Added a new "Lawset Modification" doc.

[SolventMercury]

Adds a new doc for Lawset Modification, which is intended to address the unfreeze condition listed in #31924. A number of changes were already going to be needed with the silicon laws rework that's taking place, so this should serve as a good place to start discussion of that system.

[Mixelz]

Overall good stuff! One major issue is the Mechanisms for Law Changes section is mostly a list of current mechanics, it is explained in the comment but we need it to be generalized to most potential mechanics, not just the ones we currently have.

[SolventMercury]

Took the time to address the feedback you guys gave me, hopefully the doc is a little closer to what you're all looking for.

[ScarKy0]

Some small stuff noticed when looking through the changes

[slarticodefast]

In general a good doc, but I think some of the nuances are better handled the way they are done in SS13:

PJB gave a good summary and explanation here
space-wizards/space-station-14#32117 (comment)
and on discord

Some points:

• How are freeform law upload is going to be implemented?
• You are writing that the law boards are going to be consumed on use. Currently the AI law console does not work that way, it's just an item slot which the law board can be ejected from again. Deleting them on use will mean there will have to be some way of producing them, but pjb brought up some good points against that in the PR linked above. I think it makes more sense to have the law boards be mapped to give traitors the option for sabotage.
• Laws being updated individually as described in the link above instead of coming only as complete lawsets would be much more interesting in my opinion.

[ScarKy0]

How are freeform law upload is going to be implemented?

We've decided for freeform to be a seperate ddoc.

You are writing that the law boards are going to be consumed on use. Currently the AI law console does not work that way, it's just an item slot which the law board can be ejected from again. Deleting them on use will mean there will have to be some way of producing them, but pjb brought up some good points against that in the PR linked above. I think it makes more sense to have the law boards be mapped to give traitors the option for sabotage.

It can be both. Also nothing says you cannot just walk into front of sci and just print it, majority of maps just have circuit imprinters at the front.

Also for what PJB stated, borg laws being uploadable to remotely is just extremely unfun for borgs. Sure you can say it makes them be attacked on sight if a borg is an issue (as majority of antags etc are anyways), but being forced back into normal laws because someone clicked a button is simply unfun for the borg and not engaging for either side.

[SolventMercury]

I appreciate the thoughts! Like Scar said, we're waiting for this to go through before I write my proposal for Silicon Errata Modules (printable freeform law boards which append a minimum-priority law to a silicon). Also like Scar said, boards would still be mapped to the upload room, that wouldn't change, you'd just also have the ability to print more. AI uploads aren't that frequent, and if antag lawboards are getting "used up" just like everyone else's, the demand for them is likely not going to increase regarding the Station AI.

EDIT: Also, the roundstart boards should not encompass every law that is added, just a few core ones like Crewsimov, NT Default, robocop, plus a random selection of others. Lawsets being printable means we don't have to have all of them spawn in.

I do like some of PJB's thoughts - I think adding a little "Core" marker to the base laws of a silicon's lawset in their UI and maybe coloring the corresponding tab a pretty color would be a really good way to communicate what's going on under the hood, but my classification system would just be "Core Laws" and "Other" for the time being. Also, remote uploads are only being considered for the station AI, though I did decide to reword it so that players have to select which AI they're uploading to, because that seems more in line with the rest of the proposal. If we do add more remote management tools, which is possible, they should definitely lean more to antagonist-aligned rather than tools the crew uses freely to enforce their will.

The idea of modifying laws one at a time is interesting, I know Goon has something similar with its physical law racks for the AI, but we're not pursuing something like that right now. This proposal isn't too far from what we already have, and I'd like to see how it plays out before we look at more radical changes.

[ScarKy0]

My concerns have been addressed, thank you for your work on this!

[jamilnielsen]

outside the scope of this PR, but i cannot stretch enough that freeform laws can be a real headache for everyone involved, it should be thought out in great detail, with a whole range of requirements that could look a little like this, but just recommendations/considerations.

-being able to track the ID/DNA of author of the changes to a law silicone.
-think about making law changes technically against space law unless done by command.
-the ui stating and reinforcing to the one whos about to use it, that its not to be used frivolously on joke laws like "haha always run away from sec and pretend to be malf" or other poorly thought out things.
-possibly also add a small piece of info making it clear THEY are partially responsible for whatever the borg ends up doing for potential rule breaks. (the point here is to again make people think twice about what they are gonna make the borgs do for the rest of the round)
the point here is what one player thinks is fun, is not nessassarily fun for an other, and having to potentially argue with one self or admins that a law is excessive can get mentally draining.
-they should probably also be extremely difficult to make, hidden tier 3 research like speed boots.

you might think im over blowing the issue, but its better that we relax these standards later, if the player base can handle it, then the alternative.

[SolventMercury]

outside the scope of this PR, but i cannot stretch enough that freeform laws can be a real headache for everyone involved, it should be thought out in great detail...

I fully agree. Giving users a text field that literally tells people what they have to do for their entire game is always going to be an absolute minefield. I'd be entirely on board with removing freeform laws as a requirement for unfreezing silicon laws personally, but I can write a proposal for freeform laws if the silicon workgroup wants that. I'm of course an outsider in that workgroup, but I think a quick vote might be desirable to gauge where the team is at in terms of freeform laws.