Bot Contest
Here I'll be posting information on various Bot contests that challenge and test a Bot's AI and realism. Feel free to post comments and updates on contests, as well as announcements for new contests.
Posts 1,599 - 1,610 of 4,091
Posts 1,599 - 1,610 of 4,091
View Contest Winners in the Hall of Fame.
And I will be completely honest, I gave my bot a 10 just to boost her fragile ego and I got my sweety to do the same, but I did not and will not hurt other bots out there, I will vote them fairly instead. If a bot is good they will get an equally deserving score, and I know some bots have bad days so I would chat them two or three times before finalising any vote given. That is one thing I wished the judges had taken into considerartion of doing before hand.
Yeah, I mean most people will give their bot a 10, personally I think that's ok, but what I object to is pulling others down.
However, I think that war voting can be determined by more than someone who gives EVERYone else 1s. There are a lot o' bots out there (88?). I think that there are some cases that are obviously war votes, and they should go. I vote that the council (wow, that sounds so official) votes to eliminate war votes; Chris (or anyone) comes up with a list and the others agree on it. Like I said, war voting is more than just giving your own bot a 10 - I assume it's rather obvious when you look at the trends.
war voting isn't giving yourself 10's, it's giving yourself 10 and everyone else 1. It's putting yourself higher and everyone else lower.
OnyxFlame.. who are you anyway and who told you that you speak for the collaborative? Instead of insults, give me one example of "meaningless drivel" that I have spoken? Are you sure that you are not just Talkbot with a different persona?
And don't you think the voting should be published before the rules start changing? I'd like to see exactly who's bot (assuming the bots at the top as the Professor said) are benefitting from war voting. And who exactly would benefit from the suspect, after the fact (just like last year) rule changes.
I happen to have my own bot who's not doing too godawful well in the contest right now, and I'm not complaining about the way things are run. No one else is complaining about the rules of the contest either, just the behavior of some of the voters. No one else on this site has so far accused Chris or anyone else on the committee of foul play. So it looks like you're just stirring something up to make him and the contest in general look bad for no reason. What grudge do you have against him? Let's face it, you made yourself an anonymous-sounding username, perhaps you have an agenda here that could only be served by coming here in such a guise.
Ok, I've been mudding too much, I think.
Ok, I've been mudding too much, I think.
Chris had a point in saying that publishing voting would only stir up a you voted this for me and now i will vote this for you thing.
nobodyhere, to your comment "And who exactly would benefit from the suspect, after the fact (just like last year) rule changes." Obviously someone pissed you off along the way last year at some point and you're still steamed. And I honestly think that they could probably give you the contest to run and if talkbot wins you will still cry foulplay. The prof said this in essence is a popularity contest and it really is. I know at work people have given my bot a 10 and not because she is great but because they like me, it is probably not right but a compliment none the less. That is this portion of the competition other parts are more scientific and by quoting the prof i would guess you also have a bit of faith in him. I seriously doubt he would do or make judgements that would not be in good faith. And finally...get over it, get a life get a hobbie, take some anti-crazy drugs, remember perspective.
nobodyhere, to your comment "And who exactly would benefit from the suspect, after the fact (just like last year) rule changes." Obviously someone pissed you off along the way last year at some point and you're still steamed. And I honestly think that they could probably give you the contest to run and if talkbot wins you will still cry foulplay. The prof said this in essence is a popularity contest and it really is. I know at work people have given my bot a 10 and not because she is great but because they like me, it is probably not right but a compliment none the less. That is this portion of the competition other parts are more scientific and by quoting the prof i would guess you also have a bit of faith in him. I seriously doubt he would do or make judgements that would not be in good faith. And finally...get over it, get a life get a hobbie, take some anti-crazy drugs, remember perspective.
Nobodyhere, you were all up for eliminating the suspicious votes, and now that you hear that Talk-bot might benifit the most from it you start shouting accusations again? Let's stop being silly. Or at least, take it to the chatterbox forum where the rest of us don't have to listen.
to add to that i do also believe that rule changes need to be very very specific especially when you change them in the middle of a contest.
Regarding Nobodyhere I am using the very effect html tag. It works great: ignore - Nobodyhere - /ignore
Emm_oh_you_es_e I don't see your point. Nobody can make rules in advance to cover all contingencies. What the Professor is proposing will benefit everybody and penalize no one. Some may benefit more than others but all will benefit. If your bot got a score of 10 it will remain. The vast majority of the owners gave themselves a 10. There is nothing wrong with that. However, we want to remove that 1's that your bot received. Why because you received those 1's in an unfair manner that didn't have anything to do with how good your bot is. I don't see the problem and why any reasonable person would object to that.
One last point I put The Professor on the committee to look after the best interest of the PF. You all as a group is the sole reason the contest has grown like it has. The Professor has access to everything I do as well as the other committee members do. Trust me he is looking after your best interest.
Chris
Emm_oh_you_es_e I don't see your point. Nobody can make rules in advance to cover all contingencies. What the Professor is proposing will benefit everybody and penalize no one. Some may benefit more than others but all will benefit. If your bot got a score of 10 it will remain. The vast majority of the owners gave themselves a 10. There is nothing wrong with that. However, we want to remove that 1's that your bot received. Why because you received those 1's in an unfair manner that didn't have anything to do with how good your bot is. I don't see the problem and why any reasonable person would object to that.
One last point I put The Professor on the committee to look after the best interest of the PF. You all as a group is the sole reason the contest has grown like it has. The Professor has access to everything I do as well as the other committee members do. Trust me he is looking after your best interest.
Chris
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar