Then why abide a more extractive scholarship system ? This doesn’t make any sense.
People who delegate their account are just here to make money because they even delegate the strategic part of the game, they are basically not playing the game at all. At least using scripts or bots you still have to think about the strategic gameplay which is the most important part of the game, or you will get rekt at first meta change.
Being Scholar is a daily work job, they have to extract for their daily expenses, it is not a game for them either.
Hello, Vyona. Many people have explained to you on Discord the benefits that scholars (actual community members) bring into the community vs bots. From what I saw, an extensive discussion has already taken place discussing this so please forgive me for not repeating the same discussion points here. Although, to clarify, this is not exactly a discussion of scholars vs. bots.
You are correct. I am sorry if I implied otherwise.
I was trying to ensure we don’t end up getting off-topic. While the proposal hopes that the DAO considers the banning of botters, it does not directly hope to encourage nor discourage working with scholars.
I still think the botting vs scripting section is unclear. At what point does it get cut-off for what’s a script vs what’s a bot? The example provided is at very far extremes when the matter is “clicking poop” vs “full gameplay automation”. Where does “plant all open farm plots with XYZ” fall? Is full gameplay “repeat actions every 7hrs 23min” or is it “attempt ABC quests in order of profitability if possible; do not attempt unprofitable quests; repeat upon quest completion”? Where does the line get drawn?
As for the appeals, it seems that’s it’s almost certainly going to devolve into a popularity contest. Perhaps the DAO should not be voting on individuals appeals, but rather the ban scenarios themselves? I would hate to see the DAO vote on two near identical cases and ban one while providing leniency to another due to the individual involved.
As Vyona said, a 7 day verbal warning might prove very ineffective. And it also limits response times to more severe attacks. Suppose there’s an extreme case where someone manages to somehow make infinite items and instant sales on the RMP, completely draining all the RBW and flooding the RMP with near 0 prices. I would think that in such an instance, it would be prudent to at the very least immediately freeze the ability of the account to unstash, at least until a decision can be made on how to mitigate or proceed with the impact.
it will always be a cat and mouse game, but thats the nature of the gaming industry. any botting/scripting should be a bannable offense, if ppl want to bot and feel like risking their assets then thats on them. it scams the rest of the ppl who are putting in manual work, if botting is legalized in any way, then whats the point of playing at all.
if there is a need for automation then it should come from ingame features, in some paid form, so that it supports the overall economy. anything else should be banned.
defending botting just opens room to exploit the economy and people in the community, im shocked to see that there is a discussion on this.
And what I want to know is what defines “normal player activity”. It seems that this is effectively intended to be a catch-all of “if we can detect automation-like behavior, we will ban you”. And the specified example of a simple script seems to be saying “Poop clickers are okay because we probably can’t detect those”. If that is the intent, please just say it outright and not beat around the bush with
I think there are a few more clarifications needed:
Poop collecting is ok, but what about farming/gathering?
The section about blacklisting NFTs was removed. Let’s say that the wallet violates the rules beyond the warning period. You mention that the wallet can’t play, but what happens to the NFTs? Are they ejected and returned to the owner or are they held by LG within the game? (Essentially the same as blacklisting them)
Calling it a “temporary suspension” is a massive misnomer. It is a permanent suspension that can be repealed (but most likely won’t). Usually when someone says it’s a “temporary suspension” they assume it’s for x amount of days.
Until the in game mailing system becomes active you could potentially give out actual temporary suspensions (weeks/months). With delegation coming out and owners not having full control over the account, a close eye has to be kept on this weekly list. If you have a lot of wallets, it can be easy to miss your address, and if you miss it once you lose everything.
Also, in general, I am in favor of suspending for limited periods instead indefinite suspension regardless of activity. At the end of the day, the NFTs are assets that have been bought by a person with lots of real money and can easily amount to 1000s of dollars. Just taking that away doesn’t sound very web3.
I want to make it clear in public that you will only apply these rules. AFTER the proposal passes and that it will not affect anyone from the PAST or CURRENTLY if there was correct?
To be clear, you’re giving the Crypto Unicorns DAO the right to implement a Ban Policy, not LG. While early on, implementation will be reliant on LG ops team as the primary developer, this can change once the token distribution changes and we become more and more decentralized.
No entity (whether it’s a company or a DAO) should have the ability to hold anyone’s assets from them. Ever. They own it, it is theirs.
If playing the game (or having a scholar who might play the game in a way that may be outside of the vague guidelines for “proper gameplay”) puts your assets at risk for being taken from you, then that kills the game for future potential players. And definitely kills the prospect of bringing in scholars (at the end of the day you can’t 100% trust how they’ll play).
I will be voting NO on the proposal. Not because of the subject matter involved. But I am done using forums. As a Council member we are asked to participate and ask questions. My questions have been unanswered to many times to count now. Any proposals where answers are not answered clearly in forums will get a Hard no from me in the future no matter who the author is. Communication has gone downhill bad again. Worse then ever.