As a lead developer, if my developers are only motivated to do something each day because of being held accountable the next day, then I hired the wrong people. I want people to be self-starters. I shouldn't have to babysit and micromanage what they're doing each day.
We use stand-ups as opportunities to discuss obstacles that people are encountering and discuss opportunities for pair programming. I use them as an option in my training toolkit. If we're working on fairly routine things (like setting up unit tests, database layers, etc.) then I don't bother with stand-ups at all unless I sense a need (like someone hitting a wall).
.. and so on. I've found that with any such list, people will already excel in some, and still be growing in the others. Oftentimes these attributes are contrary to each other -- your most creative developer is probably not your most detail-oriented developer, for instance.
If you restrict your hires to all excel in a single attribute, such as "self-starter", you may be missing out on some fantastic developers who excel in other things.
In short, some of your developers may very well find daily accountability to be helpful, and this doesn't necessarily mean they aren't fantastic developers in other ways.
There are plenty of talented, productive people who aren't self-starters. Your company will be missing out on them. You can easily say they're the wrong people, but you could also say you're the wrong leader.
Rant: Not everyone is an isolation-loving codemonkey. Some people need the feelings of team involvement, urgency and repercussions. If I'm just left to sit in the corner all day, and no one knows what I'm doing, and no one gives a shit if I do nothing... guess what? I'm going to end up doing nothing. Perhaps people like me are flawed, but we're still very talented and capable -- and not every company can afford to pass over the extroverted developers.
" I shouldn't have to babysit and micromanage what they're doing each day."
But the standup is not about you micromanaging. The standup is about the team. It's not about having an accountability red-flag to force people into labour, it's about creating a benign cultural incentive to work. Some people actually like discussing what they've done. And if someone is having a slight episode of procrastination then knowing one needs to tell the next day gives an extra motivation to sharpen up.
It's not about putting collars and leashes on people. It's about giving visibility to work. Often visibility without explicit punishments nor rewards is sufficient to give an extra boost to efforts. It's an automatic reminder to people on what is important, without being irritating or nagging.
As a lead developer, if my developers are only motivated to do something each day because of being held accountable the next day
The commenter didn't say it was the only motivator, they said it was a motivator. It isn't some black or white thing- it's just another aspect. Unless you naively think your developers are robots, they will all have varying levels of motivation at different times, and this can help.
"I shouldn't have to babysit and micromanage what they're doing each day." Sorry, you call 15 minutes a day micromanaging?
Anyways, I agree with some of the complaints. The tools can help out a lot. I disagree about the firefighting comment though. The whole point of scrum is not to firefight and leave that up to the scrum master so you don't lose focus.
We use stand-ups as opportunities to discuss obstacles that people are encountering and discuss opportunities for pair programming. I use them as an option in my training toolkit. If we're working on fairly routine things (like setting up unit tests, database layers, etc.) then I don't bother with stand-ups at all unless I sense a need (like someone hitting a wall).