Greetings! Well, I was one of those who voted against the two proposals. It is not that my vote was going to make any change, because I barely have a little more than 1K staked sps, but it seems to me that it is not the appropriate way to impose changes in this ecosystem.

As I told @bhattg in his article yesterday Banning Bots in Splinterlands: A New Era for Fair Play and Rewards, I don't use any kind of bots or helpers, although I have learned to accept them as other necessary members of this ecosystem. I don't like bots and I have a hate/tolerance relationship with them, but what I'm sure of is that I don't like the way to force changes to TOS through the DAO at all.

I don't know to what extent the DAO's decisions can be binding for the company behind Splinterlands, and if the DAO can really force the change of the terms and conditions of use of the application. This is the part that seems counterproductive to me and that may set a precedent that they may regret in the not too distant future. If we learn from history, and from the forced takings due to the amount of staked cryptos, everyone should have voted a resounding no and looked for a more pragmatic formula that does not involve changes in legal issues within the operation of the company behind Splinterlards.

Now, the company behind Splinterlands must make a decision, and decide whether to "accept" this decision or take other types of solutions that align with the spirit of the proposal. It is one thing for them to announce a control on the use of bots in the modern format and to implement it through the modification of their TOS, and quite another for them to have to modify the TOS because that has been the decision of the DAO. Whatever the decision, it is indelible, written in stone on the blockchain.

I believe that very hasty decisions have started to be made, driven by the revelry created by the increase in rewards, without giving enough time to analyze and evaluate the consequences of these changes in the medium term.

We waited five years for the first actions to be taken with the disproportionate use of bots. I think we could have waited a few more months before making new decisions, at least until the true effects of these changes on the ecosystem economy were seen.

If the often mentioned fact is that the number of accounts struggling with bot usage can be much more than 50% of users, then this decision goes against the majority of gamers. For game economy purposes, an account is a player; robot or human