Talk:Buffbot
From TheKolWiki
Contents
Proposed Layout for buffbots
NAME (#Player ID) is a CLAN/PLAYER buffbot, which features LIST BUFFS, FEATURE 2, FEATURE 3, ... and FEATURE X
Featured Buffbots
- What makes a buffbot "featured"?
- "Featured" is probably a poor choice of words, maybe "recommended", "confirmed", "reliable", or "popular" would be better phrasing. More or less there are two separate divisions for only one reason, to make a distinction between known, reliable, tested buffbots and ones recently added. Since I started the page, I started it with buffbots (which I have no affiliation with) and that I knew were reliable out of personal experience. Of course new buffbots are welcomed to be added to the list, for this is a wiki, but sometimes ones listed are not 24/7 or not public, or not reliable/trusted. I'd hate to have a list of buffbots and people kept complaining about how a buffbot is never up or that it stole their meat, so this is one way I thought of avoiding it - having a list of "for sures" and a list of "maybes/unconfirmed". When in softcore, I use Testudinata most for the time and except for right after rollover (when it is lagged with requests), I get my buffs sometime from 10 seconds to 5 minutes, which seems pretty reasonable to me. I (or other people not associated in anyway with the bot) prob should take a multi and request buffs from all of these everyday for a week and see which ones come through reliably and are up most if not all the day. I just don't want someone to list a buffbot here in hopes of scamming people out of their meat. I know the moderation is subjective and it's nowhere near perfect, but IMO, it's better than nothing, and having a free-for-all/at-your-own risk on this page. --JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 21:38, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
- I'm arranging featured and other buffbots from highest level to lowest, and only putting buffbots with all (or mostly all) the buffs in the featured buffbot --Kinks 16:26, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
Speaking of featured buffbots, it seems like Buffy has been down for over 48 hours now? Has this happened to buffy before? It's not like this makes it bad, per se, since the buffs are literally free and do not even take the pittance of meat required by most bots for philanthropic buffs, but maybe it doesn't meet the level of reliability to stay in the top half of the page? (and if it's down for long enough, it will have to get taken down, right? At least until it comes back up.... --HikaruYami 05:34, 13 July 2012 (CEST)
- Since Buffy has two entries, we could remove the one from the Featured Buffbots list without doing that much harm. But then again, no bot is absolute secured against unfortunate events. I didn't use Buffy so far, so I leave the decision to someone more knowledgeable about that buffbot an its history. --Yatsufusa 08:46, 13 July 2012 (CEST)
- Yeah, I am going to consolidate the two entries into a non-featured entry and include the "run by StuBorn" in the bottom entry (since it currently isn't there). If it comes back online, someone else can decide to return it to the featured list, since it really is quite a good bot. --HikaruYami 04:01, 14 July 2012 (CEST)
Misc
- The professor really doesn't have the new buffs (i.e. Scarysauce ) So it doesn't have *all* buffs in the game. All, except new ones. --Zigota Lt 05:14, 18 February 2007 (CST)
- Notbot seems to be going away for long periods of time. When it hits a month of being off-line I'm putting it into the defunct list. --Kinks 16:26, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- What about buffrand?--Poundlor 12:48 AM, 2 October 2008
Defunct?
Several bots listed as defunct appear to have been online recently: Notbot (#896474) and The Professor (#725798) were both online as of 1/1/08, and both of their profiles seem to suggest that they're still in operation. Cookie3 05:01, 1 January 2008 (CST)
I will say that to the best of my knowledge Notbot will be consistent. Our clan had to change who ran it for a while, and now it should be always up. --Duty 14:00, 8 February 2008 (CST)
It might be time to move Kingdom of Buffing to the defunct section. It definitely shouldn't be featured. --Psly4mne 22:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hobopolis
Does anyone know if there are any buff bots offering the accordion thief buffs droped by the hoboverlord?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornedturtle (talk • contribs) on 14:29, 28 August 2008
Kingdom of Buffing
Why was KoB removed from the page several times? It's a great buffbot. --Flandamnat 15:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. Perhaps retribution for not allowing a page with the full KoB price-table. --Fig bucket 15:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, as it still seems to be working (was just tested) and there's no reason stated here for it to be gone, I put it back in. If anyone has an actual reason to remove it, that's a different story, naturally.--Avandor 20:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Check out the pre-blanked page history of User talk:Kinks. I think, to sum up, Kinks wanted the Kingdom of Buffing to have its own wiki page to list its "new" chat commands. I mentioned that no buffbots have wiki pages, but have pages/forums of price lists, etc. hosted on the bot's maintainer's site all linked to from the buffbot page. I suggested that he could just list them on the Kingdom of Buffing website he already has, since it is a web-based buffbot already. He deemed his bot not getting special treatment to be bullshit, his words, and then proceeded to blank both his user and talk pages, and removed his bot from the buffbot list. I really have no idea what he spazzed out about. His dog must have died recently or something. --JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 06:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, my dog died. --kinks 23:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
And now (revision 424457, 16:29, 2010 May 11) you have decided that you don't want KoB listed at even on the buffbot page. Your behavior comes across as petulant. I'll leave it to an admin to decide if that change should be reverted. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 00:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've added it back in. As seen above, people come here looking for it. We're not going to give KoB its own shiny pedestal, but it's a great service (as are all the other buffbots), and it should be listed as such. If K(i)inks wants to keep removing it, he's bordering on a revert war... And being really immature. --TechSmurf 14:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Apparently every page is a "pedestal" for some reason, and if you're friends with the mods you can have your own "pedestal" for your bot. I really don't understand why it's that hard to have a simple page for chat commands. Every page isn't made out of gold. If its useful information, what's the big deal? --kinks 16:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- your logic is somewhat undermined by the fact that no buffbot has its own page. no special treatment. if i'm wrong, point to the page and i'll delete it. this is a kol wiki. it's primarily for in-game content or content that's about in-game content. buffbots don't count as either. they are, however, extremely useful, and there's a need, so as with clans we make a tiny concession and have a page summarising those that exist. the next step, of allowing full pagehood for such stuff, is not one that's going to be taken. especially since it's just duplicating information that's just one click away. it's difficult enough keeping this and the clan page up to date as it is. sorry to hear about your dog. --Evilkolbot 17:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently there's Chatbot. I thought that one had somehow become "official" somewhere along the way. I think a few code tweaks/fixes have been done with Chatbot specifically in mind, not that I can remember them specifically. Don't know of any others. --Flargen 19:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- chatbot's not a bot, it's the bot. if someone can exceed or even reproduce its awesomeness then, yay! they win a page to themselves. not going to happen, though, because fnord already did it all. --Evilkolbot 20:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Chatbot is immune to jawbruiser is such a code tweak/fix --Hrag 12:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently there's Chatbot. I thought that one had somehow become "official" somewhere along the way. I think a few code tweaks/fixes have been done with Chatbot specifically in mind, not that I can remember them specifically. Don't know of any others. --Flargen 19:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Man, just take the HTML page that I'm hosting, which is a copy of the wiki page you made, and host it on kingdomofbuffing.com, you could even put a little thing at the top with "Chat Commands" along with the "Homepage" "Hall of Donators" and "Bot Status" links. I've actually had some people message me that got confused and wondered if I was the one hosting KoB's services, since the chat commands were posted up on my site. --RoyalTonberry 21:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Once again, it's not about special treatment, it's about having an useful page. I know adding a page for a buffbot is new and scary, but it's not going to cause the wiki to meltdown. Evilkolbot points out there are a couple pages for clans, and there is also one for chatbot. So obviously, wtf.com. I like you say it's difficult keeping a page like this updated. It's pretty much the easiest thing in the world to do, which is why I wanted one. BTW, my dog has an upcoming charity fundraiser, the Dead Dog Undertaker Understudy Recreational Recital Raffle (DDUURRR), if you want to help a dead dog out (complete with the beating a dead horse game). Royal, just remove that page if people continue to be that dumb. Seriously, I stopped caring about a buffbot page an hour after it got removed. The only thing that bugs me now is the reasoning behind the removal. Which seems to be "this is the way we've always done it", and "every page is sacred", neither of which I buy.
- "Our hope is that KoL players will come here and add new information, making this wiki as useful and usable as possible." --Thraeryn
- Full pagehood? Really? Man, I hope all those years at page college finally paid off. Or is it more like being knighted by the queen after saving the realm from the savage barbarian invaders? Either way it's probably a hell of a grand ceremony when one more is let into the elite ranks. --kinks 18:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Pages get deleted for being unnecessary or beyond the scope of the wiki all of the time. And not just ones from blatant spambots. It's a slippery slope situation. Just one bot page, if it could be kept to that, is not an issue, though it doesn't stop it from having a scope issue. The problem is that it is never just the one page. It is never just the one bot. And with the probably 100s of bots out there offering any number of services from the extremely useful to the impossibly useless, we will eventually be inundated with pages for each of them. That lowers both the wiki's usefulness and usability. And then we're either splitting a hair on which ones we think are the coolest, which you seem to be raging against right now, or we just disallow all of them and save ourselves more headaches in the end. If your bot has a significant impact on the game in-and-of-itself, not just on how a chunk of people use it, then you might get your own page. Like if Jick and Co. say "hey, we want to make an official KoL buffbot, and we want it to be KoB", then you're in (if you went along with it). Probably; I shouldn't promise anything on that, lest I be unable to deliver. --Flargen 19:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- now it's been established that there isn't anyone that wants to allow bot pages can we stop now? --Evilkolbot 20:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just gonna throw this out there, the point of this wiki is to provide useful information that's relevant to the game. I'm just gonna assume that a buffbot which has been used as much as KoB has (as of May 31 (Google's cached page), 1,920,866 times, and by 78,526 different accounts) would be relevant to the game. I dunno, all I can say is that not letting kinks make a page to provide information to help people use his buffbot simply because it'd be "special treatment" is a load of crap. --Keeko1642 22:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Special treatment is special treatment. And, if you check Kinks' own arguments, he friggin' hates when people get special treatment. At least when it is someone other than him. He had an entry on the page; his relevance was taken care of. But it seems he has decided to make the bot vanish. And I shan't opine as to the nature of his leaving, lest I find myself delivering a caustic rant, merited or not. --Flargen 01:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, this discussion can probably be ended now, as it seems that KoB has shut down. --TimRem 22:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Really? I'd say it's just beginning. KoB being down means people will want to find out why, and this page is the answer. This is already linked from the forums of loathing, meaning many people (like myself) will find it. I think it's time the community stepped in on this issue, because this isn't the first time something like this has happened. The user profiles argument was the same way. It was something everyone who uses the wiki wanted, but something admins had never done before, so they were scared of it. Why would the wiki burn down if it had a User:KoB/Chatcommands page? Because then other buffbots would have those same lists of commands? Great, I'd love to see those all in one place! This argument fails to hold water on a website designed to make a collection of easily accessible information.--Terrabull 19:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- he can do whatever he likes with his user space. seems like a good compromise. i'd prefer that it was in user:kinks/kob but that's just me. the hissy fit, though, was about inclusion in the main space. he's not boozerbear and kob's not chatbot. i repeat what i said in the forums, it was not our decision to take the bot down. ask kinks why he did it. maybe blaming us was just convenient. it's certainly not proportionate. --Evilkolbot 19:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any attempt at compromise in the above argument. You guys are saying one way, he is saying the other. Given that this is on the forums now it would probably be useful to have a link to any further discussion between these parties so people don't get the wrong idea. I know I haven't seen any other talk. Right now I see you both being in the wrong, and both for the same thing. From the comments here Kinks seems more emotional, but more reasonable (as in being willing to work things out) than the wiki mods.--Terrabull 19:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've been watching this from the beginning, when Kinks first posted the page. You should take a look at the history of User talk:Kinks to see the seriously emotionally charged context of everything. The fact of the matter is, I posted the buff page that got deleted, and it seemed good enough, but he started stuff up here on the wiki soon after. You want the community to compromise? I certainly don't speak for the community as a whole, but I definitely stepped in and went a long way to try and mitigate the situation. It was apparently not enough, though it's nearly exactly what anyone could have realistically wanted, based on the conversation that occurred. --RoyalTonberry 19:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any attempt at compromise in the above argument. You guys are saying one way, he is saying the other. Given that this is on the forums now it would probably be useful to have a link to any further discussion between these parties so people don't get the wrong idea. I know I haven't seen any other talk. Right now I see you both being in the wrong, and both for the same thing. From the comments here Kinks seems more emotional, but more reasonable (as in being willing to work things out) than the wiki mods.--Terrabull 19:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- he can do whatever he likes with his user space. seems like a good compromise. i'd prefer that it was in user:kinks/kob but that's just me. the hissy fit, though, was about inclusion in the main space. he's not boozerbear and kob's not chatbot. i repeat what i said in the forums, it was not our decision to take the bot down. ask kinks why he did it. maybe blaming us was just convenient. it's certainly not proportionate. --Evilkolbot 19:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
What exactly is the rationale for limiting the number of buffbot pages? If the wiki is supposed to be informative, shouldn't it include the maximum amount of information? Certainly the other buffbots could make their own wiki pages too....--Peterlorre
- Hai, confused person here.
Why did nobody suggest making a subpage on his userpage for the chat commands? Even if other people follow in suite, it's off of the main namespace and doesn't do much to clutter up the wiki. And he gets a chat commands page. It's not rocket surgery.
- As I read one more post and see that somebody says that. But my "it's off of the main namespace" thing stays. Woo hoo, people clutter up their sub-pages. Is it really that big a deal? Morgoth1145 15:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
If you can create pages for some of the most stupid aspects of the game like say: NS13, The Sea, Mr Skullhead, etc,. then having a page for buffbots isn't that big of a deal and it won't collapse the universe as everyone's making it out to be. --Xsmootx 18:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Buffbot Problem...
Easiest solution would have been to link some portion of the buffbot description for KoB to Kink's userpage.
Now because of a pissing match the most useful and only 100% free buffbot with universal access is now gone, quite possibly forever and unless somebody wants to stand up and take action, it will never be replaced.
So, how about I make a small suggestion?
How about KolWiki itself, or coldfront, or whomever do it?
There's nothing that could stop the page from being hosted on coldfront and linked appropriately, nobody can complain about it having a page with the chat commands, it's the wikibot and if the wiki wants to host a page for a bot it made, and if somebody gripes, purge em.
So, what's the catch, why can't this work?
--Nightwind 292 07:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Kinks controls the KoB character and its website, and as far as I know it was his own personal decision to take down the bot, and he is entitled to do so. It's not like having its own page here was the only way his bot could possibly survive or be noticed. If it was, then there's a reason his business model resulted in a crash. And as for creating a new buffbot, that is an involved process that requires a decent number of ascensions and a very high level. And with the growing number of nerfs to Crimbo-time power levelling, getting a fresh character up to level 80+ is no minor task. And if you haven't done all of your ascensions by this year's Crimbo you're pretty much going to have to wait until next year's, which is quite a wait. Plus it will still need its own resources, etc. etc. It's not like these things just grow on trees. It's involved is what I'm getting at here. Not to say that coldfront admins would reject the idea entirely, but you'd need a concrete plan for actually generating this bot, as well as schedule for when it becomes operational, who owns it, who controls it (when necessary), how interface changes are determined, etc. etc. It's involved. --Flargen 07:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I think the easiest solution that would work for basically everyone (except kinks, apparently) would be to have hosted the chat commands off-wiki. Then the wiki admins wouldn't be trying to quell having a page for the bot on the wiki, and the chat command page is still posted and whatnot. In fact, if you weren't already aware, the chat command page has been hosted for a while on my webspace, and kinks had linked from kingdomofbuffing.com. This was apparently not sufficient, since the arguing had started again. I cannot and will not speak to the motives of kinks, but it was apparently insufficient to just have the chat commands posted somewhere public. --RoyalTonberry 11:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- That WAS my suggestion. Put the info on the webpage he already had. He took offense to that and said things about "other bots have pages why can't mine", which makes no sense since no bots, but chatbot (which is practically part of the game), do. See my talk page here and his talk page before he blanked it. I try to be as diplomatic and as clear as possible when posting as a wiki admin, but arg. That and this tussle was at the beginning of May, I do not see any correlation between this argument here and his site going down near the beginning of July. --JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 04:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Is this wiki owned or shared? Are the rules dictated by those in charge, or by agreement among its users? (I really don't know.)
- "This is the way it is, accept it." There was no offer of discussion on the matter, no chance of having a reasonable discussion that could lead to a rules change. On an ideal wiki, a community project rather than a project with contributions from the community, every user should be treated as a contributor and an equal voice, and preference of opinion would not be granted to those with higher standing. Rules would not be dictated, and challenges would not be dismissed. Speaking of special treatment, (ideal) wiki admins should be enforcers, not legislators. Or at least not legislators with more votes than everyone else. You can tell me right now that this wiki's rules are decided by those in charge and everything above would be as much as blah. --Raijinili 04:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- to those who blocked kinks' latest attempts to make his selfless service to the KOL community even MORE convenient by listing his chat commands in the wiki, i cannot say for certain whether you did, in fact, drive kinks away, but from reading the only resource available to me to discover why the kingdom of buffing has been abolished, this seems to me to be the most likely course of events. After all, he was blocked arbitrarily, effectively told him he had no say in the matter, and put into a position where the only way he could gain some degree of control over the situation was to just leave, then you accused him, the man who spent Years providing a first-rate service to over 78 thousand players for FREE, of being selfish, and hypocritical, overemotional and irrational. i cannot know for certain why he left, but i know that for those of his 78 thousand users who have been denied his services, many will read this, and unless he returns or breaks his silence, they will hold you personally responsible for driving away the best buffbot in the history of KOL. You have driven away the King of Buffing, and the History of Loathing will damn your name!--Tiny plastic lelep 10:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, first, people are taking both sides, so to speak for the masses is misleading to say the least. Second, why are you trying to make them feel bad? Do you think it will work? Third, let's have a discussion instead of just emotional accusations. You're being incredibly one-sided. It's just a buffbot. --Raijinili
- One minor point. Kinks was never blocked. The only admin action that was taken in this matter was a page getting deleted.--Toffile 13:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- of course i trying to make them feel bad, i just lost the services of the best buffbot in kol, which i say without exaggeration, and it's just easier to blame those guys. but unless kinks decides to exist again, i don't think a discussion will have much merit. suffice it to say that kink's response was disproportionate, but he was prevented from making his services even easier to access, on arbitrary grounds, and treated with a certain degree of contempt, and in any event he was wholly within his rights to abolish his services at any time he chose.--Tiny plastic lelep 08:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- He was given the same opportunity to promote his bot every other buffbot has. Moreover, I think the responses to him were level headed. Of course, instead of trying to pin blame and start more arguments, you could contribute to the discussion to start a new buffbot that could function in the same way. --TechSmurf 14:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)--TechSmurf 14:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- The thing I think that leads to these kinds of emotional attacks is that some players, myself included, feel like they've been robbed of a very useful service by people with vastly different priorities from their own. For instance, my priorities, in regards to this situation, are a: That the Wiki contain accurate and useful information, and b: That I be able to get buffed as cheaply and conveniently as possible. On the other hand, the editors involved in this debate seemed to have a: Eliminate superfluous material from the Wiki, and b: Make sure no one gets special treatment (Even if they've provided what I would call special, above-and-beyond service to the community). (Obviously I'm making big assumptions about the motivations of others, arguing in bad faith, blah blah blah etc.). Since I don't care about either of those priorities even a little, and since enforcing those priorities actively hampered my pursuit of my OWN priorities, yes, I'm a little mad, and the only thing I can do about it is to bitch on this page. So I am. Shame on you, wiki editors. Shame shame shame. (I'm making a shame-on-you motion with my fingers).--Plumberduck 17:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- The way I see this (as an active wiki user/editor but not admin) is that Kinks was looking for external glorification and when told that the wiki was not for that, he took his football and went home. Comes across as selfish and immature. The wiki is not the game. The wiki is not the buffbot service. The wiki doesn't exist to have large amounts of stuff about players, clans, player interactions, etc, etc, etc. (I'm going to leave out links to player page size and clan page discussions here, but they exist.) You say that buff service was cheap and convenient, but was it radically cheaper or more convenient than others? No, and I don't think any buffbot could be radically easier or cheaper than Binary, Testudinata, Noblesse Oblige, etc, with prices listed right in the game (profile or display case) and just a kmail away. The best that can be achieved is equivalence. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 17:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's basically the easiest way to sum all of this up: the wiki is not your vanity mirror. If your intent is to use the wiki to show how pretty you are, you're in the wrong place. We're okay with some vanity on your own user page, provided it doesn't start becoming obscenely bloated; I usually don't even look at user page edits unless they're really large or numerous (or by someone other than the indicated user). We do have a couple of "exceptions" (Bashy, anyone?). They're relics of an ancient era in which single players could have an honestly huge impact on the game and the gaming experience from every direction. I'm not particularly opposed to the deletion of such pages, but they are, quite frankly, on an entirely different level of discussion than, say, KoB's. --Flargen 20:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have to ask... why CAN'T the wiki be a vanity mirror? It's not some sacred institution; it's an aggregation of information. Letting people add their own pages does, what, eat up a little more server space? While cracking down on "vanity" hurt the community by ticking off a very useful (and apparently easily upset) member of the community and depriving thousands of players of a useful service. I don't want my own page, but if someone does, how exactly does it hurt the wiki (unless there's a secret contest we're part of to emulate Wikipedia as much as possible)?--Plumberduck 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Stop that. There's no evidence the wiki events and KoB's disappearance had anything to do with each other. Not every pair of points implies a straight line: stop blaming wiki admins for Kink's sudden, bizarre freak-out. Moreover, if something this minor ticked him off to the point of shutting down his system he's either actually only 12 years old, or has other, bigger issues of which these events are just a manifestation, neither of which is worth catering to here. I am personally very happy with the admins aiming to keep the main space about the game, and fully support their actions in this case.
Note that, as implied above, users can and do have their own pages. They don't go in the main space. That's not a secret competition, that's organization. --Fig bucket 11:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Stop that. There's no evidence the wiki events and KoB's disappearance had anything to do with each other. Not every pair of points implies a straight line: stop blaming wiki admins for Kink's sudden, bizarre freak-out. Moreover, if something this minor ticked him off to the point of shutting down his system he's either actually only 12 years old, or has other, bigger issues of which these events are just a manifestation, neither of which is worth catering to here. I am personally very happy with the admins aiming to keep the main space about the game, and fully support their actions in this case.
- I have to ask... why CAN'T the wiki be a vanity mirror? It's not some sacred institution; it's an aggregation of information. Letting people add their own pages does, what, eat up a little more server space? While cracking down on "vanity" hurt the community by ticking off a very useful (and apparently easily upset) member of the community and depriving thousands of players of a useful service. I don't want my own page, but if someone does, how exactly does it hurt the wiki (unless there's a secret contest we're part of to emulate Wikipedia as much as possible)?--Plumberduck 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's basically the easiest way to sum all of this up: the wiki is not your vanity mirror. If your intent is to use the wiki to show how pretty you are, you're in the wrong place. We're okay with some vanity on your own user page, provided it doesn't start becoming obscenely bloated; I usually don't even look at user page edits unless they're really large or numerous (or by someone other than the indicated user). We do have a couple of "exceptions" (Bashy, anyone?). They're relics of an ancient era in which single players could have an honestly huge impact on the game and the gaming experience from every direction. I'm not particularly opposed to the deletion of such pages, but they are, quite frankly, on an entirely different level of discussion than, say, KoB's. --Flargen 20:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- The way I see this (as an active wiki user/editor but not admin) is that Kinks was looking for external glorification and when told that the wiki was not for that, he took his football and went home. Comes across as selfish and immature. The wiki is not the game. The wiki is not the buffbot service. The wiki doesn't exist to have large amounts of stuff about players, clans, player interactions, etc, etc, etc. (I'm going to leave out links to player page size and clan page discussions here, but they exist.) You say that buff service was cheap and convenient, but was it radically cheaper or more convenient than others? No, and I don't think any buffbot could be radically easier or cheaper than Binary, Testudinata, Noblesse Oblige, etc, with prices listed right in the game (profile or display case) and just a kmail away. The best that can be achieved is equivalence. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 17:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- The thing I think that leads to these kinds of emotional attacks is that some players, myself included, feel like they've been robbed of a very useful service by people with vastly different priorities from their own. For instance, my priorities, in regards to this situation, are a: That the Wiki contain accurate and useful information, and b: That I be able to get buffed as cheaply and conveniently as possible. On the other hand, the editors involved in this debate seemed to have a: Eliminate superfluous material from the Wiki, and b: Make sure no one gets special treatment (Even if they've provided what I would call special, above-and-beyond service to the community). (Obviously I'm making big assumptions about the motivations of others, arguing in bad faith, blah blah blah etc.). Since I don't care about either of those priorities even a little, and since enforcing those priorities actively hampered my pursuit of my OWN priorities, yes, I'm a little mad, and the only thing I can do about it is to bitch on this page. So I am. Shame on you, wiki editors. Shame shame shame. (I'm making a shame-on-you motion with my fingers).--Plumberduck 17:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- He was given the same opportunity to promote his bot every other buffbot has. Moreover, I think the responses to him were level headed. Of course, instead of trying to pin blame and start more arguments, you could contribute to the discussion to start a new buffbot that could function in the same way. --TechSmurf 14:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)--TechSmurf 14:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- it seems to me that the reason kinks disappeared was less having a spaz over not getting his own page, but more being upset at how he was treated with such contempt. i mean read through the comments above, and can you honestly tell me you would not be offended if they were aimed at you? there are so many comments saying that he wanted to put his buffbot commands on a new page out of self-aggrandizement, that he wanted " special treatment" and wanted it to be his "vanity mirror", rather than attempting to write a page in which to put useful information, both for his clients' convenience and for his own, as i believe he said in one thread that the wiki is far easier to edit than his own site. if you read the above text in this light, you get the impression that people basically told him "f**k you you greedy b*****d!", so he pissed off. It is hardly childish to simply leave when presented with such hostility. as for proof that there is, in fact a causal link between kinks' departure and his treatment at the hands of the wiki community, one need only look at the manner in which he left. Had he been leaving for personal reasons, he would likely have either made announcements to the effect of a hiatus or cessation of his services, or simply said nothing and faded into oblivion. he would also have done that if he had had an ill-timed catastrophic internet failure. however, his words "i'll take my ball and leave", or thereabouts, imply that he has been offended, and no longer wishes to facilitate your fun. now unless he was offended by person or persons unknown somewhere in the wiki that has escaped everyone's notice, occam's razor points to his disappearance being related to his treatment above. even if you believe that kinks' buffbot commands page should not have been allowed into the wiki, as it is clear many of you do, you must agree that the manner in which he was rebuffed was quite offensive. mentally separating these two issues should enhance the clarity of any further debates. thank you, that is all.--Tiny plastic lelep 15:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- "that the wiki is far easier to edit than his own site" ... No. You know what I ended up doing after being told that the wiki doesn't like lots of little edits, or charts, or tables that have to do with a lot of meta-gamey stuff? I put them on my own webspace. Far, far easier to maintain, much less chance of someone vandalizing it. As I have stated and linked several times, I even put up KoB's buff-list on my webspace to help kinks out. He even linked it from his main page. Considering wild speculation, I'm sure there were other underlying issues, and that the wiki dramaz was some way of expressing frustration at other issues. Just look at the conversation that happened (as i'm sure most of you haven't), kinks was the one who got really enraged, after JRSiebz calmly explained why the page was deleted. --RoyalTonberry 15:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- As it so happens, I have read that exchange, and while kinks certainly seemed excitable, the other guy seemed WAY too beholden to arbitrary rules. The wiki can't "like" something; it's just a collection of thousands and thousands of users. If there's some hard, real, technical reason we need to limit the number of pages on the wiki according to relevance, no one has cited it in this discussion. Everything has been discussed in terms of breaking the rules, without looking to whether those rules are fulfilling a purpose beyond antagonizing people and giving others a sense of control. I asked it before, and no one responded: Why not have vanity pages? Does anyone use this thing by looking at a vast index of wiki pages and they'd get annoyed if there were superfluous ones? Let the pages exist, linked where they're relevant, and delete the links where they aren't. In closing, if you disagree with me, you are statistically likely to be fat or ugly, and I'm gonna make you wear a hat. With straps. --Plumberduck 18:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nice and irrelevant, with a side of personal attacks. Just the way I like my wikidramaz. --RoyalTonberry 18:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Someone sounds like they're angling for a hat. A strap-hat. Also, via my previous arguments, I now know that you're statistically fat and statistically ugly. I have used logic to defeat you, just as you used logic to avoid addressing any of my valid points. We are now logic brothers.--Plumberduck 19:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- At least you're being kind enough to let us know that your points don't actually mean a thing. A wiki isn't about vanity, it's about facts, information about a particular topic/motif. Believe it or not, it takes up server space and time to host these pages, they don't even ask us for any donations. The wiki is a free service. Sure, the admins and I don't always get along either, but, uhh... make a valid point, or quit complaining. If you really want a vanity page, there are plenty of websites out there offering page hosting, where you can show the world pictures of your Adonis-like physique. --RoyalTonberry 20:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, it's an argument on the Internet; nobody's points mean a thing. That being said, who are you to say what a wiki is for? I'll say it again: if it's not hurting anyone, what is the problem with hosting small amounts of extra information? The only reason I can see is because it doesn't fit with your ideological conception of what the wiki should be, and as a single user, who are you to dictate the ideological symptomologies of a collaborative environment powered by love and heart ham? Also, I am super fat and ugly. Also, I already said I don't want my own vanity page. I already SAID that. Next you will tell me that you haven't read my coming-of-age novel "Strapping Hats to Babies". I'm thinking about revoking your logic brother badge, logic brother.--Plumberduck 22:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Vanity pages absolutely do not belong on the wiki. Get a facebook account. Or User:Name page. Nobody is here to find out what your favorite color is.--P4n1q 07:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, people on here keep saying that, but no one's given a justification for it, they just react as though they were being attacked about some deeply held belief. The wiki is a collaborative environment; why can't it be what ALL its collaborators want it to be? What is someone wanted to know my favorite color, or, say, how to get 500 turns of polka via chat command? Is there anything that stops that except the ideologies of the kind of people with personalities that give them the most time and control over how a wiki is run? (My favorite color is blue, like your eyes). --Plumberduck 17:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Vanity pages are not collaborative. There's no way for anyone else to contribute to a vanity page except the person that it is about. So vanity pages are really just a form of self-aggrandizing. What your favorite color is, or how much meat you have to send xxxsaiyan420xxx to play his /games raffle, or how to get polka via chat command do not belong on the wiki. This is the KoL wiki, not the whatever-kinds-of-stuff-random-people-decide-it-can-be-about wiki. I'm having a hard time believing you're even raising this as a serious issue. Again, vanity pages do not belong here, and the claim that they do is completely indefensible. What you are describing is a personal webpage, not a wiki.--P4n1q 19:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Vanity pages are not collaborative. There's no way for anyone else to contribute to a vanity page except the person that it is about." Okay, vanity page implies not able to be collaborative. Sure. That does not mean that not able to be collaborative implies vanity page. A->B does not mean B->A. Morgoth1145 15:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, also, I've been trying to figure out how chatbot is "practically part of the game." Thus far, I haven't been able to figure that out. I'll never, ever use chatbot, I wager. Buffbots, oh yeah, I'll use them. Buffbots seem so much more related to KoL than chatbot it's ridiculous. Yes chatbot got the anti-jawbruiser thing. That doesn't make it official, that means that TPTB don't want it to be incredibly annoying. Morgoth1145 15:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Vanity pages are not collaborative. There's no way for anyone else to contribute to a vanity page except the person that it is about. So vanity pages are really just a form of self-aggrandizing. What your favorite color is, or how much meat you have to send xxxsaiyan420xxx to play his /games raffle, or how to get polka via chat command do not belong on the wiki. This is the KoL wiki, not the whatever-kinds-of-stuff-random-people-decide-it-can-be-about wiki. I'm having a hard time believing you're even raising this as a serious issue. Again, vanity pages do not belong here, and the claim that they do is completely indefensible. What you are describing is a personal webpage, not a wiki.--P4n1q 19:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, people on here keep saying that, but no one's given a justification for it, they just react as though they were being attacked about some deeply held belief. The wiki is a collaborative environment; why can't it be what ALL its collaborators want it to be? What is someone wanted to know my favorite color, or, say, how to get 500 turns of polka via chat command? Is there anything that stops that except the ideologies of the kind of people with personalities that give them the most time and control over how a wiki is run? (My favorite color is blue, like your eyes). --Plumberduck 17:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Vanity pages absolutely do not belong on the wiki. Get a facebook account. Or User:Name page. Nobody is here to find out what your favorite color is.--P4n1q 07:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, it's an argument on the Internet; nobody's points mean a thing. That being said, who are you to say what a wiki is for? I'll say it again: if it's not hurting anyone, what is the problem with hosting small amounts of extra information? The only reason I can see is because it doesn't fit with your ideological conception of what the wiki should be, and as a single user, who are you to dictate the ideological symptomologies of a collaborative environment powered by love and heart ham? Also, I am super fat and ugly. Also, I already said I don't want my own vanity page. I already SAID that. Next you will tell me that you haven't read my coming-of-age novel "Strapping Hats to Babies". I'm thinking about revoking your logic brother badge, logic brother.--Plumberduck 22:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- At least you're being kind enough to let us know that your points don't actually mean a thing. A wiki isn't about vanity, it's about facts, information about a particular topic/motif. Believe it or not, it takes up server space and time to host these pages, they don't even ask us for any donations. The wiki is a free service. Sure, the admins and I don't always get along either, but, uhh... make a valid point, or quit complaining. If you really want a vanity page, there are plenty of websites out there offering page hosting, where you can show the world pictures of your Adonis-like physique. --RoyalTonberry 20:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Someone sounds like they're angling for a hat. A strap-hat. Also, via my previous arguments, I now know that you're statistically fat and statistically ugly. I have used logic to defeat you, just as you used logic to avoid addressing any of my valid points. We are now logic brothers.--Plumberduck 19:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nice and irrelevant, with a side of personal attacks. Just the way I like my wikidramaz. --RoyalTonberry 18:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- As it so happens, I have read that exchange, and while kinks certainly seemed excitable, the other guy seemed WAY too beholden to arbitrary rules. The wiki can't "like" something; it's just a collection of thousands and thousands of users. If there's some hard, real, technical reason we need to limit the number of pages on the wiki according to relevance, no one has cited it in this discussion. Everything has been discussed in terms of breaking the rules, without looking to whether those rules are fulfilling a purpose beyond antagonizing people and giving others a sense of control. I asked it before, and no one responded: Why not have vanity pages? Does anyone use this thing by looking at a vast index of wiki pages and they'd get annoyed if there were superfluous ones? Let the pages exist, linked where they're relevant, and delete the links where they aren't. In closing, if you disagree with me, you are statistically likely to be fat or ugly, and I'm gonna make you wear a hat. With straps. --Plumberduck 18:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- "that the wiki is far easier to edit than his own site" ... No. You know what I ended up doing after being told that the wiki doesn't like lots of little edits, or charts, or tables that have to do with a lot of meta-gamey stuff? I put them on my own webspace. Far, far easier to maintain, much less chance of someone vandalizing it. As I have stated and linked several times, I even put up KoB's buff-list on my webspace to help kinks out. He even linked it from his main page. Considering wild speculation, I'm sure there were other underlying issues, and that the wiki dramaz was some way of expressing frustration at other issues. Just look at the conversation that happened (as i'm sure most of you haven't), kinks was the one who got really enraged, after JRSiebz calmly explained why the page was deleted. --RoyalTonberry 15:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- as I said earlier, the controversial page was not a vanity page but a buffbot text commands page, which wasn't intended to promote KOB. from reading the start of the discussion it appears as if kinks was unaware that all bots but chatbot are disallowed individual pages, and had the impression that he was being denied a privelige open to bots more beloved of the admins, which would explain his anger. what i based my earlier observation about kinks saying the wiki was easier to keep data on was based on this quote from kinks' ex talk page: "Yes, I can have it on the website, but keeping it here is a crapton easier to update and mess around with." But in any event this discussion is more or less superfluous anyway, being about an argument that most of us were not privy to. i will say, however, those who actually deleted the page acted in good faith, and were'nt really at fault for doing so, as it is their job to decide what is superflous and they made that decision, and even if we don't agree with it, it was justifiable. however after the page itself ceased to be an issue, there was a shitfight managed poorly by all. in the slice of the conversation that i am privy to, it seems like the other guys were being bigger twats, but it is hard to tell, as i am unable to read the whole argument, parts of it having been deleted, and in any case i am biased towards kinks anyway for obvious reasons.--Tiny plastic lelep 08:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- The argument that he wanted special treatment... Do you really think he'd have a problem with all "Featured" buffbots getting their own pages? Having them "featured" is already special treatment, regardless of some arbitrary way of measuring how much it is. --Raijinili 06:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Corrections
So much recent attention to this page, and the fact that it blatantly lies seems to have evaded everyone... :)
Of the three featured buffbots, all claim to have all or nearly all buffs. Of course, they're missing quite a large number of the new ones. I'm simply going to remove those claims. --Starwed 07:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could whoever posted this please elaborate? i would rather like to know if the data my opinion is based on is erronious.--Tiny plastic lelep 14:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm removing "trivial" and replacing it with affordable. Since the 'philanthropic' bot owners are making a profit the meat changing hands is hardly trivial. --Zacius 13:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree. KolaBuff, for example, charges 1-25 meat for their philanthropic buffs. That's trivial. And trivial and profit do not affect eachother, considering the fact that making a profit does not mean keeping it, rather than pumping it back into future MP regen and stat boosts.--Erich 14:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Standards?
Yeah, I don't think I should stay silent about this.
JRSiebz just edited the page with the summary, "bumped up Kolabuff (been using it everyday for years), added Tinkerballa, & alph sort others". I see a big discrepancy when you reject one person's request/demand (it doesn't matter) on assumed rules that aren't stated anywhere, and then you turn face and grant favor to another bot, stating the reason to be subjective and, moreover, personally subjective.
The fact that it's the same admin doesn't even matter (that much). Are there rules or aren't there? --Raijinili 05:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Around 2006 when this page was created, hah and i just checked, by me, there were only like 6 buffbots, so they were all listed together, then with the the appearance of buffbot running tools like KoL CLI, KoLmafia, etc., there was an explosion of buffbots, and this page ballooned to nearly 30 buffbot. Buffbots came and went all the time, and we needed someway to point out the known-to-be reliable ones, so to help prevent green adventures from getting ripped off. "Featured" doesn't really mean "featured", it's just the word settled on. Of course there has been a buffbot bubble bust since then, we were down to like 4 or 5 for a while, and the (recently removed) list of defunct buffbot was like 30 long. I added Tinkerballa because it was missing, and bumped up Kolabuff to the bottom of the "Featured" list, not for favor, but because of the fact that it is one of the buffbot I know has been reliable for a long period of time, and that won't steer new players wrong. More experienced players are more likely to hunt down deals from other bots or risk it with less reliable buffs. There is no buffbot czar at the wiki who goes around testing all the buffbots everyday to see which ones are "best". I just made a judgment call. If tons of people start complaining about Kolabuff's uptime or reliable, by all means, we'll move it down. There aren't really explicit rules for any of this, as nobody ever wants to write the manual ;) The 2-4 currently very active wiki editors just grunt at each other slowly on talk pages until they all say "eh, that's seems ok" ;) --JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 07:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Binary
Binary just ascended into HC and will likely be unable to provide buffs for a while. Someone from Otori could give better information. I didn't know how exactly to address this issue on the buffbot page, so I've noted it here.--P4n1q 07:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- From the KoLmafia forums, Nikademus wrote "I've set up a temporary buffbot, Fuhransi (#59975), to handle Sonata/Cantata/Ur-Kel/Dirge while Binary ascends and gets other stuff." I haven't had a chance to use it, though. --JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 07:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Defunct Bots
Many of the Buff Bots on this list are now defunct, and have not operated in several years. I suggest removing them so newer players will not be frustrated trying to find a resource for Buffs. If there are no objections, I will begin removing the defunct ones. -- Ravenous Muffin (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Buffy, Djinni_CGC, Binary were online and buffed me in seconds/minutes so seem ok, and ones I know for sure work nearly 24/7 are the bots KoLmafia uses (Testudinata, Noblesse Oblige, & SevenLances_com). HeartBot and IocaineBot are currently not online but have been logged-in in the last day or so, so I don't know if they are operational. And if a bot hasn't been running for months (or more), you don't really need to ask to remove it :P Pages just sometimes get overlooked. --JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 05:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
