Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-5225143-20150224145000/@comment-25995065-20150225001101

LegoI3rickI3uilder wrote: Bourgeoisie wrote:

LegoI3rickI3uilder wrote:

Bourgeoisie wrote:

LegoI3rickI3uilder wrote: No. I'd rather have "human beings" than robots watch over chat. This doesn't replace moderators, and a chat bot doesn't enforce chat. It provides consistent and accurate logs as well as some other features in chat. Unlike the current system where we have multiple users logging chat in different places at different times of days, this isn't consistent, accurate, or reliable. Having a chat bot such as this solves that problem. Sorry, I see what your point is, but my answer is still no. How come? Didn't see this till now. :P I'm used to the old ways. I'm not much into the tech that can replace well, action. I'm used to action, doing something about problems happening right now and stopping it before it becomes something big. I don't know, I'm an oldie. I don't believe that even the bot is just there saving every last word and breath on chat, that it's the same as a person. That's just me. I can assure you that that's not something to worry about. It's a script that runs on a remote server that is not watched or touched by anyone. Sactage "operates" it, in that he wrote the code for it, but not even he touches it at all unless it crashes. And when it crashes, he's not just starting it back up here, it starts back up and runs simultaneously through the same code as is on many other wikis, such as with FlutterBot on My Little Pony Wiki or formerly MeikoBot on Brickipedia. Nobody is ever sitting behind a screen controlling the bot or telling it what to do. It's completely automated and can only do what it's allowed to do. It's even configurable by wiki admins in chat. If you're curious as to what the chat bot is able to do, and what various user groups are allowed to do with the bot, you can read the list of commands it has.