I’m glad you quoted that, as it’s a point I’ve made myself.
“Professional” botting organisations view the bans merely as a cost of doing business - now that’s a double edge sword.
On the one hand, it means that so long as that cost is lower than the profit, then the botting will continue, and the community will (rightly or wrongly) feel like nothing has been accomplished. That’s bad.
On the other hand, if the cost could be made higher than the profit, then the (money driven) botters would stop (at least).
Why I tend to be so against anti-botting measures that impact legitimate players (some crazy ideas on this very forum have included forcing players to solve captcha puzzles when both entering and leaving games for example), is my expectation that the cost of botting will probably always be lower than the profit to be made from it - meaning the impact on legitimate players is largely futile.
So, the automated systems you refer to in your hopes of drastically reducing botting, will (imho) only make a difference the playing community can see, if they can increase the cost of botting above the profit threshold.
At that point then, the support for such anti-botting measures in the community, will (again, imho) be directly proportional to the frequency of false bans players endure, and the speed with which those false bans can be removed.
So, what you’re best case scenario would be is: an automated system with a rapid rate of bot banning, with almost no false positives, with simple and speedy overturns of false bans, that therefore enjoys broad community support despite the occasional inconvenience it also imposes.
If that’s possible, then I’m all in and all for it - but I have my doubts over whether it is, indeed, possible.