Can I do other activities in the same PC I'm botting?

No it'll be fine

 

No & unproven.

 

Technically it is not "unproven", If he isnt responding to people, and he gets reported, there is an increase likelihood for a ban. Thats with all bots here and botting in general.

 

runemate's good enough that reports don't really make a difference

 

I agree lol, but there is a chance

 

can you show me any proof of this claim?

and I was refering to Jagex tracking canvas focus for marco'ing. It's known that Jagex tracks the canvas focus. But it's highly unlikely that it is used to detect botting.

 

he means that if you dont respond in chat you can get smacked with reports, which is pretty obvious, and could increase ur ban rate

 

Which I thought was pretty obvious that, that was what I was saying

 

Yeah, show me proof that reports lead to bans. I know many people on some other bot client's Discord that will happily deny your claim.

 

I'm sure reports increase the chances of your account being looked into for Macro use. Which in turn could lead to bans, They even have a forum post on runescape forums where you can report people suspected of Marco use.

 

I'm sure the sky is purple. But that doesn't make it true.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, But are you saying that Jagex won't look into accounts reported for Macro use? That you can be reported an infinite number of times and Jagex won't look at the account at all? Even if the account is posted on Reddit, Or the runescapes forums?

 

I'm saying that speculating doesn't get us anywhere. And nobody has a large enough data set to make decisive conclusions what Jagex uses in their ban/flagging algoritm.

So instead of telling people baised tip & tricks. We should only inform people:

• Bans happen
• Nobody conclusively knows what triggers a ban
• Use common sense

This prevents misinformation from being spread.

For the report example, at what number does Jagex look at a marco report? Do you need to get reported once, twice, 100 times, 500 times?
How much time/money do they put into reviewing these? One week there could be 100K reports, the other week 5000.
How do they handle these reports, a employee picks up one of these reports, but what does he look at? Nobody knows or is willing to share. How do they prevent false-positives. I could report someone AFK or just not willing to talk.
The only relevant number Jagex wishes to share on this topic can be found at Support Stats – Support ("Please remember - your reports are really useful, so please do flag suspected bots in game to us!")
I've had bots survive extended amount of time which players said to me "Reported" in game. I'm not saying, it's not criteria. And common sense would tell you, it does impact your likelyhood te get banned. But there's plently of botters out there that get reported and still get away.

 

But you just said, Reports don't lead to bans. That's spreading misinformation. We could all assume within reason that if you are reported, the chances of being looked into are higher than if you aren't reported. If that wasn't the case it wouldn't even be an option in the report section, Nor would there be a thread on runescape forums dedicated to reporting users for Macro. Using that information we can conclude that it does increases your chances to atleast some extent.

Again not saying you are wrong just using information available to us. Like you said using common sense will go a long way with preventing bans.

 

I never said it doesn't lead to bans. I just asked for proof.

Maybe looking at Marco report is the last priority of the team that's working on it? Maybe their backlog is so big they ignore it? Maybe they prune it monthly and never look at it? Maybe the forum topic is ignored by Jagex. Maybe they just have it there to give people the idea that they are having an impact.

*Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe**Maybe*

Here's the first Google result of "Assume": suppose to be the case, without proof.
For every maybe you claim, I can find 5 other people claiming it not to be so.

 

Okay you didn't say it exactly, But you are encouraging the idea that reports don't matter, Everyone you know that says they don't matter are just making assumptions, the only real source of information is from jagex, Which like I said has multiple outlets to report members for Macro. I could show you exactly where those are if you need "proof" but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

So I guess what I'm really saying is are we going to take your word, or the word of random people in a discord that doesn't truly know anymore about Macro detection than we do or are we going to look at the evidence that is already public that is officially supported by Jagex? It's better to assume that they do look at those than assume that they don't. I've seen people reported on runesacpe forum, Reddit and Twitter for macro and those people where banned, Jagex even replied saying the REPORTS flagged members and were banned before they saw the post on reddit.

 

Why aren't auto responders then more prevelant in bots? Or bots which randomly type some information? Then you'd get less reports; Because people have tried with and without it. And they haven't seen a difference in ban rate.

So even if reports play a factor, and those occasional posts on reddit that get some attention, it's probably only affecting a very small minority of bans.


If we start accepting all things that sound possibly true as fact, it brings us to a very long road in writing a million pieces of anti-ban features which we don't even know if they help.

 

The only point I was trying to make is that reports are relevant. Even if it's a small percentage. We all know people are reported simple for not talking, And that won't lead to bans. Just being reported can lead to a ban if you are in fact Macroing and they're able to prove it somehow. Like you said we don't know how they detect bots, and runemate to my knowledge is one of the better are not being detected, I only had 1 ban using runemate which is tied to all those recent Maxiwoodcutter bans I think. There's no way to know for sure I can just assume. (2 Fresh accounts, Used woodcutting and combat, got banned after the woodcutting. Accounts were 1 day old less than 12 hours playtime with breaks )