No you don't. And you slobbering all over the thread. I guess I have to put you on ignore again.
Excluding a partition means the coin dies and thus their block rewards become worthless. You seem to not even comprehend Nash equilibrium. Really this is getting to be too much. You constantly waste my time. And you feel no remorse.
Yes, exactly the point. Excluding partitions is against consensus and leads to a divergent mess. That's the dichotomy at hand; one the one hand including partitions is sub-optimal for the block producers but on the other hand, it is essential for the network.
You can put me on ignore if you like, but you will be doing yourself a disservice if you are unable to prove to yourself that including N partitions does not increase the likelihood of a block being orphaned by some factor of N.
The case of strict partioning which I explained upthread does not cause the block to be invalidated if the partition lied (and I think I explained in my video too)! Did you forget that again. Do I need to go quote that upthread statement by me again! Because the partitions are independent, thus a partion can be invalidated without needing to invalidate the entire block (i.e. the next block corrects the partition in the prior block by providing a proof-of-cheating).
This is exactly why I don't like Casper; the theory is a total mess. Just do the validation inside the partition in the first place, rather than putting the cart before the horse like that.