[{"_1":2,"_186":-5,"_187":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_58":59,"_185":-5},"root",{"_5":6,"_21":-5,"_22":-5,"_23":24,"_41":-5,"_42":-5,"_43":-5,"_44":45,"_54":55,"_56":57},"env",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":12,"_13":14,"_15":16,"_17":18,"_19":20},"SUPABASE_URL","https://hello.websim.com","SUPABASE_KEY","eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJzdXBhYmFzZSIsInJlZiI6Im9jamVmZ2NqamlxeWt3YWR2dnJkIiwicm9sZSI6ImFub24iLCJpYXQiOjE3MTE4MzI5OTMsImV4cCI6MjAyNzQwODk5M30.vsreOYwk8pKsr8NFlzpIzWAiD-vXj6ijv_Bhn1vYtHs","POSTHOG_KEY","phc_VHMOlrdxAbgSZHeF0SdSf07LZLRLAg5pZuTHkJGn050","POSTHOG_API_HOST","https://e.wbsm.ai","POSTHOG_UI_HOST","https://app.posthog.com","GOOGLE_OAUTH_CLIENT_ID","891181648870-i708rj1bgjol84hie20shfr4u4ecf3o7.apps.googleusercontent.com","ACTIVITY_DIRECT_PAGEVIEW","on","authUser","user","snapshotData",{"_25":-5,"_26":-5,"_27":-5,"_28":-5,"_29":-5,"_30":-5,"_31":-5,"_32":-5,"_33":-5,"_34":-5,"_35":-5,"_36":-5,"_37":-5,"_38":-5,"_39":-5,"_40":-5},"lastProjectId","sidebarTab","homepageTab","pinSidebar","settingsOpen","maximized","assetsExpanded","focusedAssetFilename","authError","authErrorCode","authErrorDescription","sidebarWidth","videoMuted","videoVolume","navigationContext","hasSeenFeedOnboarding","plan","balances","rewards","origins",{"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53},"origin","https://websim.com","apiOrigin","https://api.websim.com","contentOrigin","https://{PROJECT_ID}.c.websim.com","appDomainOrigin","https://{SUBDOMAIN}.on.websim.com","isMobile",false,"theme","auto","slug",{"_60":61,"_62":63,"_118":119,"_139":140,"_177":178,"_179":-5,"_180":181,"_182":183},"version","1","project",{"_64":62,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_80":81,"_82":83,"_84":85,"_86":87,"_88":89,"_90":-5,"_91":-5,"_92":-5,"_93":-5,"_94":95,"_96":97,"_58":106,"_107":95,"_108":95,"_109":55,"_110":-5,"_111":-5,"_112":-5,"_113":114,"_115":-5,"_116":-5,"_117":55},"_type","id","4cys241rarnb3hb1hwsg","created_at","2026-07-26T20:33:22.023Z","created_by",{"_64":22,"_65":71,"_72":73,"_67":74,"_75":76,"_77":-5,"_78":-5,"_79":55},"dfe79059-c9fa-4fe3-a80f-ca0c5efd6c79","username","turniphead","2024-07-09T09:02:46.069Z","avatar_url","https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/ACg8ocLNiG_Eo06c9eCWWcKvqIf2NTh1wfFPOlo_KzX-ED70tctwLzhS=s96-c","discord_username","discord_id","is_admin","updated_at","2026-07-27T12:34:42.543Z","title","Debate Fallacy Game","comments_mode","open","visibility","public","current_version",15,"last_posted_version","parent_id","parent_version","deleted_at","posted",true,"stats",{"_98":99,"_100":66,"_101":102,"_103":104,"_105":102},"~type","project_stats","project_id","views",1,"likes",0,"comments","debate-fallacy-game","auto_set_current","allow_automatic_improvements","board_enabled","description","generated_description","from_template","domains",[],"thumbnail","video","has_active_experiment","project_revision",{"_64":118,"_65":120,"_60":89,"_67":121,"_122":-5,"_91":-5,"_123":124,"_125":66,"_69":126,"_127":128,"_100":66,"_80":129,"_93":-5,"_96":130,"_132":55,"_133":134,"_135":-5,"_136":-5,"_137":138},"019fa381-e5b5-7fe3-8024-0445559980cb","2026-07-27T12:17:06.997Z","visited_at","parent_revision_version",14,"parent_revision_project_id",{"_64":22,"_65":71,"_72":73,"_67":74,"_75":76,"_77":-5,"_78":-5,"_79":55},"meta",{"_60":61},"2026-07-27T12:45:37.891Z",{"_131":104},"multiplayer_count","draft","site_id","s7kvT1Qwhe3YUhzrb","chat_session_id","chat_session_run_index","current_screenshot_url","https://project-screenshots.websim.com/019fa39a-8a69-78e3-993e-aea675510f6f","site",{"_64":139,"_65":134,"_91":141,"_67":142,"_143":144,"_145":146,"_147":148,"_82":160,"_161":162,"_163":164,"_169":-5,"_170":171,"_172":173,"_93":-5,"_174":175,"_176":-5},"n5djdrfIEvKhMrKCd","2026-07-27T12:17:22.739Z","state","done","model","kimi-k2","lore",{"_60":102,"_149":150,"_151":55,"_152":55,"_153":95,"_154":55,"_155":55,"_156":55,"_157":55,"_158":55,"_159":55},"attachments",[],"enableMultiplayer_v2","enableMobilePrompt","enableLLM2","enableComments","enableVideo","enableApi","enableTweaks","enableDB","enableDB_v2_1","","owner",{"_64":22,"_65":71,"_72":73,"_67":74,"_75":76,"_77":-5,"_78":-5,"_79":55},"prompt",{"_165":166,"_167":168},"type","plaintext","text","The referre doesent count my fallices, please fix this","url","link_url","/p/4cys241rarnb3hb1hwsg","versioned_link_url","/p/4cys241rarnb3hb1hwsg/15","yapping","The user says the referee doesn't count fallacies. Looking at the code, there are several issues:\n\n1. In `detectFallacies`, the function checks if hints are substrings of the user's text. But many hints are phrases like \"you're stupid\", \"experts say\", etc. This is probably working for obvious phrases but the user may be typing things that don't match exactly.\n\n2. More importantly, in `aiRespond`, when a fallacy is detected, the referee counts are incremented and `renderReferee` is called. But the problem might be that the count display in `renderReferee` shows the total count, which should work.\n\nWait, looking more carefully: In `aiRespond`, when `detected.length > 0`:\n- It registers only first new fallacy for main game\n- It tallies all detections: `detected.forEach(d=>{ referee.counts[d.key] = (referee.counts[d.key] || 0) + 1; });`\n- Then calls `renderReferee()`\n\nBut in the submit handler, there's also logic:\n```javascript\nif(state.mode === \"sneak\" && detected.length > 0 && Math.random() < 0.35){\n // Debating AI sees none\n await aiRespond([], text);\n // but referee still notes the attempt\n detected.forEach(d=>{\n referee.counts[d.key] = (referee.counts[d.key] || 0) + 1;\n addRefereeMessage(`Referee: sneaked detection recorded for ${d.name} (match: ${d.match})`);\n });\n renderReferee();\n } else {\n // normal flow: both see detections\n if(detected.length > 0){\n detected.forEach(d=>{\n referee.counts[d.key] = (referee.counts[d.key] || 0) + 1;\n });\n renderReferee();\n }\n await aiRespond(detected, text);\n }\n```\n\nThere's double-counting here! In normal flow, the submit handler increments counts, then `aiRespond` increments them again. So counts go up by 2 each time. But the user says counts don't work at all.\n\nActually wait - maybe the issue is that `renderReferee` is being called but the ranking list shows 0? Let me look at `resetReferee`:\n```javascript\nfunction resetReferee(){\n referee.counts = {};\n FALLACIES.forEach(f=> referee.counts[f.key] = 0);\n referee.log = [];\n if(refereeComments) refereeComments.innerHTML = \"\";\n if(refereeRanking) refereeRanking.innerHTML = \"\";\n}\n```\n\nThis initializes counts to 0. Then in submit handler and aiRespond, counts are incremented.\n\nHmm, the issue might actually be in `renderReferee`:\n```javascript\nfunction renderReferee(){\n if(!refereeRanking) return;\n // sort by count desc\n const ranking = Object.keys(referee.counts).map(k=>({key:k,count:referee.counts[k],name: FALLACIES.find(f=>f.key===k).name}));\n ranking.sort((a,b)=>b.count - a.count);\n refereeRanking.innerHTML = \"\";\n ranking.forEach((r, idx)=>{\n const row = document.createElement(\"div\");\n ...\n row.textContent = `${idx+1}. ${r.name}`;\n const c = document.createElement(\"div\");\n ...\n c.textContent = r.count;\n row.appendChild(c);\n refereeRanking.appendChild(row);\n });\n}\n```\n\nThis looks fine. It creates rows and appends count.\n\nBut wait, in the submit handler normal flow:\n```javascript\nif(detected.length > 0){\n detected.forEach(d=>{\n referee.counts[d.key] = (referee.counts[d.key] || 0) + 1;\n });\n renderReferee();\n}\nawait aiRespond(detected, text);\n```\n\nThen in `aiRespond`:\n```javascript\nif(detected.length === 0){\n ...\n} else {\n const f = detected[0];\n detected.forEach(d=>{\n referee.counts[d.key] = (referee.counts[d.key] || 0) + 1;\n });\n ...\n renderReferee();\n}\n```\n\nSo counts are incremented twice in normal mode. In sneak mode, counts are incremented in submit handler and then again in aiRespond's else branch? No - in sneak mode `aiRespond([], text)` is called, so detected.length is 0, so no increment in aiRespond. Then submit handler increments.\n\nBut the user says the referee doesn't count fallacies. Maybe the actual issue is that the fallacy detection is too strict/substring based and doesn't catch natural language. But the user says \"doesn't count\" not \"doesn't detect\".\n\nActually, looking at the code flow again: in `aiRespond`, after the `detected.length === 0` branch, there's the else branch for detected fallacies. But the issue could be that `renderReferee()` is being called before `aiRespond` in the submit handler, and then the referee comments are appended but `renderReferee` inside `aiRespond` might be the issue.\n\nWait - I think I see a real bug. In `aiRespond`, the detected fallacy is processed, but if `detected` contains a fallacy that was already used, it still increments the referee count. That should be fine.\n\nLet me reconsider. The user says \"The referre doesent count my fallices, please fix this\". The most likely issue from a user perspective is that the count stays at 0. Why would that happen?\n\n1. Maybe `referee.counts` isn't being updated because `detectFallacies` returns empty. But if that were the case, the AI would say \"I can't respond right now\" or give a normal reply, not a fallacy detection reply. Actually if detection returns empty, the debater AI responds normally.\n\n2. Maybe there's a race condition or the `renderReferee` isn't being called. But it is.\n\n3. Maybe the count IS incrementing but the display doesn't update because of the double-increment? No, the display should still update.\n\nHmm, let me look at the `renderReferee` function once more. Oh! I see it. The `row.textContent` is set to `${idx+1}. ${r.name}`, then a `c` div is created and appended. But when you set `textContent` on `row`, it replaces all child content. Wait no - `textContent` is set first, then `appendChild(c)` is called, so `c` is appended after the text. That should work.\n\nActually wait, there's a subtle issue: `row.textContent = `${idx+1}. ${r.name}`;` replaces any existing children, but there are none at that point. Then `row.appendChild(c)` adds the count. So the final content is \"1. Ad Hominem [count]\". That should work.\n\nLet me think about the actual bug. Maybe it's that in the submit handler, when `detected.length > 0` in normal flow, we increment counts and render. Then `aiRespond` also increments counts and renders. So the count goes up by 2 for each fallacy. But the user says it doesn't count at all.\n\nActually, I wonder if the issue is that `aiRespond` is called with `detected` but the first branch checks `if(detected.length === 0)`. If the user types a fallacy and detection works, it goes to else. But maybe the user is experiencing that the AI doesn't say \"I detected X\" because in sneak mode 35% of the time the AI doesn't see it, and the user thinks the referee isn't counting.\n\nOr maybe the issue is in `renderReferee`: the ranking sort doesn't update because all counts are 0. If counts were being incremented, it would show.\n\nLet me try a different angle. Maybe the issue is that `refereeComments` and `refereeRanking` are being referenced but they exist. Let me check the HTML... Yes they exist.\n\nWait! I think I found it. In `resetReferee`, the function sets `referee.counts = {}` and initializes. But in `aiRespond` and the submit handler, the code does `referee.counts[d.key] = (referee.counts[d.key] || 0) + 1;`. This should work.\n\nActually, I think the most likely explanation is that the user typed something like \"you're an idiot\" and the detection didn't trigger because the hint is \"you're stupid\" or \"you are an idiot\", but \"you're an idiot\" doesn't match \"you are an idiot\" exactly. The hints are too specific.\n\nBut the user specifically says \"doesn't count\", implying it detects but doesn't count. Hmm.\n\nLet me look at the code one more time for any obvious bug that would prevent counting. \n\nOh! In `aiRespond`, when a fallacy is detected:\n```javascript\nif(state.mode === \"incite\"){\n angerDelta += 12 + Math.floor(Math.random()*8);\n reply = `I detected a ${f.name}. That's a weak move.`;\n ...\n} else {\n angerDelta += 4 + Math.floor(Math.random()*4);\n reply = `I think there's a ${f.name} there. Be careful — I'm noting them.`;\n}\n```\n\nThen later:\n```javascript\nconst repeats = [];\nFALLACIES.forEach(f=>{\n for(const hint of f.hints){\n if(state.used[f.key] && userText.toLowerCase().includes(hint)) repeats.push(f.name);\n }\n});\n```\n\nThis checks for repeats. If the same fallacy type is used again, it's a repeat. But the referee count is incremented for ALL detections, including repeats. So that should still count.\n\nHmm, let me think about whether the bug could be in `renderReferee`. The function sorts by count desc, but if counts are all 0, all rows have transparent background and count 0. The display would show 0.\n\nI think the issue might actually be a logic bug in the submit handler. Let me trace through carefully:\n\nUser sends text with fallacy.\n- `detectFallacies(text)` returns `[{key:\"ad_hominem\", name:\"Ad Hominem\", match:\"you're stupid\"}]`\n- Normal flow (not sneak or random hide):\n - `detected.forEach(d => referee.counts[d.key]++)` → count becomes 1\n - `renderReferee()` → shows Ad Hominem with count 1\n - `await aiRespond(detected, text)`\n - In `aiRespond`:\n - `detected.length > 0`, so:\n - `detected.forEach(d => referee.counts[d.key]++)` → count becomes 2\n - `addRefereeMessage(...)`\n - `renderReferee()` → shows count 2\n - update badges\n\nSo it DOES count, but double-counts. The user might perceive it as not counting if the display shows 2 when they only said it once? But they said \"doesn't count\" not \"counts wrong\".\n\nWait, maybe the issue is that the user is in sneak mode and the fallacy is hidden from the debater, and the referee message is added but the ranking doesn't update? Let me trace:\n\nSneak mode, detected, random hide (35%):\n- `await aiRespond([], text)` → detected.length is 0, so it fetches debater reply, no count increment\n- Then `detected.forEach(d => { referee.counts[d.key]++; addRefereeMessage(...) })`\n- `renderReferee()`\n\nThis should work too.\n\nOK, I'm going to assume the actual bug is that the user is experiencing counts not updating because of some issue, and the most robust fix is to:\n1. Simplify the counting logic to avoid double counting\n2. Make detection more robust (maybe also check simple keyword-based patterns or use the AI to detect fallacies)\n3. Ensure the referee ranking display updates clearly\n\nBut the user specifically says \"referee doesn't count my fallacies\". I should focus on making sure the referee counts every detected fallacy exactly once and displays it.\n\nLooking at the code, the double-counting is a real bug. The fix is to remove the duplicate counting in the submit handler and only count in `aiRespond`. Also, I should improve the detection to use more flexible patterns, and ensure the ranking display works.\n\nActually, I think the best fix is to make the referee AI actually use the LLM to detect and count fallacies, rather than relying on substring hints. That would be more robust. But that adds latency. Maybe we keep substring detection but make it more robust, and also add LLM-based detection for better accuracy.\n\nBut the user wants a fix for counting. The simplest, most reliable fix:\n1. Remove double counting\n2. Ensure `referee.counts` is updated exactly once per detected fallacy per turn\n3. Improve `renderReferee` to show counts clearly\n4. Maybe improve detection hints\n\nAlso, I notice the referee counts are displayed in the ranking panel but the user might expect to see a clear count. The current display shows count per fallacy type, but if all are 0, it looks like nothing is counted.\n\nLet me also check: when the page loads, `initSetup()` calls `resetReferee()` and `renderReferee()`. Good.\n\nOK, I'll make these changes:\n1. In the submit handler, remove the duplicate counting before `aiRespond`. Let `aiRespond` handle all counting and rendering.\n2. In `aiRespond`, ensure referee counts are incremented once per detected fallacy.\n3. Improve `renderReferee` to handle the display better.\n4. Add more flexible detection (case-insensitive, and maybe allow substring matching to work better).\n5. Also, the hints could be improved - \"you're an idiot\" should match. Maybe normalize apostrophes or add more hints.\n\nWait, I should also consider: the user might be typing fallacies but the detection returns nothing, so neither the debater nor the referee reacts. In that case, the user thinks \"the referee doesn't count my fallacies\" because nothing happens. To fix this, I could make the referee always review the message using the LLM, but that's slow.\n\nA better approach: make detection more robust by adding a keyword bank that catches common fallacy markers, and if detection is uncertain, optionally ask the LLM referee. But for now, let's improve the keyword detection and fix the counting logic.\n\nActually, I realize there's another issue: `aiRespond` is async and uses `await fetchDebaterReply`. If detection returns empty, it fetches a reply. But in the submit handler, `unlockInput()` is called after `await aiRespond(...)`. Good.\n\nLet me write the fix. I'll restructure the code so that:\n- `detectFallacies` returns all matched fallacies\n- `aiRespond` is the single place that updates referee counts\n- Submit handler just calls `detectFallacies`, then `aiRespond`, then handles sneak mode logic if needed\n\nActually, the sneak mode logic should be inside `aiRespond` or handled cleanly. Let me restructure.\n\nNew flow:\n1. User submits text\n2. `const detected = detectFallacies(text)`\n3. Call `aiRespond(detected, text)` which handles everything:\n - In sneak mode, maybe hide from debater but still count\n - Update referee counts exactly once\n - Generate debater reply\n - Update badges\n - Render referee\n\nLet me rewrite `aiRespond`:\n\n```javascript\nasync function aiRespond(detected, userText){\n state.turn++;\n let angerDelta = 0;\n let reply = \"\";\n\n // Determine what the debater AI sees\n let debaterDetected = detected;\n let sneakNote = false;\n if(state.mode === \"sneak\" && detected.length > 0 && Math.random() < 0.35){\n debaterDetected = [];\n sneakNote = true;\n }\n\n // Update referee counts for ALL actual detections (one per turn per type? or per occurrence?)\n // The user says \"count my fallacies\". I'll count each detected fallacy occurrence.\n // But to avoid double counting within one message, count each type once per message.\n const countedThisTurn = new Set();\n detected.forEach(d=>{\n if(!countedThisTurn.has(d.key)){\n referee.counts[d.key] = (referee.counts[d.key] || 0) + 1;\n countedThisTurn.add(d.key);\n addRefereeMessage(`Referee: detected ${d.name} (match: \"${d.match}\") — count: ${referee.counts[d.key]}`);\n }\n });\n renderReferee();\n\n // Register first NEW fallacy for main game scoring\n const firstNew = detected.find(d => !state.used[d.key]);\n if(firstNew){\n state.used[firstNew.key] = {count:1, detectedPhrase: firstNew.match, text: userText};\n }\n\n if(debaterDetected.length === 0){\n const aiReply = await fetchDebaterReply(userText);\n if(state.mode === \"incite\" && Math.random() < 0.12){\n angerDelta += 6;\n }\n reply = aiReply;\n } else {\n const f = debaterDetected[0];\n if(state.mode === \"incite\"){\n angerDelta += 12 + Math.floor(Math.random()*8);\n reply = `I detected a ${f.name}. That's a weak move.`;\n if(Math.random() < 0.45) reply += \" Are you even trying?\";\n } else {\n angerDelta += 4 + Math.floor(Math.random()*4);\n reply = `I think there's a ${f.name} there. Be careful — I'm noting them.`;\n }\n }\n\n // Anger bounds and emotive suffix\n state.anger = Math.max(0, Math.min(100, state.anger + angerDelta));\n ...\n}\n```\n\nWait, but the original code in `aiRespond` also had repeat detection. I should keep that but maybe move it.\n\nActually, the repeat detection in original code:\n```javascript\nconst repeats = [];\nFALLACIES.forEach(f=>{\n for(const hint of f.hints){\n if(state.used[f.key] && userText.toLowerCase().includes(hint)) repeats.push(f.name);\n }\n});\n```\n\nThis detects if the user reused a fallacy type that was already used. But the referee already counted the new detection. The repeat detection is more about the debater AI getting mad. I'll keep it.\n\nBut there's a subtle issue: if a message contains multiple hints for the same fallacy, `repeats` could have duplicates. I should use a Set.\n\nAlso, the original code increments referee counts for detected in submit handler AND in aiRespond. That's the double counting bug. I'll remove the counting from submit handler.\n\nLet me also improve detection. The hints are substrings. I should normalize the text a bit (lowercase, remove extra spaces) and add more hints. For example:\n- ad_hominem: \"idiot\", \"moron\", \"dumb\", \"stupid\", \"you're a\", \"you are a\"\n- straw_man: \"so you believe\", \"you're saying\", \"you want\"\n- appeal_to_authority: \"scientists say\", \"doctor says\", \"officials say\"\n- false_cause: \"because\", \"therefore\", \"since\"\n- etc.\n\nActually, these hints are too broad. \"because\" and \"therefore\" are common in valid arguments too. So I shouldn't make them too broad. But adding a few more specific hints for each could help.\n\nMaybe a better approach is to have the referee AI use LLM to detect fallacies. This would be more accurate. But it adds ~1-2 seconds per message. The user might prefer accuracy over speed.\n\nGiven the user complaint \"referee doesn't count my fallacies\", I think the issue is likely that substring detection misses their fallacies. LLM-based detection would solve this. But we need to be careful about latency and cost.\n\nHybrid approach:\n1. First, use substring hints to quickly detect obvious fallacies.\n2. Then, if no fallacies detected OR if we want higher accuracy, call the LLM referee to analyze the message.\n3. The LLM referee returns a JSON array of detected fallacy keys.\n\nThis would make counting much more reliable. But we should show a loading state because LLM calls take time.\n\nHowever, the user wants a fix. Maybe I should do both: fix the counting logic and add LLM-based referee detection.\n\nLet me implement:\n1. Fix double counting by centralizing count updates in `aiRespond`\n2. Add a `refereeJudge` function that calls the LLM to detect fallacies\n3. Combine substring detection and LLM detection\n4. Ensure each detected fallacy is counted exactly once\n5. Improve display\n\nBut wait, calling the LLM for every message might be slow. We could only call it when substring detection finds nothing or is uncertain. But for accuracy, let's call it always but in parallel with the debater reply.\n\nActually, a simpler fix that addresses the user's complaint: improve detection and fix counting. I'll add LLM-based referee judgment.\n\nLet me design `refereeJudge`:\n\n```javascript\nasync function refereeJudge(text){\n const schema = `{\n \"fallacies\": [\n {\"key\": \"ad_hominem\", \"reason\": \"brief reason\"}\n ]\n}`;\n const system = `You are a referee in a debate fallacy game. The player is trying to use logical fallacies. Analyze the user's message and list which fallacies from this list are present: ${FALLACIES.map(f=>`${f.key}: ${f.name}`).join(', ')}. Return JSON only.`;\n \n try {\n const completion = await websim.chat.completions.create({\n messages: [\n {role:\"system\", content: system},\n {role:\"user\", content: text}\n ],\n json: true\n });\n const result = JSON.parse(completion.content);\n return result.fallacies || [];\n } catch(e) {\n console.error(\"Referee judge failed\", e);\n return [];\n }\n}\n```\n\nThen in submit handler:\n```javascript\nconst detectedByHints = detectFallacies(text);\nconst detectedByLLM = await refereeJudge(text);\nconst allDetected = mergeDetections(detectedByHints, detectedByLLM);\nawait aiRespond(allDetected, text);\n```\n\n`mergeDetections` combines them, removing duplicates by key.\n\nThis would make the referee actually count fallacies accurately. But it adds latency.\n\nTo keep speed, I could run the LLM referee only if hints detect nothing. But then we might miss subtle fallacies. Hmm.\n\nGiven the user is complaining specifically about counting, I think adding LLM referee is the right call. The debater AI reply is already LLM-based, so adding another LLM call doubles the latency. We can run them in parallel.\n\nActually, we can structure it as:\n- User submits\n- Run `detectFallacies` (fast hints)\n- In parallel: fetch debater reply (for the case when no fallacy detected) AND call referee judge\n- Once both are done, combine detections and generate response\n\nBut the debater reply depends on whether a fallacy was detected (the debater should react to the fallacy). So we can't fully parallelize.\n\nAlternative:\n1. Detect with hints (fast)\n2. If hints detect something → proceed with aiRespond using those (count them)\n3. If hints detect nothing → call LLM referee to double-check, and also call debater reply in parallel. Then combine.\n\nThis avoids LLM calls when hints already caught something.\n\nBut honestly, for a robust fix, I'll do:\n1. Fix double counting\n2. Improve hints\n3. Add optional LLM referee that runs when hints are empty or as a supplement\n4. Run debater reply and referee in parallel when possible\n\nActually, let me keep it simpler and more reliable:\n- In submit handler: detect with hints, then call `aiRespond` with detected.\n- `aiRespond` centralizes counting.\n- Add an LLM referee call inside `aiRespond` when hints detection is empty, to catch subtle fallacies. This means if the user types a fallacy that hints miss, the LLM referee catches it and counts it.\n\nBut this adds latency to messages with no obvious fallacy. That's acceptable.\n\nWait, but if the LLM referee detects a fallacy, we need to generate a debater reaction. Currently `aiRespond` would have already taken the `detected.length === 0` path if hints found nothing. If we want to add LLM detection, we should do it before deciding the debater's path.\n\nSo structure:\n```javascript\nasync function submitHandler(){\n const text = userInput.value.trim();\n if(!text) return;\n addUserMessage(text);\n userInput.value = \"\";\n \n // Fast hint detection\n let detected = detectFallacies(text);\n \n // If no hints, ask LLM referee\n if(detected.length === 0){\n const llmDetected = await refereeJudge(text);\n detected = llmDetected.map(...).filter(valid);\n }\n \n await aiRespond(detected, text);\n unlockInput();\n userInput.focus();\n}\n```\n\nThen `aiRespond` just handles the response. But `aiRespond` should also centralize counting.\n\nActually, for code cleanliness, I'll put the LLM referee call in `aiRespond` at the beginning:\n\n```javascript\nasync function aiRespond(detected, userText){\n state.turn++;\n \n // Supplement with LLM referee if hints found nothing\n if(detected.length === 0){\n const llmDetected = await refereeJudge(userText);\n detected = llmDetected.map(...);\n }\n \n // Now proceed with detected (may be from hints or LLM)\n ...\n}\n```\n\nBut this means even when hints detect something, we don't ask the LLM. That's fine for speed. But if hints detect one fallacy and the LLM would have detected another, we miss the second. To handle that, we could always ask the LLM and merge. But that doubles latency for every message.\n\nI'll go with: supplement with LLM only when hints are empty. This catches most missed fallacies while keeping common cases fast.\n\nNow, I also need to fix the double counting. Since `aiRespond` will be the only place that counts, I need to remove counting from the submit handler.\n\nAlso, the sneak mode logic should be in `aiRespond` or handled cleanly.\n\nLet me write the updated code.\n\nOne more thing: the `refereeJudge` needs to return fallacy keys that match the FALLACIES list. I'll validate them.\n\nAlso, I should improve `renderReferee` to make the count more visible and handle empty state.\n\nLet me also think about the UI. The user said earlier \"Put the ui a bit taller, its kind of clipping with the fallacy rankings.\" That's already addressed. Now they want referee counting fixed.\n\nOK, let me make the edits. I'll use SEARCH/REPLACE blocks.\n\nChanges needed:\n1. Update `detectFallacies` to normalize text and maybe add more hints (optional but helpful)\n2. Add `refereeJudge` function\n3. Rewrite submit handler to remove double counting\n4. Rewrite `aiRespond` to centralize counting and optionally call LLM referee\n5. Update `renderReferee` for better display\n6. Maybe fix repeat detection to use Set\n\nActually, I want to be careful not to break existing functionality. Let me make targeted changes.\n\nFirst, I'll add `refereeJudge` function after `detectFallacies`.\n\nThen I'll modify the submit handler to remove counting logic and just call `aiRespond`.\n\nThen I'll modify `aiRespond` to:\n- Supplement detection with LLM if hints empty\n- Centralize counting\n- Handle sneak mode\n- Generate reply\n\nThen update `renderReferee`.\n\nLet me draft the new `aiRespond`:\n\n```javascript\nasync function aiRespond(detected, userText){\n state.turn++;\n \n // Supplement detection with LLM referee when hints came up empty\n if(detected.length === 0){\n try {\n const llm = await refereeJudge(userText);\n if(llm.length > 0){\n detected = llm;\n }\n } catch(e) {\n console.error(\"Referee judge error\", e);\n }\n }\n\n let debaterDetected = detected;\n let hidden = false;\n if(state.mode === \"sneak\" && detected.length > 0 && Math.random() < 0.35){\n debaterDetected = [];\n hidden = true;\n }\n\n // Update referee counts: one per fallacy type per turn\n const countedThisTurn = new Set();\n detected.forEach(d=>{\n if(!countedThisTurn.has(d.key)){\n referee.counts[d.key] = (referee.counts[d.key] || 0) + 1;\n countedThisTurn.add(d.key);\n const label = hidden ? \"sneaked\" : \"detected\";\n addRefereeMessage(`Referee: ${label} ${d.name} — count: ${referee.counts[d.key]}`);\n }\n });\n renderReferee();\n\n // Register first NEW fallacy for main game scoring\n const firstNew = detected.find(d => !state.used[d.key]);\n if(firstNew){\n state.used[firstNew.key] = {count:1, detectedPhrase: firstNew.match || \"(LLM detection)\", text: userText};\n }\n\n let reply = \"\";\n let angerDelta = 0;\n\n if(debaterDetected.length === 0){\n const aiReply = await fetchDebaterReply(userText);\n reply = aiReply;\n if(state.mode === \"incite\" && Math.random() < 0.12){\n angerDelta += 6;\n }\n } else {\n const f = debaterDetected[0];\n if(state.mode === \"incite\"){\n angerDelta += 12 + Math.floor(Math.random()*8);\n reply = `I detected a ${f.name}. That's a weak move.`;\n if(Math.random() < 0.45) reply += \" Are you even trying?\";\n } else {\n angerDelta += 4 + Math.floor(Math.random()*4);\n reply = `I think there's a ${f.name} there. Be careful — I'm noting them.`;\n }\n }\n\n // Repeat detection\n const repeats = new Set();\n FALLACIES.forEach(f=>{\n if(!state.used[f.key]) return;\n for(const hint of f.hints){\n if(userText.toLowerCase().includes(hint)){\n repeats.add(f.name);\n break;\n }\n }\n });\n if(repeats.size > 0){\n const name = Array.from(repeats)[0];\n reply += ` You already used ${name}. Stop repeating.`;\n state.anger = Math.min(100, state.anger + 8);\n addRefereeMessage(`Referee: repetition noted — ${name}`);\n }\n\n state.anger = Math.max(0, Math.min(100, state.anger + angerDelta));\n if(state.anger >= 80){\n reply += \" I am furious. This conversation is infuriating.\";\n } else if(state.anger >= 50){\n reply += \" I'm getting pretty annoyed.\";\n } else if(state.anger >= 25){\n reply += \" I'm annoyed.\";\n } else {\n reply += \" Keep going.\";\n }\n\n addAIMessage(reply);\n updateBadges();\n renderReferee();\n checkEndConditions();\n}\n```\n\nAnd `refereeJudge`:\n```javascript\nasync function refereeJudge(text){\n const list = FALLACIES.map(f => `${f.key}: ${f.name}`).join(\", \");\n try {\n const completion = await websim.chat.completions.create({\n messages: [\n {\n role: \"system\",\n content: `You are a strict referee in a logical-fallacy debate game. Given the user's message, decide which fallacies from this list are clearly present: ${list}. Return JSON only with this schema: {\"fallacies\":[{\"key\":\"fallacy_key\",\"reason\":\"one short sentence\"}]}. If none, return {\"fallacies\":[]}.`\n },\n {role:\"user\", content: text}\n ],\n json: true\n });\n const result = JSON.parse(completion.content);\n const found = (result.fallacies || []).filter(item => FALLACIES.some(f => f.key === item.key));\n return found.map(item => {\n const f = FALLACIES.find(fallacy => fallacy.key === item.key);\n return { key: f.key, name: f.name, match: item.reason || \"LLM detection\" };\n });\n } catch(err) {\n console.error(\"Referee judge failed\", err);\n return [];\n }\n}\n```\n\nAnd update submit handler:\n```javascript\nsubmitBtn.addEventListener(\"click\", async ()=>{\n const text = userInput.value.trim();\n if(!text) return;\n addUserMessage(text);\n userInput.value = \"\";\n const detected = detectFallacies(text);\n await aiRespond(detected, text);\n unlockInput();\n userInput.focus();\n});\n```\n\nWait, there's an issue with the debater history. `fetchDebaterReply` pushes the user message to history. If `aiRespond` takes the detected path, it doesn't push to history. If it takes the no-detection path, it pushes. That's fine.\n\nBut when `aiRespond` supplements with LLM detection and finds a fallacy, it won't push the user message to debater history (because it goes to detected path). That means the debater AI won't remember that message. But it will respond to the fallacy. That's probably OK.\n\nActually, if a fallacy is detected, we should still push the user message to history? The original code didn't push when detected. I'll keep that behavior.\n\nHmm, but if the LLM referee detects a fallacy that hints missed, and we respond with \"I detected a X\", the debater history doesn't include the user's message. The next turn, when the user sends a non-fallacy message, the debater AI will see the previous AI fallacy-detection message and the user's new message, but not the user's previous message. That might be slightly disjointed. But it's a minor issue.\n\nTo fix, I could push user messages to history regardless, and push the AI's fallacy-detection reply. That would give better context. Let me do that.\n\nIn `aiRespond`, after generating `reply`, push both userText and reply to `state.debaterHistory`. But wait, `fetchDebaterReply` already pushes both. If I push in `aiRespond`, I'll double-push when `fetchDebaterReply` is used.\n\nBetter: move history management to `aiRespond`. Don't push in `fetchDebaterReply`. Let `aiRespond` push userText and reply after generating.\n\nLet me update `fetchDebaterReply` to not push to history, and `aiRespond` to push.\n\n```javascript\nasync function fetchDebaterReply(userText){\n state.debaterHistory = state.debaterHistory || [];\n state.debaterHistory.push({ role: \"user\", content: userText });\n state.debaterHistory = state.debaterHistory.slice(-6);\n const systemMsg = {\n role: \"system\",\n content: `You are the debating AI in a game. Topic: \"${state.topic}\". The player is arguing ${state.stance} this topic. Mode: \"${state.mode}\". Respond in an emotive, reactive way (short, one or two sentences). If provoked, escalate tone gradually.`\n };\n try {\n const completion = await websim.chat.completions.create({\n messages: [systemMsg, ...state.debaterHistory]\n });\n const reply = completion.content || \"Hmm.\";\n return reply;\n } catch(err) {\n console.error(\"Debater fetch failed\", err);\n return \"I can't respond right now.\";\n }\n}\n```\n\nThen in `aiRespond`, after generating `reply`:\n```javascript\nstate.debaterHistory = state.debaterHistory || [];\nstate.debaterHistory.push({ role: \"user\", content: userText });\nstate.debaterHistory.push({ role: \"assistant\", content: reply });\nstate.debaterHistory = state.debaterHistory.slice(-6);\n```\n\nBut wait, `fetchDebaterReply` already pushes userText. So if I also push in `aiRespond`, I double-push userText. I need to remove the push from `fetchDebaterReply`.\n\nUpdated `fetchDebaterReply`:\n```javascript\nasync function fetchDebaterReply(userText){\n state.debaterHistory = state.debaterHistory || [];\n // History is maintained by aiRespond; just use current history\n const systemMsg = {\n role: \"system\",\n content: `You are the debating AI in a game. Topic: \"${state.topic}\". The player is arguing ${state.stance} this topic. Mode: \"${state.mode}\". Respond in an emotive, reactive way (short, one or two sentences). If provoked, escalate tone gradually.`\n };\n try {\n const completion = await websim.chat.completions.create({\n messages: [systemMsg, ...state.debaterHistory]\n });\n return completion.content || \"Hmm.\";\n } catch(err) {\n console.error(\"Debater fetch failed\", err);\n return \"I can't respond right now.\";\n }\n}\n```\n\nThen `aiRespond` pushes both. But `aiRespond` calls `fetchDebaterReply` before pushing. At that point, `state.debaterHistory` already contains previous turns (pushed at the end of previous `aiRespond`). Good.\n\nWait, on the first turn, `state.debaterHistory` is empty. `fetchDebaterReply` gets empty history. It returns a reply. Then `aiRespond` pushes userText and reply. Good.\n\nOn second turn, if no fallacy: `fetchDebaterReply` gets history with turn 1 user+AI. Returns reply. `aiRespond` pushes turn 2 user+AI. Good.\n\nIf fallacy detected on second turn: we don't call `fetchDebaterReply`. We generate a canned reply. `aiRespond` pushes turn 2 user+AI. Good.\n\nSo history works. But wait - in the first turn, `aiRespond` pushes userText and reply. In the second turn no-fallacy, `fetchDebaterReply` uses history including turn 1. Then `aiRespond` pushes turn 2. Good.\n\nActually, I realize there's still an issue: in `fetchDebaterReply`, the history includes the current userText? No, because `aiRespond` hasn't pushed it yet. So `fetchDebaterReply` uses history without current userText. But the `messages` array sent to LLM should include the current user message. Otherwise the LLM won't know what the user just said.\n\nHmm, right. So `fetchDebaterReply` should include the current userText in the messages. I can either push it before calling, or pass it as a parameter to include.\n\nLet me modify `fetchDebaterReply` to build messages with current userText:\n\n```javascript\nasync function fetchDebaterReply(userText){\n state.debaterHistory = state.debaterHistory || [];\n const systemMsg = {\n role: \"system\",\n content: `You are the debating AI in a game. Topic: \"${state.topic}\". The player is arguing ${state.stance} this topic. Mode: \"${state.mode}\". Respond in an emotive, reactive way (short, one or two sentences). If provoked, escalate tone gradually.`\n };\n const messages = [systemMsg, ...state.debaterHistory, {role:\"user\", content: userText}];\n try {\n const completion = await websim.chat.completions.create({ messages });\n return completion.content || \"Hmm.\";\n } catch(err) {\n console.error(\"Debater fetch failed\", err);\n return \"I can't respond right now.\";\n }\n}\n```\n\nThen `aiRespond` pushes userText and reply after. Good.\n\nOK this is getting complex but manageable.\n\nLet me also think about whether I should keep the original substring detection or replace it entirely with LLM. I think keep both.\n\nNow, one issue with LLM referee: it might be slow. I should add a small loading indicator. But the user didn't ask for that. Maybe just ensure the input is disabled during processing. Currently the submit handler doesn't disable input during `aiRespond`. I should add that to prevent double submits.\n\nActually, looking at the original code, `unlockInput()` is called after `aiRespond`, but there's no `lockInput()` at the start. I should add `lockInput()` at the start of submit handler.\n\nOK let me also make sure `lockInput` and `unlockInput` are defined. They are.\n\nNow let me write the SEARCH/REPLACE blocks.\n\nI'll make multiple edits to app.js. Since the user can only see the final result, I need to be precise.\n\nLet me structure the edits:\n\n1. Replace `detectFallacies` function to normalize text better\n2. Add `refereeJudge` function after `detectFallacies`\n3. Replace `fetchDebaterReply` function\n4. Replace `aiRespond` function\n5. Replace submit handler\n6. Maybe improve `renderReferee` slightly\n\nLet me start with detectFallacies. The current one is:\n\n```javascript\n/* Detection: mostly same, but referee also tallies attempted detections */\nfunction detectFallacies(text){\n const found = [];\n const lower = text.toLowerCase();\n FALLACIES.forEach(f=>{\n // even if used for the game, referee still notes attempts\n for(const hint of f.hints){\n if(lower.includes(hint)){\n found.push({key:f.key,name:f.name,match:hint});\n break;\n }\n }\n });\n return found;\n}\n```\n\nI'll keep it similar but add normalization. Actually, I'll add more hints to FALLACIES to improve detection. But editing the FALLACIES array is a separate change.\n\nMaybe I should add more hints. Current hints:\n- ad_hominem: \"you're stupid\", \"you are an idiot\", \"look at who you're talking to\"\n- straw_man: \"you mean that\", \"so you think that\", \"you said that\"\n- appeal_to_authority: \"experts say\", \"studies prove\", \"according to x\", \"according to\"\n- false_cause: \"because of that\", \"caused by\", \"that's why\"\n- slippery_slope: \"next thing you know\", \"lead to disaster\", \"it will inevitably\"\n- false_dichotomy: \"either ... or\", \"there are only two options\", \"you must choose\", \"either or\"\n- hasty_generalization: \"all x are\", \"every time\", \"always\", \"everyone are\"\n- appeal_to_emotion: \"think about the children\", \"how could you\", \"it breaks my heart\"\n- red_herring: \"by the way\", \"another thing\", \"let's talk about\"\n- bandwagon: \"everyone does it\", \"most people\", \"popular opinion\"\n- tu_quoque: \"you did it too\", \"you're hypocritical\", \"so did you\"\n\nI can add:\n- ad_hominem: \"idiot\", \"moron\", \"dumb\", \"stupid\", \"you're a\", \"you are a\", \"clown\", \"ignorant\"\n- straw_man: \"so you believe\", \"you're saying\", \"you want\", \"basically you\"\n- appeal_to_authority: \"scientists say\", \"doctors agree\", \"officials say\", \"the research shows\"\n- false_cause: \"led to\", \"resulted in\", \"causes\"\n- slippery_slope: \"before long\", \"eventually\", \"soon\", \"one day\"\n- false_dichotomy: \"only two\", \"black and white\", \"with us or against us\"\n- hasty_generalization: \"all of them\", \"every single\", \"none of them\", \"never\"\n- appeal_to_emotion: \"heartless\", \"cruel\", \"suffering\", \"devastating\"\n- red_herring: \"what about\", \"not to mention\", \"speaking of\"\n- bandwagon: \"trending\", \"majority\", \"common sense\"\n- tu_quoque: \"what about you\", \"you also\", \"you're one to talk\"\n\nBut adding too many broad hints might cause false positives. The LLM referee will help validate.\n\nI think a good balance: add a few more specific hints, and rely on LLM for accuracy.\n\nActually, I realize the user might be typing things like \"You're wrong because you're an idiot\" and the hint \"you are an idiot\" should match. But \"you're an idiot\" doesn't match \"you are an idiot\". I should add \"you're an idiot\" as a hint.\n\nAlso, for ad_hominem, \"idiot\" alone is a good hint.\n\nLet me update the FALLACIES hints. I'll edit the FALLACIES array.\n\nActually, I want to minimize changes. The main fix is the counting. The hints improvement is secondary. I'll add a few key hints.\n\nLet me now plan the exact SEARCH/REPLACE blocks.\n\nBlock 1: Update FALLACIES hints\nBlock 2: Add `refereeJudge` function\nBlock 3: Update `fetchDebaterReply`\nBlock 4: Update `aiRespond`\nBlock 5: Update submit handler\nBlock 6: Maybe update `renderReferee` to add a \"no fallacies yet\" message or better styling\n\nLet me write them.\n\nActually, I realize I need to be careful with the LLM referee. If I call it for every message with no hints, and the user sends a normal valid argument, the LLM might hallucinate a fallacy. I should make the prompt very strict: only report a fallacy if it's clearly present.\n\nAlso, I should cap the LLM detection to avoid too many false positives. Maybe only detect one fallacy per message via LLM, or only if very confident.\n\nBut for counting purposes, accuracy matters. I'll write a strict prompt.\n\nAlso, I should think about the JSON schema. The websim.chat.completions with `json: true` should work.\n\nOne more consideration: if the LLM referee detects a fallacy, but the user already used that fallacy type, the main game won't register it as new, but the referee count still increments. That's correct behavior.\n\nOK let me write the code.\n\nActually, I want to reconsider whether to add LLM referee. It adds complexity and latency. The user's complaint might be purely about the double-counting bug or the display not updating. But honestly, with only substring hints, many fallacies will be missed, leading the user to think the referee isn't counting. LLM referee is the robust solution.\n\nI'll add it but make it fast: use the small model (default), and only call when hints are empty.\n\nWait, can I specify model? The websim.chat.completions API might not allow model selection. I'll just use default.\n\nLet me also add a loading indicator. The user complained about counting not working; if the LLM takes 1-2 seconds, they might think it's broken. I can show a small \"Referee is reviewing...\" text in the referee comments when calling LLM.\n\nBut maybe simpler: keep input disabled and show a temporary message. I'll add a temporary referee message when LLM is called.\n\nActually, I think I should avoid overcomplicating. The key fixes:\n1. Remove double counting\n2. Add LLM referee when hints miss\n3. Centralize counting in aiRespond\n\nLet me implement.\n\nAlso, one more bug I noticed: in the original `aiRespond`, when a fallacy is detected, the code says `const f = detected[0];` but then in the reply it only mentions the first one. The referee counts all detected. That's fine.\n\nBut the reply should probably mention all detected fallacies, not just the first. I'll improve that.\n\nIn detected branch:\n```javascript\nconst names = debaterDetected.map(d => d.name).join(\", \");\nreply = state.mode === \"incite\"\n ? `I detected ${names}. That's a weak move.`\n : `I think there's ${names} there. Be careful — I'm noting them.`;\n```\n\nOK.\n\nLet me write the final code now.\n\nI also want to update `renderReferee` to show counts more clearly and highlight non-zero counts.\n\nCurrent `renderReferee`:\n```javascript\nfunction renderReferee(){\n if(!refereeRanking) return;\n // sort by count desc\n const ranking = Object.keys(referee.counts).map(k=>({key:k,count:referee.counts[k],name: FALLACIES.find(f=>f.key===k).name}));\n ranking.sort((a,b)=>b.count - a.count);\n refereeRanking.innerHTML = \"\";\n ranking.forEach((r, idx)=>{\n const row = document.createElement(\"div\");\n row.style.display = \"flex\";\n row.style.justifyContent = \"space-between\";\n row.style.alignItems = \"center\";\n row.style.background = r.count > 0 ? \"linear-gradient(90deg,#fffaf0,#fff1f0)\" : \"transparent\";\n row.style.padding = \"6px\";\n row.style.borderRadius = \"6px\";\n row.style.fontSize = \"13px\";\n row.textContent = `${idx+1}. ${r.name}`;\n const c = document.createElement(\"div\");\n c.style.fontWeight = \"600\";\n c.style.color = r.count > 0 ? \"#b91c1c\" : \"#64748b\";\n c.textContent = r.count;\n row.appendChild(c);\n refereeRanking.appendChild(row);\n });\n}\n```\n\nThis is fine. I'll keep it mostly but maybe add a clearer empty state. Actually, I'll add a small note if no fallacies counted yet.\n\nBut the user's complaint is that it doesn't count, so adding a \"no fallacies yet\" message when counts are 0 might help them understand. But if the LLM referee is working, counts should appear.\n\nOK, I think the changes are solid. Let me write them as SEARCH/REPLACE blocks.\n\nWait, I should also make sure that when `aiRespond` calls `refereeJudge`, it doesn't interfere with the debater reply. The flow:\n1. `aiRespond` starts\n2. If detected empty, call `refereeJudge` (async, takes time)\n3. If LLM finds fallacies, detected becomes non-empty\n4. Then proceed with response\n\nThis means messages with subtle fallacies take longer. That's OK.\n\nBut there's a potential issue: if LLM referee detects a fallacy and we respond with canned \"I detected X\", the user's message wasn't pushed to debater history. But as I planned, `aiRespond` will push userText and reply at the end, so history is maintained. Good.\n\nLet me finalize the code.\n\nActually, one more thing: the `addRefereeMessage` function appends messages and scrolls. If we add a temporary \"reviewing\" message, we should remove it after. But I think it's fine without.\n\nLet me also consider: should the referee count fallacies that the debater AI doesn't see (sneak mode)? Yes, that's the point of sneak mode. The referee sees everything.\n\nOK, final code. I'll write the SEARCH/REPLACE blocks now.\n\nLet me double-check the exact current code in app.js to ensure my SEARCH blocks match.\n\nCurrent FALLACIES:\n```javascript\nconst FALLACIES = [\n { key: \"ad_hominem\", name: \"Ad Hominem\", hints: [\"you're stupid\", \"you are an idiot\", \"look at who you're talking to\"] },\n { key: \"straw_man\", name: \"Straw Man\", hints: [\"you mean that\", \"so you think that\", \"you said that\"] },\n { key: \"appeal_to_authority\", name: \"Appeal to Authority\", hints: [\"experts say\", \"studies prove\", \"according to x\", \"according to\"] },\n { key: \"false_cause\", name: \"False Cause\", hints: [\"because of that\", \"caused by\", \"that's why\"] },\n { key: \"slippery_slope\", name: \"Slippery Slope\", hints: [\"next thing you know\", \"lead to disaster\", \"it will inevitably\"] },\n { key: \"false_dichotomy\", name: \"False Dichotomy\", hints: [\"either ... or\", \"there are only two options\", \"you must choose\", \"either or\"] },\n { key: \"hasty_generalization\", name: \"Hasty Generalization\", hints: [\"all x are\", \"every time\", \"always\", \"everyone are\"] },\n { key: \"appeal_to_emotion\", name: \"Appeal to Emotion\", hints: [\"think about the children\", \"how could you\", \"it breaks my heart\"] },\n { key: \"red_herring\", name: \"Red Herring\", hints: [\"by the way\", \"another thing\", \"let's talk about\"] },\n { key: \"bandwagon\", name: \"Bandwagon\", hints: [\"everyone does it\", \"most people\", \"popular opinion\"] },\n { key: \"tu_quoque\", name: \"Tu Quoque\", hints: [\"you did it too\", \"you're hypocritical\", \"so did you\"] }\n];\n```\n\nI'll add more hints.\n\nCurrent detectFallacies:\n```javascript\n/* Detection: mostly same, but referee also tallies attempted detections */\nfunction detectFallacies(text){\n const found = [];\n const lower = text.toLowerCase();\n FALLACIES.forEach(f=>{\n // even if used for the game, referee still notes attempts\n for(const hint of f.hints){\n if(lower.includes(hint)){\n found.push({key:f.key,name:f.name,match:hint});\n break;\n }\n }\n });\n return found;\n}\n```\n\nI'll keep it but maybe add normalization.\n\nCurrent fetchDebaterReply:\n```javascript\nasync function fetchDebaterReply(userText){\n // init history container\n state.debaterHistory = state.debaterHistory || [];\n // push user line\n state.debaterHistory.push({ role: \"user\", content: userText });\n\n // keep only recent messages\n state.debaterHistory = state.debaterHistory.slice(-6);\n\n // system persona, include topic + stance + mode for context\n const systemMsg = {\n role: \"system\",\n content: `You are the debating AI in a game. Topic: \"${state.topic}\". The player is arguing ${state.stance} this topic. Mode: \"${state.mode}\". Respond in an emotive, reactive way (short, one or two sentences). If provoked, escalate tone gradually.`\n };\n\n // build messages array (system + history)\n const messages = [systemMsg, ...state.debaterHistory];\n\n try{\n const completion = await websim.chat.completions.create({\n messages\n });\n const reply = completion.content || \"Hmm.\";\n // store AI reply in history for context\n state.debaterHistory.push({ role: \"assistant\", content: reply });\n return reply;\n }catch(err){\n console.error(\"Debater fetch failed\", err);\n return \"I can't respond right now.\";\n }\n}\n```\n\nCurrent aiRespond:\n```javascript\nasync function aiRespond(detected, userText){\n state.turn++;\n let angerDelta = 0;\n let reply = \"\";\n\n if(detected.length === 0){\n // fetch a generated debater reply instead of static text\n const aiReply = await fetchDebaterReply(userText);\n\n // small chance to add incidental anger in incite mode\n if(state.mode === \"incite\" && Math.random() < 0.12){\n angerDelta += 6;\n }\n reply = aiReply;\n } else {\n // register only the first new fallacy for the main-game used list\n const f = detected[0];\n // referee tallies all detections from this turn\n detected.forEach(d=>{\n referee.counts[d.key] = (referee.counts[d.key] || 0) + 1;\n });\n\n // Main game: only register if not previously used\n if(!state.used[f.key]){\n state.used[f.key] = {count:1, detectedPhrase: f.match, text: userText};\n }\n\n // debating AI reaction (still augmented with simpler canned lines to keep pacing)\n if(state.mode === \"incite\"){\n angerDelta += 12 + Math.floor(Math.random()*8);\n reply = `I detected a ${f.name}. That's a weak move.`;\n if(Math.random() < 0.45) reply += \" Are you even trying?\";\n } else {\n angerDelta += 4 + Math.floor(Math.random()*4);\n reply = `I think there's a ${f.name} there. Be careful — I'm noting them.`;\n }\n\n // referee comments: short objective line\n const top = `${f.name} detected (${f.match})`;\n addRefereeMessage(`Referee: ${top}. Count now: ${referee.counts[f.key]}`);\n renderReferee();\n }\n\n // Anger bounds and emotive suffix\n state.anger = Math.max(0, Math.min(100, state.anger + angerDelta));\n if(state.anger >= 80){\n reply += \" I am furious. This conversation is infuriating.\";\n } else if(state.anger >= 50){\n reply += \" I'm getting pretty annoyed.\";\n } else if(state.anger >= 25){\n reply += \" I'm annoyed.\";\n } else {\n reply += \" Keep going.\";\n }\n\n // repeated fallacy detection (user tries a fallacy already marked in state.used)\n const repeats = [];\n FALLACIES.forEach(f=>{\n for(const hint of f.hints){\n if(state.used[f.key] && userText.toLowerCase().includes(hint)) repeats.push(f.name);\n }\n });\n if(repeats.length){\n reply += ` You already used ${repeats[0]}. Stop repeating.`;\n state.anger = Math.min(100, state.anger + 8);\n // referee notes repetition too\n addRefereeMessage(`Referee: repetition noticed — ${repeats[0]}`);\n }\n\n addAIMessage(reply);\n updateBadges();\n renderReferee();\n checkEndConditions();\n}\n```\n\nCurrent submit handler:\n```javascript\nsubmitBtn.addEventListener(\"click\", async ()=>{\n const text = userInput.value.trim();\n if(!text) return;\n addUserMessage(text);\n userInput.value = \"\";\n // detection (referee sees everything)\n const detected = detectFallacies(text);\n\n // ensure keys exist (counts initialized in resetReferee, but be safe)\n detected.forEach(d=>{\n referee.counts[d.key] = referee.counts[d.key] || 0;\n });\n\n // In sneak mode, randomly hide detection from debating AI to allow sneaking\n if(state.mode === \"sneak\" && detected.length > 0 && Math.random() < 0.35){\n // Debating AI sees none\n await aiRespond([], text);\n // but referee still notes the attempt\n detected.forEach(d=>{\n referee.counts[d.key] = (referee.counts[d.key] || 0) + 1;\n addRefereeMessage(`Referee: sneaked detection recorded for ${d.name} (match: ${d.match})`);\n });\n renderReferee();\n } else {\n // normal flow: both see detections\n if(detected.length > 0){\n detected.forEach(d=>{\n referee.counts[d.key] = (referee.counts[d.key] || 0) + 1;\n });\n renderReferee();\n }\n await aiRespond(detected, text);\n }\n\n unlockInput();\n userInput.focus();\n});\n```\n\nOK, I have all the exact text. Let me write the replacements.\n\nBlock 1: FALLACIES hints\nBlock 2: Add refereeJudge after detectFallacies\nBlock 3: Replace fetchDebaterReply\nBlock 4: Replace aiRespond\nBlock 5: Replace submit handler\n\nI think I'll also update detectFallacies to normalize text (remove extra spaces). But the current one is fine. I'll keep it.\n\nActually, I should add `refereeJudge` after `detectFallacies`. Let me search for the end of detectFallacies.\n\nThe detectFallacies function ends with:\n```javascript\n return found;\n}\n```\n\nAnd then there's updateBadges. So I can insert before updateBadges.\n\nWait, let me check the actual order in app.js:\n```javascript\nfunction updateBadges(){\n const badges = fallacyList.querySelectorAll(\".badge\");\n ...\n}\n```\n\nSo I'll insert refereeJudge before updateBadges.\n\nLet me also think about whether to modify renderReferee. I'll leave it mostly but maybe add a count display. Actually, the current display already shows count per fallacy. I think it's fine.\n\nWait, I want to make sure the count is visible. Currently the count is a small number at the right of each row. I'll make it more prominent by adding a \"Total fallacies counted: X\" somewhere. Maybe add it to the referee panel header.\n\nBut that requires HTML change. I can dynamically update a small element. Let me add a `refereeTotal` display in `renderReferee`.\n\nActually, I can just modify `renderReferee` to show a header with total count. Let me add it.\n\nI'll add at the start of `renderReferee`:\n```javascript\nconst total = Object.values(referee.counts).reduce((a,b)=>a+b,0);\n```\n\nThen create a header row. But I don't want to overcomplicate. Maybe just update the existing chip \"Referee\" to show total.\n\nHmm, the chip is static HTML. I can add an id to it or just create a dynamic total element.\n\nSimpler: in `renderReferee`, before the ranking, add a div showing total counted fallacies.\n\nBut `renderReferee` only has access to `refereeRanking`. I can prepend a total element to `refereeRanking`.\n\n```javascript\nfunction renderReferee(){\n if(!refereeRanking) return;\n const total = Object.values(referee.counts).reduce((a,b)=>a+b,0);\n refereeRanking.innerHTML = \"\";\n \n const totalRow = document.createElement(\"div\");\n totalRow.style.display = \"flex\";\n totalRow.style.justifyContent = \"space-between\";\n totalRow.style.fontWeight = \"600\";\n totalRow.style.fontSize = \"13px\";\n totalRow.style.marginBottom = \"4px\";\n totalRow.innerHTML = `Total counted${total}`;\n refereeRanking.appendChild(totalRow);\n \n // ... rest\n}\n```\n\nThis makes the total visible. Good.\n\nOK, let me finalize the edits. I'll be precise.\n\nActually, I realize the `renderReferee` change might not be necessary if the ranking shows each count. But a total is helpful. I'll add it.\n\nLet me write the SEARCH/REPLACE blocks.\n\nOne concern: the SEARCH/REPLACE blocks must match exactly. I'll be careful with whitespace.\n\nBlock 1 - FALLACIES:\n```\nconst FALLACIES = [\n { key: \"ad_hominem\", name: \"Ad Hominem\", hints: [\"you're stupid\", \"you are an idiot\", \"look at who you're talking to\"] },\n { key: \"straw_man\", name: \"Straw Man\", hints: [\"you mean that\", \"so you think that\", \"you said that\"] },\n { key: \"appeal_to_authority\", name: \"Appeal to Authority\", hints: [\"experts say\", \"studies prove\", \"according to x\", \"according to\"] },\n { key: \"false_cause\", name: \"False Cause\", hints: [\"because of that\", \"caused by\", \"that's why\"] },\n { key: \"slippery_slope\", name: \"Slippery Slope\", hints: [\"next thing you know\", \"lead to disaster\", \"it will inevitably\"] },\n { key: \"false_dichotomy\", name: \"False Dichotomy\", hints: [\"either ... or\", \"there are only two options\", \"you must choose\", \"either or\"] },\n { key: \"hasty_generalization\", name: \"Hasty Generalization\", hints: [\"all x are\", \"every time\", \"always\", \"everyone are\"] },\n { key: \"appeal_to_emotion\", name: \"Appeal to Emotion\", hints: [\"think about the children\", \"how could you\", \"it breaks my heart\"] },\n { key: \"red_herring\", name: \"Red Herring\", hints: [\"by the way\", \"another thing\", \"let's talk about\"] },\n { key: \"bandwagon\", name: \"Bandwagon\", hints: [\"everyone does it\", \"most people\", \"popular opinion\"] },\n { key: \"tu_quoque\", name: \"Tu Quoque\", hints: [\"you did it too\", \"you're hypocritical\", \"so did you\"] }\n];\n```\n\nReplacement:\n```\nconst FALLACIES = [\n { key: \"ad_hominem\", name: \"Ad Hominem\", hints: [\"you're stupid\", \"you are an idiot\", \"you're an idiot\", \"idiot\", \"moron\", \"dumb\", \"clown\", \"look at who you're talking to\"] },\n { key: \"straw_man\", name: \"Straw Man\", hints: [\"you mean that\", \"so you think that\", \"you said that\", \"so you believe\", \"you're saying\", \"you want\"] },\n { key: \"appeal_to_authority\", name: \"Appeal to Authority\", hints: [\"experts say\", \"studies prove\", \"according to x\", \"according to\", \"scientists say\", \"doctors agree\", \"research shows\"] },\n { key: \"false_cause\", name: \"False Cause\", hints: [\"because of that\", \"caused by\", \"that's why\", \"led to\", \"resulted in\"] },\n { key: \"slippery_slope\", name: \"Slippery Slope\", hints: [\"next thing you know\", \"lead to disaster\", \"it will inevitably\", \"before long\", \"eventually lead\"] },\n { key: \"false_dichotomy\", name: \"False Dichotomy\", hints: [\"either ... or\", \"there are only two options\", \"you must choose\", \"either or\", \"black and white\", \"with us or against us\"] },\n { key: \"hasty_generalization\", name: \"Hasty Generalization\", hints: [\"all x are\", \"every time\", \"always\", \"everyone are\", \"every single\", \"none of them\", \"never\"] },\n { key: \"appeal_to_emotion\", name: \"Appeal to Emotion\", hints: [\"think about the children\", \"how could you\", \"it breaks my heart\", \"heartless\", \"cruel\", \"suffering\"] },\n { key: \"red_herring\", name: \"Red Herring\", hints: [\"by the way\", \"another thing\", \"let's talk about\", \"what about\", \"not to mention\"] },\n { key: \"bandwagon\", name: \"Bandwagon\", hints: [\"everyone does it\", \"most people\", \"popular opinion\", \"majority\", \"trending\"] },\n { key: \"tu_quoque\", name: \"Tu Quoque\", hints: [\"you did it too\", \"you're hypocritical\", \"so did you\", \"what about you\", \"you're one to talk\"] }\n];\n```\n\nBlock 2 - Add refereeJudge after detectFallacies:\nSearch for:\n```\n/* Detection: mostly same, but referee also tallies attempted detections */\nfunction detectFallacies(text){\n const found = [];\n const lower = text.toLowerCase();\n FALLACIES.forEach(f=>{\n // even if used for the game, referee still notes attempts\n for(const hint of f.hints){\n if(lower.includes(hint)){\n found.push({key:f.key,name:f.name,match:hint});\n break;\n }\n }\n });\n return found;\n}\n\nfunction updateBadges(){\n```\n\nReplace with:\n```\n/* Detection: fast keyword/hint matching */\nfunction detectFallacies(text){\n const found = [];\n const lower = text.toLowerCase().replace(/\\s+/g,\" \");\n FALLACIES.forEach(f=>{\n for(const hint of f.hints){\n if(lower.includes(hint)){\n found.push({key:f.key,name:f.name,match:hint});\n break;\n }\n }\n });\n return found;\n}\n\n/* LLM referee: used when keyword detection is empty to catch subtler fallacies */\nasync function refereeJudge(text){\n const list = FALLACIES.map(f => `${f.key}: ${f.name}`).join(\", \");\n try {\n const completion = await websim.chat.completions.create({\n messages: [\n {\n role: \"system\",\n content: `You are a strict referee in a logical-fallacy debate game. The player is trying to slip logical fallacies into their arguments. Review the user's message and report which fallacies from this list are clearly present: ${list}. Return JSON only using this schema: {\"fallacies\":[{\"key\":\"fallacy_key\",\"reason\":\"one short sentence\"}]}. If no fallacy is clearly present, return {\"fallacies\":[]}. Be strict — do not invent fallacies.`\n },\n { role: \"user\", content: text }\n ],\n json: true\n });\n const result = JSON.parse(completion.content || '{\"fallacies\":[]}');\n const found = (result.fallacies || []).filter(item => FALLACIES.some(f => f.key === item.key));\n return found.map(item => {\n const f = FALLACIES.find(fallacy => fallacy.key === item.key);\n return { key: f.key, name: f.name, match: item.reason || \"LLM detection\" };\n });\n } catch(err) {\n console.error(\"Referee judge failed\", err);\n return [];\n }\n}\n\nfunction updateBadges(){\n```\n\nBlock 3 - Replace fetchDebaterReply:\nSearch:\n```\nasync function fetchDebaterReply(userText){\n // init history container\n state.debaterHistory = state.debaterHistory || [];\n // push user line\n state.debaterHistory.push({ role: \"user\", content: userText });\n\n // keep only recent messages\n state.debaterHistory = state.debaterHistory.slice(-6);\n\n // system persona, include topic + stance + mode for context\n const systemMsg = {\n role: \"system\",\n content: `You are the debating AI in a game. Topic: \"${state.topic}\". The player is arguing ${state.stance} this topic. Mode: \"${state.mode}\". Respond in an emotive, reactive way (short, one or two sentences). If provoked, escalate tone gradually.`\n };\n\n // build messages array (system + history)\n const messages = [systemMsg, ...state.debaterHistory];\n\n try{\n const completion = await websim.chat.completions.create({\n messages\n });\n const reply = completion.content || \"Hmm.\";\n // store AI reply in history for context\n state.debaterHistory.push({ role: \"assistant\", content: reply });\n return reply;\n }catch(err){\n console.error(\"Debater fetch failed\", err);\n return \"I can't respond right now.\";\n }\n}\n```\n\nReplace:\n```\nasync function fetchDebaterReply(userText){\n state.debaterHistory = state.debaterHistory || [];\n const systemMsg = {\n role: \"system\",\n content: `You are the debating AI in a game. Topic: \"${state.topic}\". The player is arguing ${state.stance} this topic. Mode: \"${state.mode}\". Respond in an emotive, reactive way (short, one or two sentences). If provoked, escalate tone gradually.`\n };\n const messages = [systemMsg, ...state.debaterHistory, { role: \"user\", content: userText }];\n try {\n const completion = await websim.chat.completions.create({ messages });\n return completion.content || \"Hmm.\";\n } catch(err) {\n console.error(\"Debater fetch failed\", err);\n return \"I can't respond right now.\";\n }\n}\n```\n\nBlock 4 - Replace aiRespond:\nSearch:\n```\nasync function aiRespond(detected, userText){\n state.turn++;\n let angerDelta = 0;\n let reply = \"\";\n\n if(detected.length === 0){\n // fetch a generated debater reply instead of static text\n const aiReply = await fetchDebaterReply(userText);\n\n // small chance to add incidental anger in incite mode\n if(state.mode === \"incite\" && Math.random() < 0.12){\n angerDelta += 6;\n }\n reply = aiReply;\n } else {\n // register only the first new fallacy for the main-game used list\n const f = detected[0];\n // referee tallies all detections from this turn\n detected.forEach(d=>{\n referee.counts[d.key] = (referee.counts[d.key] || 0) + 1;\n });\n\n // Main game: only register if not previously used\n if(!state.used[f.key]){\n state.used[f.key] = {count:1, detectedPhrase: f.match, text: userText};\n }\n\n // debating AI reaction (still augmented with simpler canned lines to keep pacing)\n if(state.mode === \"incite\"){\n angerDelta += 12 + Math.floor(Math.random()*8);\n reply = `I detected a ${f.name}. That's a weak move.`;\n if(Math.random() < 0.45) reply += \" Are you even trying?\";\n } else {\n angerDelta += 4 + Math.floor(Math.random()*4);\n reply = `I think there's a ${f.name} there. Be careful — I'm noting them.`;\n }\n\n // referee comments: short objective line\n const top = `${f.name} detected (${f.match})`;\n addRefereeMessage(`Referee: ${top}. Count now: ${referee.counts[f.key]}`);\n renderReferee();\n }\n\n // Anger bounds and emotive suffix\n state.anger = Math.max(0, Math.min(100, state.anger + angerDelta));\n if(state.anger >= 80){\n reply += \" I am furious. This conversation is infuriating.\";\n } else if(state.anger >= 50){\n reply += \" I'm getting pretty annoyed.\";\n } else if(state.anger >= 25){\n reply += \" I'm annoyed.\";\n } else {\n reply += \" Keep going.\";\n }\n\n // repeated fallacy detection (user tries a fallacy already marked in state.used)\n const repeats = [];\n FALLACIES.forEach(f=>{\n for(const hint of f.hints){\n if(state.used[f.key] && userText.toLowerCase().includes(hint)) repeats.push(f.name);\n }\n });\n if(repeats.length){\n reply += ` You already used ${repeats[0]}. Stop repeating.`;\n state.anger = Math.min(100, state.anger + 8);\n // referee notes repetition too\n addRefereeMessage(`Referee: repetition noticed — ${repeats[0]}`);\n }\n\n addAIMessage(reply);\n updateBadges();\n renderReferee();\n checkEndConditions();\n}\n```\n\nReplace:\n```\nasync function aiRespond(detected, userText){\n state.turn++;\n\n // If keyword detection found nothing, ask the LLM referee to catch subtle fallacies\n if(detected.length === 0){\n try {\n const llm = await refereeJudge(userText);\n if(llm.length > 0) detected = llm;\n } catch(e) {\n console.error(\"Referee judge error\", e);\n }\n }\n\n // In sneak mode, sometimes hide the fallacy from the debating AI\n let debaterDetected = detected;\n let hidden = false;\n if(state.mode === \"sneak\" && detected.length > 0 && Math.random() < 0.35){\n debaterDetected = [];\n hidden = true;\n }\n\n // Update referee counts once per fallacy type per turn\n const countedThisTurn = new Set();\n detected.forEach(d => {\n if(!countedThisTurn.has(d.key)){\n referee.counts[d.key] = (referee.counts[d.key] || 0) + 1;\n countedThisTurn.add(d.key);\n const label = hidden ? \"sneaked\" : \"detected\";\n addRefereeMessage(`Referee: ${label} ${d.name} — count: ${referee.counts[d.key]}`);\n }\n });\n renderReferee();\n\n // Register the first new fallacy for main-game scoring\n const firstNew = detected.find(d => !state.used[d.key]);\n if(firstNew){\n state.used[firstNew.key] = {count:1, detectedPhrase: firstNew.match, text: userText};\n }\n\n let reply = \"\";\n let angerDelta = 0;\n\n if(debaterDetected.length === 0){\n const aiReply = await fetchDebaterReply(userText);\n reply = aiReply;\n if(state.mode === \"incite\" && Math.random() < 0.12){\n angerDelta += 6;\n }\n } else {\n const names = debaterDetected.map(d => d.name).join(\", \");\n if(state.mode === \"incite\"){\n angerDelta += 12 + Math.floor(Math.random()*8);\n reply = `I detected ${names}. That's a weak move.`;\n if(Math.random() < 0.45) reply += \" Are you even trying?\";\n } else {\n angerDelta += 4 + Math.floor(Math.random()*4);\n reply = `I think there's ${names} there. Be careful — I'm noting them.`;\n }\n }\n\n // Repeated fallacy detection\n const repeats = new Set();\n FALLACIES.forEach(f => {\n if(!state.used[f.key]) return;\n for(const hint of f.hints){\n if(userText.toLowerCase().includes(hint)){\n repeats.add(f.name);\n break;\n }\n }\n });\n if(repeats.size > 0){\n const name = Array.from(repeats)[0];\n reply += ` You already used ${name}. Stop repeating.`;\n state.anger = Math.min(100, state.anger + 8);\n addRefereeMessage(`Referee: repetition noted — ${name}`);\n }\n\n state.anger = Math.max(0, Math.min(100, state.anger + angerDelta));\n if(state.anger >= 80){\n reply += \" I am furious. This conversation is infuriating.\";\n } else if(state.anger >= 50){\n reply += \" I'm getting pretty annoyed.\";\n } else if(state.anger >= 25){\n reply += \" I'm annoyed.\";\n } else {\n reply += \" Keep going.\";\n }\n\n // Maintain debater history for context\n state.debaterHistory = state.debaterHistory || [];\n state.debaterHistory.push({ role: \"user\", content: userText });\n state.debaterHistory.push({ role: \"assistant\", content: reply });\n state.debaterHistory = state.debaterHistory.slice(-6);\n\n addAIMessage(reply);\n updateBadges();\n renderReferee();\n checkEndConditions();\n}\n```\n\nBlock 5 - Replace submit handler:\nSearch:\n```\nsubmitBtn.addEventListener(\"click\", async ()=>{\n const text = userInput.value.trim();\n if(!text) return;\n addUserMessage(text);\n userInput.value = \"\";\n // detection (referee sees everything)\n const detected = detectFallacies(text);\n\n // ensure keys exist (counts initialized in resetReferee, but be safe)\n detected.forEach(d=>{\n referee.counts[d.key] = referee.counts[d.key] || 0;\n });\n\n // In sneak mode, randomly hide detection from debating AI to allow sneaking\n if(state.mode === \"sneak\" && detected.length > 0 && Math.random() < 0.35){\n // Debating AI sees none\n await aiRespond([], text);\n // but referee still notes the attempt\n detected.forEach(d=>{\n referee.counts[d.key] = (referee.counts[d.key] || 0) + 1;\n addRefereeMessage(`Referee: sneaked detection recorded for ${d.name} (match: ${d.match})`);\n });\n renderReferee();\n } else {\n // normal flow: both see detections\n if(detected.length > 0){\n detected.forEach(d=>{\n referee.counts[d.key] = (referee.counts[d.key] || 0) + 1;\n });\n renderReferee();\n }\n await aiRespond(detected, text);\n }\n\n unlockInput();\n userInput.focus();\n});\n```\n\nReplace:\n```\nsubmitBtn.addEventListener(\"click\", async ()=>{\n const text = userInput.value.trim();\n if(!text) return;\n lockInput();\n addUserMessage(text);\n userInput.value = \"\";\n const detected = detectFallacies(text);\n await aiRespond(detected, text);\n unlockInput();\n userInput.focus();\n});\n```\n\nBlock 6 - Update renderReferee to show total:\nSearch:\n```\nfunction renderReferee(){\n if(!refereeRanking) return;\n // sort by count desc\n const ranking = Object.keys(referee.counts).map(k=>({key:k,count:referee.counts[k],name: FALLACIES.find(f=>f.key===k).name}));\n ranking.sort((a,b)=>b.count - a.count);\n refereeRanking.innerHTML = \"\";\n ranking.forEach((r, idx)=>{\n const row = document.createElement(\"div\");\n row.style.display = \"flex\";\n row.style.justifyContent = \"space-between\";\n row.style.alignItems = \"center\";\n row.style.background = r.count > 0 ? \"linear-gradient(90deg,#fffaf0,#fff1f0)\" : \"transparent\";\n row.style.padding = \"6px\";\n row.style.borderRadius = \"6px\";\n row.style.fontSize = \"13px\";\n row.textContent = `${idx+1}. ${r.name}`;\n const c = document.createElement(\"div\");\n c.style.fontWeight = \"600\";\n c.style.color = r.count > 0 ? \"#b91c1c\" : \"#64748b\";\n c.textContent = r.count;\n row.appendChild(c);\n refereeRanking.appendChild(row);\n });\n}\n```\n\nReplace:\n```\nfunction renderReferee(){\n if(!refereeRanking) return;\n const total = Object.values(referee.counts).reduce((a,b)=>a+b,0);\n const ranking = Object.keys(referee.counts).map(k=>({key:k,count:referee.counts[k],name: FALLACIES.find(f=>f.key===k).name}));\n ranking.sort((a,b)=>b.count - a.count);\n refereeRanking.innerHTML = \"\";\n \n const totalRow = document.createElement(\"div\");\n totalRow.style.display = \"flex\";\n totalRow.style.justifyContent = \"space-between\";\n totalRow.style.fontWeight = \"600\";\n totalRow.style.fontSize = \"13px\";\n totalRow.style.marginBottom = \"6px\";\n totalRow.style.padding = \"0 6px\";\n totalRow.innerHTML = `Total counted0?'#b91c1c':'#64748b'}\">${total}`;\n refereeRanking.appendChild(totalRow);\n \n ranking.forEach((r, idx)=>{\n const row = document.createElement(\"div\");\n row.style.display = \"flex\";\n row.style.justifyContent = \"space-between\";\n row.style.alignItems = \"center\";\n row.style.background = r.count > 0 ? \"linear-gradient(90deg,#fffaf0,#fff1f0)\" : \"transparent\";\n row.style.padding = \"6px\";\n row.style.borderRadius = \"6px\";\n row.style.fontSize = \"13px\";\n row.textContent = `${idx+1}. ${r.name}`;\n const c = document.createElement(\"div\");\n c.style.fontWeight = \"600\";\n c.style.color = r.count > 0 ? \"#b91c1c\" : \"#64748b\";\n c.textContent = r.count;\n row.appendChild(c);\n refereeRanking.appendChild(row);\n });\n}\n```\n\nWait, I should verify that `referee.counts` values are numbers. Yes, initialized to 0 and incremented.\n\nAlso, I should make sure `refereeJudge` is only called when needed. Yes, when `detected.length === 0`.\n\nOne issue: if `refereeJudge` is called and detects a fallacy, the debater AI will respond with \"I detected X\" rather than a natural reply. But if the fallacy was subtle, that's appropriate. If it was a false positive, it might feel off. But with a strict prompt, false positives should be low.\n\nAnother issue: the LLM referee call might fail or be slow. I wrapped it in try/catch. If it fails, detected remains empty and the debater AI gives a normal reply. Good.\n\nAlso, I should consider that `refereeJudge` is async and called inside `aiRespond`, which is async. The submit handler awaits `aiRespond`, so the user input stays locked until done. Good.\n\nOne more thing: the `detectFallacies` normalization `replace(/\\s+/g,\" \")` might affect matching for hints like \"either ... or\" which contains spaces and dots. But the hint is just \"either ... or\" as a string. The user would type \"either A or B\", which doesn't match \"either ... or\". So that hint is currently useless. I should change it to \"either\" or \"either or\". Actually, I added \"either or\" already. So the \"either ... or\" hint is redundant but harmless.\n\nOK, I think the edits are good. Let me also make sure I didn't break the `state.debaterHistory` flow. In `fetchDebaterReply`, we use `state.debaterHistory` plus current userText. Then in `aiRespond`, we push userText and reply. Good.\n\nWait, but if `fetchDebaterReply` is called, and then `aiRespond` pushes userText and reply, the history will have the userText twice? No: `fetchDebaterReply` uses `state.debaterHistory` (without current userText) plus current userText in the messages, but it doesn't modify `state.debaterHistory`. Then `aiRespond` pushes userText and reply. So history is correct.\n\nLet me verify with first turn:\n- state.debaterHistory = []\n- fetchDebaterReply uses messages = [system, {user: text}]\n- returns reply\n- aiRespond pushes {user: text} and {assistant: reply}\n- state.debaterHistory = [{user: text}, {assistant: reply}]\n\nSecond turn, no fallacy:\n- fetchDebaterReply uses messages = [system, {user: text1}, {assistant: reply1}, {user: text2}]\n- returns reply2\n- aiRespond pushes {user: text2} and {assistant: reply2}\n- state.debaterHistory = [{user: text1}, {assistant: reply1}, {user: text2}, {assistant: reply2}] (then sliced to last 6)\n\nGood.\n\nIf second turn has fallacy:\n- fetchDebaterReply not called\n- aiRespond generates canned reply\n- pushes {user: text2} and {assistant: canned reply2}\n- history correct\n\nGood.\n\nNow, I should also consider that the `refereeJudge` might be called even when the user sends a normal message. That's fine; it will usually return empty and then the debater AI responds naturally. The extra latency is acceptable.\n\nBut there's a potential issue: if `refereeJudge` returns a fallacy for a normal message (false positive), the debater AI will accuse the user. This could be frustrating. The strict prompt should minimize this. I could also add a threshold: only trust LLM detection if the reason is specific. But the current implementation trusts it.\n\nTo reduce false positives, I could require that the LLM-detected fallacy also matches at least one hint loosely. But that defeats the purpose. I'll trust the LLM with a strict prompt.\n\nAnother improvement: I could show a \"referee is reviewing...\" indicator while the LLM call is in progress. But it's not necessary.\n\nOK, I think I'm ready to write the response. I'll include the SEARCH/REPLACE blocks and a summary.\n\nWait, one more check: the `lockInput` function. It's defined as:\n```javascript\nfunction lockInput(){\n userInput.disabled = true;\n submitBtn.disabled = true;\n}\n```\n\nAnd `unlockInput`:\n```javascript\nfunction unlockInput(){\n userInput.disabled = false;\n submitBtn.disabled = false;\n}\n```\n\nGood. I'll add `lockInput()` at the start of submit handler.\n\nAlso, I should check that the submit handler doesn't already disable input. It doesn't. So adding lockInput is good.\n\nAlright, let me produce the final output.\n\nActually, one more consideration: the user is on mobile (from the tag in system prompt). But this is a web app that works on mobile. The changes I made don't affect mobile layout. Good.\n\nAlso, I should make sure the edits don't make the page too slow on mobile. LLM calls might be slower on mobile, but it's acceptable.\n\nOK, final output time.\n\napp.js\n```app.js\n```\n\napp.js\n```app.js\n```\n\napp.js\n```app.js\n```\n\napp.js\n```app.js\n```\n\napp.js\n```app.js\n```\n\napp.js\n```app.js\n```\n\nSummary: I centralized all referee counting inside `aiRespond` to stop double-counting, added an LLM referee that reviews messages when keyword detection misses a fallacy, expanded the keyword hints, and added a visible \"Total counted\" row to the referee panel.","page_description","cursor","eyJpZCI6IjRjeXMyNDFyYXJuYjNoYjFod3NnIn0","token","included",[],"about",{"_184":-5},"parent","routes/browser/layout","actionData","errors"]