Robot Wars Wiki talk:Arena Forums

I'm guessing that Salak would be an exception here?  Helloher    (Death is not my phone number)  11:05, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * What makes you bring that up/think that?  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  12:15, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I dunno, I just remembered thinking that before while I was on eariler. Given the article says there may been exeptions, I assumed you were considering making one for a current member. Salak appears to be the only person with enough merit for it.  Helloher    (Death is not my phone number)  12:31, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Headbanger is an exception, Salak doesn't even contribute.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  12:34, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I see. Thanks for clearing it up.  Helloher    (Death is not my phone number)  13:04, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Headbanger has the needed 100 to be in the Reserve Rumble, and he actually hasn't posted, I've been in communication with him, and posting for him. R A 2 ; aka Resetti's Replicas. ( My Talk ) 15:06, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Additional rule
I'm sorry to be like this, but why did you create the new rule about opinions?-- Deadbot uliza   (talk)  07:16, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Because I got sick of you complaining about certain results that were not in line with what you wanted. Sorry to be blunt, but its the true.  TG    (t    c)  07:29, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Opinions are opinions, and I understand that we are free to have a different opinion. To stop me moaning, I've got a great idea. Is it possible for every user to do their own take on the tournaments you've done?-- Deadbot uliza   (talk)  07:37, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Because that ruins the fun of it. I had considered that, but its not worth it. Opinions are fine yes, but complaining is not.  TG    (t    c)  07:40, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

My Opinion
I apologise if I am overstepping my place in this wiki, but I feel I have to share my opinions about this. Speaking from the position of an outsider to the Arena forums, I cannot imagine that these competitions would be much fun if they aren't being well uptaken. To my knowledge, at present there are 6 active users of the arena forums, and the forums themselves appear to be moving slowly (I check the forums regularly)- Wiki Wars 2 appears to have ground to a halt totally.

While I appreciate why the rules is in place, I think the edit requirement is set too high. This cap is all well and good for when the wiki was still starting up and there was much to do, and whilst I admit that the wiki is still less than perfect, the need to edit is much less that it once was. Any user that has edited 250 times is clearly not on the wiki just for the games that go with it.

In conclusion, I propose an edit to the edit requirement. I propose doing it one of three ways:

1) A reduction to the existing edit count limit (100,250 etc.) 2) Regular checks that the less known users are still regularly editing 3) A combination of both (ie. 100 edits + regular checks for activity)

Thank you for your time and I hope you will consider my opinion. Matt (Talk) 18:37, October 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason for the stagnation has more to do with lack of interest than lack of users. Helloher Thyrus and I were the only ones with Robot Arena 2 know-how, so we were responsible for that entire workload.  Eventually we all just became more interested in other RA2 projects, hence why that tournament failed.  As for Redone Series 3, about 80% of our summaries came down to "x pushes y and wins on a judges' decision", not terribly interesting or fun to do.  There are plenty of unfinished projects, you could write some heat pages for the Dutch Robot Wars, now that the whole series is on Youtube.  I am willing to grant exceptions if I see someone doing a lot of large projects that only amount to 1 edit credit apiece.  At the moment, there aren't any forum events going on, so I see no need to revise policy right away, but perhaps the cap can be lowered as the wiki improves.   R A 2 ; aka Resetti's Replicas.  ( My Talk ) 19:55, October 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * RA2 is correct, there is no immediate need for the rule to change, as there is still an enormous amount of work to be done. Only when every episode article resembles Series 1's heats' format will they be truly completed, and there are still dozens of expansions required on the Job List.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  20:11, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your swift response. Although I do not agree with you, I recognise you are the higher authority here, I thank you for your time. Matt (Talk) 20:43, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Some more additions
I thought of two more things to add to the list of unacceptable reasoning. Understand that this isn't a reactionary measure, nor is it targeting anyone in particular; I've probably done both at some point and the notion just happened to occur to me now. Here are the two new rules that I'd like to add; one under the complaining section and one other the logic section (possibly replacing what we have there now.)


 * Users may not vote against a robot on the basis that they disagree with said robot winning a prior match. ie "I'm voting against X because it should have lost in Round 1."  No one agrees with the majority 100% of the time, the mature thing to do is judge the unfavoured robot fairly in spite of the decision.


 * Users may not vote against a robot purely because it was in its weakest form. ie 'The previous version of X was better, for that reason alone it will not win." This is not a sufficient explanation as to why the robot in question would lose.  There are many cases where the weakest version of one robot would beat the strongest version of another.

If those sound good, I'd like to add them in. '''R A 2 ; aka Resetti's Replicas. ( My Talk )''' 17:14, April 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with the first rule, at one point in time I had to alter the reasoning behind my vote for S3 in Audited Series 5 so it didn't just sound like I was voting on 13 Black's behalf. The second reason is probably right as well. Bigger Brother in Series 7 didn't match the Series 5 version, but it would still beat a lot of opponents. Toast  Ultimatum  18:10, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with both new rules. Christophee (talk) 01:30, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur, but to be honest these never seem to be broken often anyway. Datovidny (talk) 09:59, April 21, 2012 (UTC)