You can't abuse something that's practically the foundations of the game. If the mods thinks it's a big deal just limit the games you can play with the same people.
deleteddeletedabout 11 years ago
I like this definition, it's the one that I've always thought of it as.
the difference between now and 2 years ago is, even though we played al ot of games with our friends and set out to play with our friends. We knew that once the game started we were playing to win, and we didn't care if we cursed at our friends or caleld them stupid. And we weren't scared to lynch our friends because they'd "Never talk to us again if we messed up this easy lynch" shout out to blister
we can't have two or more players playing together often any more, because at some point someone says "meta abuse" and no one ever clarifies that they mean "player b was biased for player a", while both of those players are lead to believe that they were breaking the rules just by playing together
deleteddeletedabout 11 years agoedited
The fact is what's being described in this thread isn't fair. Someone without friends on-site shouldn't have to run and be disadvantaged against people who have circlejerks which make their games significantly easier. Whether you call that meta-abuse or you call it something else, it's still not okay.
then you're just arguing semantics. gerryoat and zwink were investigated for having people throwing for them, it doesn't matter what term you use for it
my entire point with this thread is to kill the notion that "having a friend who is biased for you" play with you is "meta abuse" because it's a completely incorrect definition. meta abuse, historically was defined as the following:
a) pre-defined terms, words or actions to signal accurate information (such as roles or alignment) secretly to a small number of people
arguably, this is just full-blown cheating, but this was the definition used/implied when germatron banned rawr 5 years ago
b) only doing x as alignment, i.e. "i only fakeclaim cop as town" and doing it over and over again until people you play with start to catch on
^this is the real definition. nothing even close to how gerryoat or zwink played.
Never been able to put my finger on it, so I've never really participated in the meat-abuse discussions. Stayed away from those cases as a mod too. Certain "honest meta" things, like this Christian girl one time who only swore to God when she really was being honest, and her friends knew that, crossed the line into definite meta abuse/OGI, but as a round-long cheating-ring kind of thing, I'm stumped. Too wishy-washy.
well, a few months ago when the limit was suggested i was completely against it (When bear made the Markus and Kuwarmi bin) because comp has always been a small community and one of the joys is playing with people i knew and owning them in games, but the ability to scum hunt has dropped considerably so people just go in games and not fos their friends at all.
When I used to play with justrec, lolwot, caroline, ect. i'd always have my personal read on them but i would wait until they were the last mafia to actually lynch them unless they were in a cc of course.
I changed sides now because of the frequency of these bans.
if you surround yourself with people who you can read easily (or they read you easily) and use that to your advantage over the course of a round
1
deleteddeletedabout 11 years ago
I mean yeah if you're winning more just because your tables are more competent on average that's not meta abuse. Good clarification.
What I meant is if having a player in your table suddenly makes you way more likely to win than you would if that player was replaced with some random.
deleteddeletedabout 11 years ago
Just playing with someone is way too general. People are allowed to play with their friends, and some people just run into each other constantly because of when they have time to play.
there's a big difference between playing with friends and throwing for them. i played most of my games with gira and sachy when i won my bronze, but i didn't do as well with them because i can't read either of them.
in retrospect we probably should ease up on moderating meta abuse though. every single case since i became admin resulted in a terrible reception & the mods being abused for it.
