Metagaming rewrite

Wait wait wait now im confused, sided with me. So since he chose to shoot thresh who was shooting at me as well. well heres my video lol. https://plays.tv/video/5ba801c131f42a95b6/longerver
now get back to the rule issue and not the appeal heh

 

lets change it to simply "No helping someone if they are on the opposite team"

boom, bam, shablam, problem fixed. Much simpler and easier for people to understand

 

oh you and your big brained, small brained, inception logic. +1

 

But in this situation, Sweer wasn't explicitely helping someone that he knew to be on the opposite team?

The issue with that wording is that metagaming doesn't always mean you know someone is a traitor / someone on the opposite team.

 

Well we should have made a new thread but I guess this is the discussion hub for sweers ban. From what I can tell I support the ban. History of metagaming is what really sells it. But its obvious falcor could have be killed, if you were unable to shoot her due to something like karma you should have called it out

If i was in that scenario, I would have killed thresh, id'd the body. And found that falcor was likely T, and killed or called out. By not IDing you clearly don't care about the round win, and then by not shooting falcor you don't care about killing traitors. Its a 2x metagame imo and I'm sure thats what Paci sees. Now if this was a first time its whatever, probably wouldnt even need a warning, but being a regular and having a history = ban for sweer.

 

You know. After reading through Pacifist's responses, and the response of others- maybe I am misinterpreting this. It is clear that the definition of metagaming has changed over time to better fit the definition is currently within the ruleset. The examples don't fit this entirely, but it does appear that people are happy with it the way it is for the most part.

Historically, metagaming had to deal with two people teaming up (which you can see @Falcor was beginning to get at)together to 'throw' the game- such as a D teaming up with a T, killing any innocent that fires back at a traitor, and there has historically been a factor of severity involved as well. A single act would previously never illicit a punishment because it's hard to prove intent from a single incident.

This has changed apparently without me realizing because metagaming isn't necessarily a common punishment. If everyone is fine with that, then perhaps the rule is okay with how it is. I do think that this is anti-productive however personally. While it is important to restrict gameplay to a set of rules- I agree that we should be careful not to inhibit different types of playstyles, even if they are not always beneficial. The way that this rule is being interpreted currently means that instances such as, destroying a T-tester, throwing unid's off of a body, not acting off of T-acts, etc., will fall under metagaming. I would propose in turn however that metagaming be treated less severely, but as this is an admin discretion punishment, that is more of a role of the admins to consider rather than adjusting actual protocol.

 

Agreed. We're not the staff-team or even the player-base anymore, so if this is how they want to approach this ruling then I suppose we should just step back and let them be governed how they want to be.

 

I suppose the biggest question is, how much do we care about solo metagaming vs working with another person? IE Helix destroying the tester is toxic and does hurt the round, but not a huge amount. But then if Helix broke the tester for his alt acct who was a traitor, that'd be far worse since they would likely be working together and ghosting at the same time.

 

Wouldnt that be ghosting if Helix had 2 accounts on the same server at the same time and then one becomes active. That and the fact that Helix knew his alt would be the T means Helix would know all the Ts due to his alt accoutn.

 

but the scenario would also be metagaming

 

mate the alt acct was me making a joke about me being his alt. im not talking about actual alts.

 

It was a shit joke then tbh

 

I've thought of metagaming as "playing against your role for the sake of someone else" with the additional of it having to have been for "no reason". The rules have never obligated people to act against T - Acts before, as far as I know, and it kind of feels like that, the way it's phrased now.

I do agree that Sweer would have been metagaming, because being a detective he would know the person he killed is a innocent and then proceeding to throw said innocent body off the cliff without identifying it as a detective would be like telling everyone "just ignore it" and then not shooting Falcor and not doing anything about it for "no reason" is pretty much playing against his role for the sake of people not going after Falcor.

But for the same reason I wouldn't agree with the metagaming part of sungamer's ban, sungamer didn't act upon the traitor(s?) who killed ptown, but he didn't do that for the sake of the traitor(s) doing it, he did it because he wanted ptown to die. Presumably after that kill they played normal TTT for the rest of the round.

The situation is quite clearly group trolling and targetting, but it feels wrong to call it metagaming, because the intention of giving a blind eye to the killer was to get the other person killed, not out of wanting to help them.

If there's a better phrasing that solves these problems, then I could get behind it. Also please, please tell me if my interpretation of the rule is wrong and please explain how it's treated now if I got something wrong.

 

Sly humor doesn’t work on anal peeps.

I found it to be pretty witty tho

 

So could we just call it throwing?

 

cutting the wrong c4 wire around a group of inno metagaming or nah?

 

I dunno but it can be a lot worse than spamming the T room door as a traitor

 

No, it would either be mass RDM or toxic gameplay.

Felt like adding this, even though the discussion has died down: I finally looked over the appeal / Paci's response and metagaming is not the right punishment to use here. It was also used incorrectly as a reason in Sungamer's ban. It's okay to punish people who make the game less enjoyable, but don't twist the definitions of the rules to do so.

 

How was it the wrong punishment for paci's case?

 

Because he defines metagaming strictly as "game throwing", which is not a proper definition of what metagaming in TTT really is.

I'm gonna do a slight 180 - since I did feel like the wording could be changed anyway - here and say that after thinking about this a little more, I agree with Helix.

The current definition of metagaming is "Playing the game in a way that aids the enemy team instead of your own. Metagaming is also sometimes known as "throwing"."

The issue with this is that it's not really what metagaming is. Nearly everyone would be metagaming if you limited it to this wordage. Refusing to test would be helping traitors instead of innocents, since you would be slowing down the process of elimination. Being afk as a detective would be helping the enemy team. Throw in all the other examples Helix mentioned. Even if we incorporate negative intent into that context, it's silly to classify that as metagaming.

In previous staff teams, people knew what the definition meant, even though it didn't exactly match the wording. That doesn't seem to be the case here, so the definition should be altered to fit the actual definition of metagaming better.

A better definition of metagaming would be something along the lines of this: "Metagaming is not simply ignoring traitorous activity, it is going above and beyond to intentionally assist someone you know or strongly believe to be a traitor, despite being on the opposing team."

tl;dr: Sweer's ban, by the definition of metagaming in the extended rules, is valid. However, the metagaming definition is not an accurate description of what metagaming really is. Previous administrations knew this, but this current administration apparently does not, so it should be corrected.