>>107658933Trying to one to one compare metrics of a stream that just ended to a stream from a month ago, which will have had variable growth based the algo. Should be enough to make even you realize how stupid you're being. That's incredibly basic, and really invalidates any argument you're trying to make.
"Like ratios" vary heavily based on content, audience, creator, etc. We've seen them vary heavily from the same person, depending on context. Like how long the frame was up for, for example. Context is something you always ignore. You've also never provided any data for what ratios are reasonable or a margin of error, with any kind of backing, you've always just made it up. This one with this ratio is botted because you want it to be, this other stream with same ratio wasn't though, because you didn't want it to be.
This isn't like the streams with hundred of likes after 8 hours and 20-30k ccv, with a few hundred chatters and less then 10 chats per minute.
You've also been shown plenty of examples of streams steadily incline for a few hours, long before the engine existed. It's not uncommon. It can be a sign it's being engined, especially when the incline is extreme and linear, but a slow steady incline is never going to be conclusive. Yet you always treat any amount of incline as 100% conclusive proof regardless of context. When you want it to be of course.
I know you don't care about any of this because you are either just a shitposter, or just too genuinely unintelligent to second guess yourself or question a conclusion you started with. Functionally there's no difference. I think you just fell for shitposts and have to much pride to accept that so you keep doubling down
