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.