Back to Epicmafia

"meta abuse"

Hibiki
over 9 years

prove you know your stuff, post your definition of meta abuse and how to do it ITT

Goldhearted
over 9 years

Sims says

if you want to be a stickler for semantics, meta abuse is abusing OGI like "i wouldn't kill X," but that's no fun. it's always been a blanket term for throwing for a friend.

deletedover 9 years

UniversalStudios says


belovedprincess says

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


So does 2 competent clears, or 2 competent scum, or 2 competent unclears that know how to town tell, etc. etc.


agreed. friend meta bypasses actual competency to a large degree tho. it refines mafia tells, town tells etc. into one person's expression of them

it makes the game hugely easier in lessening it
UniversalStudios
over 9 years

belovedprincess says

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


So does 2 competent clears, or 2 competent scum, or 2 competent unclears that know how to town tell, etc. etc.
Giga13
over 9 years

Kerry says


Giga13 says


- 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


friend bias = ogi/gamethrowing =/= meta abuse...


Ok, so it should be called friend abuse from now on then. Thanks!
deletedover 9 years
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
Kerry
over 9 years
i think everyone just ignores what zovea says now
UniversalStudios
over 9 years
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.
deletedover 9 years
i wonder does zovea understand that he's saying friend meta is a misconception this time
MattHelders
over 9 years

mist says

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.


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.
UniversalStudios
over 9 years
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?
deletedover 9 years
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.
deletedover 9 years

MattHelders says

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.


i'm pretty sure it did?
Gerry
over 9 years

MattHelders says

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.


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.
mandevian
over 9 years

Giga13 says

to me, meta abuse can be:

- 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


that is what i said.
MattHelders
over 9 years
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.
deletedover 9 years
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)
Kerry
over 9 years

Giga13 says


- 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


friend bias = ogi/gamethrowing =/= meta abuse...
Kerry
over 9 years

MattHelders says

also, i dont have the intent to read through the previous pages, dave disagrees with the gerryoat ban?



Hibiki says

i don't know what gerryoat and zwink did because i, like almost everyone posting ITT, didn't read their games. also, how could i, considering i was presenting a hypothetical?

Giga13
over 9 years
to me, meta abuse can be:

- 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
deletedover 9 years

gerryoat says

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.


it feels like a buzz word that's gotten thrown around a lot lately.
UniversalStudios
over 9 years

MattHelders says

thats exactly what i was talking about mane


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.
Gerry
over 9 years
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.
Kerry
over 9 years

Hugo says

zovea stop posting. all you do is whine about how the world works. the nature always takes the course unless you do something about it. whining about it does not help. if you do not like something, change it instead of just isping till kicks in games and then voting town and blaming the town for following a particular type of play style


he still does this lmao?
MattHelders
over 9 years
well, if that is the case, this is pretty fkd up. gerryoat being banned without a consensus amongst all mods is wrong imho
deletedover 9 years

MattHelders says

also, i dont have the intent to read through the previous pages, dave disagrees with the gerryoat ban?


he didn't read the games. i think this was the crux of what he wanted to communicate:

Hibiki says

what i AM saying is that you cannot use the stand-alone evidence of player-with-player stats and friend-status and conclude that there was bias. it's still entirely necessary to do the nitty-gritty, churn through those games and find the things that point to bias. and the evidence you'd be looking for is entirely DIFFERENT to the evidence that you'd be looking for in rolesharers. you CANNOT take a failed cheating accusation's evidence and just say "well, it was probably just bias then".