Talk:Buffbot

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)
  • Oh, and I'd consider the ones that KoLmafia uses to be pretty "recommended", though I think a few of 'em (that KoLmafia lists) have uptime/lag issues. --JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 21:41, 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)

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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)