Thank you for bringing that to my attention. There is quite a lot to read when it comes to this topic so I've been bouncing all over the place as it all unfold.
I wasn't fully aware of the invitations to the live panel discussion until late last night/early this morning.
I've mentioned the comparison to high school drama in the past.
It doesn't surprise me that those hiding behind popular names are reluctant to be a part of any healthy debate.
It's either their way, or the highway it seems, and it is indeed childish.
All parties have what I consider valid arguments, and those that are actually willing to talk it out are waiting on what appears to be the "bullies" taking the "bully" approach.
At one point or another, someone's going to have to budge. At one point or another, we'll have to meet half-way. What is the half-way point?
Well now that you've brought it to my attention, I guess the live discussion is as about half-way as it's going to get.
It kind of makes me feel like I have foot-in-mouth but alas, what's been said has been said. I still think that the idea of a 3.5 day bot limit is justifiable, and it can help. And of course, the approach being taken sucks.
It's unjustified. I feel that it's theft.
It would be so much more effective to flag plagiarists than innocent bidbot users.
It doesn't surprise me that neither of those two want to join the discussion. It doesn't make the situation any better though.