Clarification:
Did a Magistrate seriously just imply that preventing meta-gaming is not their job?
Also:
It's worth noting that this case, however it is resolved, has no material implications. The requested torture report(s) can be easily gotten. The adventurer has been captured, torture will be done, in all likelihood, the issue will be fully resolved.
The question I was raising is why it is acceptable for a character to operate on the assumption that torture reports are 100% always accurate (it's like back when we had "buy title": doesn't matter what YOU as a player know, the character doesn't know it was bought), and therefore to request a torture report be forwarded,
not because it might contain some unknown intelligence or be proof of some retributive aim, but precisely because
it is known to be 100% accurate on an OOC basis. Our characters would request scout reports whether or not they were known to be 100% accurate (and in fact they are not 100% accurate. maybe 90%. if you count misdirections, maybe even less). But "torture reports" are purely an OOC convenience to add a fun feature to the game.
I do not argue that torture reports can and should be forwardable. They are clearly intended to be forwardable. I do not argue that we should never be able to ASK for a torture report. We can and should. My argument is about WHY we should be able to ask. If our sole motive is to get a "perfect confirmation" of a fact we already trusted enough to base our military movements on it (as the Zuma GM evidently did), that seems like meta-gaming to me.
According to wikipedia:
"Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.
In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions."
This action clearly refers to the game universe outside of the game itself, goes beyond the environment set by the game (presumes that characters have good cause to believe that torture reports are always accurate beyond simple experience), and certainly transcends the "prescribed ruleset" pertaining to IC/OOC separation of knowledge.
Further, I ask that magistrates keep discussion here, and not have any substantive debate on the issue on IRC.
Finally, I would like to remind the Magistrates that they set a precedent. This case does not pertain to a specific violation of the social contract, nor the inalienable rights. It is not a case of "rule-breaking," but of meta-gaming which substantively breaks the immersion and changes the game experience for many players. This meta-gaming occurred as an action OF A GM, ON AN SMA ISLAND. This renders the issue of even further weight: an SMA island has stricter standards of immersion, and GMs should be held to a higher standard. Should the Magistrates decide that no violation has occurred, then they have decided to cede their right to regulate meta-gaming, even in the strictest of environments by the most accountable of people. The case is not about whether we can forward scout reports or not, but about whether the Magistrates can police meta-gaming.
On what grounds?
Because I brought the case. I will argue as plaintiff but not as magistrate.
