Comment by lovich

Thank you for pointing that out. I was unaware.

I like how these hacks like to pretend that we need to treat every engagement with them in a vacuum with their reputation intact and being given the opportunity of good faith after lying repeatedly. I don’t know the name for the fallacy but it’s like some expectation that we are in single events for game theory instead of an iterated game where we can respond to previous behavior.

For `hagbard_c1, you’re using a source that’s lied repeatedly, not gonna waste time debunking more of their information and I am going to assume any suggested solutions based off their data is also incorrect.