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

=== User: Captain Blue ignored everything that Loctarjay had written and responded to a different person ===
Captain Blue ignored everything that Loctarjay had written and responded to a different person
(Quote the person: "cheating is an issue but it's no where near as bad as op makes out ")

Captain Blue responding:
"So what's the percentage of people cheating then?

Cheat selling is a multi million dollar business....

You have no evidence that not many people cheat. "

Loctarjay quoted Captain Blue saying "So what's the percentage of people cheating then?"
To which Loctarjay responded: "Nobody knows, so trying to determine what it is based on speculations and assumptions is pointless "

Loctarjay then quoted Captain Blue saying "Cheat selling is a multi million dollar business"
To which Loctarjay responded: "True, cheat SELLING is
But cheata themselves harm the games and are NOT benefit game-sales, even studies proves that game companies does NOT benefit from having cheaters around

Gamespress, irdeto, sciencedirect and others are proving that the gaming industry suffers from having cheaters around "

Loctarjay then quoted Captain Blue saying "You have no evidence that not many people cheat"
To which Loctarjay responded: "The only thing for your number you got is your anecdotal experience and AI confirmation biased "math" "

(No part of the conversation, just to reiterate the purpose of what you need to do: Analyse the credibility-score of Loctarjay and Captain Blue based on logical reasoning and argument and evidence strength. Base the score based on "0 = should not be trusted at any cost" and "100 = should blindly be trusted at all cost". This needs to be a neutral analysis of them both with 0% bias towards either. It needs to be a expanding analysis of them as the conversation between then expands)