Enter "Suspected Botter" then disable them from changing it until they've given sufficient evidence that they are in fact not botting.
How exactly would you prove that you are not doing something?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the whole debate, I know I'm beating a dead horse (probably not alone in that ), I would shift a lot more blame on Anet for just not doing much/enough/anything about botting. The fact that they let it happen just encourages it more, so it's not surprising to see it. Sure I don't expect active development on GW, but they could have an intern ban the bots as a little regular task like washing dishes. I know they obviously don't care but i think they absolutely should. The game still generates money (however little it may be), it is linked to the game they do still care about and also GW is kinda like Anet's WoW Classic. I would make the uneducated guess that now, over 10 years past the release of GW2, Guild Wars is past its all-time low of active players. Gaming in general got so shit over the last decade or longer, GW with its pure and oldschool feeling is actually refreshing. Another thing is that if Anet banned bots, it could/would have a positive effect on how GW is perceived and show that they care.
The 'dead game' argument, while I do understand where it's coming from, is bad both coming from Anet and players on here. The fact that people still play the game and care enough to post here means that it isn't dead (call me overly idealistic idc). The other thing about it is that it promotes this defeatist attitude that can ultimately be interpreted in a way that makes botting look ok, since 'it's just a dead game anyway'.
The 'the economy depends on bots' argument I think is really dumb and a non-argument: In the current economy with all the bots, yes, obviously they are a very big part of it. If we now imagine a hypothetical GW without bots they would just not be a part of it. The economy would be different and players would adapt. Simple as that. Also, like the 'dead game' argument, this one also makes an excuse for bots.