- Joined
- Jan 19, 2023
- Messages
- 252
Hello dear Senior Administrators, Bobby, Floki, Adham, and everybody else.
So I posted this complaint regarding Gen 6.2. And before posting this thread, I read the rule regarding metagaming once again just to be 100% sure.
I will express my understanding of the rule, its application, and its connection to this situation below. If I am wrong, please explain this rule and its applications in your verdict because it will be weird for me to be punished for a rule that is clearly unclear if this is the case (sorry for the tautology).
The way I understand this rule is that it is not allowed to share/gain any IC information by OOC means to later use it to your advantage/benefit since ICly your character never received that information hence that character cannot act relying on that information.
The next part is self-explanatory and it doesn't figurate in this case in any form, so I will skip it.
Now the part about using VoIP programs to communicate IC whilst in-game. I would like to highlight the word "IC". We didn't communicate anything IC in the Discord voice chat. We were having an OOC conversation, and everything said there was OOC. We did not use anything from the Discord conversation in-game whatsoever.
Now let's move onto the POV that I provided in my complaint and which was used as grounds for all the punishments.
Nearly everything that can be heard in that POV:
1: "Oh my god" - just a reaction to the guy crashing into us, obviously no metagaming or anything.
2: *giggles* - well I'm just giggling it's not metagaming for sure.
1: "Why were you driving so fast?" - was said in-game hence no metagaming + wasn't addressed to me.
2: "Wait, he has a gun, he has a gun, f**king x5, get in, fast" - was said in-game hence no metagaming, I just told my agents that the guy had a gun which the character saw with his eyes, and told them to get inside the car to chase him.
2: tbh inaudible even for me, however, you can see that I was holding the mic button hence anything I said there was fully IC and no metagaming.
2: "Turn on radars, we are going for the purple jugular" - was said in-game, giving instructions to my agents, all ICly hence no metagaming.
1: "I bet he went into the ghetto" - it isn't sharing any information, she just said that she thinks he went into the ghetto. I did not use and was not going to ever use that as any kind of information, it's just a part of the OOC talk, which doesn't impact the IC situation we were in and doesn't impact what I was going to do.
2: "100%" - once again, just sharing thoughts within the OOC conversation.
2: "Yeah I'm not gonna go..." - was going to say "...inside the ghetto". Once again, just OOC information for the OOC person I was talking to. As I am the driver it is up to me whether to go inside the ghetto or not so there is no way for her to use that information in the IC situation. As it wasn't her who told me not to go inside the ghetto and thus influence my decision. So once again, I don't see any metagaming here.
2: "Oh, there he is" - I said that when all of us (including the person I was talking to) saw that car, so there was no benefit/advantage gained from it whatsoever, as I was sharing IC information that the other person already has ICly.
Everything else was said in-game which can be clearly seen on the POV, hence is not metagaming.
Coming to the conclusion, in my eyes, the punishments issued to us were incorrect since in my eyes there was no metagaming in that POV. The only thing we did was have an OOC conversation in Discord, which from my understanding of the rule is not forbidden.
If you decide to reject it, please explain where exactly was the metagaming in this situation. If you can point out anything specific that was said in the Discord conversation, as well as the part of the rule which was broken it would at least help me learn what did I do wrong here.
Thank you for reading my complaint,
John Profit
So I posted this complaint regarding Gen 6.2. And before posting this thread, I read the rule regarding metagaming once again just to be 100% sure.
I will express my understanding of the rule, its application, and its connection to this situation below. If I am wrong, please explain this rule and its applications in your verdict because it will be weird for me to be punished for a rule that is clearly unclear if this is the case (sorry for the tautology).
The way I understand this rule is that it is not allowed to share/gain any IC information by OOC means to later use it to your advantage/benefit since ICly your character never received that information hence that character cannot act relying on that information.
The next part is self-explanatory and it doesn't figurate in this case in any form, so I will skip it.
Now the part about using VoIP programs to communicate IC whilst in-game. I would like to highlight the word "IC". We didn't communicate anything IC in the Discord voice chat. We were having an OOC conversation, and everything said there was OOC. We did not use anything from the Discord conversation in-game whatsoever.
Now let's move onto the POV that I provided in my complaint and which was used as grounds for all the punishments.
Watch Grand Theft Auto V 2023.06.22 - 12.31.00.07.DVR_Trim | Streamable
Watch "Grand Theft Auto V 2023.06.22 - 12.31.00.07.DVR_Trim" on Streamable.
streamable.com
Nearly everything that can be heard in that POV:
1: "Oh my god" - just a reaction to the guy crashing into us, obviously no metagaming or anything.
2: *giggles* - well I'm just giggling it's not metagaming for sure.
1: "Why were you driving so fast?" - was said in-game hence no metagaming + wasn't addressed to me.
2: "Wait, he has a gun, he has a gun, f**king x5, get in, fast" - was said in-game hence no metagaming, I just told my agents that the guy had a gun which the character saw with his eyes, and told them to get inside the car to chase him.
2: tbh inaudible even for me, however, you can see that I was holding the mic button hence anything I said there was fully IC and no metagaming.
2: "Turn on radars, we are going for the purple jugular" - was said in-game, giving instructions to my agents, all ICly hence no metagaming.
1: "I bet he went into the ghetto" - it isn't sharing any information, she just said that she thinks he went into the ghetto. I did not use and was not going to ever use that as any kind of information, it's just a part of the OOC talk, which doesn't impact the IC situation we were in and doesn't impact what I was going to do.
2: "100%" - once again, just sharing thoughts within the OOC conversation.
2: "Yeah I'm not gonna go..." - was going to say "...inside the ghetto". Once again, just OOC information for the OOC person I was talking to. As I am the driver it is up to me whether to go inside the ghetto or not so there is no way for her to use that information in the IC situation. As it wasn't her who told me not to go inside the ghetto and thus influence my decision. So once again, I don't see any metagaming here.
2: "Oh, there he is" - I said that when all of us (including the person I was talking to) saw that car, so there was no benefit/advantage gained from it whatsoever, as I was sharing IC information that the other person already has ICly.
Everything else was said in-game which can be clearly seen on the POV, hence is not metagaming.
Coming to the conclusion, in my eyes, the punishments issued to us were incorrect since in my eyes there was no metagaming in that POV. The only thing we did was have an OOC conversation in Discord, which from my understanding of the rule is not forbidden.
If you decide to reject it, please explain where exactly was the metagaming in this situation. If you can point out anything specific that was said in the Discord conversation, as well as the part of the rule which was broken it would at least help me learn what did I do wrong here.
Thank you for reading my complaint,
John Profit
