Ok, so it should be called friend abuse from now on then. Thanks!
deleteddeletedabout 11 years agoedited
he actually has half a point in this thread, if he could just realise it properly. he's still wrong tho. friend meta isn't just people deludng themselves in filling in the gaps (insisting on cheating), it has a considerable and obvious affect on games
He's trying to define bias as "meta abuse" despite have no cases or games to confirm his bias against this.
I don't have a problem with "friend meta" because I subscribe to it and only play if someone I favor is in the table. Does that mean that I'm joining to throw the game for them? Hell nah, it just means that my game sucks a lot less.
deleteddeletedabout 11 years ago
i wonder does zovea understand that he's saying friend meta is a misconception this time
thats the thing. you cant NOT be willing to participate. the round should have been paused and the decision should have only gone through once all the mods had given their 2 cents about the case.
Giga you do get that friends are inherently biased toward each other right? Otherwise they wouldn't be friends. You also fail to consider that you've yet to come across friendships superseding win conditions in a pastebin outside of misreads since you've been remodded, and I thought the mods were against punishing people for being wrong.
Finally if I'm playing with a friend whom I can read, why do I need to type suspicion towards them to prove that I'm not "meta abusing"? The same wouldn't apply towards a townie I never interact with because I have no need to so why do friends have to play with special rules?
deleteddeletedabout 11 years agoedited
at least, the entirety of the mod team that was active and willing to participate in the investigation at the time. that was my understanding anyway.
Not gonna lie, I still think I shoulda got the trophy. But, it wasn't worth being banned over. That's why I didn't complain with the verdict of just being suspended the round and being unbanned.
again, I think that banning a runner from the competition, especially someone who would have won the round, is a decision that needs to go through the entire mod team.
1
deleteddeletedabout 11 years ago
well he seems to be defending friends playing with each other anyway. seems a follow-on from my final posts in that thread about blister gamethrowing (there was no in-game absolute proof of gamethrowing, but blister has a history of favouring the players that were in that game)
- having a specific line you and a buddy say whenever you're town or something along those lines - purposefully playing with someone many times when you know you are playing in your favour, but they DO NOT. This isn't cheating because it's not a two way street, so I usually like to call this friend abuse but it is a sector of meta abuse. It is meta abuse by playing in favour of another user. You are abusing meta by playing in favour of x, no matter what, which is an in-game advantage that no one who is playing fairly has over the course of a round, but the person being played in favour for is supposedly not cheating or doing anything wrong. This is why this type of meta abuse is extremely difficult to moderate and judge, cocacola/zwink and gerryoat1/luminica are examples of this. Should the term "meta abuse" for this be changed? - I might be forgetting more things but I woke up not too long ago
deleteddeletedabout 11 years agoedited
it feels like a buzz word that's gotten thrown around a lot lately.
https://epicmafia.com/report/136558 That's what he's talking about. Or it might have been the game where I sheeped his dying town fos, you can never tell with this guy.
It's funny cause, I wasn't even "banned" for meta abuse. it was cause he thought Luminica was throwing in my favor, which he was proven wrong. So idk where the meta thing started.
