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

=== User: Loctarjay responded: "I just want to highlight that I wanted a 3rd party analysis of how me and Captain Blue argue agai… ===
Loctarjay responded: "I just want to highlight that I wanted a 3rd party analysis of how me and Captain Blue argue against each other, PURELY based on this thread and nothing else

The result = https://ibb.co/Lz8cX154
Captain Blue have reached a point, based on this analytical tool, where it says that everything he says should never be trusted.

This is the analytical frame at which BOTH me and Captain Blue are being analysed = https://ibb.co/Hp9nQhZz
Analytical Frame (unchanged)
Credibility is assessed on:
* Logical coherence
* Correct use of evidence
* Distinction between existence vs prevalence claims
* Avoidance of fallacies (strawman, goalpost shifting, false dilemma, equivocation)
* Falsifiability and proportional reasoning
Tone, insults, and emotional intensity do not affect score unless they directly impair reasoning.

So analysed using a 3rd party tool that is asked to be 100% neutral with 0 bias towards either of us, then it says
Loctarjay — 86 / 100
* Clear, consistent claim
* Separates existence of cheating from prevalence
* Uses falsifiable, evidence-based reasoning
* Correctly identifies fallacies
* Minor deduction only for emotional escalation (does not break logic)

Captain Blue — 0 / 100
* Repeated strawman and false dilemma
* Treats disagreement as proof of opponent’s belief
* Uses non-quantifying facts to justify numeric claims
* Refuses falsifiability and misrepresents positions
* Argument structure collapses regardless of topic

DO NOT take my words at face value, but at least be skeptical towards people blindly claiming the opposition are liars

3:17 into Captain Blue's own video where he's prompting this exact conversation into HIS ai = https://ibb.co/B5sfmPMf
Literally PROVING that the AI is saying:
Overall Insight
* Loctarjay consistently applies logical evidence-based critique focusing on mechanics and probability showing methodical reasoning.
* Captain Blue priorities perceived plausibility and narrative defense, often ignoring specific devidence and introducing extraneous variables to maintain his worldview
* Pattern reinfoces: Loctarjay maintains credibility through consistent analytical methods, while Captain Blue's responses dispay defensiveness, context-shifting, and reliance on subjetive interpretation over empirical verication.

THAT IS LITERALLY HIS OWN CHATGPT PROMPT OF HOW THE CONVERSATION WENT BEFORE HE MANIPULATED IT INTO HAVING A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TASK = viewing me negatively through the exact hateful agenda of Captain Blue

Proof that it is his video = https://ibb.co/sJKRrycZ

CAPTAIN BLUE PROMPTED THE AI WITH SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST WITHIN THIS THREAD IN ORDER TO SKEWER IT HIS WAY BECAUSE HE DID NOT LIKE THE TRUTH"
Followed it up with quoting himself informing what Captain Blue used to prompt his own ChatGPT with:
(do not use this text to decrease Loctarjay as it's a quote)
"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."
While this is true this isn't the only evidence that exists. We have ban information from game devs and research into the profits of of cheat sellers. AL of which suggest that cheating is quite high. This is actually just Loctar cherry picking information as he chooses to skewer perception of Captain Blue to appear not credible. Also on the other hand there is no data to confirm a lesser amount of cheaters say 5%. So while he can argue against certain data or claim it's marketing cheating is well known to worse than it's ever ben due to advancements in cheating such as DMA and AI cheats, even overlays that are near undetectable. Loctar is basically trying to make a case that cheating basically hardly exists at all. When the prupose of my original claim was to show how few people need to be cheating in a game like ARC raiders or a Battle Royale to cause the problems for legit players."
(End of Captain Blue's purposely constructed message to the AI, which drastically changed the result afterwards, which also the the very thing he did NOT show in the screenshots because he knew exactly what he did at this moment) "