SPS Governance Proposal - Update Terms of Service To Prohibit Bot Use In Tourneys, & Brawls
33ad55febb632c856025e0fa4975bb52c8483051
Purpose Is To Create Individual Human Competition
Update the SPL Terms of Service to prohibit the use of all forms of automated play (known as bots) in the following:
a) Tournaments
b) Brawls
In addition, the team should use their best efforts to enforce this policy, but ONLY when they have the resources available to do so.
NOTE: Bot play is acceptable in the Wild Ranked Format
While changing the Terms of Service is a high priority, the proposal DOES NOT want to slow down or stop any other projects for special enforcement, so the team can use whatever tools they already have developed on a "best efforts basis".
Thank you for your time and attention to this proposal.
0
0
0.000
Thank you for participating in SPS DAO Governance @davemccoy!
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: 2023-07-31 16:42 UTC
I like the emphasis on making sure that such new policies do not derail the original intent and goal of Splinterlands as a game. Implementation always has a cost that needs considering.
Yes I completely agree @scion02b
"NOTE: Bot play is acceptable in the Wild Ranked Format"
Am I correct in presuming that if this passed Wild ranked would be the only place bots were accepted?
at this time, yes that is exactly correct.
I have been discussing a new 3rd mode called "Beat The Bots", where the reward pool is divided equally in that mode between bot players and human players.
I did get some buy-in from various players, but it would take awhile to implement and most felt it was better to put these proposals out as they are, and then work on the new mode later in the future when the team doesn't have as much backlog.
I voted down on this for now and will likely do so on the official proposal as well if it makes it through, not because I disagree with the sentiment, but because rules without plans for enforcement are a non starter to me.
I'd personally like to see how the bot ban in modern goes so that we as a community can gather data on how it works in that test environment first then expand implementation from there.
I understand. I explained the reasoning in the reply to @crypto-zard , but I understand you for taking that position. Thank you for taking the time to reply and for giving your thoughts to the community!
I responded in the @crypto-zard thread here
ok cool... I will go read it!
I might start winning more in Brawls.., that would be nice?
lol... yes I think so! Nice to see you @slobberchops :)
i like the idea but i feel we need to be clearer with what we want and a path to do so. A blanket ban in tournaments won't work as services need a way to earn to stop them from just updating their tools to just play in tournaments. We also need to detail what will happen to accounts that break x rule. We need a path for human vs human and a path for people to bot so we have a middle ground so services will get on board with this like they did for modern ranked. For tournaments, it should be a setting for host to choose if they want a human vs human tournament or not so then Splinterlands can keep their decentralized approach to things while allowing others to make the human vs human league. Matt said before that host and sponsors should have the opinion and finding a middle ground for both partys to be happy will be the most successful way to do things.
tournaments is an easier task to do this over brawls as brawls will need a full rework to have a path for human vs human or services wont get on board with this and will still allow their tools to work in brawls.
i love that you have tried to tackle all the most at once but i feel tackling them one by one will yield a high result to get people on board and find what areas we can get success with the human vs human part of the game. Also separating bots and helpers is a good idea but if we find a perfect middle ground then we can tackle them together.
the only parts missing in this really is
as i whole im happy we are actually looking to make steps on working on the underline issues without spl but we need to do it well otherwise any attempt after it fails will make things worse to re try again.
Repost this on the other post as well so others can see the same response!
First, I love the time it took for you to explain your thoughts to the community.
Second, I agree with most of your points with the exception "what goes first, and therefore what is the best way forward".
I have learned from more than 5 years of experience here that things are never easy. Every suggestion you made could be good, but people will fight because a) they are against it b) they like it but like something else better c) they want the order of events to be different.
On top of that, the load on the team is a huge issue, and this proposal was designed in such a way to not take away from any of the other projects they are working on. While a comprehensive process is "better" in the sense that it might achieve better results, if that process takes say 2 years for example, then we didn't achieve anything until such time.
My main issue for bringing this forward faster than I planned was I saw yesterday what I feared would happen. The bot developers are in a rush to make battle helpers so that their clients can win more games than the other players. Its an "arms race" and I've seen it before.
We used to have small time bots that weren't any good, then j69 came in and did really well and took lots of prizes by developing the first high powered bot. It didn't take long for Bubke to get mad at his rewards, and so he developed his own bot. Once people saw how much money Bubke made, they felt they needed their own bots and so both Archmage and Xbot were made.
Now all the big players have to use a bot or lose out on earnings. Its not hard to see. What this has done is create a situation where players have 3 options: a) use a bot and keep up with the competition b) not use a bot and make much less money from the cards or c) leave the game.
So what this has led to is a situation where people have forgot how to play the game, because for the most part they don't play (they just bot). This creates a situation where we have taken out most of the human manual play. Very few new people are entering as a result. If we don't have more new people that feel they can come in and compete (without a bot), then we won't get more money into the system and we continue on the path we've been on. Sooner or later, it will lead to death as all business need new customers.
So this is a long answer, but my point is I love your points and agree with many of them. I actually proposed a 3rd MODE that is Bot vs Human, but the feedback from others was that it would take a long time and they suggested I cut it from the proposal. Which I did.
Thank you again and I do hope you decide to vote for this. I recognize your points though if you decide not to.
I don't see where the evidence points to this. It feels more like a theory to me. (If I'm wrong and you can point to evidence, I would be glad to see it.)
I can see an argument that people are leaving because of botting - but I'm not sure how you get data to say why people don't come in the first place.
From what I've seen, Splinterlands grew the most during the bull market when people could come in and make a profit. But now that's gone (for now), and the game is stagnant and getting smaller. (Not saying it won't turn around, just the current situation.)
People seem to blame botting for it, but botting has always been there, even during the growth periods. So, I don't think it's self-evident that it's the main reason.
Honestly, for me personally, I would probably have spent less financially and paid way less attention to Splinterlands if it couldn't be botted. Not that it's the game's fault; I just tend to play a game for a while and then move on to something else. But botting has made Splinterlands super addictive for me. I'm way more into it and have invested a lot more in it than any other game.
In theory, establishing guaranteed human vs. human play would make sense.
At a tech level, implementing this is much harder than you might realize.
From what I've learned, it might be possible to minimize bot activity on a large scale, but stopping individual bot or battle helper activity will be nearly impossible.
Take Chess.com, for example - they employ a full 20 people to fight against cheating (using Chess engines which are similar to "Battle Helpers") and have an extensive algorithm to detect cheating via software. Yet, they aren't confident that they prevent cheating. And this extensive cheating happens even when there isn't much financial incentive to do so (not at the scale it happens).
I'm not sure how one would compete against it when there is a massive financial incentive to do so (as is the case in a Play and Earn game like Splinterlands)
Honestly, I like the idea of having a human vs. human zone. However, I believe the most likely outcome of the terms of service change you're describing is this...
The bad actors will continue their actions regardless. In this case, they might gain even more influence since their earnings can affect the SPS DAO, all at the expense of the honest actors who follow the rules.
I'd agree that an arms race is happening. I just disagree that it's possible to stop one by asking nicely. It just leaves the honest ones unarmed.
The information is available on peakmonsters via the number of new spellbooks purchased. There has been an average of a bit over 5 per day in the last month. You can go back to whatever time frame you want, but here's what the data says.
I'm glad you are into the game as it is. Its ok if you vote differently than me or see things differently than me too. For me its pretty simple, but I recognize that I see things through my own eyes.
I don't feel that people that bot are evil or bad actors btw. In fact I bot myself like the other 95%. But I also recognize that we have lost the ability to attract and retain those people that do want to play a game. To those people, botting is not an option and thus we are losing out on that potential.
I am ok with having 50% of the rewards in ranked play going to anyone that wants to bot or use battle helpers. I am not one of those players that wants to ban all bots.
And on your final point, several people share your thoughts. I would rather make a rule and find out, rather than just assume we can't do it. We can always repeal a bad policy, but we can't create change if we don't try.
This information doesn't say anything about why people do or don't sign up, it just records the numbers as they are. My point is that your theory is that we aren't attracting players because of botting - I'm saying where is the evidence to support that, or is it just an opinion?
I countered by giving an alternative explanation for growth and or lack of it currently, and gave evidence that botting was prevalent during the biggest periods of growth - so maybe it's not to blame for a lack of being able to attract players.
I wasn't positing that you believe people who bot or use battle helpers are evil or bad actors, but I am saying that changing the Terms of Service to ban them will immediately make anyone who does a bad actor from that point forward.
I don't see a meaningful path for how the change in TOS does anything to fix this problem other than giving honest people less options to play effectively against those that would bot or use Battle Helpers regardless.
I also don't see how the change to ToS does anything to better attract new players if it doesn't meaningful solve the problem.
This is fine, and potentially beyond the point.
My point is that I think that this change to ToS may actually Hurt the honest players who want to follow the rules by reducing the competition for bad actors who care not for the rules and can readily subvert them.
Again, if there's an arms race going on, we don't solve it by only removing arms from the ones who want to stop the arms race and leaving the techno-robber-barons armed to teeth.
Further, this has potential consequences beyond just not stopping it - this ToS proposal could legitimately put a higher percentage of Staked SPS into the hands of those who gladly go against the ToS - literally reducing the influence of the honest players in the process. (I don't know the extent that this is realistic, but I'd certainly like to have some way to consider it as a potential outcome).
ok I read your points and thank you for making them. We can disagree and I'm happy that you made your points on this post so that others can see your point of view as well!
Thanks - glad to chat respectfully :)
Just to be clear:
Is there direct evidence showing botting or battle helpers as the cause of Splinterlands' growth stall? (compared to the counter argument showing a correlation between the bull market and growth - even while botting was continually present)
Do you have clear evidence that changing ToS without implementation plans will protect honest players and not more likely result in bad actors disproportionately growing their Splinterlands' governance influence through a monopoly on their tech advantage?
I ask because these points haven't been addressed yet. I appreciate the friendly discussion, but I want it clarified that these concerns are yet unanswered in this thread.
(If you've addressed them elsewhere, my apologies, please guide me to those discussions).
edited to try and more clearly state my meanings
Yes I agree its good to be respectful and back at ya.
on the first question:
My evidence comes from hundreds if not thousands of conversations with players over the years. I do have many conversations in my discord, but I have not compiled them in such a way that they could be presented. Also my evidence is not scientific based with control groups like what you would have to develop a thesis.
I'm very confident in my assertion, because I've seen it with my own eyes. I am involved as a leader of one of the top Guilds in the game with more than a dozen sub-guilds. But you or anyone doesn't have to believe me, its ok. I think its good for you to check around and draw your own conclusions.
on the second question:
I would say that you can draw your own conclusions. I'm confident that the TOS will help the community, and I wouldn't have made this recommendation and spent 200k DEC if I wasn't confident of this.
I have stated in many replies today why I feel a TOS is the right way to go. If you want "evidence" to change your vote from "no" to "yes", then I'm sorry but I don't have time to explain any further.
You are asking clearly and plainly for information that has been clearly and plainly explained already in the comments of 2 separate posts, plus a lot of explanations in our Discord channel. I think you will find that I have been more than forthcoming with my responses. However if its not enough for you, then like I said "its ok". I don't mind you continuing to vote NO. That's the beauty of the DAO, we can all vote for what we think is right and every vote does count!
Thank you for clarifying, that helps me to understand where you're coming from.
Let me share my anecdotal evidence. My opinion comes informed by being one of the four team members of the Archmage project. I help with marketing and am very involved in our community. At this point we have over 2k discord members. Through my involvement with the project I have had conversations with easily hundreds if not a couple thousand players as well. Our users come from many of the top guilds (I haven't checked explicitly but could rough guess we have at least 10-20 guilds represented, many with sub guilds of their own as well - the guild I'm an officer in for instance has 5 franchises).
From my experience, I've had countless conversations with players who stick around and invest heavily in the game in large part because of their ability to bot it. While we don't currently offer a battle helper, many of our users have expressed that they use these as well.
I think most of our users would agree that if we could implement human v. human zones meaningfully, they'd be all for it. Most of our users are in support of the Modern ban rollout, if only to test the waters and see how it goes so that meaningful information can be learned from the process to see how to effectively implement these restrictions in the real world.
I'm very confident in my assertions because I too have seen it with my own eyes. Meaning, I've not only seen the good side of botting and battle helpers and how it helps retain at least some faction of Splinterlands users but also I'm confident in what is possible if bad actors are left unchecked and honest players are left to fend for themselves.
It's not at all that I don't believe that you're sharing honestly what you've experienced. If anything, I'm saying you may be in some level of an echo chamber (as is likely for me as well) and so I've asked for evidence to try and get to common ground that isn't founded in our own biases.
I don't doubt your sincerity or confidence :) I do doubt your evidence but only because I haven't seen it and my points haven't been addressed.
I did just read through all your comments on both posts I believe.
Your basic argument is that the best place to start is with a rule change because most would follow it. There isn't evidence mentioned to support this aside from reaching out to various service providers (which again, are already operating as honest actors and not against ToS - so it may not be the best group to ask to figure out what level of bad actors would remain)
I will agree that most will follow it, if only because I also think that most people are generally good. Where I disagree and where I think you're missing a piece here, is the disproportionate impact that the low percentage of bad actors can have when financial motivation is part of the equation.
One person subverting the rules can have a drastic effect on the results. Yet it's not likely that only one person would do so.
Your other argument is that you believe that creating a more competitive landscape will help better attract and retain players. This argument isn't presented with evidence in the other places it's said from what I can see, so I'll have to assume that it's founded on the same evidence of your personal experience.
To the first point here (ie, a more competitive human v. human environment will better aid attracting players) - my day job (outside of the splinterverse) is marketing. It's my job to test potential offers that get people to act. In my experience, you can rarely go on "gut" for what will attract someone. 9 times out of 10, the winning offer or hook is unexpected or unpredictable.
So, when you say, "We change this rule and it will help attract players" I look for evidence to support that argument - which admittedly is hard to get (which is why I have a hard time agreeing with your confidence on the end result).
I've been confident about many an offer that fell on it's face in the real world. Testing is the only thing I've reliably been able to use to see what works.
Regardless, I'm very unconvinced that a change to the ToS would do much at all to change a perception about how pervasive battle helpers or Bots are to be honest, and so the potential gains are not likely to come to me until meaningful implementation was in place either way (if such a result would even hold enough meaningful sway to influence attraction of players).
To the second point that it would help retain players, assuming players perceptions DID change as a result of ToS, I could agree with you there - mainly because I think your evidence does likely hold sway there (you're hearing from those who are leaving because of botting and battle helpers). From what I've seen, those who are botting and using battle helpers would also be happy to be in a fair environment where everyone is on an equal playing field.
Where I disagree is that changing the ToS would have any real impact on player perceptions on the competitive without some clear plan of implementation. So in practice, until implementation is in play I don't believe it would help retain a meaningful amount of players.
The reality is that the community loves to dig into the Bot/Battle-Helper witch hunt, and a ToS change without implementation just gives more ammunition to community influencers who would rub salt in that wound and stir up the FUD in the community.
Key Idea
From where I sit, I believe that this change would not only not solve the problem, I believe it would make honest players worse off because (without meaningful implementation) it neither solves the attract or retain goals but DOES arm bad actors who don't care about the rules with an advantage over those who would seek to follow the rules. And with that advantage they gain a very real undue influence over governance via Staked SPS earnings through removing the competition of those who would be able to stand against them honestly.
You've said you'd like to stop the arms race before it happens, but again, I'd say it's already here and what this ToS change would do is disarm the honest and give a massive advantage to the bad actors.
All that aside. I do genuinely appreciate you, the discussion, and bringing this to the community.
Most of my points here are only partly directly at you, but mostly directed at making the counter point as clear and exhaustive as possible. (Although if I swayed your opinion that would be welcome as well ;) )
I'm not upset. I do disagree. But mostly, I am excited that a game exists where we get to have a voice that comes with some weight and impact. I'm excited to exercise that voice and vote right alongside you - even if our votes don't align.
I'm very happy that you made all your points. It helps me understand your perspective and context. I also think you are being sincere and I appreciate that.
I don't want to go through all the points as I don't have that much time and energy (you did really well on those btw) :)
But I would like to say that I'm not anti-bot at all. I want players to be able to use their assets to earn in both bot play and manual play. I am happy with the solution of 50/50 split between Wild and Modern, I think that's as fair as it can be. Not only that, Modern is a place for new entrants, so having that as the league where people play manually is good for growing the game.
I do think we have a disagreement philosophically about how a change in the TOS will impact the game. And that's ok, we are both capable of forming a valid opinion.
Unfortunately many people argue theory over pragmatism, and that stops any effort to solve the issues. I have seen us in a feedback loop where we discuss these things for years and nothing happens EXACTLY because its not defined. As you know, there are many variables and compromises in any process or implementation of any rule. For many years, these issues keep surfacing, but nothing can ever get done til its tried.
I will be happy to create more proposals in the future to fix anything that breaks as a result of this implementation. I have NO DESIRE to see "bad actors" gain an advantage over the good players you are representing either.
But if we don't try to define what is wanted by the community, then we will never go anywhere. This is just a first step in a long process to making the game great for everyone (manual players and bot assisted players).
ps...I would be happy to put out another proposal to create a new mode where the Bots and Human are separated but encouraged to compete against each other. I would love to get the best of both and reward both bot players and human player equally in the same mode. I will be happy to discuss with you after these votes are over.
I want to provide a few evidence from real human players. Mind you, you may or may not know them, but they are best of the best.
Hope this helps. I have numerous other conversations from top manual players I can provide. We need this. Otherwise we won’t have a game.
Thanks @azircon
My biggest point is largely that I think changes to this end need to come with implementation, otherwise they may actually cause harm.
I'm excited to see what effect the modern league change brings so we can move forward with data, experience, and evidence.
More than anything, that's what I'd like to see first and foremost.
Modern league proposal is already passed and I am also keen to see effects. However, the human leagues and in tournaments and brawls battle helpers must stop. Otherwise there is little competitive aspect of the game. We recently have a few tournaments with a ban of battle helper and they were immensely successful
There is a movie I like to recommend you watch if you haven’t watched it already.
Lord of War
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_War
By the way, comparing yourself to an arms dealer is probably a mistake :) I am sure you don’t want your friends to identify you as such. Please don’t sell yourself short.
Heh - just using the terminology already at play :)
But again, the point hasn't really been addressed if that is the concern - that's my main point.
In a world that has Wolves and Sheep, Sheepdogs are needed.
Hopefully the Splinterlands community is smart enough to see the point and not get lost in the metaphor. I'm sure you are :)
Jokes aside. We need these.
I am quite confident we have the numbers to pass it.
We are doing this to save the game. We are not banning bots. Bots will be there. We are opening a human only league that’s all.
If there is no game there is nothing to bot. Please consider that. I am not making this up. We are running out of runway. If we don’t do this it’s lights out.
What I don't understand is people have so many choices of what to do with their $ and crypto. There are sooooo many options that give good returns but instead they come into this game and ruin it for everyone else by botting it and using battle helpers.
I think its because they can. :)
Honestly, this exact point is what leaves me a bit sad but for the opposite reason.
One of the things I fell in love with about the Splinterlands project is that @yabapmatt and @aggroed laid out a very interesting and exciting plan to create a game where botting wasn't policed but rather the game design and incentives were designed to create a result where bots didn't have an advantage.
I loved the idea of that challenge and the creativity that building something like that would bring.
What you're describing @aironeous is the reality everywhere else. All other games policing botting in a top down approach.
Splinterlands was one of the only ones I heard of that was doing it differently.
So it makes me sad to see that the community has lost belief in that vision and seems to have decided that botting and battle helpers are the cause of all problems (which I personally find unconvincing) and instead want to turn Splinterlands into the same thing that is offered everywhere else.
The world doesn't need another TCG, shoot, it doesn't even need another Crypto TCG - there are plenty.
Splinterlands was uniquely cool in that it was a Crypto TCG that was truly trying to align with the Crypto ethos of "Truth in Code" - So it's sad to me to see the community give up on that so readily because of FUD from a bear market mostly.
But - to each their own.
It is very cool that Splinterland's fate is decided by the players through stake weight voting - so ultimately, it will go in the direction that the player base pulls it. That part is still pretty unique, cool, and special for sure.
Hey all- Tom Krochock aka TK here. For those that don't know me, I post a lot on Twitter but not often in here/discord.
Dave, Thank you for making these proposals. Like, seriously. Something similar has been on my mind for months. I think it's very important that this vote goes though, even though it may not seem like a big deal to some people.
I think the power of the team taking a formal stance on botting could be a major galvanizing force for the community. And the beauty of this proposal is that they don't even have to formally declare it themselves. The TOS will do it for them.
In my 2 years of playing the game, my biggest issues have always been with botting. It's not uncommon for me to quit battling out of frustration 1-2 times a week because of bots. And then usually what happens next is that I get pretty profoundly sad, because I realize that many other people experience these same things and choose not to stick around because of it.
These proposals of finally getting some kind of formal stance against bots/battle helpers into the terms of service may not seem like a big deal, but I believe it's an important step that will help to create the decentralized haven that the team wants while also plainly stating that there will be restrictions on the expectation of bot use because we can't ever expect the bot to play fairly.
I believe that as part of our definition for "Anti-Bot Measures," We should also be getting creative about designing specific advantages for human players. If the humans don't have enough advantages against the bots, let's create some more.
Awesome to hear TK! Thank you for taking the time to not only express your thoughts, but to give your own personal experience. That's helpful in my opinion.
I completely agree that the incorporation into the Terms of Service is a very big deal and its a necessary step to end this loop where nothing gets done.
Thanks again for the support and I hope it passes. I too share your sadness when people leave over this issue.
I have some ideas about how to make things more human but I don't know if it would take away from the other things they are doing and I am not sure if now is the right time to discuss them with everything else that is on their plate.
Thanks for your response! I would consider it more of a brainstorming session. They don't have to commit to anything but I'm thinking let's at least start having the discussion. I don't think we should rely only on the team to solve this, and we could actually make some really cool/inventive contributions to this within the community.
👍
Thanks Micheal! :)
He is a man of many words.
lol :D
Thank you for doing this. After years of playing this and building up my deck I was losing hope on ranked and brawls because of the botting, the battle helpers and also that all of the content creators are openly botting. It was becoming bizzaro world where the cheaters are the normal ones and the people that don't like it and feel it is ruining everything about the game are the weird ones and "salty."
I had given up on ranked and I was seriously deciding to exit ranked and my guild because of the cheating and just focusing on renting out all my cards and playing the land game only or exiting the game entirely.
Everyone in my guild stopped brawling except me. Since SPS staking came into effect 2 have started brawling again and I got hope for ranked being playable again so I started battling but I could still see bots in modern they were just renting SPS. Now that the bot ban in modern has been implemented I just tried it out and ranked is better now but I can tell there are still battle helpers being used.
I like to hear your testimonial because its good for people to know how various people feel. I have come across this issue many times and I'm super glad you made it to this point of still being here. I think @azircon has put other testimonials out from others too, so you're not alone.
I realize people see things from their own eyes, but I believe we are in agreement on how to improve the game. SPL has a ton of potential, and while its not easy, I think if we continue to focus on making players enjoy playing the game then we can achieve much more going forward!
Thank you @aironeous !!!
There is always hope.
I agree our back was against the wall, so we started fighting back. Thanks to Dave to make this a reality. Today many are playing at Modern manually, and it is such a joy,
Recently, I started playing Modern league to avoid the bot in Wild league and also to get better ranked rewards.
Ok, ok, that is right. Bots are not good for splinterlands, but we have to fight them by technology not law courts in my opinion. The terms of service should stay the same.
Yeah, I agree with you. Technology is the best way to manage the situation.
How many people will read carefully and understand the terms of service?
Normally, people just click "yes" for all terms of service and move forward.
These are my personal thoughts as a player (not as a team member).
The two proposals (“SPS Governance Proposal: Update Terms Of Service To Prohibit Use Of Battle Helpers in Modern Ranked, Tourneys, and Brawls” and “SPS Governance Proposal - Update Terms of Service To Prohibit Bot Use In Tourneys, & Brawls”) are the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES that have come up before the Dao, even amongst all of the 39 completed and 1 active proposals.
In my opinion, these proposals are crucial to the future and survival of Splinterlands the game. Although the company started off with a bot agnostic position, over the past few years and especially the past few months, we as a community have seen the consequences of what happens when bot and battle helper use ramp up to such high levels. The reality is that while Splinterlands has always strived to ensure that bots do not have an unfair advantage over human players, it has become clear that over this entire time period the bots have maintained an advantage and that advantage has steadily grown over time.
The competitive aspect of the game disappears and skill becomes marginalized when everyone is using a bot or battle helper. Win trading within a botnet jeopardizes the integrity of the system. We have seen many human players give up and either leave the game or turn to botting (“if you can’t beat them, join them”) resulting in a cascading snowball effect.
Before I started playing Splinterlands in 2019, I spent a year playing CryptoKitties which I enjoyed. But the dominant and optimized bots in CryptoKitties pushed out the human players like me, and now I worry that I am seeing the same thing happen in Splinterlands. We’ve already seen what happens to games that become primarily bot-driven - do we want Splinterlands to follow the path of Alien Worlds?
How is Splinterlands going to attract and retain new players if the ecosystem is full of bots and most of the human players have already left? What is the player experience going to be like when you are constantly beaten down by over-optimized bots and battle helpers? How are we going to be taken seriously in the Esports community and get corporate sponsors for tournaments if botting and battle helpers are the norm in tournaments?
I do think there can be a space for bots in the Splinterlands ecosystem. At the moment it is Wild Ranked and maybe in the future there can be specific formats (botting league? bot vs human challenge?) that are specially targeted for bots. But I definitely do not think that bots and battle helpers belong in tournaments and brawls. And before the human-only Modern proposal was passed, a large number of community members agreed with that, even going so far as to informally agree to @davemccoy 's pledge to not bot tournaments and brawls.
The recently passed and implemented proposal “Splinterlands will try to implement anti-bot measures in Modern format” is a step in the right direction but by itself its impact will be very limited. It’s only a half-measure because battle helpers are not covered in the scope for Modern ranked. Furthermore, the impact of battle helpers is greatest in tournaments and brawls which are supposed to be about competition and skill.
I realize that many of the human players who have since resorted to botting or using battle helpers might now like the extra time that has freed up. But if you ever enjoyed playing the game, if you ever prefer playing against a human player, or if you want Splinterlands to grow and be able to attract new human players instead of just being a massive botting simulation, then I encourage you to vote in favor of both of these proposals. Even if you have more free time or earn higher profits from botting or using battle helpers, I hope you agree that these two proposals are what is best for the future and survivability of the game.
I am confident that the Splinterlands Dev team can identify the use of bots or battle helpers to a high degree of accuracy and that they can implement measures to significantly reduce and deter such use.
100% in agreement. I am hopeful we will get this done, and gameplay will be infinitely better.
Thanks again for such a powerful stance on this issue Byz!
100% agree!
I can't say I would be really confident, but I completely agree with your analysis.
I dont't like this. Will downvote. The way to reduce bot usage is by technology not some bullshit lawyer who thinks he knocks down your door and bring law inforcement into your house. Also there is the risk to suspend accounts who are humans and have nothing done wrong.
That's ok if you feel this way, I respect you voting how you feel is best for the game. Thanks for voicing your opinion.
Who the hell do you think you are? By the way my decision is pure logic. Do you have counterarguments to my statement?
Real nice attitude. Thanks for the courteous reply.
Still no arguments from your side. 😕 I am waiting.
On your request for arguments, I don't know who the bullshit lawyer is you are referring to. I have never advocated for any lawyer to knock on any doors, nor do I think this proposal states this.
There is no mention of suspension either. So your risk of suspension is made up in your own mind.
If you want to argue facts based on pure logic, then in the future please start with facts. Making ridiculous assumptions and then stating them as facts isn't the way to go if you want answers with me.
I have responded to many polite people on both of these posts. I don't mind having a conversation. But when you come to attack in a rude way, then don't hold your breath that you will get much further response from me.
I did respond to you once more in case you felt regret for your behavior on this post. But if you aren't civil, then this will be the last answer I give you. I'm happy to discuss, if that's the purpose.
What will happen if a user account violates the Terms of Service? What will happen if a player uses a bot or helper tools?
That is yet to be determined and will be up to the team. This proposal is simply setting the terms of service.
However having said that, battle helpers and bots are perfectly acceptable to use in the Wild format. That is 50% of the total ranked rewards.
The way the bot ban worked is if an account is found to be breaking the terms of service, they simply were blocked from playing in the format they weren't allowed to play in (Modern). I would imagine something similar would happen if these 2 proposals pass.
I personally would have prefered to include battle helpers, too, as also battle helpers are clearly superior compared to human players and eliminate the skill factor from the game.
However, every beginning is better than no beginning at all. :)
Me too, but it was suggested to break them down into 2 votes. Of course I hope both votes pass then it will fix this! :)
Thanks for the support @jaki01!!!
This is a no brainer. Thank you!
Let's Go Dave! TeamPH appreciate your support and actions! We salute you.
Awesome Mango! Thanks for the support on the proposal and I hope everyone gets out and votes!!!
Oh you know it we will vote as a unit :)
:)
Downvoted for the only reason that i would like the ban in Wild Tournaments to be in a later stage ;-)
I understand @bubke and still have a lot of respect for you, even if we disagree ... Obviously I wish you voted the other way, but I'm sure you wish I did not propose it.
I wish you all the best in everything you do, and thanks for having the respect of telling me why you voted how you did!
After playing a load of Modern I'm now even more convinced this is the way forwards. Thanks for both proposals!
Thank you @theukm ... I will always be grateful for your proposal, which changed the game. So I accept that compliment proudly coming from you! :)