Editing Openai/69434f20-ed90-800d-ab60-60312c9de3dd (section)

=== User: Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue 2 times: ===
Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue 2 times:
# It's backed by the only sources available which is good level of evidence multiple surveys across large samples sizes and multiple countries. It is good enough to be considered empirical evidence.
# How do you qualify this as an assumption and not a logical conclusion?

Then Loctarjay quotes himself:
* Based on the research done, you know, the finishing part of the research you're using for your "Empirical Evidence Streams".
The sources for 3 of those sections are saying that the game industry have financially SUFFERED from the increase in cheaters.

Now Loctarjay responds to the entire thing by saying:
"Funny how you are using AI to do research for you, but you yourself dont even know what the research are actually informing xD

This alone drastically lowers your credibility.

Another thing that drastically lowers your credibility, is your Confirmation Bias Questioning, such as the one you used to get the thread-statistics:"

Then Loctarjay again quotes Captain Blue having said:
"You can ask the following question

"in a 20 player video game, how many players would need to be cheaters to get a cheater appear in nearly every game? (excluding myself as not being a cheater.)""
To which Loctarjay then responds with:
"This shows YOUR question being answered, giving the result you desire - (shares a screenshot of the ai-result that comes from asking the question Captain Blue stated)

Then Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue having said "Yeah but that would still be a concrete stat of the absolute bare minimum required and you can't come up with a single variable that would effect the stats in any major way."
To which Loctarjay responded by saying:
"This shows how WRONG you are in your confirmation biased questioning.
(1st Screenshot reads - (question) Will this result drastically change if out of the 19 enemies, I on average only meet 2 per match? .. (Answer) Short answer: No--The result does not drastically change. The chance of having a cheater in the match depends on how many players are in the lobby, not how many you personally encounter - But your chance of meeting a cheater yourself does depend on how many players you interact with)
(2nd screenshot reads - "Example: Suppose 20% of the playerbase are cheaters" - "Chance a cheater is in your match: 97.2%" - "Chance you meet a cheater among the 2 players you fight:36%" - "So: 1. A cheater is almost always in the match. 2. But you personally only meet one about 1/3 of the time)

The amount of players you meet in a match does DRASTICALLY determine how many "cheaters" YOU SPECIFICALLY run into, which is what YOU base your Preprogrammed World View on....
YOU call every single player YOU GET KILLED BY for "cheater", never giving benefit of doubt or even LOGICALLY looking into ingame mechanics that can explain the situation

Again... The chance of you being right after encountering, on average, 1.5 enemies, is only 33.3%....
This mean there are 66.6% chance of you being wrong and thus it would be illogical to trust you as often as you demand you must be trusted

The fact that you started your response and continued your response with blatant lies, it only makes sense to ignore the rest of your response being that would also be lies to the end"