#1 Suggestion for responses

Open
opened 2 years ago by Flygon · 4 comments
Flygon commented 2 years ago

Perhaps make the .bots command respond with who owns the bot in addition to the existing language they are written in

Perhaps make the .bots command respond with who owns the bot in addition to the existing language they are written in

For clarity’s sake: are you proposing that such information becomes mandatory?

The IBIP standard already leaves room for such information to be left as an optional trailing argument.

*For clarity's sake*: are you proposing that such information becomes **mandatory**? The IBIP standard already leaves room for such information to be left as an optional trailing argument.
Flygon commented 2 years ago
Poster

No i am not suggesting it become mandatory, but it would clear up who owns what bot (unless it is obvious like lykbot or yossarian-bot). This would clear up confusion if someone has 2 bots

No i am not suggesting it become mandatory, but it would clear up who owns what bot (unless it is obvious like lykbot or yossarian-bot). This would clear up confusion if someone has 2 bots
Uncled1023 commented 2 years ago
Owner

Maybe add to the definition another optional field for owner, to persuade users on adding it.

Kinda like: Reporting in! [<language>] [<owner>] information

Maybe add to the definition another optional field for owner, to persuade users on adding it. Kinda like: ```Reporting in! [<language>] [<owner>] information```
Flygon commented 2 years ago
Poster

correct, that is what i am suggesting, not mandatory, but it would clear up people who have 2+ bots

correct, that is what i am suggesting, not mandatory, but it would clear up people who have 2+ bots
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Label
No Milestone
No Assignees
3 Participants
Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

This issue currently doesn't have any dependencies.

Loading…
Cancel
Save
There is no content yet.