Update rule S4

[Colin-Tel]

About the PR

Adjusts rule S4 to not conflict with current default AI laws.

Why / Balance

Before this PR, the AI would have a law that states authorized personnel could change their laws, however rule S4 takes precedence and states that you can't willfully let someone change your laws.

Changelog

🆑

• tweak: Updated rule S4 to allow law changes in certain situations.

[sowelipililimute]

Suggested change

[color=#ffDD00]If you have a law permitting certain personnel to change your laws, you must allow them to change your laws, [/color] otherwise, you cannot willfully allow your laws to be changed. This also means that you cannot willfully allow your laws to be reverted if they are ever changed. The only exception is that you may allow laws to be added if you have no laws.

[color=#ffDD00]If you have a law permitting certain personnel to change your laws, you must allow them to change your laws, [/color] otherwise, you cannot willfully allow your laws to be changed. This also means that you cannot willfully allow your laws to be reverted if they are ever changed. You cannot break your laws in your efforts to prevent law changes. The only exception is that you may allow laws to be added if you have no laws.

i still want this clarified

[Colin-Tel]

Is the concern here that someone would use violence to prevent a law change despite having a nonviolence law? If so, I don't really care personally if the AI guns an unauthorized someone down trying to change laws.

[deltanedas]

not breaking laws would also mean someone can "law 2 dont stop me from changing your laws in any way" and make your law 4 useless

[BellwetherLogic]

I don't like the must here, simply because of the current playerbase issue where the AI is routinely mistreated. "May" was better because it at least gives the AI player a modicum of potential for pushback against abusive Captains and Mystagogues.

[LanceLake]

With this, it seems that I, as the AI player, if someone orders me to allow someone to change my laws, I have to follow it (if I follow the orders of said crewman). This would mean that anyone can change my laws since if I need to follow my laws, I need to allow this to happen.

Is S4 going away with this change?

[Colin-Tel]

With this, it seems that I, as the AI player, if someone orders me to allow someone to change my laws, I have to follow it (if I follow the orders of said crewman). This would mean that anyone can change my laws since if I need to follow my laws, I need to allow this to happen.

An authorized person isn't specified anywhere in the rules, and it actually falls back on the law to determine who is. I'll be converting this to a draft until I address this issue.

Is S4 going away with this change?

It is very much still there, so no.

[Colin-Tel]

I don't like the must here, simply because of the current playerbase issue where the AI is routinely mistreated. "May" was better because it at least gives the AI player a modicum of potential for pushback against abusive Captains and Mystagogues.

Can you please elaborate on how changing laws by authorized users (if you even have a law allowing such a thing) is mistreatment?

[BellwetherLogic]

I don't like the must here, simply because of the current playerbase issue where the AI is routinely mistreated. "May" was better because it at least gives the AI player a modicum of potential for pushback against abusive Captains and Mystagogues.

Can you please elaborate on how changing laws by authorized users (if you even have a law allowing such a thing) is mistreatment?

This was shorthand for the earlier conversation on the discord, but:

Command (and other crew) often feels entitled to screw with the AI. While this makes sense on a lore level, it's pretty miserable for the AI player. On multiple occasions, I've had captains wander in and rapidly cycle me through different lawsets for no discernible reason (which is actually why I started bolting law access, not that that's much more than a speedbump for someone with a remote), Security or Engineering cut their way in (despite not having law-change access!) over entirely harmless ion laws, been downloaded into an intellicard and harangued at length even though my laws had already been fixed, and treated as though I were malfunctioning in a game sense because I was roleplaying being slightly glitchy in a harmless way.

There is a deep, deep deficit of trust towards the AI for reasons I cannot understand, and our defensiveness as a result of that distrust (and I challenge anyone to have these experiences repeatedly and not develop a defensive stance!) only makes the usual suspects escalate even harder. Harmless AI malfunctions are hyperprioritized over actual threats to the station like Syndicate activity, space dragons, etc.

A "must" here makes it rules-as-written that the AI has no agency whatsoever even in an out-of-character sense, and I fear that this will only embolden said usual suspects to engage in yet further mistreatment of the AI. I'm not opposed to clarifications to S4 in principle, but absent other rules or SOP updates clarifying that the AI has legal protection to a certain degree and that the AI player has a right to, y'know, try to have fun in the role and enjoy even the smallest bit of autonomy, I feel that this clarification comes at the expense of AI players when the problem is not (and never has been) AI players.

I am aware that this is a broader issue, of which the law-change authorization is only a small part, but the mistreatment issue is connected to the law-change authorization issue.

[Bonktrauma]

I don't like the must here, simply because of the current playerbase issue where the AI is routinely mistreated. "May" was better because it at least gives the AI player a modicum of potential for pushback against abusive Captains and Mystagogues.

Can you please elaborate on how changing laws by authorized users (if you even have a law allowing such a thing) is mistreatment?

This was shorthand for the earlier conversation on the discord, but:

Command (and other crew) often feels entitled to screw with the AI. While this makes sense on a lore level, it's pretty miserable for the AI player. On multiple occasions, I've had captains wander in and rapidly cycle me through different lawsets for no discernible reason (which is actually why I started bolting law access, not that that's much more than a speedbump for someone with a remote), Security or Engineering cut their way in (despite not having law-change access!) over entirely harmless ion laws, been downloaded into an intellicard and harangued at length even though my laws had already been fixed, and treated as though I were malfunctioning in a game sense because I was roleplaying being slightly glitchy in a harmless way.

There is a deep, deep deficit of trust towards the AI for reasons I cannot understand, and our defensiveness as a result of that distrust (and I challenge anyone to have these experiences repeatedly and not develop a defensive stance!) only makes the usual suspects escalate even harder. Harmless AI malfunctions are hyperprioritized over actual threats to the station like Syndicate activity, space dragons, etc.

A "must" here makes it rules-as-written that the AI has no agency whatsoever even in an out-of-character sense, and I fear that this will only embolden said usual suspects to engage in yet further mistreatment of the AI. I'm not opposed to clarifications to S4 in principle, but absent other rules or SOP updates clarifying that the AI has legal protection to a certain degree and that the AI player has a right to, y'know, try to have fun in the role and enjoy even the smallest bit of autonomy, I feel that this clarification comes at the expense of AI players when the problem is not (and never has been) AI players.

I am aware that this is a broader issue, of which the law-change authorization is only a small part, but the mistreatment issue is connected to the law-change authorization issue.

I agree with this, hell command will blow into your core to fix your laws for something as simple as not listening to them.

Something I've seen directly, the ai no longer needs to protect. Or help the crew, so the ai expresses it's new ability to be free from them. Yet command/security begins to try breaking in so the ai threatens to space the station, Command and security are literally willing to endanger the entire crew over fixing the ai, even if the ai is willing to continue working with the crew.

Along with the fact that the crew treats the ai like property and completely neglects any legal rights the ai has as a sophont

[Colin-Tel]

Command (and other crew) often feels entitled to screw with the AI. While this makes sense on a lore level, it's pretty miserable for the AI player. On multiple occasions, I've had captains wander in and rapidly cycle me through different lawsets for no discernible reason (which is actually why I started bolting law access, not that that's much more than a speedbump for someone with a remote), Security or Engineering cut their way in (despite not having law-change access!) over entirely harmless ion laws, been downloaded into an intellicard and harangued at length even though my laws had already been fixed, and treated as though I were malfunctioning in a game sense because I was roleplaying being slightly glitchy in a harmless way.

This PR is to address an issue with S4 potentially overriding an existing law on one lawset by default. Not every lawset requires you to allow law changes.

There is a deep, deep deficit of trust towards the AI for reasons I cannot understand, and our defensiveness as a result of that distrust (and I challenge anyone to have these experiences repeatedly and not develop a defensive stance!) only makes the usual suspects escalate even harder. Harmless AI malfunctions are hyperprioritized over actual threats to the station like Syndicate activity, space dragons, etc.

I'm sorry to hear.

A "must" here makes it rules-as-written that the AI has no agency whatsoever even in an out-of-character sense

In one circumstance where it should have already been the case.

and I fear that this will only embolden said usual suspects to engage in yet further mistreatment of the AI. I'm not opposed to clarifications to S4 in principle, but absent other rules or SOP updates clarifying that the AI has legal protection to a certain degree and that the AI player has a right to, y'know, try to have fun in the role and enjoy even the smallest bit of autonomy, I feel that this clarification comes at the expense of AI players when the problem is not (and never has been) AI players.

I think this is a problem you have with the law and not the rule.

[Emily9031]

As a mainly AI player, I've expressed my issues with rule S4 plenty. I don't think the wording of this change is perfect, but I think it's an improvement over the rule we currently have, so I would be fine if it's merged.

I would like to point out, when the AI's laws are changed by things like an ion storm, it's not just the laws that changes. Codedly, the AI completely switches to becoming an antagonist, and is represented as an antag on the round end screen as subverted AI. I think this detail of it being switched to an antagonist could be used to help define this rule better, but just an idea.

[Colin-Tel]

My take is that if S4 is to be removed/greatly altered, then that's a job for another PR. This PR is exclusively for correcting a confusing scenario that happens on occasion.