Shadeykins

I would ask in Coder-Chat about making PRs, personally I have no clue how to do that.

They do have a unique outfit already. If you want a special labcoat, why not try your hand at spriting one?

Double its TC cost and make it used the interface that the advanced camera console uses. This is, for reference, the same "camera interface" that abductors/the AI gets.

I've been campaigning for this for aeons. Fox has said all there really needs to be said.

* Piccione has been given wiki contributor status.

I was reticent when I saw the title, but after the explanation it seems cool. You could disguise yourself as the Captain, then murder them and take their place. It also makes it possible to frame people if you're crafty enough.

Congratulations to the latest batch of people to receive wiki contributor status: * KingPhillipIII * Miraviel/Adri * Probably other people I'm forgetting!

This is not how antag tokens work. I would honestly be opposed to this. It requires admins or a maint to constantly note people for antag-tokens, and then it requires administrators to constantly hand out antagonist (which artificially raises the number of antagonists in a round). Yes, this is how antag tokens actually function--it's literally a note on your account, you ahelp and ask for antag (traitor/vamp/changeling) and the administrator makes a judgement call in awarding it. If we want to increase code contribution, we need to get serious about treating our contributors in a more even-handed fashion and actually hiring people into the coding team. There have been plenty of people over the ages who have contributed a tremendous amount to the codebase who were never made coders. IK3I, Purpose, Tzo, Flattest, Ziiro and Birdtalon all come to mind (regardless of how you feel about any of these people, they were all substantial contributors or competent coders). Mentoring new coders is something we should be doing as well, we don't really even have a good wiki page as an introduction to BYOND code (and we really should, but I sure as heck can't make it since I don't know BYOND coding). A little thank-you goes a long way. For instance, wiki contributions nearly quintupled when contributors were awarded the praise they had long deserved via a reddit/forum/discord post and the wiki contributor tag was introduced. As Neca said, the root of the problem is in the number of contributors - not with the number of maints.

Extrapolating the laws to such an extent is not at all an honest interpretation of them whatsoever. We will have to agree to disagree.

Nice - I appreciate someone who can pull off a surrealist jive and do it well. It takes a lot of work/guts to showcase and actively work on some of the more esoteric art styles.

I understand the notion of the "paperclip maximizer" and the fundamental flaws in AI logic (such as the issue with the off-switch). Taking the AI laws to that level though is a little redundant. Fun to analyze, sure - in practice for a videogame? Not useful.

How is destroying an entire company a reduction of expenditure? The act of doing so is the very definition of expenditure. If you're going to interpret your laws in that way you should be wiping your core, as you yourself are an expenditure. The costs associated with leveling an entire company infinitely outweigh the costs of continuing normal operations.

I thoroughly disagree, please don't put words in my mouth. The key statement is if. No laws in Corporate will ever contradict one another. In fact even protecting the lesser target (Renault) would still minimize expenses and follow the primary law (minimize expenses). 1. Basically crewsimov, no issue there. 2. This law allows the AI the ability to unilaterally murder crewmembers so long as it interprets them as a threat in any capacity. In fact, it outright tells them to - that's obviously not a good thing. 3. This isn't really a law, AI players should already be doing this by default irrespective of their lawset.

What I'm saying is less "ignore laws" and more "interpreting your laws with the bent of fucking people over is not the point of playing AI". The lawsets are open-ended to allow for various interpretations and to award borgs and AIs flavour and a toolkit/philosophy to approach the game with. AI's which deliberately try to find loopholes in subverted laws expressly so they can fuck over the traitor are just as bad as non-subverted AI's who utilize their lawset to purposely impede people from doing their job. Deliberately interpreting your laws in a way which values station pets over the Captain is a fairly malicious interpretation of the Corporate lawset. Law hierarchy is only ever relevant when there's a conflict. There should never be a conflict wherein Renault is more valuable than the Captain, especially since as stated earlier the first three laws in corporate are only definitional statements and do not demand you value one thing over the other.

At the end of the day, the AI is station equipment designed to assist the station. Interpret your laws in light of that, people who turn off the cloner and the likes/game their laws to be massive dickheads will get removed from the AI job. IIRC there's already a PR up on the Git attempting to revamp Corporate.

To clarify on Corporate... 1-3 are definitional statements. Law 4 is the only one that really compels you to do anything. The obvious choice is the Captain and crew in general - the cost of replacing, retraining, or cloning crewmembers is much higher than the price of a fox. Law 4 compels you to only view things in the context of minimizing expenses of things that fall into the three prior categories. There is never a time where these categories conflict (they merely suggest that groups of things are of value), therefore there is never to be any sort of conflict under Corporate whatsoever - it is systematically impossible. Something is more expensive than the other thing, or it is not - the only deciding factor would be between two crewmembers of equal ranking (Say Civilian A, or Civilian B). An AI under Corporate can't shut down equipment randomly to "minimize expenses" either, as the lack of job-related revenue, protests of employees, and likely the forcible ejection of the AI by Central Command will incur far more expenses than simply allowing the cloner to remain on. tl;dr Corporate is the "be sensible and support profits" lawset.

Yes please.

To play devil's advocate, anyone who has their prefs off can always be 100% trusted. And there are a LOT of people who have their prefs disabled.

The fundamental problem here is the number of people who actually have their antag prefs enabled. I'll tell you right now, it's less than 50% of the online population at any given time. On a 100 person round, I would say maybe 15-30 people (at best) have their prefs for that antag type enabled. In a traitor round at 100+ pop you may have 10-12 traitors, this means, depending on how many people have their antag enabled, you're at times more likely to be selected for antag than not. I'm sure someone could actually pull up figures on this, I'm just basing my numbers off what I've seen firsthand when trying to manually replace traitors (I usually have to cycle through about 15-20 people who have their prefs disabled, before coming across someone who doesn't).

Just tested it, glass always cuts into the hand but produces 100% reliable proccing of the menu. Other surfaces it makes you attack the dude - no clue what's going on with it then, I just always assumed this was something inherent to ghetto. Prior to the introduction of surgery menus, it works exactly like this as well. @TrainTN We used to have freeform surgery, but it was purportedly buggy and was replaced with menu surgery.

Starting the initial surgery has a failure chance - you're not looking at someone, you're attacking them with a scalpel/implement on help intent in order to pull up that menu. That's not really a bug insofar as it's an oversight, and it's been around since the implementation of the surgery menu system. If you want to see it gone, I'm sure nobody will be sad to see it go - but as the system stands it makes IPC surgeries a pain due to them being incapable of receiving anesthetic.

Bringing up the menu has always had a chance to fail. This existed even prior to surgery having an anesthetic failure chance, it was never a bug and didn't occur with scalpels on proper op-tables. It only ever existed in "ghetto" surgery or on improper surfaces, and now exists to some extent due to anesthetic risk chances.

Everyone can fail surgery steps - there's an inherent failure chance if no anesthetic is being used.

No, it's based on failure chance. If your attempt at surgery fails at initializing the surgery to begin with, you end up clubbing the person with the implement.

I disagree vehemently. A surgery for an IPC that has been EMP'd is six surgeries for just basic repairs, another one for posibrain damage, another to replace the arm charger implant, and two more to replace the microbattery/optics. You need access to a mech fabricator, nanopaste, chemistry, etc. That's 10 surgeries, every single time an IPC gets EMP'd. This is akin to giving people free access to a mobile emagged recycler for the cost of 2TC. It uberfucks IPCs, is untraceable, works through walls, and takes about 3 stacks of cable coil along with a competent roboticist to repair (a job that was never balanced to have room/time for repairing IPCs at that). If there's a revenant in the round, most IPC players I know of just stop playing altogether - there's just absolutely no point in being revived. For contrast even a severely shot-up organic requires at most 4-5 surgeries and an IV. Usually one for IB, and the organ manip surgery also fixes broken bones (which reduces the number of surgeries) which is typically done on the head/chest. Also, cloning is an option - it's never an option for an IPC. Organics can also be kept alive and in the round via the use of chems - if an IPC needs surgery, they're probably dead and out of the round, incapable of interacting with anyone ICly.