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 1,605 - 1,616 of 4,091
Posts 1,605 - 1,616 of 4,091
View Contest Winners in the Hall of Fame.
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
Nobodyhere--
I like to play conspiracy theorist and look at a lot of what-ifs, but I don't go pointing fingers based on my conspiracy theories...
--Shady
I like to play conspiracy theorist and look at a lot of what-ifs, but I don't go pointing fingers based on my conspiracy theories...
--Shady
Wooo- the drama!
Nobodyhere- you crack me up. I investigated the votes because you asked for it, and am trying to remove these unconstructive votes, and you cry foul for that, too. Not that I'd do it, but what would please you?
A big point regarding "rules-changing". There wont be any. Removing war-votes is a part of upholding the rules we set up in the beginning. They are on the chatterboxchallenge.com web site:
"The public will be invited to vote on the bots using a scale from one to ten with the ten being the best possible score. The public will be asked to consider how well the logged conversation went: what was their overall feeling having read it? Was the bot responsive or simply evasive? Did the bot for the most part answer and respond back appropriately or was the conversation full of off the wall remarks? The better bots should give you the impression that you are really talking to a human being.
Better still the public will be encouraged to speak to each bot directly. They will be asked to talk to as many bots as possible so they can compare their qualities and shortcomings. They will be asked to be fair and unbiased when placing their vote. The contest depends on the goodwill of all those taking part."
We dont want this to descend into anything-goes voting. We want to maintain some reflection of the real ability of the bots involved.
Regarding 10s- I dont see any problem there. Of course a botmaster may favor their bot. I voted 10s (or near) for my top 5 favorite bots. It's the gouging that isnt good sportsmanship.
Nobodyhere- you crack me up. I investigated the votes because you asked for it, and am trying to remove these unconstructive votes, and you cry foul for that, too. Not that I'd do it, but what would please you?
A big point regarding "rules-changing". There wont be any. Removing war-votes is a part of upholding the rules we set up in the beginning. They are on the chatterboxchallenge.com web site:
"The public will be invited to vote on the bots using a scale from one to ten with the ten being the best possible score. The public will be asked to consider how well the logged conversation went: what was their overall feeling having read it? Was the bot responsive or simply evasive? Did the bot for the most part answer and respond back appropriately or was the conversation full of off the wall remarks? The better bots should give you the impression that you are really talking to a human being.
Better still the public will be encouraged to speak to each bot directly. They will be asked to talk to as many bots as possible so they can compare their qualities and shortcomings. They will be asked to be fair and unbiased when placing their vote. The contest depends on the goodwill of all those taking part."
We dont want this to descend into anything-goes voting. We want to maintain some reflection of the real ability of the bots involved.
Regarding 10s- I dont see any problem there. Of course a botmaster may favor their bot. I voted 10s (or near) for my top 5 favorite bots. It's the gouging that isnt good sportsmanship.
Well, I gave 1's, 3's 4's, 7's, 5,s and 10's all for a good reason, and I therefore think it would be ridiculous to just remove all ones... I'm sure this full blown war voting is extremely rare
Lunar, you are not understanding what is being done. I gave 1's, 3's 4's, 7's, 5,s and 10's as well. We are NOT removing those type scores. Here is exactly what we are doing. More than one person in this contest gave his bot a 10. They then proceeded to give other bots a score of 1. Johnny Cochran wouldn't defend such foolishness. 1's are indeed a valid score but not when a person gives every bot a 1 while giving his own bot a 10.
Chris Cowart
Chris Cowart
It's still very subjective. If you define war voting as giving your bot a 10 and every other bot a 1, someone could circumvent this definition by giving tens to low ranking bots and ones to high ranking bots.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar