Jump to content
Due to the significant updates that have taken place, you now need to login with your display name or e-mail address, NOT your login name. ×
Due to posts that are 5+ years old being rebuilt, some of the older BBCodes may not have converted properly but still be in the post. Most posts are unaffected but some using what was our custom BBCode (like [spoiler]) will be a bit broken. ×

stonewall337

Members
  • Content Count

    3693
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

66 Excellent

About stonewall337

  • Rank
    Ice Giant Melter

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    RS, woodworking

RuneScape Information

  • RuneScape Status
    Retired
  • RSN
  • Clan Details
    <Killing Time> of Dawnbringer
  1. 3 years later - but the ban was quashed and at some point someone recovered it and was playing on it. I found out when I logged in to my old friends chat and saw the display name changed. Recovered it within a few hours. They cleared my friends list :( but not the bank. My replacement account is now way higher, but this account is almost maxed, so having a 2nd account to play on might be fun.
  2. I know this is way late but gratz and it's always neat to see some people still around.
  3. Longest week ever!Got 99 smith a while ago but forgot to update ok so not the longest week in that case. gratz
  4. Have you ever fished rocktails? The pools last a random amount of time, from 5-15 minutes (I think). Once you're fishing, until the pool moves or your inventory is full, all you need to do is stay logged in. To do that, all you need to do is click. So you watch netflix, read a book, browse the forums, or play another game and just click over every 4 minutes to stay logged in. That's no different than afk training any other skill. As long as you're there and doing it yourself, there is no problem. Now, if you misunderstood what I meant and thought it was a bot clicking to stay logged in or the like, no that isn't what I meant. I'm talking about doing something else and just typing, moving the camera, or clicking to stay logged in. Regardless, we can all agree that Jagex has shit customer service.
  5. What do you mean by that? Culd you elaborate? What kind of shock are you talking about? When you have (rich) people buying a hundred bonds, the demand pushes up prices. When bond prices increase by a few million players who regularly buy and consume them have a harder time keeping up. Some will be unable or unwilling to keep it up and drop membership and/or quit for a while. It's just meh... Fallacy of the broken window. Its great for those selling the bonds, even while it sucks for those who buy. Two sides, that which is seen and that which is unseen.
  6. Those sheer number of cases, were they on Reddit or RS Forums? 99% of those cases have been 'proven' guilty by a Jmod at some point. I only know a couple of cases where Jagex has been in the wrong. One of them I was involved. I got unbanned in about 4 hours after I was banned. The offence is quashed, but it is still a stain on my account. They never really officially admitted anything and only said it was banned while investigation was going on. Never got any compensation and to this day, my heart skips a beat every time I get a sudden "Please wait... attempting to re-connect" message (or something alike). This is because I was just playing at the time of the ban wave. It involved around a couple of dozens of people at the time. And this all happened to me, just because I was on the friendlist of a suspected player... Well one case was a clanmate multiboxing fishing rocks, which he was streaming doing. He had like 8 or 10 going at a time. Had 6 banned for a day when it got posted on reddit. Think they are all unbanned now. Had another who was nolifing invention @ abyss. Same thing, just clicking to stay logged in. I'm sure many cases are people lying, but not all are, and it sucks that Jagex has consistently poor customer service. Still, such is life.
  7. Yeah they won't change their mind, even if wrong. Their defense of "we only ban the guilty" would be made even more transparently wrong if they shifted stances now. Ahh well, I've heard of literally 8 cases of the same thing or incredibly similar things happening recently, and while I wouldn't be surprised if at least some were guilty, the sheer number of cases I've run into over the past 18 months makes it statistically almost impossible for Jagex to be always right. Oh well.
  8. Yup, they said it can make an account harder to recover, but it won't impact bans. So I really have no clue at this point WTF triggered it. Also hi WKW cool to see familiar names still around!
  9. I think this is basically what happened, dates are esimates. Jan 2014, account hijacked (I didn't play anymore so IDK when I found out) but I recovered it by April of 2014. I don't think anything was done to the account except the bank emptied of things worth $$$. I don't think the account was touched at all (even if it helps my case that it was botted during that time, not going to lie and say it was.). It is possible, but I don't think so. Between ~April and ~November I played some. November 28th, 2014 got the only black mark on the account ever, which was a major macro ban. I don't know when the "botting" took place. The only time I didn't have control of the account was that brief period in early 2014, and again I don't think anything was done with it. I've never botted. I have used AHK at barb fishing. If it was the later I'd be disappointed, since even using AHK to drop fish still followed the "1 input=1 action" rule. If that was bannable, than the ban was accurate. Still, it was what, 5 years before? (2009). I'd imagine they don't wait 5 years. But I don't think it was that, nor do I think they ban for that anyway. That's why I'm trying to get in touch with CS.
  10. 100% sure. While I had to recover my account at one point, it hadn't been used (just the bank emptied basically). Honestly, I wouldn't make a big deal about it otherwise, but the combination of frustration through not being able to even talk to anyone in CS, having the appeal take 6+ months and be auto-declined, and Jagex's frequent assertions that their system is accurate are incredibly frustrating. It's been 18 months... I'll be honest I've used AHK in the past, about 4-5 years ago, for some barb fishing. Still, that was years before, and just to drop fish while still abiding by the 1 input= 1 action requirement. I can think of literally nothing else to trigger it. No auto-typers, no bots, no macros, heck even AHK was used very little for fishing (disliked it, too intensive). Its the not knowing what the issue was that's at least part of the problem. Was it just right clicking at rocks, was it my name (Playing WoW), was it something from years before like AHK (again, can't imagine it being that) or was it simply an accident? I just don't know and its frustrating.
  11. Simply put the very definition of a false positive is "An error in some evaluation process in which a condition tested for is mistakenly found to have been detected". In other words, the test for botting yielded an incorrect ban, even if the criteria for the ban was met (sharing an IP with a botter via a VPN). Regardless of whether the system is generally accurate or not, that is the literal definition of a false positive. To add to this, that's how a false positive works, once again literally everywhere. If I take a drug test and I fail it, even though I don't use drugs, that's a false positive, regardless of if it was tripped because I ate a poppy seed bagel (your definition), or for no reason at all. Your definition encompasses part of the idea of a false positive, but it is far too narrow. If a test yields a positive for a condition being met, when that condition is not met in reality, a false positive has occurred. Regardless, this line of discussion isn't germane to the topic at hand anyway and so it doesn't bear continuing. The goal is to see if Jagex is willing to consider that their system, as is true for any system, is imperfect, and account for that. If so, great. If not, well at least I tried.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.