[DENIED] OSRS Service Providers & Botting

Recently there has been multiple service providers reported against for botting.

With previous reports of being reported for botting.

However most of the time it is impossible to prove who actually botted.

So most service providers place in their TOS they will not be responsible for botting bans, which i agree you shouldn't be blacklisted for botting bans if you provide a legitimate service and do not bot, however i believe the following should apply;

A rule should be brought in where if with good reason you have been reported for botting you should be issued a TWC, linking to the botting report. Even if you have stated you will not take responsibility for botting on your TOS

This would then put the service providers who have known botting practices on the radar to help people choose the right service provider, sometimes cheap service providers just provide cheap botted services.

However if the service provider can provide SCREENSHOTS, not just Crtl + Prnt Sc, the whole screen of the client or recorded evidence of training the account, with clear evidence that no bots are in operation then obviously the TWC would not apply, because it would be clear that the Service Provider did not bot.

 

What the problem with this sort of stuff is so many TWC if so, as service providers there are many of us but yet only a few that are actually hand trained like myself @Spizz @Yellow_Hat_OSRS_Services and some others.

One problem I have also seen is that people will outsource work without permission as well, just so they can make a bit extra which although i'm not against it.. It simply shouldn't happen.

Back to what we was saying though, if there is proof of the accounts being levelled I do agree it shouldn't be an issue to show it, and not being funny EVERY provider should be using osbuddy/runelite (runelite if your PC is more sensitive) and although I don't like/use it personally the same with openosrs or whatever it is. There should honestly be more strict rules of those who say "oh I used the regular default RS client".. It's like no you didn't, you know you didn't and so do we. It's a shame and it's a two sided sword as some will say they shouldn't be liable and some will say they should, I will and will always say they should.

So all in all, as not only a respectful face in the service market but as a competitor, and a market provider for the better, yes I support.

 

It really leaves a bad taste in my mouth after reading these sorts of things, when you see a dispute related to servicing and it's like "for fuck sake... you understand that's something I BUILT? NOT YOU.."

 

Yep exactly, by all means I take into consideration it could be a person also doing it to themselves in order for compensation (let's say they don't want the account anymore, staked their funds or such) but shall we look at it as if you're an ironman or such why would you do it quite simply lol.. You know full well you aren't able to quite literally get it back.

 

I think the very first part is the best part of this argument.
Yes you cannot prove if the service provider botted or if the customer botted in hopes for compensation as @Dbuffed suggested.

However, if you have multiple reports against you as a service provider for botting related offences then eventually it's going to be more than a "coincidence" and be a legitimate claim. What amount of offences would lead to this? I guess that would be to the descretion of Sythe admins/mods if they'd want to implement something like this but I think the best way for this is really to just keep track of the number of times a service provider is disputed over a botting related offense.

Happened once? Sure, potential coincidence, possibly the customer is trying to get value out of a refund for the account or something stupid like that.

Happened 5 times? The service provider is likely botting.

 

no support

Although i agree it is rubbish that service providers may actually be botting sometimes, a extreme measure like this will do more harm then good. if a service provider happens to not have a lvl or 2 ' recorded ' as you suggest and the account happens to get banned they are suddenly liable? that doesn't seem fair at all.

At the end of the day if your getting a service done you should be going to a liable source if you are worried about things like this. going to cheaper/less reputable sources always entails a risk like this (although it can happen with ANYONE.)

i've also seen people mentioning ' runelite screenshots ' in this post, as if that would be making a difference, i suppose you have either never heard or never thought about the fact that someone can set up for example a AHK mining script, while using the runelite client. then they will surely have level screenshots.. but guess what its still being botted.

ps: you have great intentions with this suggestion, but for reasons i mentioned above. that is why i do not support this. it wouldn't be fair or practical

 

Whilst you are very right AHK does happen often, it does also vary on your source and how they work.
Narrowing down stuff such as using certain clients and not the default client etc helps majorly with this, for example my service workers agree they will not use any of that, they do they are fired and replaced but others I can imagine do run differently.

 

I couldn’t agree less, it does seem weird that you would have so many reports resulting to the same stuff if you’re not doing something wrong

I get that in such cases it’s hard to prove, and in some it’s also not true such as if you’re Venezuelan etc but even then I guess it’s up to the staff to decided the judge a and jury.

 

you mean you couldn't agree more? or are you actually disagreeing with that logic?

Seemed to be in agreement but actually confused ngl.

 

Yeah lmao I agree with you, I blame the early mornings and lack of sleep >.>, problem is as I say when you at least have 0 screenshots it’s hard

 

To everyone who has posted here; @Dbuffed @Malcolm_OS @all4love12 @Kanye

thank you for input.

I agree that it may seem harsh to punish just the service provider, however they should be providing a service, at this moment in time the services market is slowly turning into the cheapest market around yet there is either a clear amount of botting arising from services provided or there is an increase of Service purchasers who deem it necessary to blame someone else for botting which in my opinion it is unlikely someone is going to purchase a service and it seems to get banned just after the service provider has had input in to their account.

I also believe there needs to be stricter enforcement in place than what currently is in an ever growing marketplace. Yes i am a service provider and yes i do want more customers, but at this moment in time it seems there is a lot of 'Mega Cheap Services' arising, with an increased count of botting reports.

Yes we can't decide who the service purchaser uses for their service but i believe there should be better tools in place to prevent them repeating "offences", and simply refunding or using there TOS to get away with it.

I believe a TWC will ensure that service providers will offer a safer venture for service purchasers prevention of bans, time wasted and money lost.

I also believe the TWC should not have a numerical value to when a TWC should be issued, it should simply be a case by case basis not just 1/2/3/4/5 it could simply be the 10th report but the key would be a valid report against a service provider with good reason why they think they have botted, and simply for the service provider to issue screenshots or video recordings to prove their innocence.

 

@bababablacksheep

I see you disagree with the "numerical value to when a TWC should be issued" which I totally get.

I get where you come from and I support the idea. The problem is that I think it would be extremely difficult to come up with a way to punish service providers that are guilty without punishing innocent service providers. Hence why my numerical value to the TWC idea came up because the more times it happens the more likely it is that the service provider is botting.

Do you have any ideas on how you think a TWC should be issued to a service provider after a botting related dispute?

 

Sorry for not replying yet guys (since I have obviously been on), valantines and all xD

 

So a TWC will not prevent the service provider offering services, it will just make the service buyer treat them with caution especially if the service provider is offering extremely cheap prices and has a TWC for related botting terms.

as with a TWC this is something the service provider can dispute if they have improved their service and stopped botting

 

Approx ban ratio is 1%, anything more is a cause for concern.

Appeals are usually quashed, only around 10% or so have the chance to remain banned. Other factors take precedence such as previous bans, if you've previously botted and the account as a whole. In terms of is it a main, new account and the playtime invested into it.

Talking from experience here, keep a record of the reported bans. Encourage people to report it, although its a fact of business within OSRS Power Leveling. It's still wise to ensure ban rates aren't unnecessarily high.

We also all know that Botting is a fools game and many customers understand the small risks involved when hiring people. In comparison to botting the advantages far outweigh the costs.


NO SUPPORT

 

Support, these bans are 99.9% avoidable, and only happens due to service providers having no idea what their workers are doing. (or the provider being clueless himself). Current situation is very unhealthy for the market because currently it's split into 1) 95% of providers that are cheap with enormous ban rates 2) 5% that are several times more expensive without a single ban report. A new user will have no idea why would there be such a huge price difference and will go with a cheaper option just to disappoint himself losing the account

 

Agreed, I know a lot like @Pirate and other big names I have yet to experience any real bans (it might be because i'm not a third party or use third party workers) maybe we're just lucky though.

In all 7 years I have done services, received 1 mule ban as well.