In post 94, lilith2013 wrote: In post 83, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:Alright, what if someone were to hypothetically claim, “if I were scum here, I’d already have given up”. Acceptable or not?
Again, it’s extremely dependent on context. If the evidence you’re using to support this statement only comes from the current game, then there’s no issue. If, however, you’re using a pattern of your behavior as scum in previous games to try to prove that you would have given up already in this game, then that becomes a trust tell. There is no “hard and fast” rule for whether a statement is a trust tell on its own because it depends on the context and history.
My obvious concerns with these rule chsnges if if the cure that’s meant to fix the problem, actually winds up doing more harm than good.
Can you explain what harm you think is being done?
Also wrt to the bussing, fakeclaiming or not faking a guilty thing, if it okay then so long as the actual playee doesn’t say it and id there an acceptable way a player can utilize self meta in any of these ways that wouldn’t be against the rules?
Well, it’s not okay to deliberately cultivate a trust tell even if you never refer to it yourself, so someone deciding “I will always make my first post about cookies if I’m town” and someone else picking up on it would still be a trust tell, even if the original poster never explicitly references it.
Our main goal with all of the OGI rules is to maintain game integrity. We think game integrity is negatively impacted if someone is able to “confirm” themselves or something that they’re saying as absolutely true beyond the realm of what should be possible within a game. Think to the level of being mod-confirmed IC. (And you can see this theme in all of the other sections of the OGI announcement, because this principle holds true for the exploiting site rules, discussion of future behavior, etc.)
So from that principle, it follows that a trust tell has to break game integrity by confirming something or someone beyond what they should have been able to do within the game. If you’re attempting to do that, then you’re in trust tell territory, or at the very least in game-impacting OGI territory. If what you’re doing/saying is confined to the current game alone, or is not attempting to confirm something you said (or you) in a way that breaks game integrity, then it isn’t OGI. So it’s okay to reference self-meta, but you need to be really careful in how you talk about it to make sure it doesn’t seem like you’re trying to confirm yourself in an out-of-game sense.
I agree with RC that not mention the ogi alignment read isn’t really ideal. I can understand “not allowed to explain” to be valid but why not just say, can’t explain, I don’t know how to explain it or perhaps even gut?
I would argue that if in your mind - whatever the reason is - for having a strong opinion on a player’s alignment, you should absolutely give that read. That said, you just don’t need to make it obvious that it’s an ogi read.
If I say gut, meta or whatever, I could be telling the actual truth about that or hiding an ogi read. While obviously not ideal, I would argue it’s still better to give the read and perhaps be less than honest about how you arrived at it, maybe?
If you can believably provide other reasons for the read, I don’t think there’s an issue. However, as I said in response to Gamma, what we don’t want is for all of a sudden “gut” or vague reasons for reads being universally assumed to mean “actually this is a read related to an ongoing game.” Once that is implicitly understood to mean “it’s an ongoing game read,” then using any of those reasons becomes potentially game-impacting. That’s why my suggestion is to use only non-ongoing-game reasons to support your reads.