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

=== Assistant: Short credibility evaluation of this single statement test ===
===== Short credibility evaluation of this single statement (test) =====

====== Key issues identified ======
* Misrepresentation: Attributes to Loctarjay a claim (“hardly exists at all”) that is not stated here.
* False dilemma: Implies only “high prevalence” vs “hardly any cheating,” excluding intermediate positions.
* Non-quantifying evidence: Uses bans, cheat profits, and tech advancement to imply high prevalence without proportional linkage.
* Speculative inference: Assumes gameplay behavior (movement, confidence, code names) without falsifiable support.
* Internal inconsistency: Claims encounter rate is irrelevant, then repeatedly argues encounter likelihood.

====== Logical positives ======
* Correctly distinguishes existence vs encounter in principle.
* Acknowledges uncertainty and variables (but does not resolve them analytically).

===== Credibility impact (incremental) =====
* Captain Blue: −4 points - Reason: Strawman + speculative leap from existence indicators to prevalence claims.

(No change to Loctarjay — he is only referenced, not contributing a new argument here.)

===== Bottom line =====

This passage weakens Captain Blue’s credibility due to misattribution of opponent positions and unsupported escalation from facts to numeric conclusions.