Sooo close to the mark, but still doesn't go far enough for me. Land will ensure most players currently using owned assets to bot will shut down and migrate to land so that addresses player ownership we want in the system.
How can we roll back anti-bot measures if we allow ownership botting? How can we have this and address with perma soulbound cards, ECR restrictions and Card lvl restrictions? All of which we can move to have rolled back for players once bots are gone.
Want to play 100 battles in a day in Wild and even push form it back in modern and hit that 25th chest? Get rid of bots.
Want to know what it feels like to earn a card a be able to trade it or put it on land for no extra fee again? Get rid of bots.
Want to be able to play higher leagues again without card level penalty because your a skilled player? Get rid of bots.
Want to earn decent SPS again in Wild? Get rid of bots.
Then we also address NPE and PE nerfs that cost us thousands of players previously. I dont care how badly the rental market suffers as a result of losing bots, the gains from earnings, NPE and people coming back to bot free SPL opens up much more opportunity and will far outway once we get back to fully organic growth.
For me this proposal is a good compromise and well thought out in a sense and even closest I've seen to reasonable compromise but still a no for me because it fails to think bigger picture and also places us in that confusion state about setting a hard line for outside gaming looking in.
If any of the above gets you thinking, then a NO must be the way and we push for the total bot ban everyone has been speaking of for months or even years to this point. Vote yes would see a total bot ban kicked so far down the road and make it hard to overturn, we may miss the opportunity to capitilise a bot free Splinterlands in the next WEB3 gaming boom.
I thank you, Nyte, for your time and thoughts.
I think it's no secret that I am also a strong opponent of bots.
As a dedicated gamer, botting goes against the principles of gaming for me.
And of course, I have already pondered all your thoughts countless times. That's why I struggled for some time to even tell anyone about this solution. Even after discussing it with many people and making calculations, I still wrestled with whether or not to actually publish this, because if we could really get a bot ban, I would essentially be throwing them a lifeline.
Ultimately, I had to admit that my desires are not achievable.
For example, it was always easy to say: "Yes, if land comes, people can just go there with their assets." But is this really the reality?
Do asset owners even have suitable land plots for their cards?
I think it should become clear how easily these arguments we've been throwing around can be seen as mere points to win a discussion.
Or infinite energy - a nice wish, but it would be dismantled in any serious discussion within 5 minutes.
Or do you think people would allow infinite energy that is not 100% bot secure? And we know that no bot protection in the world is 100% secure.
and your other 3 points could also be implemented with this solution!
So do we want to continue being robbed while waiting for a dream that will likely never come true?
Very smart Bronk. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.
This is a good compromise and I hope people on both sides of this issue understand it. Voting "no" and holding out for better opens up the possibility that things get worse for the "no voter". Why risk that, if you think about it?