Firstly I don’t think we should be able to change proposals once they go live – especially when the changes are large in scope. Perhaps we need a way to scrap a proposal or replace it with a new one at no cost that people can vote on fresh? Or some form of version numbering when its updated the version changes and peoples votes are reset?
As for this pre-proposal I have voted yes, but require much more information and detail about how this will be implemented and managed should it fully pass.
How many players do we have at the end of each season in each league? Can we apply the bot detection rules to the current player base to identify how many of the accounts at each level currently bot (this will give us the potential idea about the effect on battle liquidity across the ecosystem should this go through).
How would SPL team frame their stance on bots should this pass? Historically it has been 100% open to players if they chose to bot or not. Would this be a change in mind-set from the team where bots are outright banned in modern? What’s the penalty for those who are caught going against this? Fines/bans/something else? Of course any enforcement would fundamentally go against the open web3 ethos the team has had previously held but would likely be required for something like this to work.
As there will likely be a form of punishment its essential that the bots are identified to an incredible level of accuracy. We don’t want people who are not botting punished like they are.
As the team has stated they are fine with bots in ranked isn’t getting bots out of brawls/tournaments a better starting point? Could always apply what works/doesn’t work there to modern in the future?
Say we are in a position where we can detect and ban bots and the system implemented works flawlessly. Then how do we tackle battle helpers? How do we even detect the use of battle helpers? I mean if the team 100% categorically states that all botting/battle helpers are not allowed in modern ranked/brawls/tournaments it might improve allot just on trust but we still need a system to continue to identify those going against this.
I have a wider issue with this proposal as with many of the ones we have had so far. In that we simply don’t have enough information at the time we are asked to vote to be able to make an informed decision – but I think this is a wider problem with how the voting currently works and reviewing that would need to done outside of this thread (if its deemed review worthy).
somehow the picture has totally shifted what the pre proposal is actually meant for. with it you actually only wanted to filter the garbage. so that you have a rough indication of what enough interest is there, which you can then start on splinterlands as an official proposal. meanwhile, people take the pre proposal hair exactly. which supposedly even has to insist exactly on the comma number to prove that there is enough interest oO
Great post with lots to think about. I do think this proposal is a step towards finding the answers to many of these questions. I also agree that editing the original proposal was not ideal. I have not interacted with Hive blogging before and have certainly made mistakes. I think a counter-proposal system could be implemented in the future to allow a new proposal to supercede an old one (resetting all votes in the process).
Thanks for the thoughtful post it really puts into perspective the problems ahead of us.