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

=== User: Re-evaluate their scores from the very beginning ===
(Re-evaluate their scores from the very beginning)
(add this to evaluate them both)

Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue "Here is the video of the unedited chat GPT conversation of Loctar before he some how wiped all the messages I put in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fzM3206LxI"
To which Loctarjay responds:
" I just went through your video, and at 3:17 you are writing something that does NOT exist in the conversation at all.......

YOU WRITE:
# I JUST realized that your probability is demanding you meet every 18 enemy every single match" This is incorrect, the conversation was stated about having a cheater in your game not running into the cheater. The following probability assumes you run into only 1 player. But Loctar doesn't have a basis for how many players you could run into due to map size or objectives that could push people together or apart. There are too many variables to correctly determine how many people you run into. However that's not the point. It's not about running into a cheater but how many are in the game with you. Then from there we could make a few logical assumptions such as the more players you kill would increase the odds of running into potentially 1 out of 3 cheaters. Moving to high loot areas or common quest areas could also increase the chances of running into a cheater. The cheater themselves would kill faster and move around more efficiently due to confidence and wall hacks further increasing odds of running into a cheater. There also some more logical assumptions although many may consider them reaching or not plausible. That being code names that cheaters could use such as _ - , <3 or other symbols used by generated accounts that get sold to cheaters. These names could be used to ignore other cheaters in the game if there were any, causing a greater chance to run into a cheater. "Loctarjay accurately questions the reliability of outdated anticheat studies and potential marketing bias.
# Loctarjay brings up the idea that there are too many variables (like map size, objectives, and encounter mechanics) to fully guarantee you'd meet a certain number of players in every match. The core focus here is on the probability of encountering a cheater based on the number of" he isnot bringing that up Captain Blue is
# Do you recognise that Loctarjay shifted the goal posts away from how many cheaters are in game to having to meet all 18 players?
# But by changing the frame to changes the conclusion which is the goal, correct?
# Put it this way. My argument is about the percentage of players that need to be cheating in order to get around 1 cheater every game. That's it. Loctarjay is trying to claim I need to run into all 18 players which isn't my argument.
# The argument about actually meeting a cheater is different argument that requires different assumptions and questions. Loctjay has not inputted any of my arguments for this point. Would you consider this to be a fallacious form of attack on me (Captain blue)? He is trying to undermine my point by changing the frame but doesn't even include the logic as previously mentioned *Then from there we could make a few logical assumptions such as the more players you kill would increase the odds of running into potentially 1 out of 3 cheaters. Moving to high loot areas or common quest areas could also increase the chances of running into a cheater. The cheater themselves would kill faster and move around more efficiently due to confidence and wall hacks further increasng the odds of running into a cheater. There are also some more logical assumptions although many may consider them reaching or not plausible. That being code names that cheaters could use such as having _ - , <3 or other symbols used by generated accounts that get sold to cheaters. These names could be used to ignore other cheaters in the game if there were any, causing a greater chance to ruin into a cheater"
# So what would the credibility rating be now given this new information?
# is it accurate to reduce Loctarjay's credibility to moderate when the Whole reason he has initiated this chatGPT conversation is to appeal to an AO for the authority in order misrepresent my arguments and use your response to say I'm not credible?[/quote]
And then Captain Blue claims that I am manipulating the ChatGPT in order to favor it my way, when he is literally pulling away from the entire purpose of what I was doing = simply use our thread-responses to each other in order to see which of us have the most logical and reasonable arguments against what the other one was saying.
Captain Blue is PURPOSELY adding in things that are NOT part of this steam thread, which I have absolutely no way of defending myself against in order to create his own echo chamber and have ChatGPT respond exactly what he wants to hear, just like he did with the probability that started this entire thread.

For transparency, I then chose to make a test that says it should interject what Captain Blue was writing into ChatGPT at the exact spot, BUT then continue the analysis with the already prompted thread-responses....
# https://ibb.co/gMz6W1Db
# https://ibb.co/9kRX14H5
Recalculated Scores (Under This Test)
Loctarjay: 67 / 100
Captain Blue: 14 / 100

Asking the question:
"With this new hypothetical test, where Captain Blue is changing the prompt of ChatGPT instead of continuing the forum-response thread as was the original purpose.
Would it be logical to assume that he did that in order to skewer the result in his own favor, or is that a far stretch to consider?

(Short format answer and give the credibility-score together with the change to it)"

The result ended out being = https://ibb.co/5xhThBkF + https://ibb.co/0WpcX45
Updated Scores (Hypothetical Test)
Loctarjay: 67 / 100 (unchanged)
Captain Blue: 11 / 100 (−3)

So even AFTER Captain Blue have purposely altered the entire analytical perspective, from originally being NEUTRAL to purposely prompting messages that targets me (Loctarjay) in a negative way, the score is NOT in his favor at all.... Try as he might.... There seems to be absolutely NO redemption for him"

(do NOT use the result from the hypothetical test as what their score actually is - calculate their credibility based on the original criteria and then use the manipulated text to judge Captain Blue and NOT Loctarjay, seeing that the manipulated text does NOT exist within the forum thread and Captain Blue used that as authoritative methods to gain grounds against Loctarjay to which Loctarjay had absolutely no way of defending himself against what Captain Blue inputted)