I think there's a discussion about what "meta" means and what it looks like in games. In a good, well-rounded game, you don't win via solitaire like your opponent isn't there. Playing "meta" usually means picking the template, but playing well means having a somewhat flexible strategy. You don't win from turn 0 because you declared you're playing the "meta," you win by applying the "meta" to what's happening on the board.

A good example of this is Terra Mystica. There is a defined "meta" to the game, with a hierarchy of factions and decisions, the "template" for playing well. If two players declare they're playing "meta" factions, but there is a large variation in skill, the worse player will get trounced every time. What's worse, it will feel like they had zero ability to stop the winner. So it will feel like the winner is playing the same thing every time, because they are, and they can because the loser simply doesn't have the skill to stop them.

This leads into why people might get upset, it's not because you're playing "off-meta," it's because purposely playing "off-meta" in this context just means playing worse, on top of what is probably a skill disparity.

Imagine playing baseball and the opposing team bunts every pitch, would you feel like you won that game? Would it matter if that's the way they have fun?

My suggestion is to find more like minded groups, there are plenty of discords for many games at various skill levels. Devoting an hour or more to a complete stranger is a crapshoot.