BOTM April 2013

[Venko]

I'm easily beatable, just need more entries :P

You are an AW lover and guru. I was like this for UHW, that's why I built like ~30 of them. I think, that I can send You a 1 or 2 unique AWs for your pack, if I found some time to skin them, I don't have much AWs that are not a 1 WD HS...

[ianh05]

I haven't done to well in AW tournaments and had a 50/50 chance of winning the 2 AW design contests :) I do like AW's and build LOTS of them but I don't think I'm that good at building combat effective ones as I strive for being creative with them which is why you won't see many stacked rammers from me in my showcase.

A few examples of people who could easily top me in AW's:

*NFX: made XOR, a really great AW which is both unique and combat effective.
*Pwnator: made Dipper, a unique and combat effective AW.
*ClickBeetle: Made Soul Weevil, a destructive drill and a motorised hammer AW which is yet to be AI'd properly but should be deadly and very unique.

That being said, I think it's obvious this BOTM is a little out of my comfort zone :)

[Venko]

Sometimes You build bots for fun and pleasure, even if they are not the most combat efective in the world, I have lots of bots like this, even unshowcased, due to lack of time.
[/end of spam, back on topic]

[090901]

I need to stop being lazy and finish the other half of my bot since I got halfway through building it :V

[cephalopod]

I don't think you should be allowed to enter and/or win a BOTM that you decided the rules on, otherwise it just gets unfair. Also you should've clarified 'no multibots' in the rules. A multibot is a singular bot, it doesn't count as 2 entries in a tournament for example. It's not a loophole.

[Venko]

I don't think you should be allowed to enter and/or win a BOTM that you decided the rules on, otherwise it just gets unfair.
ACAMS is judging this, not You...
Also you should've clarified 'no multibots' in the rules. A multibot is a singular bot, it doesn't count as 2 entries in a tournament for example. It's not a loophole.
You forget that I'm making the rules for this one, not You...

[090901]

Also you should've clarified 'no multibots' in the rules. A multibot is a singular bot, it doesn't count as 2 entries in a tournament for example. It's not a loophole.
You forget that I'm making the rules for this one, not You...

Yeah, because it's fair that someone makes a robot perfectly fine with the rules in the OP and then you say "ITS NOT LEGAL YOU HAVE TO MAKE NEW ROBOTS".

[Venko]

I had to add this "anti-multi bot" line, just all things to be clear, but how I can edit the ACAMS post?

[Chaosmancer]

I had to add this "anti-multi bot" line, just all things to be clear, but how I can edit the ACAMS post?

Quite simple really - you can't. If this were your topic, you could, but even then it would be completely unfair for you to change accepted rules a good ten days after they have been up just because you made an oversight, in my opinion.

[Venko]

Quite simple really - you can't. If this were your topic, you could, but even then it would be completely unfair for you to change accepted rules a good ten days after they have been up just because you made an oversight, in my opinion.

8 days later, I was off town to fix that earlier. Still there is a plenty of time to enter on the other hand.

[ianh05]

This is BOTM not a tournament, if no one has entered then I see no reason for him not to be able to change the rules.

[Venko]

...They are also missing the "Anything I'm missing guys?" part in the tournament posts, wich I didn't have here.

[cephalopod]

I don't think you should be allowed to enter and/or win a BOTM that you decided the rules on, otherwise it just gets unfair.
ACAMS is judging this, not You...
Also you should've clarified 'no multibots' in the rules. A multibot is a singular bot, it doesn't count as 2 entries in a tournament for example. It's not a loophole.
You forget that I'm making the rules for this one, not You...

Quit putting yourself above every damn person here just because you have a freakin' purple name. You've been away so long that a lot of us members have actually had more time active here than you, 'vet'.

[ianh05]

Here we go with vet hate again.

[Conraaa]

Oh, vets are fine, just as long as they can pull their act together and not try to pull the rug from under peoples feet by changing the rules for no real reason.
You forgot to put a rule in and didn't notice until it's too late, Venko. Everyone does it, i've done it. You just have to live with it.

[cephalopod]

I have nothing against vets at all, Ian, honest. I have stuff against people who act like they're something special. Vet's have earned the title by being part of the community for an extended period of time, and I think everybody here respects that. It's just when people start making their own hierarchy.

[Venko]

You forgot to put a rule in and didn't notice until it's too late, Venko.

The only thing that I didn't noticed is how people can interpret the word "bot" into "multi bots"...

As for Craaig, his post seems to lays on some personal or vet hate basis, as I only point out two facts (the one in red) and he freak out. What the member activity or the rank has to do with all this? Is something with my english wrong so I sound "above every damn person here" when posting opinions?

[ianh05]

A lot of people here sound above everyone else, not just vets just so you guys know. There are people here that seem to gang up on people like a "cool group" in school yards.

If anything I'd say the vets are the most well behaved group, Sage, Scrap Daddy, Pwnator etc.

[Venko]

Yeah, maybe it's this, I also noticed that the people that grudge me in a few topics are the same members, mostly a new users that don't know me from the 2008. But should this kind of acts be punished by the admins?

[ianh05]

Don't worry Venko, one incident with me in 7 or so years and I'm labelled as a drama queen on the wiki