On removing bots worse than SittingDuck

Fragment of a discussion from Talk:RoboRumble/Participants
← Thread:Talk:RoboRumble/Participants/Keeping worse bots/reply (10)

Jump to navigation Jump to search

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
You must confirm your email address before editing pages. Please set and validate your email address through your user preferences.

You can view and copy the source of this page.

My thoughts on removing are that we should only remove if:

* We don't have a .jar in the robocode-archive

or

* It is broken in new JVM / Robocode versions, '''and''' closed source so we can't try to fix, or open source but the fix would be really complicated, or the bot has no historical significance and nobody cares.

Return to Thread:Talk:RoboRumble/Participants/Keeping worse bots/reply (10).

Ok. I sign under it. Bad score is not a reason to be out of rumble.

My apologies to everyone for acting without discussing it first.

Beaming (talk)‎

Shall, we instruct liteclient to look at the robocode-archive automaticly, if primary link is down?

I can probably cook up a patch for it rather quickly.

Beaming (talk)‎

Maybe better would be a script which transforms the Participants page? This way we aren't hardcoding new URLs in the client that will need more maintenance, and we can easily run the script again to see which bots need fixing, and we know from the changelog of the participants page which ones don't have hosting anymore. This script could be made available on the wiki page. And it is 100% compatible with current rumble client.

Skilgannon (talk)‎

Retrieved from "http://robowiki.net/wiki/Thread:Talk:RoboRumble/Participants/Keeping_worse_bots/reply_(10)#On_removing_bots_worse_than_SittingDuck_5637"