prespa wrote:
Do you even know what happened? In just an hour or so couple of our LE killing fleets left guild and killed few our LE fleets. Then 300+ LE fleet went berserk and started killing around, until it was killed by few ppl that were online. The guy with biggest IF fleet that suicided was inactive for two days and suicided in 5am (his country time, not ST time). He could have do that anytime he wanted, he didn't have to wake up that early on Saturday morning to do that. And that's my logic, now show me where I'm mistaken.
Let's translate this to a logical format, shall we?
1: Several fleets attacked fleets that are typically considered their preferred target.
2: A levi fleet started killing other fleets.
3: One of the suiciders was offline for two days prior to the event.
4: His suicide occurred early in the morning.
5: He did not have to wake up early to suicide.
6: Therefore, the suicides were all or mostly all the product of cheating.
Allow me to explain the problem. This is not logic. You are giving a list of premises and then stating a conclusion, which is fine; however, none of those premises follow in a deductive format. Let's think about this, shall we? We know that in deductive logic "If P, then Q; P, therefore Q" is true, and that using the aforementioned as a premise we would find that "If P, then R; P, therefore R" would require us to change our deductive conclusion to "If P, then Q or R." Are you still following me? Great. Let's translate our above terms to truth-functional symbolic logic, and then play a bit.
1: A (attacked)
2: L (levi)
3: O (offline)
4: E (early)
5: N (not needed)
6: C (cheating)
Arguably, we should go with your one specific case that bears the most evidence, as that is the only one that you've deigned to provide much exposition on. We can also combine a few premises, as there is no need to keep them separate. Doing so produces this:
1: P (attacked, was previously offline, up early, didn't need to be)
2: Q (cheating)
Therefore, you are stating the following:
1: If P, then Q.
2: P, therefore Q.
That is logically valid. However, there is a problem, as noted earlier, in the fact that Q is not the only possible outcome of P. Consider the following:
1: Attacked other fleets.
2: Was previously offline.
3: Was up early.
4: Did not need to be.
5: Did this to eliminate suspicion of being a spy.
It is entirely logical to state that all of these actions that suggest the person would not have suicided are intentional, as anyone with even moderate intelligence would understand that - as you are clearly demonstrating - doing such things would remove suspicion. If he were online, dropped guild, suicided, joined the other guild, and boasted about his kills, then there is zero possibility that you would ever let him back in, which thus ends his usefulness as a spy. Correct? Whether or not this is true does not matter, as the only thing that matters is that we have a given set of premises that are logically valid, and which produce the conclusion of S - spy.
1: If P, then S.
2: P, therefore S.
We must now amend our previous logical statement to the following:
1: If P, then Q or S.
2: P, therefore Q or S.
Utilizing proper logic, we have now reached the conclusion that he is either a spy or that the other side was cheating. You cannot assert one unless you can disprove the other, which means that the assertion of cheating is illogical. Furthermore, I would like to note that you are using abductive reasoning in asserting that P necessitates Q, as there is not a necessary connection between the two when examined in the totality of the circumstance. You are stating that all of these things
strongly suggest that the other side cheated; there is no logical necessitation, and thus your statement is in fact illogical.
Thanks for playing.
Ribbentrop, away!
"That's what I do. I drink and I know things."
Or...is there anything to suggest Epsi might find themselves in smaller factions once again?
Shhh!!!!
Thanks Ribbentrop. I think you may have taken some of the fun out of the thread but... considering the alternative of prespa posting again and again 
I suppose it can't hurt. Although if prespa can't understand my posts (which he thought were complex) I may find it slightly surprising if he understands what you just came up with. I for one prefer my posts not to sound so scientific. lol.