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

=== User: Not part of the conversation - You are still taking the quotes into the calculation, based on the result you just gave,… ===
(Not part of the conversation - You are still taking the quotes into the calculation, based on the result you just gave, Loctarjay went up by 2% because of the thing Captain Blue quoted. You are ONLY to use what they each respond with, said different: When it uses "quote" then you dont add that to the evaluation, when it uses "respond" then you add that to the evaluation, of the respective party)

(Conversation continues)
Captain Blue quotes Loctarjay saying "And that literally is the confirmation bias xD
Because you need to rate to be high, so you are giving a high proportion xD
You are NOT giving an objective and unbiased view of the situation... you are deliberately adding unnecessary things, in order to make it fit your Preprogrammed World View xD"
To this Captain Blue responds with:
"I asked for results for 15% up to 60%... All the evidence supports 30 -40% of people cheat in video games so I took the lower value as a starting point. It's not confirmation bias."

Loctarjay quotes this from Captain Blue: "Dude this is so dumb bro...

What are you doing man...

So your answer is YOU DON'T KNOW. SO how do you know I'm not being killed by a cheater nearly every game?"
To which Loctarjay responds with:
"Wait what.... did you literally just admit to have failed the basics in school = READING COMPREHENSION

You are literally admitting you ONLY read "I dont know what happened" and completely ignored that it was THE SAME LINK GIVEN TWICE, which is what I cannot explain why is.......
Follow by me literally giving you the correct link, which directly explains to you that it is STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to die to a cheater as often as you claim you're doing xD"

Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue "It's not confirmation bias to to see what the rates of being killed every game by a cheater is based on cheater percentage.."
To which Loctarjay responds:
"When you deliberately are fabricating a cheater-rate, which has never been confirmed by any source and are pure speculation and guess-work...
Yes, that is Confirmation Bias"

Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue "I asked for results for 15% up to 60%... All the evidence supports 30 -40% of people cheat in video games so I took the lower value as a starting point. It's not confirmation bias."
To which Loctarjay responds:
"Give the sources that directly supports "30 - 40% of people cheat in video games"
Sources that share their methodology, data sampling size, their country-samples and so on"

Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue "I asked for results for 15% up to 60%... All the evidence supports 30 -40% of people cheat in video games so I took the lower value as a starting point. It's not confirmation bias."
Now Loctarjay responds by expanding with this:
"Sure thing... let's see what sources your AI-Wife can find:

Are there any sources that share a world wide % of players in video games that are confirmed to be cheating, which also share their sources, methodology, sample size and such things?
(Answer in short format)

Short answer — yes. A few reputable sources that publish a worldwide/large-scale '''percent''' or rate '''and''' explain sources, methods and sample sizes:

* '''Chess.com — “Estimating Cheating Rates in Titled Tuesday” (Fair Play report).'''
''Findings:'' estimated cheating rate ≲2% in most events; ''methods:'' statistical outcome model + hundreds of thousands of simulated games; ''sample:'' Titled Tuesday events over a year (4,340 participants in one year window); full methodology & numbers published. ([Chess.com][1])

* **Kim et al. (LSE / ''Network Science'') — “Cheating in online gaming spreads through observation and victimization.”**
''Findings:'' analysis of cheating contagion; ''methods:'' digital-trace / event-sequence analysis; ''sample:'' '''>1 million matches''' from an FPS — data and method detailed in the paper. ([LSE Research Online][2])
(Loctarjay took this from the PDF: Cheaters represent a small proportion of all players but are
responsible for disproportionately more killings: 0.46% of the killings that were not self-kills were
done by cheaters (453,071 out of 97,841,185; in comparison, cheaters were killed 98,349 times).

* '''Platform / developer anti-cheat reports (examples): Ubisoft / Rainbow Six Siege.'''
''Findings:'' periodic public ban / detection counts; ''methods:'' breakdowns of BattlEye / data-ban numbers and reporting windows; ''sample:'' monthly game-wide ban datasets (charts and notes). Useful when you want operational detection rates and transparency about what “bans” count as. ([Ubisoft][3])
(They dont have any actual numbers to pull from, just their own statement from their own software)

* '''Publisher/anti-cheat press releases / updates (example: EA / Battlefield6 Javelin stats).'''
''Findings:'' published metrics like Match Infection Rate (MIR ≈2%) and blocked-attempt counts; ''methods:'' describes detection systems and what MIR measures (detected cheats vs. true prevalence) — includes raw counts so you can inspect numerator/denominator assumptions. (Note: MIR measures ''detected'' cheating, with methodology caveats.) ([Windows Central][4])
(Loctarjay this from the site: A big reason for this "successful disruption of the cheater community" was the ability to test and improve Javelin during Battlefield 6's Open Beta weekends in August, during which over 1.2 million cheating attempts were thwarted, and the number of cheater-free matches rose from 93.1% to 98% by the time the beta was concluding.)

If you want, I can fetch the '''exact sections''' (page/figure) that show sample size, method and the raw numbers from any one of these reports — tell me which one and I’ll pull the relevant excerpt.

[1]: https://www.chess.com/blog/FairPlay/chess-com-fair-play-report-estimating-cheating-rates-in-titled-tuesday?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Estimating Cheating Rates in Titled Tuesday"
[2]: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/113379/1/cheating_in_online_gaming_spreads_through_observation_and_victimization.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Cheating in online gaming spreads through observation ..."
[3]: https://www.ubisoft.com/en-us/game/rainbow-six/siege/news-updates/5qvlxKyY2lrwO218uAWaFb/anticheat-status-update-june-2022?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Anti-Cheat Status Update - June 2022"
[4]: https://www.windowscentral.com/gaming/battlefield-6-says-its-kernel-level-anticheat-ea-javelin-has-been-a-huge-success?utm_source=chatgpt.com "\"Successful disruption of the cheater community\" - Battlefield 6 says its kernel-level anticheat EA Javelin has been a huge success, so dealing with Secure Boot was worth it""