Meta in EpicMafia is something that I think is definitely a blurred line when it comes to playing mafia. I'd really like to start a discussion on the consensus of meta, whether or not it is a healthy part of Epicmafia. It is hard to argue that in competitive play that meta does not play a factor.
What is meta?
Meta in mafia essentially reading a person over the game. It's using the playstyle of a person to determine their alignment.
For example, if you're playing a game of Frontier Justice 2.0 with John and you know that he never cc's a power role as mafia, and he claims journalist and get's cc'd, then you know, through meta, that John is very likely the real journalist.
Is meta against the rules?
Meta in games is not against the rules, and you can very openly use it without consequence. Meta Abuse however, is against the rules. The epicmafia ruleset classes meta abuse underneath cheating, the exact words following.
Abuse of meta over several games can also fall under cheating or sometimes OGI depending on a number of factors.
It is fairly ambiguous what turns using meta as meta abuse (there is no specific game count nor examples showing what meta abuse would look like)
The Problem with Meta
The main problem with meta in games is that it gives an unfair advantage to people who are playing with similar or the same people over a large span of games. Regardless of whether you actively "meta abuse", meta is something you can't really avoid when it comes to your reads. It's not like you are going to hammer someone else over someone you know is scum due to a meta read.
The Solution to Meta
Meta is something that is hard to avoid, and you can't really force anyone to stop playing with people they enjoy playing with. A solution brought up in the past was to anonymise competitive games to discourage the use of meta.
Please share with me your thoughts on meta. I'm very curious to see what other people think of this topic.
It should be you are assigned a role, act in accordance to a grand strategy involving that role, and if you are mafia, lie about your role. If you are town, you can also lie about your role.
How does Meta fit in?
It has its place. I will define three tiers of meta.
Soft Meta, or "gamesolving", using the odds of the setup as well as considering potential situations. Navigating the game by using the game itself, instead of the people participating.
Medium Meta, or personal meta, is getting reads or outing fosses solely based on external game factors or behaviors that haven't necessarily been exhibited during the game.
Hard Meta, or playing with friends in competitive, giving an advantage to townsided players against maf-sided friends and giving an **extreme disadvantage** to mafia if the group of people with intimate meta on each other all flip town.
What is the nature of a competitive game?
Competitive games should not allow hard fosses based on meta. A hard fos is a clear, pointed declaration that you believe a person to be scummy, and if your justification is based on meta, or lies about meta, it can be unfair or impossible to counter lest you OGI yourself in defense.
If someone accuses me of always doing X, and I want to refute that, I need to prove it by referencing outside games: which I cannot do.
The accuser in a meta lie wins over the accused in a meta lie, especially if the accuser is forceful.
An allowance of soft and hard meta leads to "since meta is allowed, we can also lie about meta" and then your charisma or speed allows you to roflwagon a person based on .
I've been speedlynched as real gs in guns and hookers because I occasionally cc gs as mafia when someone mentions that I've previously done that stuff.
it's like, yeah, nice, but actually read the game, ok?
Guise testing without codes (if we cant use guise codes guiser becomes broken,) is super super duper OGI usually and is totally unfair to the guiser a lot of the times.
Just to be clear here, "another player" in scenarios 3-6 should say "Player B". I worded it poorly lol, but these scenarios involve Player A playing in favour of Player B.
Also: When reporting meta abuse, have some proof ready to show moderators. Many of them don't have time to begin an investigation by themselves just because a user really, REALLY thinks that it's happening, (with a distinct lack of proof or evidence). Help the moderators so they can help you, and the rest of the website in keeping mafia as clean as possible.
This has been a message from your local mafia garbage man.
Meta is still an inherent part of what we each respectively (subjectively) define, read, and categorize as "townie/towny" and "scummy". BennyWinter is correct when in his definition of "Meta" in his OP, he says:
...even if his example succeeding this definition does not necessarily reflect the full meaning and purpose of that definition.
It can remove all the scenarios in my last post (assuming no one involved is cheating), but we still all have our own unique and individualized certain ways of approaching the game. Players can also out who they are if they want, and we still know who joined the game in pregame and may (consciously or subconsciously) look to see who is really who as the game progresses. Anonymous setups tend to be more scumsided in general due to the inherent meta factor being supressed or diminished--and meta is a factor which, while it helps town and mafia, helps town more, generally.
Depending on intent, the punishment for certain players can vary and is usually determined by moderator discretion. One or more players involved may receive violations, round suspensions, suspensions from trophying, or even bans, depending on their violation history. Having been a part of several different moderator teams over the history of this website, I can say with certainty that these decisions are decided on as a group, and moderators talk about decisions and punishments with each other before coming to any verdicts on every round-related case that doesn't fall cleanly into the rule of Cheating.
People play for each other subconsciously sometimes. Meta abuse is, without question, the most difficult thing to moderate. It takes a long time to figure out if there is even any meta abuse/players playing in favour of another player (or each other) happening, and then determining a verdict and punishment can take some time as well.
I've been meaning to make this post again for a while but haven't had the time to do it so I'm glad that I'm able to do it again. Hopefully this answers some of the questions that people may have. This is a good thread and topic that always needs discussion so that players are informed about what they can and cannot do, as well as on how these things are handled, and what to do if you suspect any meta abuse or players playing in favour of each other happening.
I made a post like this many years ago but I can't find it so I'll write it out again--There are six instances and scenarios in which meta abuse/playing in favour of another player can occur between two players:
1. Both players are knowingly abusing meta with each other 2. Both players are unknowingly abusing meta with each other 3. Player A is, in some way, intentionally playing in favour of another player, unbeknownst to Player B 4. Player A is, in some way, unintentionally playing in favour of another player, unbeknownst to Player B 5. Player A is, in some way, intentionally playing in favour of another player, and Player B knows it but is not doing/has not done anything at all about it 6. Player A is, in some way, unintentionally playing in favour of another player, and Player B knows it but is not doing/has not done anything at all about it
In scenarios 5 and 6, the earlier Player B reports this to a moderator, the better; the less likely Player B is to be round suspended. If it has happened enough over the course of a round to affect trophy placement of that player or of any other players within trophy contention, and Player B knew about it but didn't say anything, they will most likely be round suspended and receive sanctions on trophying for a period of time determined by moderators.
Scenarios 3 and 4 are less likely but have happened before--Player B can still be round suspended, but likely doesn't receive any further penalties beyond that. Again, while rare, this has happened before.
Even if only one person is doing it intentionally, it is your job to report...
- Meta abuse - One player playing in favour of another player - Two or more players playing in favour of each other, or for another player
...to a moderator, if you see or notice this happening--even if you are involved. Tell a moderator in PMs if you don't want it to be seen as you reporting it--if you don't it's possible you can receive a round suspension without even receiving a violation. I once round suspended two users (let's call them Player Y and Player Z), but only Player Y received a violation--Player Y was playing in favour of/abusing meta with Player Z consistently enough over the course of a round to warrant a round suspension. Player Z lost a trophy because of it, even though they didn't know that Player Y was playing intentionally in their favour. By reporting suspected meta abuse to moderators, even if it is found that there is none happening, it also could save days of time at the end of a round.
You're suppose to document a couple of games related to "meta abuse" before posting it in the system.
Instead of dumping it one by one. Imagine how disorganize the system will be, if everyone just report if there is "meta abuse"(or when they think it is).
Meta is unavoidable. Even without being so obvious as claiming metaclear, I have baseline reads on most active players on my timezones, and i can't really help but use it.
Relying too much on meta is an issue, and https://www.instagram.com/josemorenofs/ raises a good point, that the more a setup is about "scumhunting" and the less open reasons you have hammering someone, the more meta abuse can be a factor.
More than meta abuse, playing all the time with a certain set of friends is the issue in comp.
I've been vocal in the past that setups like manhunt shouldn't be played without anon, because you can throw against someone way too easily. If we're willing to throw away 10 days every now and then to manhunt, we could make an experiment to have a full anon round and see what happens.
deletedalmost 5 years
making competitive anonymous for at least one round would be interesting
