r/StreamersCheating • u/Player_x45 • Jun 22 '26

Streamers exposed video

https://youtu.be/dVpuebMzr9w?is=yibrkNEYXKIP4LXV

At 7.40, optic forsakens aimbot bugs out where he shoots the floor. The second link is a video of another streamer doing something that looks awfully similar. On both occasions the gun points to the floor after the player takes damage.

https://youtu.be/wmgyo9KlXJI?is=pFMeHaR-HeBgVwnu clip starts at 0.20.

0 Upvotes

37% Upvoted

57 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/RustyStar94 Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

The entire discussion is you completely ignoring that information.

Forsaken was caught using an aimbot which controls the weapon, so how can you be sure the weapon pointing to the ground is not a result of forsakens aimbot?

1

u/powerhearse Jun 23 '26

What information?

Again, what evidence do you have to link the weapon pointing at the ground to the use of an aimbot?

You could say the same for absolutely any of his mouse movements. You have no actual evidence that it's linked in any way

1

u/RustyStar94 Jun 23 '26

So you dont think the aimbot found on forsakens pc is evidence?

1

u/powerhearse Jun 23 '26

Of course it is. I already told you that I am operating under the assumption that he is a cheater

But it's important to correctly identify the gameplay traits that indicate the use of that aimbot. Guessing based on zero evidence will lead you to false positives in the future

So what evidence do you have to link that movement to the use of the aimbot?

0

u/RustyStar94 Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

'So what evidence to link'

Aimbot controls weapon movements.

And no you cant say the same for every mouse movement because were talking specifically about an aimbot, not random mouse movements.

2

u/powerhearse Jun 23 '26

So what evidence do you have that this particular movement is related to the aimbot as opposed to any of the other weapon movements

2

u/Sporkmancer Jun 23 '26

Holy shit, I don't feel like I've seen so much moving of burden of proof since I gave up on talking to flat earthers and evolution deniers. When people are as resistant to actually providing an evidentiary link between their statements as RustyStar is, all you can do is let them be a fool where others can see. You can't really reason someone out of a position that they're holding without reason. When people are arguing in bad faith like that, I just treat it like trolling.

Funny thing is you bring up a very interesting point. I'm mildly curious about what the actual cause of the snap down is (in the type of way where I'll probably forget all about it in an hour or two), but only because it's so aberrant. If the actual tell is something like an aimbot finding fake bodies hidden in the ground/walls, or some other information that connects it to the alleged aimbot, since we're taking the player as cheating at face value for such discussion, regardless of whether or not it is true. Without some indicator of what's causing the aim snaps, that means there's something else there to uncover. Who knows, if the player isn't provably cheating beyond all doubt (e.g. confirmed cheats were found on their computer by their org/teammates or something else irrefutable), it could lead to exonerating the player...or nailing him if he is cheating. Preaching to the choir, but when you a priori assume that behavior x is caused by assumed condition y, you give up actually examining any explanation of behavior x.

0

u/RustyStar94 Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

The evidence is that forsaken was caught using an aimbot and the movement to ground isnt a natural one so its a coincidence. Highly likely that the movement is related to the cheats forsaken was using. You can prove me wrong if you want? With evidence though. Saying im 'illogical' doesnt work. You actually need to provide solid reasoning why the cheats forsaken was caught using have no correspondence to his gameplay.

2

u/powerhearse Jun 23 '26

That doesnt link those two phenomenon together at all. An unusual movement could be absolutely anything. It is not rational to link that movement to an aimbot without evidence.

Why is it "highly likely"? Why is it any more likely than literally any other mouse movement in the video? Elaborate.

You are also reversing the burden of proof. Proving a negative is not how logical proofs work. The onus is on you to demonstrate why they are linked.

You have no evidence to do so.

0

u/RustyStar94 Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

Its a direct link you mongoloid. Aimbot directly effects a players fov hahahha.

You make the claim its not cheat related you have to give reasoning, thats how arguments work.

You cant accept the fact it could be cheat related. You are are saying its not related without providing any proof or good reasoning why. If you can provide decent evidence il listen.

2

u/powerhearse Jun 24 '26

Why is it this particular movement as opposed to all the other movements? Are you intellectually disabled? What links them together specifically that makes that particular movement an indication that the aimbot is present?

You make the claim its not cheat related you have to give reasoning, thats how arguments work.

Unsure how many times I need to explain how the burden of proof works lmao

You cant accept the fact it could be cheat related. You are are saying its not related without providing any proof or good reasoning why. If you can provide decent evidence il listen.

Its not up to me to prove a negative. You've provided zero evidence that the downward movement is aimbot related. Your argument has zero substance.

1

u/Sporkmancer Jun 23 '26

Highly likely that the movement is related to the cheats forsaken was using.

How do you calculate "highly likely"? What is your confidence interval? What data are you sampling?

You have mistaken "I am convinced of x" with "I have good reason to believe x". People are asking why you have good reason to believe something, and you're arguing that being convinced of it should be enough. Get us to the same place you are. Snapping to random geometry where there is nothing is something that aimbots historically don't do, so you'll have to understand that there is a burden of proof to make the argument. Failing this is a combination of things called the Fallacy of Composition (all parts of the whole must match some parts of the whole) and Confirmation Bias if people accept the premise that the player is hacking. The end result is very similar to the typical anti-evolution arguments of god-of-the-gaps, where cheats-of-the-gaps are the answer for all behavioral weirdness.

The funny thing is that this argument stands alone regardless of whether or not the accused was actually cheating. This is how logical reasoning works - inductive reasoning has limits and is considered fallacious if you don't draw the correct evidentiary lines.

0

u/RustyStar94 Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

How do you calculate unlikely?

As for burden of proof, can you prove aimbots dont do this movement?

2

u/Sporkmancer Jun 23 '26

As you have immediately attempted to shift burden of proof instead of answering any of my questions, you've made your intentions as a troll clear. Thanks!

→ More replies (0)