Search:

[QUOTE=Magoroth;841967]Something I need to add is that there’s also alignment-specific and role-specific meta tells. That is, in and of themselves they are not indicative of anything necessarily, it is only from empirical observation that they actually became significant.

There’s also a (third? fourth?) type of meta which I think is what most people think of when they refer to meta, player-specific. This has two subtypes, person meta (if that makes sense) and game meta. I’m not going to talk about game meta as it’s essentially been covered by Yayap already. Instead I’ll go over person meta real quick. Person-specific meta refers essentially to a players personality, and how they conduct themselves outside of the game. I’ll give an example of this since it’s relatively difficult to put into words plainly although it essentially simply refers to emotion, and the players psychologival make-up as a person. For instance, Mm last game put a (negative) post aamirus made about him in his signature, which gave me a microreason to townread him for. This is HEAVILY game specific however, and you need to understand the context in which the post was made to actually derive a read from it. In and of itself him putting that post in his signature doesn’t mean shit; it could also be faked. It’s all about the context.[/QUOTE]

I confirm the validity of this reasoning, btw. I never think about doing that kind of thing as scum (although I will think about it now that it was said lol).

As for the dictionary thing, it's an interesting point that's being made. Meta is not something directly AI, but simply information that doesn't seem AI [I]by itself[/I], yet becomes AI to various degrees when cross-analyzed with the player's game or "person" meta.

Originally Posted by Magoroth

Something I need to add is that there’s also alignment-specific and role-specific meta tells. That is, in and of themselves they are not indicative of anything necessarily, it is only from empirical observation that they actually became significant.

There’s also a (third? fourth?) type of meta which I think is what most people think of when they refer to meta, player-specific. This has two subtypes, person meta (if that makes sense) and game meta. I’m not going to talk about game meta as it’s essentially been covered by Yayap already. Instead I’ll go over person meta real quick. Person-specific meta refers essentially to a players personality, and how they conduct themselves outside of the game. I’ll give an example of this since it’s relatively difficult to put into words plainly although it essentially simply refers to emotion, and the players psychologival make-up as a person. For instance, Mm last game put a (negative) post aamirus made about him in his signature, which gave me a microreason to townread him for. This is HEAVILY game specific however, and you need to understand the context in which the post was made to actually derive a read from it. In and of itself him putting that post in his signature doesn’t mean shit; it could also be faked. It’s all about the context.

I confirm the validity of this reasoning, btw. I never think about doing that kind of thing as scum (although I will think about it now that it was said lol).

As for the dictionary thing, it's an interesting point that's being made. Meta is not something directly AI, but simply information that doesn't seem AI by itself, yet becomes AI to various degrees when cross-analyzed with the player's game or "person" meta.

[QUOTE=Magoroth;828636]I actually agree with this guide after a reread.

I have a few things to add here, inspired by something Frinckles discussed last game: what meta actually is.

Meta doesn’t have to be player-specific; it can be alignment-specific as well. This is what we typically refer to as ‘tells’; after all, you learn most of these tells by seeing them in others, time after time. Only rarely can one come up with a tell based on mere reasoning alone; pure logic-based reasoning cannot be applied to such things, because there are many variables to consider.

There’s something else I would like to add. I often feel as though the differences between the mod and FM are overstated; fundamentally, at the core, they are the same game.

The difference emerge from the fact that in FM, days are substantially longer than in the mod. This means that scum are forced to plan their game ahead of time; no longer can you one rely on mere instinct and on-the-spot improvisation to survive. This also means the Townies need to look harder to spot the scum.

However, that being said, without naming any specific tells, I feel like some of the most important meta things scum/town do still apply in FM.

I feel like the real difference between the two lies mostly in the, how shall I put this? You need more information to properly gauge someone’s alignment here than on the mod, especially with more experienced players (faking towniness is difficult, but not impossible, although in the long run it’s arguably an untenable position).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

Saying meta is not player-specific, unless you talk about site meta, is just to extend the word's meaning to the word "tell"'s.

As for the mod's meta, which is a completely different topic btw, it is definetly different from FM's because of the phase lenghts. Sure, the idea is the same, but there are tells in FM that do not exist on the mod. For example, sheeping holds a completely different value, which greatly affects how wagonomics are used, and how much they can be used.

Originally Posted by Magoroth

I actually agree with this guide after a reread.

I have a few things to add here, inspired by something Frinckles discussed last game: what meta actually is.

Meta doesn’t have to be player-specific; it can be alignment-specific as well. This is what we typically refer to as ‘tells’; after all, you learn most of these tells by seeing them in others, time after time. Only rarely can one come up with a tell based on mere reasoning alone; pure logic-based reasoning cannot be applied to such things, because there are many variables to consider.

There’s something else I would like to add. I often feel as though the differences between the mod and FM are overstated; fundamentally, at the core, they are the same game.

The difference emerge from the fact that in FM, days are substantially longer than in the mod. This means that scum are forced to plan their game ahead of time; no longer can you one rely on mere instinct and on-the-spot improvisation to survive. This also means the Townies need to look harder to spot the scum.

However, that being said, without naming any specific tells, I feel like some of the most important meta things scum/town do still apply in FM.

I feel like the real difference between the two lies mostly in the, how shall I put this? You need more information to properly gauge someone’s alignment here than on the mod, especially with more experienced players (faking towniness is difficult, but not impossible, although in the long run it’s arguably an untenable position).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Saying meta is not player-specific, unless you talk about site meta, is just to extend the word's meaning to the word "tell"'s.

As for the mod's meta, which is a completely different topic btw, it is definetly different from FM's because of the phase lenghts. Sure, the idea is the same, but there are tells in FM that do not exist on the mod. For example, sheeping holds a completely different value, which greatly affects how wagonomics are used, and how much they can be used.

[QUOTE=Huey The Long;828634]I only played on Mafiascum before i came onto here and when i came onto here i saw Meta being used like straight away almost and i really really disliked meta from my time over on MS. [B][COLOR="#0000FF"]However thanks to a few absolute geezers my thoughts on Meta have shifted somewhat and i see it moreso a legit tactic if used correctly.[/COLOR][/B][/QUOTE]

That's the point I'm trying to make here, exactly. Weak meta is not the almighty power that can be used to singlehandly solve games. That's bad. However, using it [I]cleverly[/I] will really improve your ability to win games.

Plus, that works on sites where you don't know anyone. You can ask others for someone else's meta, or even the person itself. Of course, the info is different, but still useful.

Originally Posted by Huey The Long

I only played on Mafiascum before i came onto here and when i came onto here i saw Meta being used like straight away almost and i really really disliked meta from my time over on MS. However thanks to a few absolute geezers my thoughts on Meta have shifted somewhat and i see it moreso a legit tactic if used correctly.

That's the point I'm trying to make here, exactly. Weak meta is not the almighty power that can be used to singlehandly solve games. That's bad. However, using it cleverly will really improve your ability to win games.

Plus, that works on sites where you don't know anyone. You can ask others for someone else's meta, or even the person itself. Of course, the info is different, but still useful.

This guide is very interesting, and I'd like to discuss some more about it. Note that this post reflects [I]my opinion[/I], which I believe to be right, of course, but am in no way saying it is the absolute truth. Also remember that what [I]you[/I], reader, who are currently thinking about your reply, will express [I]your opinion[/I] too, and that whatever it is, it might not be the absolute truth. Keep a healthy amount of doubt and open-mindedness, please. This is both a warning and a self-reminder.

~~

The "Proper way to use meta" described here is extremely well-made here. I'd argue it is uncontestably the core of meta use, because it has very low odds of failing, especially when followed with basic logic, such as "a player can evolve, so their skills may or may not have grown since the last game I played with them".

However, saying it is the only way to use meta is wrong. The way described in Helz's Macro Meta Crunching (link on the thread's first post) is also valid, simply to a lesser extent. A read based only on that kind of meta, that I will here call [I]weak meta[/I], in opposition to [I]strong meta[/I], the way that is described as "proper" in this thread, is extremely weak and should [B]never[/B] be used as single grounds for a lynch, because of its unreliability.
The issue with completely ignoring it is that it eliminates a tool, a way to orient your thoughts. While you cannot use it alone to build a proper read and even less to build a proper case, you can use it [B]with other elements.[/B] Disregarding weak meta completely is taking away a useful tool. Giving weak meta too much importance is forgetting that it is a tool.

Weak meta can be compared to an autocorrection tool. Saying that weak meta should NEVER be used is like saying autocorrect should not exist. Autocorrect allows for [B]some[/B] ease of use with computer writing. However, relying purely on autocorrect to review your text, which can be compared to using only weak meta [I]and nothing else to support it[/I], will obviously give horrible results.

~~

I am aware that the community here, and the mafia communities in general, tend to over-rely on weak meta (but not to overuse it). But to say it should not be used at all is to throw a good tool in the trash can.

This guide is very interesting, and I'd like to discuss some more about it. Note that this post reflects my opinion, which I believe to be right, of course, but am in no way saying it is the absolute truth. Also remember that what you, reader, who are currently thinking about your reply, will express your opinion too, and that whatever it is, it might not be the absolute truth. Keep a healthy amount of doubt and open-mindedness, please. This is both a warning and a self-reminder.

~~

The "Proper way to use meta" described here is extremely well-made here. I'd argue it is uncontestably the core of meta use, because it has very low odds of failing, especially when followed with basic logic, such as "a player can evolve, so their skills may or may not have grown since the last game I played with them".

However, saying it is the only way to use meta is wrong. The way described in Helz's Macro Meta Crunching (link on the thread's first post) is also valid, simply to a lesser extent. A read based only on that kind of meta, that I will here call weak meta, in opposition to strong meta, the way that is described as "proper" in this thread, is extremely weak and should never be used as single grounds for a lynch, because of its unreliability.
The issue with completely ignoring it is that it eliminates a tool, a way to orient your thoughts. While you cannot use it alone to build a proper read and even less to build a proper case, you can use it with other elements. Disregarding weak meta completely is taking away a useful tool. Giving weak meta too much importance is forgetting that it is a tool.

Weak meta can be compared to an autocorrection tool. Saying that weak meta should NEVER be used is like saying autocorrect should not exist. Autocorrect allows for some ease of use with computer writing. However, relying purely on autocorrect to review your text, which can be compared to using only weak meta and nothing else to support it, will obviously give horrible results.

~~

I am aware that the community here, and the mafia communities in general, tend to over-rely on weak meta (but not to overuse it). But to say it should not be used at all is to throw a good tool in the trash can.