a person has been engaged in (malfeasance) based on specific articulable facts
_____________________________________________-
after i committed espionage on enshula

enshula bombed airbases 15 times
then a person who had no involvement with me immediately bombed airbases repeatedly
both countries lost many spies because of their low spal

enshula bombed airbases again
and the third party bombed airbases two hours later
again both took many spy losses

enshula did not bomb airbases again
neither did the third party

bombing airbases is unusual
bombing airbases of someone who hasnt hit u is very unusual
the likelihood that the third party engaged in a random simultaneous campaign is close to 0
________________________________________________
see the bugs and suggestions thread for enshula's admission that this in fact happened
_______________________________________________

the articulable fact is the unusual twin spy op campaigns

the ingame allegation does not give rise in itself to an articulble suspicion but does color our understanding of the fact of the twin campaigns

we also look at how people respond to allegations
is their response at all deceptive?
in this case enshula made the deceptive claim that I was saying his playing a theo casher was evidence of a multi
such a claim would be preposterous
when he knew i was talking about the spy op strategy

no wonder havoc was misled into making his post
many were probably misled into thinking the allegation had no merit

but as i said there may be an innocent explanation
maybe the country was merely an obedient friend

but if that were the case the reasonable man would simply admit and say my ally helped me
that was not enshula's response
________________________________________________
the appropriate analogy is enshula's ford was involved in a driveby, and we know that a total stranger engaged in a simultaneous driveby. enshula engaged in a drive by and so did the mysterious stranger a short time later. Then both miscreants stopped their campaigns.

is there an articulable suspicion that the campaigns were coordinated?
absolutely

is it proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the stranger was a multi and not an ally?
no