The POV's of this complaint are cut: On consideration - [TR] Gr. 3.1 & 3.2 | ID 136495
He is manupulating evidence and is metagaming himself. I do not understand that he is not getting punished for metagaming because the pov I shared is his.
How else can I proof metagaming?
He is manupulating evidence and is metagaming himself. I do not understand that he is not getting punished for metagaming because the pov I shared is his.
How else can I proof metagaming?
