Metagaming rewrite

"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."
That's the definition you believe metagaming should be? So the simple act that sweer committed did not fall under your new improved rule when he aided someone who did a T act, didn't ID the body, and tossed it to prevent others from finding out what it is in a means to prevent the person who commited the T act from dying?

 

I agree with you that Pacifist did not make the correct call by labeling that Meta-gaming. Confusion such as Pacifist's situation is one of the reasons as to why I proposed the initial rewording of the rule. If the way I rewrote it in my OP isn't the best, then it could always be tinkered with, but clearly even the staff team aren't aware of exactly what Meta-gaming is. I feel this can be because of a literal translation of the written rule, and not understanding that just because something is a little green that it doesn't make it blue. An offense that doesn't match perfectly with a punishment label will more often than not have a better label for it to be blanketed by.

 

Unless Sweer knew or believed that Falcor was a traitor, then no, I wouldn't call it metagaming. If he thought "Falcor is probably a T, but I don't want her to die", and then did all those things, then yeah that would be metagaming.

I'm okay with using another thing, maybe toxic gameplay. If it was a one time offense, I don't think it would be that big of a deal. If it's continuous behavior, which this seems to be, I think it's ok to use that.

 

Now comes the other problem, you don't really play much, you don't know what has happened the last couple days/weeks/months between them, so this one case to you might see as wrong, but how it's been happening over time lead to the ban.

 

History shouldn't make something metagaming. It's either bannable or not.

History, however, definitely can be relevant for toxic gameplay. That's why I have no issues with the ban length here. Or the ban itself, honestly. I disagree with the reason, but that doesn't necessarily make the ban invalid. The justification could be switched to toxic gameplay, and it'd be fine. This thread is about changing the metagaming definition to avoid instances like this though.

I mean, we've had this definition for a pretty long time. Older staff teams have been aware of the literal meaning, but have used the more accurate "unofficial" meaning. I thought that's what they were still doing, but I guess that isn't the case.

 

EDIT: It seemed some people had trouble finding my post so I edited it to be more noticeable.

I just want to touch on all these examples people give that fall under metagaming. Whereas you are right that all of those cases are technically considered metagaming, no one in their right mind would ban a player for said examples (and this is something no one seems to care to mention).

The key factor people are missing when listing these examples is that metagaming is a discretionary punishment dealt with on a case by case basis. The context is highly important (and the reason why history plays an important part)

You cannot have a cut and dry rule for metagaming, otherwise it would not be a discretionary punishment. That's like saying anyone who talks down/trash talks another player should be warned for harassment. There are guidelines that describe what these punishments are and there will be cases where something falls within those guidelines that does not warrant punishment. Isn't this why discretion is a thing? Why is everyone bracing for hellstorm of reports of cases that fall under metagaming? Unless the proper context is there all those reports wouldn't see the light of day.

As for the argument that history shouldn't play apart in determining the punishment, let me take you back to when Dirky got banned globally for mic spam a few weeks back (yes I know it was actually jshore using the soundboard and Dirky was unbanned, not the point i'm making).

Dirky used to play this duck sound in-game alot and he would be gagged ever so often for it. However he was eventually warned by an admin if he continued to do it he would be banned globally for micspam. He did it again (again I know it was jshore) and was banned on the spot, no gag+warning, no round gag, immediately banned.

The duck sound lasts half a second. Yes it technically falls under the definition of mic spam, but if I were to hop on the server now and do it I would most likely be ignored, worse case a gag and a warning. However its due to his history that he received that ban on the spot.

How is this different from Sweer's case? They were warned for their playstyle and the metagaming potential (or so I've heard can't confirm that part) and continued to do it. Yes if I jumped on the server now and did what they did I would be ignored/warned. But based on his history the ban was given immediately. How are these two cases different?

Sungamer's case is more group trolling/targeting than metagaming, however it still fell within the definition and based on the admin's discretion and what was taking place from previous rounds, they felt it was warranted.

 

Yeah we have had the definition for a long time, but consider who made the rule as it is in the first place. It was the older generation admins that already knew what Meta-gaming is, and since meta-gaming is an admin only punishment there never really was any confusion as to how to approach a potential meta-gaming situation. The newer generations aren't as keen when it comes to understanding why a rule is the way it is and what it entails. Therefore, the likelihood of them being confused on not only Meta-gaming, but also other rules, wouldn't be out of the question.

This is precisely why we pretty much have to make it so the rules are as simple to understand as possible but all the while must also offer the most information possible. Answers before questions. The people who made the rules won't always be around to explain why it is the way it is.

 

Following up the unclarity around this rule as of recently, I've brought up and approved a new version of it together with the staff team, which should hopefully clear up any confusion regarding it. Do note that it does not apply retroactively.

Please review the Extended Rules for the new version.

 

ayy nice opal

so lets agree

Examples of Role Breaking (not limited to):

• Innocents/Detectives burning/hiding unidentified bodies instead of investigating them.

ban is valid

 

:confusion intensifies:

Edit to not double post:
The first of the 2 new rules:

The first part of the old rule:

This wasn't previously against the rules, sure the rule described it like that, but it was only the act of playing against your role with the intention of aiding someone from the enemy team that was against the rules.

What's the thought behind adding it now under Role Breaking as a rule?

 

You had a small chat about it with Opal and me in shoutbox.
But in short, the simplest explanation is that role breaking - or sabotaging your own team - is self-evidently negative for the game.

Bear in mind that these punishments are discretionary and most likely not something you'll see handed out left and right.
Even if something technically fits the ruling, it doesn't mean there will be any punishment or warning for it. Your reason for your actions can play in here as well. Something that might be role breaking according to the rules, can be perfectly justified in a given situation. An admin+ will evaluate the situation as a whole, and decide whether it needs punishment or not.

Rest assured, you won't suddenly be getting banned for some small, one-time incident.

 

Why are you not applying it retroactively? Paci bans Sweer for metagaming, when it shouldn't be. You've now altered the rules to make what he did punishable under role breaking, but you're not applying it retroactively? What's up with that?

It's pretty ridiculous. You're ignoring a misapplied metagaming ban, which is the whole reason that this thread was revived. Are you going to refuse to admit that it was a perverted definition of metagaming that led to his ban?

This denial to grant even the slightest mistake of an admin is not a good look, especially when your next move is to create another vague rule subject to admin discretion. If you're never addressing the staff who use discretionary punishments incorrectly, you're just going to have history repeat itself.

 

I think the new rule is nice

 

I think it’s mean, it called me the N word

 

Well if you look at Sweers Appeal it shows the video of Sweer as a detective following what’s going on between Falcor and Thresh, and if you look at Falcors video on page 2 as a continuation, you see Sweer deliberately grabs the body and jumps off with it when people are trying to ID it. He saw the traitorous act then acted on it intentionally by jumping off the map with the body.

The rewrite clarified and revised the older metagaming rule which it still fell under as throwing the game.

History repeats itself, Sweer is a regular yet he’s had many bans before wouldn’t he learn not to do them or from you see here, continue to break them without consequences?

 

I didn’t give the ban but in my view it doesn’t excuse his tendency to break the rules making it less fun for the rest of the players

 

Rules are rarely applied retroactively. Applying something retroactively means having to go over who knows how many other offenses of it and correcting them, which we don't have the time to do. Specific cases (like the one you're referring to) can be modified, but we almost never apply something fully retroactively.

As for the specific case: the ban isn't misplaced. It was given under the previous ruling which were correctly applied to the case - and also brought up the problem with the old definition. Under the previous revision, the case is indeed considered Metagaming, even though it's easy to see it doesn't make sense (which is also why this specific ban was modified eventually). It "caught" something it shouldn't - hence the rewrite. This is not the fault of whoever placed the ban - they were doing what they were suppose to. It was the ruling that was too broad and needed to be refined, and this case highlighted the need for it.

 

And what about under the new ruling?

 

Role breaking.

 

You gotta admit though, that's a classic gag lol