clearly botted accounts

Describe the problem:

It has become increasingly obvious that some account sellers are falsely advertising botted accounts as hand-trained. In some cases, sellers claim to hand-level every account despite listing or selling a volume of accounts that appears unrealistic without workers. See @OSRS Acc Hub who likely scam quit after not being able to bot any new accounts due to jagex crack down on bots. He had 0 workers working for him but was selling hundreds of accounts off site & advertising multiple accounts onsite.

What current rule(s) tackle this problem:

I thought that there was a rule that sellers were required to accurately disclose whether accounts were botted or hand-trained, but I couldn't find a rule here.

Explain the change:

Allow moderators to require additional verification when there are reasonable grounds to believe a seller is falsely advertising botted accounts as hand-trained.

This should be handled on a case-by-case basis using moderator discretion. Relevant factors could include the volume and frequency of listings, off-site listings, and any other information that reasonably calls a seller's claims into question.

Verification could include evidence that the accounts were legitimately produced, such as proof of workers, or an explination on how they have so many accounts.

Explain why this change will fix the problem:

This wouldn't eliminate falsely advertised accounts, but it would improve the current situation where clearly something is going on, but because you don't have direct proof nothing can be done.

Side-effects:

• Increased workload for moderators.

 

[WFAF]

Support. Although I don't see it being implemented.

There are a number of 'bigger' sellers on here that advertise hand-made accounts & hand-done services that are clearly botting.

because you don't have direct proof nothing can be done.

This sums it up - lack of proof = no action, the burden of proof would still be on the buyer and its not exactly easy to prove after the fact.

 

Here is an interesting report regarding this topic: https://www.sythe.org/threads/ironmanmaster-is-likely-advertising-botted-accounts-as-hand-trained/

In this case it appeared to be clear the user was selling botted accounts. The user was selling accounts for a fraction of the market rate. Realistically no worker, not even people from Venezuela or Pakistan, would be able to make those accounts for that little money.

The user did however have proof of having a worker train these accounts. It's still possible the worker used bots, however. Now we could go a step further and request not only chat logs but also level up screenshots. I personally think that would be going too far.

 

[iJava]

Here is an interesting report regarding this topic: https://www.sythe.org/threads/ironmanmaster-is-likely-advertising-botted-accounts-as-hand-trained/

In this case it appeared to be clear the user was selling botted accounts. The user was selling accounts for a fraction of the market rate. Realistically no worker, not even people from Venezuela or Pakistan, would be able to make those accounts for that little money.

The user did however have proof of having a worker train these accounts. It's still possible the worker used bots, however. Now we could go a step further and request not only chat logs but also level up screenshots. I personally think that would be going too far.

Even screenshots of level up wouldn't completely solve this either, it's not really solvable.

Could instead recommend to users that they only buy accounts > 1 month old, this would reduce the chance you buy an account and it gets banned for macroing before you get to do anything on it. However it wouldn't be perfect as they'll often flag accounts and only ban them once they begin to be used for money making activities.

 

it wont solve it entirely, but it would be obvious when billybob is selling 20 accounts a month with no workers

 

[iJava]

it wont solve it entirely, but it would be obvious when billybob is selling 20 accounts a month with no workers

But they can just claim they have workers who aren't registered on Sythe?

 

[President]

To add on @iJava

I'd leave it to the common sense of buyers when assessing statements such as 'safest!' - or in this case 'hand-trained'. Buyers can always ask the seller for substantiation of claims; "can you provide evidence that it is hand-trained", etc.

Making the administration of (hand-)training mandatory documentation will dissuade selling to an unwanted degree. I dont think that will benefit the market overal

 

[Laptop65]

This is an inevitable consequence of AI and botted accounts, same concept as replacing an entire call-centre of human workers with an AI chatbot that can do their job for free. If this continues it will turn the RS account market upside down and make "human trained accounts" pointless to train up when most buyers simply want a high-level account and not care how it was made.

Do Jagex even have a solution for this? From what I've read we will get to the point (if not already) AI just becomes undetectable, regardless of banning it.

For the sake of market stability I would support this suggestion of adding it to the rules, but also no way of detecting or enforcing it unless the seller admits it is a botted account.

 

This is an inevitable consequence of AI and botted accounts, same concept as replacing an entire call-centre of human workers with an AI chatbot that can do their job for free. If this continues it will turn the RS account market upside down and make "human trained accounts" pointless to train up when most buyers simply want a high-level account and not care how it was made.

Do Jagex even have a solution for this? From what I've read we will get to the point (if not already) AI just becomes undetectable, regardless of banning it.

For the sake of market stability I would support this suggestion of adding it to the rules, but also no way of detecting or enforcing it unless the seller admits it is a botted account.

Not sure if you are aware but they sent C&D letters to majority of bot clients nuking a majority of them - so this is being tackled by Jagex.

Here is an interesting report regarding this topic: https://www.sythe.org/threads/ironmanmaster-is-likely-advertising-botted-accounts-as-hand-trained/

In this case it appeared to be clear the user was selling botted accounts. The user was selling accounts for a fraction of the market rate. Realistically no worker, not even people from Venezuela or Pakistan, would be able to make those accounts for that little money.

The user did however have proof of having a worker train these accounts. It's still possible the worker used bots, however. Now we could go a step further and request not only chat logs but also level up screenshots. I personally think that would be going too far.

I agree - on a case-by-case basis we do ask for additional proof to support things when things seem too good to be true but at what point is enough enough. Like others have shared too level up screenshots can seem legitimate but still done on clients.

Even screenshots of level up wouldn't completely solve this either, it's not really solvable.

Could instead recommend to users that they only buy accounts > 1 month old, this would reduce the chance you buy an account and it gets banned for macroing before you get to do anything on it. However it wouldn't be perfect as they'll often flag accounts and only ban them once they begin to be used for money making activities.

I'm not sure how a recommendation for a certain age of an account would help. We have tons of recommendations throughout the forums to avoid scams and people don't read it. It also doesn't support much as anyone can bot whether it's a new account or old account & can still risk being banned.

I do support adding this as a rule/clearly outlining in a similar way that we force people to state if they are the OO or not.

 

[iJava]

Not sure if you are aware but they sent C&D letters to majority of bot clients nuking a majority of them - so this is being tackled by Jagex.




I agree - on a case-by-case basis we do ask for additional proof to support things when things seem too good to be true but at what point is enough enough. Like others have shared too level up screenshots can seem legitimate but still done on clients.



I'm not sure how a recommendation for a certain age of an account would help. We have tons of recommendations throughout the forums to avoid scams and people don't read it. It also doesn't support much as anyone can bot whether it's a new account or old account & can still risk being banned.

I do support adding this as a rule/clearly outlining in a similar way that we force people to state if they are the OO or not.

Main idea around the age is that it reduces the chance of a user buying an account and then it being banned for macroing if it's been "rested" already, not 100% but if you bot an account then don't get banned for a few weeks you're usually.

Although totally hear you on the recommendations being ignored.

 

Here is an interesting report regarding this topic: https://www.sythe.org/threads/ironmanmaster-is-likely-advertising-botted-accounts-as-hand-trained/

In this case it appeared to be clear the user was selling botted accounts. The user was selling accounts for a fraction of the market rate. Realistically no worker, not even people from Venezuela or Pakistan, would be able to make those accounts for that little money.

The user did however have proof of having a worker train these accounts. It's still possible the worker used bots, however. Now we could go a step further and request not only chat logs but also level up screenshots. I personally think that would be going too far.

IronManMaster has had advertisements going for his shop on PlayerAuctions for months but has conveniently not had any accounts for sale since the Bot Nuke in February of this year. https://i.imgur.com/jFaLT9Z.png , https://i.imgur.com/DJYiRZX.png , https://i.imgur.com/8IQvZMC.png . Despite his claims to have a large mass of workers ready at his disposal making him "so much money" https://i.imgur.com/rEGj4QQ.png the moment bots got nuked his store dissapeared. In order to buy advertising on PlayerAuctions you must buy it 6+ months in advance meaning he had no intentions to stop selling his accounts but did. Again coincidently immediately after the bot nuke....

 

IronManMaster has had advertisements going for his shop on PlayerAuctions for months but has conveniently not had any accounts for sale since the Bot Nuke in February of this year. https://i.imgur.com/jFaLT9Z.png , https://i.imgur.com/DJYiRZX.png , https://i.imgur.com/8IQvZMC.png . Despite his claims to have a large mass of workers ready at his disposal making him "so much money" https://i.imgur.com/rEGj4QQ.png the moment bots got nuked his store dissapeared. In order to buy advertising on PlayerAuctions you must buy it 6+ months in advance meaning he had no intentions to stop selling his accounts but did. Again coincidently immediately after the bot nuke....

At the end of the day... he was selling accounts with zero infractions.
To me, it makes no difference if I buy an account that is manually trained or botted. The end result and rest period matters.
What is bs is that he adverts hand trained.
It's pretty obvs. he's botting (and this is coming from someone who actually bots and devs scripts).
No sure what they can really do?