C'mon, let's try to keep it civil. Even if folks don't agree, we don't need to go into personal attacks; it does no favors to the way your side of the debate comes across, for one thing.

I don't care personally if another player uses Cactbot to help them; there are mechanics that are painful for colorblind folks, there are folks who are trying to learn the fight and want guidance without having to ask someone to raid call, etc. I'm not going to begrudge them that.

Where it becomes an issue for me is when their use of Cactbot negatively impacts my experience. And whether or not folks in this thread agree on the matter of Cactbot itself, I hope we can all agree that "a member of my static refused to raid on patch day because Cactbot wouldn't work, thus inconveniencing seven other players" would count as one of those situations.

When you join a static you commit to showing up at a specific time regularly. And sometimes RL happens, sure, but if you bail on the group and leave seven other people in the lurch consistently, that's a problem.

When someone becomes reliant on an external guide—whether an automated one like Cactbot, or an organic non-bot (so far as you can prove, fleshlings) raid-caller like me—that can become a problem. But I'd argue the root of that problem isn't Cactbot (or the raid-caller), rather how the person uses them.

It merely becomes an issue more often with Cactbot because of the fact that it stops working on patch days.

If you use Cactbot as a sanity check on your own read of mechanics, and can raid on patch days just fine, no issue. If you rely on Cactbot but are doing the tier in PF and just choose not to raid when it doesn't work... well, I think you're using it wrong, but if you aren't causing problems for others it doesn't matter.

But if you are part of a static, and demand others deviate from your agreed-upon schedule when Cactbot doesn't work, I would hope we can all agree that actually does count as a problem.