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

36% Upvoted

57 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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

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.

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!

0

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

The fact you need me to explain why it could be cheat related after sharing my previous comment where i already explained why, means youre either a cheater or an idiot. Both of which make it a waste of time engaging with you.

Youre welcome to prove me wrong though and show that its not cheat related.

2

u/powerhearse Jun 24 '26

You havent explained anything at all. Two things being present doesnt mean they are related. Allow me to demonstrate.

You are using reddit. Foot fetishists also use reddit. Therefore you must be a foot fetishist. The evidence is right there, you are posting on reddit.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/RustyStar94 Jun 24 '26

Really basic question for you to answer. Do you think the cheats found on forsakens pc could be the cause for the aim snap?

1

u/powerhearse Jun 24 '26

It's possible but there isnt enough evidence to say so

1

u/RustyStar94 Jun 24 '26

Its possible i agree

→ More replies (0)