnuked

[SkullMagic]

Have we considered having an assistant to the AI, similar to Lab Assistant, Medical Resident, etc. specifically to train people into the power that the AI holds? Cyborg doesn't really fill this role, since it's a portable, non-global machine with battery.

Perhaps a secondary processor?