Define "ok" in this context. Currently it's certainly ok because it's not against the rules. Would I prefer if there were no bots in those? Yes, for sure. I would also prefer the government of my country to not be very corrupt. There's nothing I can do about that other than not vote for the same people, which I already do.
I'm voting against both because they can't be enforced and it only stops the public ones.
It skyrocketed because it was more accessible to everyone but the regular players don't have as many accounts as all the bot farms together. That means the public bot accounts are less than the private bot accounts. Somehow, it became a problem now but it wasn't when there were so many more bot accounts extracting more value in bronze than anyone can extract now in champion? My biggest issue with all this is not even the impossible enforcing but the hidden interests of people with private bots and battle helpers to take away the tools that allowed a leveling of the playing field. When all these proposals pass and enough time passes for those people to prepare everything for their bots and battle helpers comeback, we're gonna have a worse game for regular folks and we won't even know we're playing against bots and battle helpers. Even if we suspect it, it will be too late because, to reverse these decisions, we need 66% and those whales will easily hold enough votes against.
About the in person tournaments, they are not gonna happen. I wouldn't be interested in those unless it was very big prizes. Even 100x current prizes would not be enough for me. There are also not enough players to do this. It's cool to do in splinterfest which happens once a year or less but how would I go play in a tournament in my own town? I don't even know if anyone else plays here.
O.O you are free to vote what you want . i have nothing against u voting for against just good luck trying to pull more people in favor of it.
Saying we will have a worse game i think u being too dramatic. There can always be votes to reverse the decision its better to try than to not try at all. There were many changes that people thought would be the end of splinterlands but u know waht we still going and doing better uwu.
In person tournaments could be like splinterfests or hobby/card shops that organize. they can increase the prize pool for real life events. I don't see why we giving out a ton of money to bot farmers and OG alpha/beta cards for most of these tourneys. might as well airdrop the sps to them :)
I don't expect people to vote what's best for them, I've seen so many proposals being voted in a way that hurts the game and these are not different. I really don't have hope anymore.
I'm engaging in the discussion, not to change your mind, but to let you know my reasons. It's not a possibility, it's a fact that if we do get a game where only some people can bot and use battle helpers, we have a worse game. That's because we create an unfair playing field. I can't be sure this will happen but I don't doubt it will. Maybe the time for massive bot farms outside of wild is over. Even if a bot farm has a way to bypass the ban, if someone has 1000 accounts playing it might be too obvious. However, for a private bot to use the interface, just as if it was a human playing or for anyone to use a private battle helper, there is no way to stop this. It's just not possible.
Again, votes to reverse a proposal are almost impossible to happen. You need over 66% to pass. So, a proposal that had that kind of support, is really hard to have at least 33% (likely more) of the original voters to change their opinion. Especially if there were hidden interests behind the votes by whales, that makes it basically impossible.
We had riftwatchers to be priced in DEC fail in a proposal before. then we had it pass recently in a new one. In this case there was a lot that was against it but over time they changed their mind. I don't think it's impossible at all to overturn a decision. You are underestimated our community. You may think there's people voting for their self interested which there are and that's no surprise since it's human nature to be greedy but I think we have a majority that has a conscious voting for what is thought to be the greater good of the game. if it turns out that it isn't we can always change that as long as a majority agree.
That's different. A proposal can fail with 65% voting for and pass next time with 67% voting for. And sure, at the time, it failed with 43% voting in favor and now it passed with 91% voting in favor. However, if it was reversed, passed with 91% at first, trying to reverse with 57% in favor, the reverse would fail.
o.o we will see. theres no history so to say the reverse would fail. I think it would be fine to reverse and that it would pass easily if community wanted to