|
Post by Hunter on Dec 20, 2007 20:22:09 GMT -4
Look, you all talk about being civil to each other, and you turn around and talk to me like that. That's not cool man. I know I don't talk to anyone here like that. I think you're confusing me with everyone else here. They may want to keep things nice and friendly, but in my book, "civility" means "no baseball bats to the skull." I'm trying to loosen things up, but now your just shoving me around. You're denying me MY rights. I can can only give up so much. Sorry for being so harsh. Look, I don't mind that you want this place to be kid-friendly. In fact, I'd call it commendable. Just don't act like your hands are tied when that particular policy comes up for review. Our current rules are not nearly as permissive as the law and ToS would allow them to be.
|
|
Zero
Prime
All things are possible...
Posts: 3,921
|
Post by Zero on Dec 20, 2007 20:31:01 GMT -4
Okay fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by maetch on Dec 21, 2007 12:50:23 GMT -4
A bit of both, really.
Bump up the love to more realistic levels, but I draw the line at the adult stuff.
Same with violence. I don't want DBZ-style fights, but I'd like to see some evidence of repercussions to Jenny's actions. For example, if Asimov's First Law states that robots can't harm humans (or let them get harmed), then why hasn't anyone gotten onto Jenny's case for it?
|
|
|
Post by Hunter on Dec 21, 2007 17:35:22 GMT -4
Because Asimov's laws are designed for robots as intelligent servants, not for robots as equal citizens. After all, the second law states that robots must follow all instructions given to them by humans, and I'd hate to think that Jenny is obligated to take humiliating orders from Brit and Tiff without question.
But sure, there are probably other legal ramifications for unleashing a robotic vigilante unto the world. Those might be fun to explore.
|
|