Thanks for replying.

You say "Removing the skill factor defeats the purpose of having competition" and compare Splinterlands to the Olympics.
I think this is silly and misses the point. Splinterlands is an AUTO-BATTLER, which is probably one of the most casual game genres there is.

Splinterlands is not a competitive game for the most part - otherwise we would not have had bots and battle helpers until now.
I think you're trying to push the competition narrative to support your argument, but it just doesn't apply here.

"..if you don't have the innate skill or the time to build up your skill, then no you shouldn't be winning the top prizes"
I agree with that, but it's not about the top prizes here. It's about earning at all

My point is about how much we should value skill. It seems to me that you think a player without skill in the game should not be earning at all.
I completely disagree with that. As I mentioned above, skilled players should earn more than casual players, but the difference can't be too big.

Removing battle helper from tournaments, brawls and modern ranked is an overreach. You would be only leaving wild ranked for casual players, which has much fewer rewards.
This is why I'm arguing that the proposal gives skill too much value.

About enforcement, again you compare to the Olympics, which is strange.
Drug testing in the olympics may be ineffective, but it does work in some cases.

My point is that Battle Helper is FUNDAMENTALLY not detectable. Not difficult or unlikely, just NOT POSSIBLE.
If there was no chance of detecting cheaters in the olympics, they wouldn't be bothering with it either.

Even if it's unreliable - can you come up with any methods of detecting battle helper?