Change the 6.3.1/6.3.2 Metagaming Rule

[Denise C]

6.3 Metagaming
6.3.1 Metagaming (MG) is the act of relaying IC information through OOC methods or using OOC information in roleplay scenarios. OOC methods include third-party software, for example, Discord.
6.3.2 Mixing IC and OOC information without any benefit is a minor MG offense. For example, a player uses IC chat to talk about OOC content or calls someone by their nametag.

The current metagaming rule is not the true definition of metagaming, which is the act of using out of character information in character. The current rules state that just talking about what happens in character on an out of character platform and not even using any of the information in character is metagaming. It is even metagaming in instances where it does nothing to the roleplay environment, does not cause other instances of rule-break, does not promote bad, poor, or fail roleplay, and does not harm anything or anyone in any way.

As it stands, this rule acts as a pre-metagaming rule, a rule to combat the act of metagaming before it even happens. The term "metagaming" has been altered on Eclipse Roleplay as if it is believed that players are unable to differentiate in character from out of character and are unable to follow basic metagaming rules, which is not only incredibly pessimistic, but also implies that us as the player base are stupid and can't roleplay properly. This is very unfortunate and insulting in my opinion.

I suggest that the rule be changed so that our metagaming rule follows the true definition of metagaming, not an oddly customized one that contradicts a number of other rules or protocols on the server (e.g. making it mandatory to post faction screenshots which would be relaying IC information on an OOC platform, PD using Discord to notify other members that they have received emails, etc.).

Thank you all in advance for taking the time to read this and contributing to a conversation about this issue. x

Edited December 18, 2018 by Denise C

[Grape]

+1

[dardanr]

Thinking of it, as it stands right now even having your IC name and PD/MD Rank as your signature can be considered Metagaming according to 6.3.1 "Metagaming (MG) is the act of relaying IC information through OOC methods ". Agree that it needs some tweaks since at the current state it's not properly defined.

[MrSilky]

+1, the metagaming rule is completely insane. 

We are playing a game, obviously we are going to talk about the content of the game to our friends OOCly to say what we enjoyed and what we did. 

Metagaming should only be enforced IF information you share about you current IC actions or IC knowledge is used ICly by people listening to you through OOC channels.

The rule as it currently stands actually makes people unable to lawfully tell their friends about the server. Furthermore, the current rule also makes it so that ALL twitch streamers are metagming and as such should be punished immediately. 

Sharing IC information through OOC channels should not be a problem unless said information is used and abused through the OOC channel to be utilised ICly.

[Denise C]

I'd also love for anyone who believes it shouldn't be changed to post why they think that way. I hope to have a good discussion about this rule because there was obviously a reason why it was implemented in the first place, despite, in my opinion, it being unfair and unnecessarily restrictive.

I also expect this discussion to be mature. No insulting, no belittling someone, no shutting down arguments or opinions in a cruel or aggressive manner, etc.

[Tomis13lack]

29 minutes ago, dardanr said:

Thinking of it, as it stands right now even having your IC name and PD/MD Rank as your signature can be considered Metagaming according to 6.3.1 "Metagaming (MG) is the act of relaying IC information through OOC methods ". Agree that it needs some tweaks since at the current state it's not properly defined.

+1

You think that's bad? Technically telling my dog that i died is metagaming by that definition. I relayed that i died (IC information) to my dog (through OOC methods, didnt call him in game)

[shiroq]

By this definition of the rule half of the players should be banned. I think its more of a misunderstanding an the writing in rules. This is very unrealistic for this rule to be enforced. Metagaming is already punished by rather weak punishments and trying to enforce this rule but make everything much worse. Basically people sharing and looking at ECRP fashion discord channel would be classed as metagamers 

Edited December 9, 2018 by shiroq

[Shannon]

+1 Metagaming should only be if people take OOC information and use it IC.... 

[Resfiel420]

Because Eclipse goes by their own definition of metagaming, the rule is confusing and does need to be altered.. it's horrendus to have admins and players have their own interpretation of the rules when they should be solid.  With the current rules, I have a few questions:

1. If I kill a police officer 2 hours ago and tell my buddy on discord that I did it, is that metagaming?

2. If I post roleplay on thread, is it metagaming?

3. If I tell my buddy I'm busy over Discord because I'm in a RP situation, is it metagaming because that would alter what his character does?

 

6.3 Metagaming

6.3.1 Metagaming (MG) is the act of using out of character information in an in-character way.
(Example 1: You inform your friend over discord that you're being robbed and they respond.)
(Example 2: Your friend tells you somebodie's name over discord and you use that information while in-character.)
6.3.2 Player’s camera view determines the field of vision of their character (“camera metagaming” is not enforced).

 

How hard is that?  This covers every single angle while being short and sweet, you can add more examples even.

Or perhaps make a forum thread dictating what is metagaming properly?

Edited December 9, 2018 by Resfiel420

[Flucifial]

Already being discussed within Administrative staff and soon will be discussed with Support staff, we are aware of these issues; we may be holding a meeting regarding it.

+1 from me. 

[MrSplashy]

A massive +1 for me as others have stated what I have wanted to say.

[James Dubois]

By this rules definition, I meta-game on the daily, and I don't plan on stopping, nor do the people I "meta-game" to/with plan on stopping.
 

I tend to bitch about things, even active RP situations. /shrug

+1

Edited December 10, 2018 by James Dubois

[alexalex303]

I think that removing that part of the rule will make enforcing metagaming a lot hard.

I could easily PM my friends "hey im getting shot at LSD lab", and it's only metagaming if they decide to use that info?

Just pming them that should be considered metagaming, in my opinion.

-1

Edited December 10, 2018 by alexalex303

[James Dubois]

19 minutes ago, alexalex303 said:

I think that removing that part of the rule will make enforcing metagaming a lot hard.

I could easily PM my friends "hey im getting shot at LSD lab", and it's only metagaming if they decide to use that info?

Just pming them that should be considered metagaming, in my opinion.

-1

Sending someone OOC info with the intention of them using it would still be a breach of the rules. That's common sense.

Us enforcing this rule this strictly simply doesn't make sense, then we should start punishing streamers too, because I doubt their delays are a whole RP situation behind.

[Kaizure]

Going to put in my two cents here. Been RPing on forums, games, etc. for a little over 13 years and I have seen my share of rule interpretations in that time.

 

On one hand I can certainly understand the argument made by the OP and those that agree, but on the other hand, I can understand the admins setting up the rule as a pre-metagaming rule. The reason I understand the way it's currently set up is because this server is mostly comprised of light RPers, some medium RPers and very few heavy RPers. Light RPers, as the name suggests, are people who do the absolute minimum in terms of RP to do what they want to do, but will otherwise treat the game as a game. I see it all the time with robberies, shootouts, medical RP, you name it. People don't exactly RP writhing in pain after being shot; they RP sending texts on their phone like absolutely nothing bad has happened to them, or someone spots a downed player, approaches them and robs them without any actual RP and just uses in-game mechanics.

 

Now to be fair, there is nothing wrong with being a light RPer. Not everyone has the same schedule or amount of time to dedicate to role play, so they'll use the hours they have to log in and have a good time. The trouble is: light RPers are generally new RPers. Not to say new in terms of Eclipse new, but new to RP altogether... and by that I mean: people who don't even have a year of RP experience. When you have new RPers in a game like Grand Theft Auto, you have a higher risk of people metagaming, powergaming, deathmatching, etc. than you would in games like, say, Guild Wars 2. When you play a game where vehicle theft, shooting someone, etc. is developed in a way where all you need to do is right-click to aim and left-click to shoot, it becomes much easier for rules to be violated because people are stuck in the mindset that 'well if this is being done in a game, it's still a game'. And while they're not wrong, they need to realize that they are adopting a different mind set when they are on an RP server. When you role play, you are basically putting yourself (or a character you created) into a reality of their own and you need to act like everything that happens in the game is something that would happen in real life. Not everyone grasps that: hey! If that tank rolls up next to me, maaaaybe I shouldn't climb onto it and start dancing. Maaaaybe I should panic and run away so my leg doesn't get flattened!

 

That, I believe, is where the pre-metagaming rule is understandable. When you have players that goof around by jumping onto emergency vehicles and dancing, and otherwise doing stuff that makes no sense in real life, you also have the risk of people who will be reading Discord and will see that OOC their friends are being held at gunpoint, which immediately changes what they're doing and they IC suddenly decide "Eh, I don't feel like robbing this store right now. I'm going to drive out in the middle of nowhere for no particular reason."

 

Now on the other end of the argument, I feel it also gives new players a bad idea on what metagaming is. Metagaming would be if, say, you approached a random player and looked at the name above their head. If the name above their head says their name is "Steve" and you say "Hi Steve," how did you learn their name in-character? Using an OOC game mechanic (IE: Reading a name tag above someone's head) is the true definition of metagaming: to use OOC information IC. Sometimes it's simple like what I described above, but it can be a lot worse... like reading that someone mass murdered a bunch of people and suddenly you call them out IC without having any proof other than something you read OOC. 

 

For more veteran RPers who understand what the true definition of metagaming, and for those who want new players to understand what the true definition is, I understand the desire to want to change the rule. But on the other hand, given the type of game we're playing and the amount of light/new RPers that exist, I also understand having it written as a pre-metagaming rule.

 

End of the day, I agree that the metagaming rule should be changed to better reflect what it is, rather than having it as a pre-metagaming rule. I understand why it's written the way it is, but if you make your RPers fear that they're going to get in trouble for so much as saying 'I sneezed' in discord, then you are going to lose players faster too.

 

- Kaizure

(Drake Frost)
 

Edited December 10, 2018 by Kaizure

[DeanThompson]

There is no need to differentiate as the admins apply discretion to the circumstances surrounding the offence. Minor metagame offences i.e. mixing OOC and IC with no benefit is treated very differently to someone who uses metagame for major advantage.

[Denise C]

2 hours ago, DeanThompson said:

There is no need to differentiate as the admins apply discretion to the circumstances surrounding the offence. Minor metagame offences i.e. mixing OOC and IC with no benefit is treated very differently to someone who uses metagame for major advantage.

I agree that they are treated differently, but the issue comes with both of them being treated as rule break when one of them clearly is and one of them historically isn’t. Admin discretion is used, sure, but they still consider both of these a violation of the rules, and that means players are going to receive some form of punishment for doing something that really shouldn’t be a punishable offence in the first place.

 

As a personal example, someone asked what I was responding to via TeamSpeak as I had my lights and sirens on in game, and I said that I was responding to a robbery call. The other person did not act on this at all and, to my knowledge, asked out of personal curiosity, but I was still given a metagaming warning for it. So, despite that information not being used and not being detrimental to the roleplay environment at all, there was still administrative punishment given. Others have been punished for similar things, such as saying, “Ah crap, my car was stolen,” or “I just put my house up for sale, I hope it sells.” Even just generally talking about things that happen IC becomes punishable.

[gohena]

+1

[alexalex303]

35 minutes ago, Denise C said:

As a personal example, someone asked what I was responding to via TeamSpeak as I had my lights and sirens on in game, and I said that I was responding to a robbery call. The other person did not act on this at all and, to my knowledge, asked out of personal curiosity, but I was still given a metagaming warning for it. So, despite that information not being used and not being detrimental to the roleplay environment at all, there was still administrative punishment given. Others have been punished for similar things, such as saying, “Ah crap, my car was stolen,” or “I just put my house up for sale, I hope it sells.” Even just generally talking about things that happen IC becomes punishable.

So if the other officer did act on it, how is an administrator going to know? Every time you share IC information about situations are live, you are potentially metagaming. 

This creates a nightmare for metagaming enforcement, where you don't have to just prove that information is shared, but used also. In your example, the officer would've had to be recorded responding to your IC information, while also there being a recording of you saying that IC information.

Do you see how this complicates things severely? There is a much easier solution, don't speak about OOCly about IC events that are going on.

Edited December 10, 2018 by alexalex303

[ViktorR]

+1

[Zemaitc]

I agree that the rule is quite hard to follow in many occasions. The main point of it is to not follow information that you gained through ooc into ic. This discussion was caused cuz you got punished for it @Denise C right? Well in the first place the teamspeak should be used for IC ONLY. I dont really understand when people in teamspeak share an IC or OOC info when I watch PD stream.  If people wanna talk about something they should do it when they are out of the game. Criminals cant use any 3rd party software, even if its not used for in game things, it instantly drops a shadow over the player.  As @Roberto_Sanchez mentioned, streamers would have millions of metagame offenses because of the info gained through twitch chat, even viewers who play in the same server. As long as there is discussion among the staff about this there will be an outcome. Looking forward to it. Anything gained by ooc means stays in your mind when you are in the game and "you dont know it icly", actually you do, but act like you dont which is pretty dumb sometimes...

Edited December 10, 2018 by Zemaitc
grammar

[Kaizure]

32 minutes ago, Zemaitc said:

Anything gained by ooc means stays in your mind when you are in the game and "you dont know it icly", actually you do, but act like you dont which is pretty dumb sometimes...

Actually you don't.

IC =/= OOC (IC does not equal OOC)

And likewise, OOC =/= IC.

 

You as a player might be watching a stream, and heck, you might be watching the stream while you're in the game. But just because you, the player, is watching a stream doesn't mean your character has a camera following someone around where they can see their every action and know exactly where they are, what they're thinking, etc.

 

I agree with the first part of what you said: that if you see something in OOC, it stays in YOUR mind - not your character's mind. Your character doesn't know it IC, so act accordingly. There's no 'acting like you don't know something' because in reality, your character doesn't know something. You - the Player - might know something, but your Character doesn't know it.

[Denise C]

55 minutes ago, Zemaitc said:

I agree that the rule is quite hard to follow in many occasions. The main point of it is to not follow information that you gained through ooc into ic. This discussion was caused cuz you got punished for it @Denise C right? Well in the first place the teamspeak should be used for IC ONLY. I dont really understand when people in teamspeak share an IC or OOC info when I watch PD stream.  If people wanna talk about something they should do it when they are out of the game. Criminals cant use any 3rd party software, even if its not used for in game things, it instantly drops a shadow over the player.  As @Roberto_Sanchez mentioned, streamers would have millions of metagame offenses because of the info gained through twitch chat, even viewers who play in the same server. As long as there is discussion among the staff about this there will be an outcome. Looking forward to it. Anything gained by ooc means stays in your mind when you are in the game and "you dont know it icly", actually you do, but act like you dont which is pretty dumb sometimes...

The only reason it came to my attention in the first place was because I was punished for it, yes. Until then, I thought the metagaming rule was the same as every other metagaming rule, which is the act of using OOCly-acquired information IC. Afterwards, I spoke with several other people about the issue and they also said they've been punished for similar and equally as unfair situations, which encouraged me to make a discussion about it.

This isn't a conversation about PD using TeamSpeak or TeamSpeak being strictly IC though. We can always make a different topic to address that and I really don't want this conversation to end up derailing just because my example comes from a PD perspective. We're talking about the act of metagaming specifically and the rule and whether you agree with what's said in the rule right now or not.

And yes, things you gain OOC do indeed stay in your mind, but I think it's a huge part of player respect and courtesy to not assume that everyone on the server is going to mix information. The easier solution would be to put the onus on players to prove that any information was not acquired through metagame (e.g. a player accused of metagame showing an administrator in game text messages which explain how they were informed about something) as opposed to a blanket rule that prohibits everyone from talking about IC things OOC, even if they just want to have a civil and fun discussion with their friends or talk about fun things that happen.

[Denise C]

1 hour ago, alexalex303 said:

So if the other officer did act on it, how is an administrator going to know? Every time you share IC information about situations are live, you are potentially metagaming. 

This creates a nightmare for metagaming enforcement, where you don't have to just prove that information is shared, but used also. In your example, the officer would've had to be recorded responding to your IC information, while also there being a recording of you saying that IC information.

Do you see how this complicates things severely? There is a much easier solution, don't speak about OOCly about IC events that are going on.

Because if a player acts on it and an administrator is suspicious of how the player acquired the information, they are to do their due diligence and investigate the situation and have the player provide some form of proof of how they got hold of said information.

Metagaming enforcement has always been an incredibly tricky thing to tackle in every server and every roleplay group, but adding more constricting and unfair rules isn't the way to combat it. All that does is lead good roleplayers or people who genuinely care for the server to get punished because staff members automatically assume that we're incapable of differentiating IC from OOC.

The easiest solution is to punish metagaming when it happens. There are many, many instances of people making player reports and you can hear them speaking in Discord and actively metagaming (e.g. "Come here I'm getting robbed," "Watch out there's another shooter," etc.). Those are examples of metagaming. Me telling you via TeamSpeak that I just crashed my car into a bridge should not be considered metagaming. However, if I tell you that and you come pick me up and an administrator shows up and asks us for proof of how you knew I crashed (which we wouldn't be able to provide), it would and should be a punishable offense.

[Osvaldon]

Basically, the metagaming rule should ensure the following:

1. A fair gaming experience -  telling your friends or allies a location and asking for help, so those around you cannot intercept your chatter is unfair and should be viewed as the most severe form of MG (it's just one example).

2. A better roleplay environment - it's much better to hear people talk to each other, than see them standing or walking around, but not interacting vocally.

I have explained to some staff members that using your in-game name as your Discord name is not an issue. Streamers are a controversial topic, I personally support them, since it boosts our publicity and I think the streamer culture has progressed a lot since what it used to be 10 years ago, restricting them, would be an outdated policy.