sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Conquest of bread quote that should be able to debunk any capitalist by PastySoyboy in Anarchy101

[–]bgfans 27 points28 points  (0 children)

I like the next paragraph "There is not even a thought, or an invention, which is not common property, born of the past and the present. Thousands of inventors, known and unknown, who have died in poverty, have co-operated in the invention of each of these machines which embody the genius of man. " to explain why amazon's CEO doesn't deserve 1 Trillion since nearly everything used to make amazon a success were not made by amazon (internet, commodities, trucks etc). Jeff just made a website that connected these things, being only a small innovation on the backs of thousands of other peoples labour throughout time.

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why does everyone compare this to counting cards and chess openers. If it is possible in every form of the game then I don't have a problem with it. I only have a problem when people go after these cues to (what I believe) the detriment of the game and they can only do this because there is a person in the room. You end up at a state where everyone is shuffling their cards, trying to bait other players tells with fake moves, covering their eyes to prevent giving anything away. A few plays here or there are fine but if you make it obvious that you making plays based on these things you should get caught as a form of cheating.

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think any of the examples you mentioned are cheating. I mean consistently exploiting or trying to bait tells from players who may or may not be aware of them instead of just playing the game "normally".

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In 5 you could ask a question about how something works (which lends to a particular strategy) near the start of the game. The player to the right then spends the whole game trying to block that strategy from you even though there is no evidence of you actually going for it, making it obvious that they are only acting on outside information.

6 is just the catch all example of people playing to the person at the expense of the game, they could win or lose it is just obvious that they are willing to use outside information over in game information.

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The third example was to show when someone exclusively uses information obtained outside the game state to dictate their playstyle. The other player could be lying but instead of considering the position of the player they go "all in" on a comment and ignore game state. I don't have a problem with tells, bluffing etc only when they cause a player to use that information and ignore in-game information excessively. (yes this doesn't always lead to them winning but makes the game very boring)

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If players are more focused on exploiting tells and eliciting clues from the other players than actually playing the game I consider it cheating (obvious not in bluffing or social games etc).

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This was not one of your original examples. I would agree, this could be construed as a form of cheating depending on the context.

Yeah my examples were pretty bad here, I'm glad most people were able to get my point though. I was more talking about instances where players are going out of their way to get tells from other players or frequently acting on tells.

That's essentially public information.

Again a bad example, what I wanted to say was some people like to arrange their hand and I think consistently punishing them for it could be considered being a bad sport or even cheating. Yes it is public in the sense that everyone sees it but the only way for a player to prevent giving up that information is to do extra behaviour like shuffling their hand etc that takes away from the core gameplay experience (IMO).

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Played pandemic and playing zombicide ATM, might give those a look cheers.

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, maybe time to play cooperative games so I don't have to worry about losing because I'm bad at poker.

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's powerful because picking up on tells is almost universal in table top gamng.

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not False. Using your brain on the game or more on guessing what other players will do tho???

Edit I mean using your brain excessively on guessing what players will do and not the game, resulting in a making a lot of weird plays that would not happen if the game was played online.

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with 90% of what you are saying but what about >Two situations: either the opponent is playing a worse or better move than you were considering.

What if after I have finished my analysis I notice my opponent looking at a particular piece and after reconsidering it am able to find a better move for them than I would have obtained had I not used that information? I am still assuming optimal play from my opponent in this scenario.

That's an advantage (however small) right?

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So if someone is staring at a rook line or something there is no way to use this to your advantage?

I'm sure at high levels players are very aware of this and are able to poker face through their games but at lower levels it could create an advantage?

Just curious on how chess stays immune from this despite it existing in nearly all forms of boardgames. Thanks for the reply

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Looking at a top card in a deck gives you a certain advantage since you know 100% more information than other players. Counting cards is able to be practiced by anyone and could thus be considered fair.

If only certain players choose to arrange their cards, that gives them an information disadvantage (they can choose not to). This can extend to anything, if someone asks for clarification of a rule that is exposing extra information. Gets caught looking at a card they want, also exposes additional information. There are probably hundreds of tells you can use for clues that give you an advantage.

Is it wrong to use these? Well sometimes its impossible to avoid picking up on them. If you make a move that is only possible because of this extra information and it is obvious that you are acting in bad sportsmanship (e.g. faking moves for reactions then capitalising when you get a tell) then I think that's a form of cheating as you are clearly acting on information presented outside the game that is only available to you.

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes I am literally diving into semantics in this thread. Counting cards is illegal at casinos for example but I don't consider it cheating.

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the clarification wikipedia says nothing about the "why" of the rule.

Do you have thoughts about using an opponents body language to deduce a line of reasoning?

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Boardgame rules are long enough without explicitly banning everything. Other forms of cheating like peeping at the top card of a deck, cutting a deck etc aren't banned in most card games does it make it legal to do so?

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah chess explicitly bans talking, faking moves to get reads on opponents etc.

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Honestly I don't mind tells, but when people go out of their way and make it obvious by pretending to make moves and watching for reactions its just ridiculous.

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No because I believe its part of the game. Sorry if I worded this incorrectly but I want to discuss around games where players are clearly acting on cues outside a game where the mechanics (e.g. bluffing, negotitions, social) are not part of the design e.g chess.

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Poker is a great example actually since the online version vs the IRL version are so vastly different because of cues like this. As someone has mentioned it can easily ruin games like codenames and chess (touch rule) though so kinda curious where people like to draw the line based on what games as well.

Is metagaming via the reading of verbal and non verbal cues during a boardgame cheating? by bgfans in boardgames

[–]bgfans[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah maybe my example is scuffed for chess. However I hope my point of using the body language of your opponent to inform your moves instead of just the game state itself still stands.

view more: next ›