In post 4, MonkeyMan576 wrote:Some people have more tells than others. Some people are easier to read than others. Meta is only as good as the person who is using it and the person you are using it on.
^this. People who don't like meta are effectively arguing that you'll do a better job, or at least exactly the same job, of reading complete strangers than people who you are familiar with. I just can't possibly agree with that. But flawed meta is just as bad as, hell probably worse than, no meta at all.
In post 5, DrippingGoofball wrote:I am very sensitive to a game's atmosphere, I react differently in every game.
I suspect this applies to a great number of players.
Now there is "gut-meta" where someone whose playstyle you are intimately acquainted with feels different, and "pretend-meta" where you skim a scum game, a town game, and pretend your impression apply to a current game. It's BS.
That's why you needs patterns. Multiple games. I mean, even if you've only played one game with someone I can understand the "you feel different this game" vibe as long as you factor in the non-alignment possibilities as to why. But for the most part, if you don't have a decent amount of experience with someone, you can't say for sure that someone is town or scum based on meta alone.