Supporting the Anti-Bot Proposal: A Step Towards Addressing Community Concerns While Keeping Future Possibilities Open
While we have highlighted below the potential benefits of bots and AI in Splinterlands, it is crucial to acknowledge and address the community's concerns surrounding their impact on the game. As a result, we are changing our vote to support the anti-bot proposal. However, we believe that this issue should be revisited in the future, as the potential benefits of bots and AI can be harnessed while limiting their negative effects on the player experience.
Highlights on benefits of Bots
Enhancing Gameplay Experience:
Bots and AI can contribute to a more dynamic and challenging gameplay experience. By utilizing machine learning algorithms, bots can adapt to various strategies and tactics, thus encouraging players to evolve their own gameplay techniques. This constant innovation keeps the game fresh, exciting, and engaging for both new and experienced players.Facilitating Skill Development:
Bots provide an opportunity for players to practice and hone their skills without the pressure of competing against other human players. As these bots can mimic different playing styles and skill levels, they serve as valuable training tools that can help players better understand the game mechanics, develop strategies, and improve their overall performance.Encouraging Inclusivity and Equal Access:
Bots and AI can help level the playing field in Splinterlands, making it more accessible to players of all skill levels and backgrounds especially if the technology is democratized. By providing a diverse range of opponents, bots can help ensure that new and less-experienced players can find suitable matches and enjoy the game without being overwhelmed or discouraged by more advanced players. Additionally, bots can help fill gaps in matchmaking, ensuring that players can always find a match regardless of their time zone or availability.Economic Benefits:
The presence of bots and AI can have positive economic implications for the Splinterlands ecosystem. For instance, bots can contribute to the liquidity of the in-game markets, thereby promoting a more stable and robust economy. Furthermore, the use of bots can encourage more players to engage in the game, ultimately increasing demand for in-game assets such as cards, DEC, and land.
Addressing Current Community Concerns
Supporting the anti-bot proposal demonstrates our commitment to addressing the concerns of the Splinterlands community. Many players have expressed frustration about the impact of bots on their gameplay experience, and this proposal aims to alleviate those concerns. By voting in favor of the anti-bot proposal, we show that we value the feedback of the community and are willing to take action to address their concerns.
Encouraging Ongoing Discussion and Collaboration:
By supporting the anti-bot proposal, we encourage ongoing discussion and collaboration within the Splinterlands community to find a balance between the potential benefits of bots and AI and their impact on the player experience. We believe that the community can work together to explore innovative solutions that harness the positive aspects of bots while minimizing their negative effects.Future Reevaluation and Exploration of Possibilities:
Supporting the anti-bot proposal does not mean that we are closing the door on the potential benefits of bots and AI in Splinterlands. Instead, we see this as an opportunity to reevaluate our approach and explore new possibilities. As technology advances and the community's needs evolve, we should remain open to the idea of revisiting the role of bots and AI in the game. This will allow us to assess whether their benefits can be achieved while limiting their negative impact on the player experience.
In conclusion, we have changed our vote to support the anti-bot proposal which demonstrates our commitment to addressing the concerns of the Splinterlands community while keeping an open mind about the potential benefits of bots and AI. We believe that by working together, the community can find innovative solutions to harness the positive aspects of bots while minimizing their negative effects. As we move forward, it is crucial to maintain a constructive dialogue and remain open to reevaluating the role of bots and AI in Splinterlands as technology advances and the community's needs evolve.
First I appreciate you taking the time to respond to the community on this very sensitive issue.
Second, as a leader within the Splinterlands organization vs. simply a large player, I appreciate you considering the view of the community as well.
Finally, I hope you continue to engage and interact with the community when you decide to cast your large vote against something the community is voting for. As the Head of the SPS DAO Foundation, its important that everyone feels you will always listen. Even if you vote against a proposal because you have stronger feelings on the subject, its important to have this engagement so that you clearly show why you voted how you did.
Thank you very much for taking the time to address this, I realize you are a busy man and much respect to you for getting involved and caring.
Since I was critical on my post, I will reblog this to give everyone in my feed to read your response too.
"demonstrates our commitment to addressing the concerns of the Splinterlands community"
I'm so fed up of reading such statements. It's inaccurate and devalues the members of the Splinterlands community that voted "no".
What about those of us in the community who agree with your original reasons for voting no?
Please don't give in to pressure from people who disagree or just don't understand your reasoning.
I understand that there is a feeling of desperation and a willingness to just grab onto anything that says it is anti-bot.
This proposal is not the right way to address the botting issues and is not good for the game.
I would have to agree with this comment... We have our SPS staked for a reason and our opinions and vote should count. While I understand the issues around the influence you have within the management, I wonder how this went from abstaining to flipping your vote. Unfortunate but like many times before, those that remain will adapt...
First let me say I am not a life long gamer, but I have played splinterlands almost everyday for over 2 years now. I think I understand the various needs for bots so we have matches etc. -What I do not understand is why bots must earn??- again I am not very smart on gaming or tech but Splinterlands should be the one to set up and run bots if they are needed for game play. Some system that if a match was not found in X seconds then a bot sould take the match?
--Lastly i would strongly argue that any whale should spend time in bronze before judging what the experience is at bronze playing against these bots. Brutal is what it is.
This is one of the smartest suggestions I've seen in the last few days:
People in tavern have been suggesting that for over a year. Every once in a while someone tries a Novice to Gold+ run, but not very often. I can't remember everyone (I think there was at least 3 that I know of), but I know Bulldog did one. Nothing ever comes of it though. It's usually just, "Yeah.. that really sucks," and that's it.
I have done it many times when league lapsing occurred, it's not as hard as people make it out to be. It's very simple, if you have a higher level deck you will blow through the bots in lower leagues. The game is going to be hard if you don't put anything in. If you don't rent cards, or buy cards, you won't get very far with a very basic lvl 1 bcx deck. That said we should absolutely have more play modes beyond ranked play anyway.
feel free to check my ig my cp is over 500,000 NO rented cards, I am a land owner (more than one plot) I hear this evertime I suggest a high rank player come to bronze. I call BS I watch videos to improve my play almost daily. I am in chats learning and have never BLOWN thru bronze. Please review any of my battles etc. and give pointers!
Cloudflare is a terrible solution. I've had nothing but problems with it. I understand the majority of people will likely have no issues with it, but there's still a percentage of human players this is going to have a negative impact on. My collection is built around Modern and being forced into Wild because of a service that times out and fails due to a slow internet connection is extremely unfortunate.
When we bring up BOTS, there are generally two different things we are talking about:
Bot Farms is still a problem, but something is still not being addressed here. A BOT farm is someone that runs multiple accounts to extract value. Often this means there is a low-value account with the idea of getting more value from this each week or each season.
Most SPL-TV streamers run multi-accounts. Is it the same issue whether they use BOTS or play manually? Aren't the purpose of this to extract MORE value than a single account? I always see this when streamers switch between 6+ accounts during the EoS rewards!! You get the sense that this is normally because everyone gets more rewards using a dozen accounts. They also increase the odds of getting GFL this way.
The next issue is BOT at the highest level of play. Here is an issue with the Leaderboard bonus, Tournaments and Guild Brawls. We need to decide how to handle this. I would think when there are incentives to be won, it is much harder to get rid of BOT in these conditions. Cheaters appear in CHESS Tournament, Game Shows and anything that is a game with winners and losers. I think you have to decide if you want only HUMAN players, then you have to design a system to detect that. But to do this in RANKED, GUILD brawls, or even tournaments might be harder than you think. Battle helpers is a concept that everyone brings up. Having an Excel sheet to help you can be cheating, but you will not be detected or stopped using any new BOT monitoring software.
There is a reason why games with prizes are done in person. It reduces the odds of cheating. This is just something we need to consider before adding all the layers of security. Credit cards have fraud, but if they made a credit card with 5 levels of security for the legal owners to use (and adds 30 seconds more per transaction), no one would use it. The balance is the key.
Changing the negative vote to positive does not solve the problem, it brings more problems. Talking to Dave on his post, I thought the issue was who was behind the vote, not the vote itself. But apparently, after changing the vote, is everything okay? Is it all resolved? Soon, I realize that the real reason for the vote discussion is the proposal itself and not the person behind the vote. That's regrettable. Congratulations to everyone involved in ending the Wild mode in the next few days. If it's to end bots, it has to be done in both modes, not just moving bots to one mode.
Yeah.. it's pretty funny how when the Head of the SPS DAO Foundation votes the way he wants, a no, it's a travesty and people want to burn down the world... but now that he's changed his vote to a yes in order to appease others, everything's fine.
or the fact that he had voted in many other proposals without a peep from the bots for me but not bots for thee crowd
I can only assume you mean me since I've seen you making these points in multiple places. You are free of course to say anything you want.
At least I have the balls to address people I have issues with directly. And I give them an opportunity to respond and clarify. Which you do not, you just prefer to undermine behind someone's back and hope you don't have to confront them.
But its ok, keep making your points. All it will do is encourage people like me to leave. Whether you realize it or not, I try to help. But if you don't like the message then you try to tear down the messenger from the shadows.
Just remember you WILL succeed in running people off with your words, and I'm sure you will be happy when you see who they are. You can take pride that you were a big reason for it.
I will say I'm very disappointed to see you act this way, but you are not the first person that I underestimated in my life.
I didn't mention who I was talking about on purpose, because it refers to many people who have been this way, I have no idea why you are attacking me personally, unless you feel guilty of this. Still, you are personally attacking me now and I feel that's wrong in and of itself. You have the balls, because you are acting like a dick by attacking people...
You can read the thread @bitcoinsig ...
A. vinicoi
B. followed by a reply to vini from toran
C. followed by a reply from you
Now you do have an idea why I was attributing your comment to me. I don't feel guilty in the least bit about what I said to Aly publicly or any comments on this issue, I have and always will be direct with people I am discussing matters with.
So now that you know, maybe you can understand why I said that you should address me directly in the future.
However...
You are correct that I attacked you personally, in response to what seemed to be a reference to me (as shown above). Since my attack on you was that I perceived you you were undermining me specifically, then of course that's why I pointed it out.
If you are now saying that you weren't referencing me as part of the "bots for me but not bots for thee crowd" allegation, then I will accept your statement, and admit of course that I unfairly attacked you.
Once you tell me it wasn't me you were referencing, then I will admit that I was wrong, because I would be. I recognize that I inferred the intent based on the chain of the comments along with other comments in discord I've seen. But I will trust you to be honest with me. So was I included in your comment?
If so, it would mean that I did unfairly attack you personally, it would also make me a dick in the process.
I will accept your word, and I will directly apologize to you for personally attacking you and for me being a dick.
I would sincerely hope you would accept my apology. And I would regret any negativity that my behavior caused you.
You should feel guilty for what you said about Aly. You maligned him personally with misinformation, accusing him of malfeasance publicly. You accused him of being the boss of Aggy and Matt and several other things that turned out not to be accurate. There was even talk yesterday of him using DAO funds on votes and many other miss truths that you and your post directly fostered. I'm sorry but I disagree with what you have done and how you did it.
Your behavior here, lashing out at me, and other people here is inappropriate. You have caused an immense about of strife and negativity on this proposal and it's uncalled for, there is no excuse for it.
I cannot say if you are included in my comment, only you have that answer. If you bot, own many wild cards, and are telling others that they cannot bot in modern, while you get to continue botting in wild, than yes, to me, that is "botting for me, but not botting for thee".
That person is essentially saying, "botting is bad and horrible for the game, but I get to do it and this won't effect me because I was here longer than you", so too bad to all those that came to the game after me and didn't get those cheap old cards. Sorry, but to me that's hypocritical and unfair, people should lead by example.
Btw, I'm not saying I'm against botting, I believe in your ownership rights to do with decentralized assets as you see fit. I am against people telling other people that they can't use those assets as they wish, while they get to do it.
I don't feel guilty for what I said about Aly. I didn't say anything about him personally, only professionally. But its ok that you don't agree with it.
I don't think someone can accuse someone of being more powerful than they are is an accusation, its just a mistake. And a mistake that I corrected, but didn't take away any of his responsibility as a person with executive power.
Regarding him doing anything with malfeasance, I never ever said or inferred such a thing. But you do have the right to disagree and I even respect that you are telling me so. I know how I meant ever word and the purpose of doing so, and will be happy to discuss with you or anyone exactly each word. I would love for anyone to ask what I meant, and actually be able to give them the truth. While I realize some people can read words and interpret them differently, I have always been happy to clarify what I meant if I someone asks.
On the part about me lashing out here, I replied to exactly 3 people, 3 people that consecutively responded to each other's points. That started with a comment about me being dishonest, and the next 2 comments only amplified the message and added more to it using the words "he". I did in fact interpret that to mean me.
I did not "lash out" anywhere else. But I felt that 3 people were disparaging me and piling on. This is also on a day where many allegations were thrown around by you and others in discord alleging that there was a "mob" making people do things against their will.
Having said that, I also apologized to one person Toran who denied he meant me. I offered to apologize to you if you simply said I was wrong and you weren't referring to me. And on the original poster, I simply corrected his statement. (which btw was wrong and he had already been told he was wrong but went ahead and made that allegation anyway, but I let that slide).
So yes where I was wrong, I do apologize and it was inappropriate. I am human and I did interpret something a particular way, but I also am willing to apologize and stand corrected if someone tells me I misunderstodd.
To say that I caused strife and negativity today, I can only assume you are referring to my post. You are not clear, so I want to make sure that is how I'm interpreting your insinuation.
I stand by most post today and forever. Its an excecutive's job to understand how their behavior will affect the organization. I was pointing out to him what I saw as a major problem with his vote, lack of understanding of the intensity of the issue, and his communication. You might not like that I saw those issues as issues, and that's perfectly fine. But my words did not come without being prompted by actions that were taken first.
On whether you can not say or not if you were including me, then I will accept that. In fact if you can't say, then I will apologize because that means I didn't come to your mind which is what I had assumed since it was on a thread that was about me.
So I will apologize even though you weren't clear either way, but I will assume you didn't mean me. I did hop on you unfairly and I did personally attack you in response by saying you were a coward by not naming me and I did say it in a dickish way. I do regret that I did that.
As for botting, I am not the one that set the rules of this, yabapmatt did. This has already been pointed out to you in another conversation along with the fact that I don't view this as a anti-bot proposal, instead I see it as an addition of a human vs human mode proposal. I will lose money on a daily basis by this going through, so if that's how you judge my intentions then you can use that as a guide (if you care to know). But I feel that giving new players a place to play without bots and encouraging people that don't feel they can beat bots to have a place to play is important to the growth of the game. You don't have to agree but that's my motive and has been from day 1.
On the rest of it, I understand your point. We see it differently. Not completely different, but to a small degree. If we were getting rid of ALL bots then I would understand, and some people have said that's what they want (that's not me though). And I understand that others feel this will morph into that, but that's again not what I would support. I simply believe there should be at least 1 mode where humans can play humans so that we can attract and retain those humans that get turned off by bots. That doesn't mean I don't want any modes able to be botted and in fact I think it would be fun to have an all bot league where people could compete that way too.
I realize this issue is very sensitive and I realize those that disagree with the proposal want to see it fail. And the converse is true. Both sides are passionate for many different reasons and that's why it has taken this long to even get to this point.
I get it.
You can feel about me however you like and you can blame me for being a vocal supporter. I do apologize for personally attacking you and toran. I did assume you were both referencing me, and my sensitivity to the subject made me lose my composure. I am sorry and for that I hope you will accept it.
Regarding the comments about Aly, you can view that however you like. For your information I did speak with Aly and asked him directly if he felt I personally attacked him. My intention was not to do so, but as I said each person will interpret words in a different way. So while the discussion is between me and him, I certainly understand that you would form an opinion. I'm also willing to discuss if you ever ask.
Again I'm sorry to you for the personal attack, I'm happy that you are part of the community for so long and sticking up for what you think is right. For that you earned my respect @bitcoinsig.
In regards to the Aly situation, I'm not claiming that everything that was said about him was said by you, or was said in hive. Much of it was said in mav chat and other discord channels, but it was spurred on by your post calling him out for voting, which he is entitled to do, and has done many times before without incident.
I don't think everyone has to be compelled to explain their voting positions, even if they have a big stake or are a part of the team. In fact, I believe that it's probably not a good thing for even Aggy and Matt to not participate. They are community members and have a vision for how they would like the project to be. Not everyone is capable of seeing that vision, especially when they have only centralized web2 games to work from.
This whole proposal has caused a lot of misinformation and strife in general, mostly because it is so ambiguous. Yes, originally the text was for a human only league, but that's not what it states now.
In fact now it only says, "allows splinterlands the freedom to allow anti-bot measures in modern", but go to any youtube videos and they are saying
This proposal doesn't say anything about banning bots or a human only league, it says "take anti-bot measures", and specifically it only talks in the comments about maybe implementing a cloudflare type IP filtering solution of the api, but generally gives splinterlands the freedom to choose whatever they think is appropriate.
I don't believe anti-bot measures necessarily means banning, confiscation, violation of the terms of service, or other punitive measures, but again the proposal is vague and so was the answers from the team. It seems it would be perfectly acceptable from the proposals language for the team to only continually put in small speed bumps in modern to make it more limited in bot usage and still be in compliance with what may actually pass.
I understand all your points @bitcoinsig ... We've already gone over most of them and I certainly understand your point of view. On many things we agree. For instance the proposal was changed and I think that was the guy's first post ever. When he asked what to do, yaba told him it was ok and that's what the pre-proposal stage was for.
Another instance where I agree is you don't believe this should be a license to take people's property which is technically an "anti-bot" proposal. I don't worry about such things only because I'm probably more trusting than you - I admit I'm assuming this. But I can understand you think its possible, so it makes you uncomfortable to vote for it without some kind of protection against that. I on the other hand say, a) no one would be dumb enough to lose $100 to propose that and b) if they did, then there's no way it could ever get even close to enough votes. My thinking is way more lax than yours on this issue, so I understand where we would disagree and our vote would be different even though we both would agree that no one should ever have their assets taken if they bought or earned them.
And on the opposite side of that, the way the proposal is written the team can take 30 years to implement this. It doesn't give any timeline and leave everything up to the team to decide. I view that as a positive because it lets the team be the trusted ones to decide the right timing, because I really don't thing the community at this time could ever agree on a proper time. So its either vague or nothing. You are probably more comfortable with nothing, where I am ok with the unknown time issue because I feel the team will be reasonable and attentive since the community voted overwhelmingly for it by definition. That doesn't mean that we don't agree that it could be better and have an agreed time of implementation, it simply means that I'm willing to accept a deal and trust the team instead of have a time frame. You on the other hand, might want to have a deadline for implementation as one of your reasons.
And the same can be said of about every issue in this.
I see it as an pro human vs human mode, you see it as an anti-bot vote.
On the economy, many see it as something that will kill the value of cards as all these bot farms dump and never return. I see the economy issue as growing the human player base which will ultimately lead to more cards purchased not less. And btw, both sides can be right too.
Just like in life there are people that don't have a strong opinion, people that have very strong opinions, and people that don't care. In this case, there are also extremists on both sides of the issues (I mean by extremists as people that take the logic to the extreme and extrapolate vs violent extremists in the real world). These extremists take the view that their worst fears will be realized if this loses. This exacerbates the conflict as people start defending their point of views out of fear.
And on top of all that, this is an economic issue. Everyone will be effected in some way. Since the total rewards will stay the same, and assuming no one leaves or new come aboard, then that means that all that will happen is the rewards will shift from one group to another. Naturally the side that will lose out will assume the worst, and since both sides feel they can lose, then that means everyone is sorta fighting to protect their wallets.
But for the record, I look at it and say, I know I will lose money because my modern bot accts will have to move to wild, and while I will play some ranked matches manually, I certainly won't make up for those losses. But then when I realize that this can bring in new blood by incentivizing new players to enter and old players to improve their decks so they can participate in modern, then I think that's exactly what we need. We want players to feel good, make money for playing this game called splinterlands.
In the end, if enough new players enter and have a good experience, then splinterlands grows. So I'm willing to take a small cut in my bot payouts to enable that to happen. While I realize some think that will be like a 90% haircut because all bots will jump in and immediately destroy Wild, I really don't believe that for 2 reasons. First, because a lot of botted accounts will start manually playing in Modern because the rewards are higher, thus keeping them out of Wild. And second, because land will take a ton of cards off the field so EVERYONE will make more than they are making now as the true variable will be the cards being removed from both ranked.
So I realize that you have issues and have good reasons for voting how you vote, I hope you realize that not everyone is an extremist or a hypocrite or whatever name people are assigning.
I do think the tensions have been high and people have said a lot of things that they didn't necessarily mean. And others may mean them, but later find out they weren't true. In my case, I did jump to the conclusion that the 3 of you were talking about me, but as I said that was wrong for me to do and I did attack you personally for it. That was wrong and I am sorry.
I can't wait for the vote to get over so that people can move on. I think almost everyone here fighting and arguing about it truly cares or they wouldn't be. So I will try to do better tomorrow and going forward about being more tolerant and understanding, and I will certainly remember how you and torran felt when I lashed back at you both. I hope I do better and I will do my best.
I can only assume you are speaking of me when you say "votes the way he wants, a no".
Unlike you @torran, I directly talked to Aly. I directly mentioned what my issues with him were, why I thought how I thought, and what I felt was important. Then I pushed for him to be heard. I encouraged him to face the community and address his perspective.
But that's not your style. You do not have courage to do that. Instead you simply make up things so you can tear down someone that worked against what you felt was more important.
Also you should get your facts straight, I still have the same problems with what was originally said, and the only thing that has happened is they have been addressed by Aly. Because I did IN FACT gave him a chance to address them. That's how grown-ups handle things. You should try it, it will work I promise.
So I don't give a shit if he changed his vote or not. That was not the point of my post or what I had a problem with. I care that he didn't listen to what 2/3rds of the community was saying, and didn't engage with us before casting a blocking vote.
So I'm happy he did engage, and I'm happy he listened. That's what I'm happy about. His vote was not an issue, the fact that he is the Head of the SPS DAO Foundation and he listened to the SPS holders was.
Too bad you are so clouded in your desire to get what you want that you can't even see when people are trying to help and support the community.
Pitiful.
It was actually a blanket statement speaking to the overall response from the community as witnessed throughout tavern, but thanks for the personal attack. Real stand up guy, Dave.
I just apologized for my misreading of it below. But I will say it again here. I was wrong.
And regarding the personal attack, I apologize for saying you weren't grown up for addressing me directly. That was an attack. And because I was wrong in my reading of your comment, then I definitely attacked you unfairly.
I withdraw my statements that you were not handling it in a grown up manner, assaulted your style, and questioned your courage; because you were just generalizing your frustration instead of leveling it against one person. My response was inappropriate given you were just blowing off steam in general, not directing them at a single individual.
I am sorry for this as well.
Finally you are right that my statements are not defendable. I accept that in your eyes that I wasn't a "stand up guy".
Thank you for letting me know the truth and I regret that I did read it wrong and unfairly respond.
Also... "votes the way he wants, a no," could also be read, votes the way Aly wants, a no. Reading comprehension is hard though. Sorry you felt so attacked.
I interpreted it the other way. I apologize to you for misreading who you meant when you said "he".
I was wrong and I'm sorry for my misreading it.
Bad assumption. Sorry you didn't ask me and just assumed I was happy now that he changed his vote. If you would've asked, I would've told you I was happy that he got involved with the community and understood its importance. I would've also told you I was happy that he recognized he should communicate with the community if he ever has a blocking vote when a proposal has 2/3rds of the vote of the community.
But you didn't ask. Its ok though, you don't have to understand. Its your right to do so!
👍
Congratulations you were browbeaten by a bunch of hypocrites who bot into taking what was once a close vote for the community and putting your thumb on the scale, putting it out of reach for a decision except for the largest whales to have a say to overpower your vote. You had every right to not like this proposal on many grounds including its poorly written vagueness of how it would accomplish it's goals and the centralized manner in which the DAO will now choose to distribute SPS, putting the splinterlands team at potential legal risk by directly involving itself with the distribution of a potential security.
Why don't you go look at the vote and see how many people voted for this?
I know why, because everyone in your eyes was brow beaten into voting for it. None of us has your intelligence in your mind, and we all just give into thuggery.
more personal attacks on people
On this one I guess I don't understand how this is a personal attack from me. You are saying that Aly was "browbeaten" by a bunch of hypocrites. Those are your words and you said them.
So how is it a personal attack from me to point out you assume that someone that changes their mind is not intelligent enough to make that decision without being browbeaten?
I don't mind apologizing when I feel that I'm wrong, and I don't want to attack you unfairly. So please let me know how you feel this is a personal attack on you, and I will in fact try to understand and apologize if I feel I was wrong.
Appreciate the time taken to respond, however did you consider simply abstaining as an option? Given that you don't play the game is really right to favour in on one side or the other..
In chess every professional player is practicing with chess software to improve their skills and knowledge.
However, that doesn't mean to play against the software in human chess tournaments.
Chess software is strictly forbidden in human chess competitions.
The truth is that new players are "overwhelmed" and "discouraged" by getting beaten over and over again by bots instead to meet human opponents of a similar skill level.
There could be bots programmed to offer a variety of different playing styles (without to choose optimized teams only to maximize their profit) but currently there aren't any of these newbie friendly bots in the Splinterlands economy.
Bots could be a great tool for training, and for sure their game play can be fascinating - but: keep them out of human competition.
For the future I could imagine three types of competition: "human only", "bot only" and "mixed".
Pure bot/AI competitions can be fascinating but at the same time everybody should have the chance to choose their kind of oppoents themselves instead of being forced to play against superior machines.
By the way, I don't think many spectators would like to watch a soccer world cup where the winning team consisted of robots only or a running competition where you can only compete if you use a motorbike ...
Thank you for participating in SPS DAO Governance @blockchainff!
You can place or monitor SPS Stake Weighted votes for and against this proposal at the link below:
Link to this Pre-Proposal
Updated At: 2023-05-08 16:15 UTC