I did read the post.

>The captchas would be so infrequent that they wouldn't disable the bots

That in itself is nonsensical.

To be frank you might have better luck with a more pleasant tone.  You asked for opinions but it seems you don't want to hear anything that doesn't 100% agree with you.  

Good luck with that.

>You read my tone to be that way. I'm trying not to read yours that way but it comes across equally unpleasant. Please don't think my explaining myself for a second time is unpleasant. If you could read it again I'd like to know what would make you say that.

Suggesting that someone has not read your post is pretty insulting in my book.

>You don't see sense in it so I'm trying to explain it. 

Further you are assuming that I don't understand what you are saying.  I think you are not understanding what I am saying.

>A person would be required to answer a captcha to re enable the auto curation. This means auto voting can still occur if a human is awake and also manually curating. 

The fact that "auto-curation" is being re-enabled implies that it is was disabled.  I also take it you mean "bot" when you say auto curation.   How is that not anti-bot?

Even if that is not your intention the end result is that it will be.  It is not that I don't understand what you are saying it is more the case that I don't think that will help.

If I am using a bot I want it to get on and do what I have set it to do because it saves me time.  I can't be there all day to look after it and fill in a CAPTCHA every x number of votes.  That defeats the whole purpose.

An incentive that makes it more attractive to curate manually should not penalise those that don't.  Why - because they may be the same people at different times of the day.

Anyway I doubt we are going to agree on this so I will just leave it there.