Metagaming rewrite

Hey,

I'm suggesting a rewrite on the Metagaming section of the extended rules. The current definition leaves a large opportunity of confusion to occur, potential grey-area abuse, and overall does not accurately sum up what Metagaming is.

The current definition is speaking on what is a consequence of Metagaming and not the action itself. Metagaming is not playing the game as how it should be played in a specified manner. Traitors and Detectives shouldn't be working together if they both know each other's confirmed roles. Of course, this is different from a Traitor deceiving a Detective.

I suggest changing it from this,

"Metagaming is playing the game in a way that aids the enemy team instead of your own. Metagaming is also sometimes known as "throwing". Metagaming hurts the enjoyment and fairness of TTT and is not allowed in our servers.
Since metagaming is a situational topic, punishment is given under the discretion of an admin or above (see the "punishments" section below)"

To this,
➥

"Metagaming can be classified as any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends the prescribed rules, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game itself. For example, it would mean to tell somebody some information about another player or something they are doing that the said player's character should not intrinsically know about for the sake of not playing the game as it was meant to be played. In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions. Metagaming is also sometimes known as "throwing". Metagaming hurts the enjoyment and fairness of TTT and is not allowed in our servers.
Since Metagaming is a situational topic, punishment is given under the discretion of an admin or above (see the "punishments" section below)"


There can be potential confusion with this part in the new write-up: "In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions"
A question you might ask is "If someone ghost's me information and I act on it would that be considered Metagaming as well?" And the answer would be not necessarily. Just because two rulings have similar conditions doesn't make them one and the same, Metagaming is already a case by case evaluation and therefore an instance of evaluating acting upon unfairly distributed information would still need to occur.

 

I don't know, this reads to me like one of those memes where the same thing is just restated with excessive detail.

If you're worried about people misunderstanding "playing the game in a way that aids the enemy team instead of your own", which I don't think happens often anyway, the wording could just be changed to "intentionally playing the game in a way that aids the enemy team..." or something along those lines. I've never interacted with someone who has believed that helping the traitors by killing an innocent accidentally, or gets tricked by a radar or radio and kills an innocent, is metagaming.

I also don't think you're right to focus on the "out-of-game resources" bit, because I've seen plenty of spur of the moment metagaming where people are just not acting on other's actions.

Anyhow, that's my 0.02

 

everyone out here trying to get me banned

 

they just dont want us having fun

 

For some reason only people from TTT think that metagaming means throwing a game.

 

This thread kinda died, but I want to bump it after hearing about the recent metagaming case with Sweer.

I think there's some confusion in the way the metagaming rule is written- and it really should be clarified a bit. With the way the current definition is written, the rule can easily be interpreted to fall under anything an innocent does that may help the other team-- when 99% of the time, that's just bad gameplay, not an offense that requires a 1-3 month ban. Nor, was never the intention of the rule as it was written.

The intention of the rule was to take care of players who are working along with their buddies to cause havoc on the server by working with the other team- not just small quirks in gameplay styles that others don't like. I destroy T-testers all the time.. because well, I don't like t-testers.. With the current definition, this can earn me a four month ban pretty easily.

 

I disagree with you on the intention on the rule. I've never narrowed metagaming down people working with their friends, and I don't think the previous staff teams have done that either. Metagaming popping up between two completely random players can definitely happen.

I don't relish the idea of changing the definition, but I can see how it could cause some confusion when applying bans. When I see "playing the game in a way that aids the enemy team instead of your own", it doesn't mean breaking the T tester, but by the textbook definition, it is. What is breaking the tester, if not helping traitors?

However, it's important to note only admins+ handle metagaming stuff. Admins should be smart enough to not ban someone for trollish actions that aren't necessarily metagaming. If that's not happening, it's a larger issue with the staff, not just the rules.

So I guess my point is: Yeah, the rule itself is a strange wording, but admins+ should know better than to enforce it in strange ways - that doesn't mean it shouldn't be altered, just that the current wording shouldn't be causing incorrect bans. Also, I don't agree with how you define metagaming here.

 

Someone just got a three month ban for throwing an unid'd off a cliff as a detective.

 

after a gunfight, and when he has history of metagaming with and without falcor

 

Which explains the length, but not the enforcement of the rule. It's not what the intention of the metagaming rule was created for. That is 100% a misapplication of the rule.

Why is it when other people kill someone for throwing an unid'd off a cliff and it is reported for, we tell them it isn't against the rules? Yet in this case it's a long-term ban? The logic isn't there.

 

Because nobody is going to shoot a Detective for throwing anything off the map, which sweer was.

Inno's that throw un-id'd bodies off are committing traitorous acts and can be killed for that?

 

This should reflect worse on Paci - if the verdict is wrong - not the rule itself. Paci has been an admin twice, is a veteran community member, and should know when to apply the rule correctly.

I don't disagree that the definition could use some tweaking to be clearer, but the fault is not really with the rule, just whoever enforces it incorrectly and doesn't apply common sense.

 

This isn't the first time he's done something like this though, it's been going on for the last couple days/weeks/months, as well as numerous delaying rounds as well.

And to end on that, Fuck the heart room, full of metagaming and delaying, and if you don't know what I'm talking about, means you don't play.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_(role-playing_games)

 

I respect your opinion, but I am of the opinion that you have no idea what you are talking about here. Falcor and Sweer are buddies. They teamed up to kill thresh, and it is very evident in the fact that sweer threw the body off instead of iding it and killing falcor for damaging and attempting to kill an Innocent. Had this not been something that sweer has been banned for in the past, I would have probably just warned him. However, I have warned sweer in the past for this behavior, and he has also been banned several times by others. His history as well is a major point of focus. Of course, if we just ignored all of that and looked at the one situation in question, yes, you could say that 3 months (it is actually 4 months but I wont fault you there) is very harsh.

You're right. I have been an admin twice, and I am a veteran community member. That's why I didn't just ban him straight away. I gathered my evidence, I checked with other admins and I considered his history and everything else before I applied the ban. Even now, a lot of admins support my decision. I'll take responsibility if I am wrong, always have and always will, but I am confident I did the right thing. Maybe you don't agree, and that's fine.

I just want my thought process to be a little bit better understood is all. I've actually highlighted the rule below and I want to give my opinion on this as last time I was focused a bit too much on the exact wordage. In my mind, metagaming is game throwing. When two people (or a single individual) commits an action that gives an advantage to another. Now, context matters immensely here. Opening a T door to let innocents into the T room can seem like metagaming in the wrong context, but you have to figure out whether or not the person is letting innocents into the T room so that they kill each other, or if he is letting innocents into the T room because he wants to let those innocents have an easier job of winning the round. Is a traitor handing a T weapon over to a detective metagaming? Well it really depends on the context. If the traitor just drops his T weapon because he wants to buy another, I wouldn't call that metagaming. Now, if the traitor drops his T weapon to specifically give it to the detective, i'd call that metagaming.

I think Helix is wrong when he determines this rule to only be in place to stop group trollers, because it ignores other possible uses for the rule itself. If you notice that a specific player is constantly telling everyone who his T buddies are, you can ban them for meta gaming on the spot. If someone places the keycard into the console on nuclear you can ban them for meta gaming if they are a detective or an innocent. I strongely believe Helix misunderstands that Meta-Gaming does not always have to be two people, that it can easily just be a single person or a single action. It doesn't quite matter however when us admins are given the power over what punishment we opt for. This gives us a lot of leeway with metagaming. In the instance where someone throws the game once or twice, a slay would suffice. However, when you consider someones history, more of a punishment can be required.

I hope that makes sense, I don't think I've convinced anyone but it feels good to make a formal address on the subject.

 

Okay hold up, please open up that appeal now cause now youre saying i teamed with a d to kill thresh. or vice versa. Please show me how you have proof of intent.

 

You're right. I mispoke. He sided with you is what I should have said. However, this thread is hardly about recent events. I just wanted to respond to what was being said and give my opinion on the subject is all.

 

Yeah, I agree. I wrote that post up too quickly- I mentioned that to Han as well when he questioned me on it lol. I still 100% agree you misapplied- but you’re right, this isn’t really the place for that, I went through other revenues.

I’ll explain what I meant in a bit when I’m home.