Open movement between teams?

[DaveShack]

I would like to open discussion on a fairly radical idea. This might get shouted down, but I think it's worthwhile to consider it at least.

In RL, people can move to another country -- to get work, to seek asylum, for any number of reasons. What if we planned ahead for allowing players to switch teams? In the last game we had at least one team that was critically short of people, and the same thing has happened in previous games. There is also a very good chance that some players have joined teams and then quietly left because they found out the team did not suit their style. They might have fit in better with another team, but having seen one team's forum they're like lepers, outcasts for the remainder of the current game.

This could have some fun aspects to it. Someone switches teams -- did they carry secrets? Does the team being left have to change its plans? Can the team gaining the player rely on what the player says? Has loyalty really switched, or is it a sleeper agent?

It's also interesting for the player who wants to switch. Will the new team accept me, or shun me? Will my old team let me back if the switch doesn't work out. If spying, will I get caught? What if the other team already has an agent in my current team?

What if the admin(s) acted like the immigration office, approving or denying team switches? Surely we wouldn't want a short team to become even shorter.

One thing I know, we get set in our ways when planning demogames and resist change. Please, don't just resist this because of inertia. If it's a bad idea, then say why. And if it's a good idea, don't be bashful about supporting it.

 

[Lord Parkin]

The idea does sound interesting at first glance.

However, I believe the original reasoning why "team switching" or any other "real life espionage"-styled play was outlawed so long ago, is that it is toxic to the concept of an open democracy game. An established team that is already running fine will have no incentive to accept new and interested players, because they just become a liability to team security. Effectively it poisons the atmosphere of the whole game, because after a while (or even quite early on) teams become very reluctant to accept anyone new at all, and as a result otherwise curious new players are shunted out and put off the demogames. Even if teams are forced to accept players to prevent the self-preserving "closed door policy", it won't be much better. Rather than being friendly and welcoming to new members, teammates will tend to be grudging and suspicious, which will really put off genuine newbies to demogames.

So as I said, it sounds interesting, but I fear it would probably just end up detracting from the spirit of the demogames, which is supposed to be to encourage anyone and everyone to take part.

 

[azzaman333]

I don't really like it. What if someone acting as a spy logs into the game in their new team and "accidentally" loses a worker to a barbarian?

I think the espionage should stick to ingame acts only. It's not as if people aren't already ridiculously good at learning information that they don't know in these games.

 

[Tinkerbell]

I think the idear is good, and need some rules. Here is my suggestion:

A person can migrate to an other team when all of these conditions are met:
* The person must agree to the migration.
* The old team must agree to the migration.
* The new team must agree to the migration.

When this is met, migration will spice up the game. If a teams at one moment in time doesn't want any migration, the won't agree and therefor block the migration.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I agree with Tinkerbell. I also would like to suggest that if Teams were given the option of making their teams "closed" in the first place (i.e. admission by permission/invitation only) those that fear an open-door policy could just close their team and thus might have less to fear from defections / spying etc.

Really, an open movement policy actually places more pressure on teams to be civil, accomodating, and inclusive, because they don't want their team mates to feel left out, become unhappy and defect.

I think the points raised by azzaman and L.Parkin are good ones as well but I would still be willing to try try this out (with the conditions Tinkerbell outlined). As I have said before, I am playing regardless, but I think the idea is worth discussing.

Has anyone ever played a game with this kind of thinkg allowed who can offer their experience with it?

 

[azzaman333]

But Tinkerbell's conditions mean that even if a player wants to defect, the rest of the team won't let them because they don't want their secrets and plans getting out.

Or, if they do let them go, it will be seen as though that person is spying and won't be accepted by the new team anyway.

 

[Tinkerbell]

Indeed. It's a possibility.

Another: When a teams lost all their players, all teams could send a diplomat to the new team and get it back on track. The new players of the abandoned nation have the advantage that they know their competition very well. That might compensate for the state the abandoned nation is in.

 

[HUSch]

The change from team 1 to team 2 can be possible only, if there is no secret in team 1.
so I see no real possibility for that.

In the last DG, a member from MS could go to Kaz or Cav, but never to SAN or Sat.
Perhaps a member from Kaz could go to MS possible to Cav, but never to SAN or Sat.

imho
We don't need a rule for that. If both teams say yes then a member can change with or without rule.

 

[Sommerswerd]

even if a player wants to defect,the rest of the team won't let them.

Or...it will be seen as though that person is spying and won't be accepted by the new team anyway.

That is certainly a possibility. But it is also possible that the team is happy to let the unhappy member go in peace. And it is also possible that person will be accepted by the new team and they won't be suspicious of them.

Maybe what you are meaning is that YOU personally would never vote to let a defector leave and that YOU personally would never vote to accept a defector from another team.

I certainly can imagine situations where I would vote to let a defector leave or accept a defector. For example, (and I hope he does not mind me mentioning him personally) if donsig were unhappy on his team and was defecting trying to defect to mine, I would gladly vote to accept donsig, because in my experience donsig is a player of the highest integrity and loyalty and I would trust that he was not just trying to spy.

Conversley, if there was some player making trouble on the team and not getting along with anyone, and they wanted to leave... I would not vote to prevent them from doing so. I guess having been on a team like Kaz really gives youa different perspective on team happiness.

Anyway, it seems like HUSch agrees with Tinkerbell... If both teams agree, then it is OK...is that right?

 

[azzaman333]

I can't see how you're ever going to get both teams to agree.

 

[hell_hound]

I agree with azzaman333 if you think about it logically unless you are willing to let someone spill all your information you would never let anyone change teams.

-One team wants to spy, if a team sees that the other team is willing to let them go then they must be collaborating
-One team member is unhappy, if their current team lets them go they will ruin the game for their team out of spite
-One team is winning so people want to move there but they stop them because they do not need them.
-A team is loosing, everyone tries to jump ship and sends the team into disrepair so admins would stop it

There are probably more scenarios but they all end up in the same situation.

 

[Sommerswerd]

@ hell hound:Again, I will be playing whether or not team-switching is allowed, however, Thinking "logically," means applying a stardard logical syllogism to why folks would not allow a defector to leave:

Major premise: All defectors want to ruin their original team's chances
Minor premise: XYZ person is a defector
Conclusion: XYZ person wants to ruin their original team's chances

You can see that the "we will never allow defections" approach is in-fact illogical, because it is based on an incorrect major premise, specifically, that "all defectors want to ruin their original team out of spite." As I have said presviously, there are situations where you could be confident that the defector was not intending to do anything like that... Maybe they are never allowed to play turns on their team, and they just want to be on a team that lets them play turns... Maybe the team they are on has too many polls and they don't like polls... Maybe there is an abusive teammate on their team and they just want to get away from that person. None of that means that they want to hurt EVERYONE else on the team by sabotaging them... right?

If people are really worried, Surely we can have a simple on-your-honor rule, not to talk about (sabotage) your old team?

@azzaman: Are you saying that there is NO ONE you have encountered in all your time on these forums that you would trust, on-their honor to keep quiet about team secrets after defecting? If you have encountered such a person, and they wanted to defect to my team, and I was willing to accept them (which I probably would be, b/c I want people to be on teams where they are happy)... Then that is the answer to your question.

 

[hell_hound]

The thing you forget to consider is that once a player has joined a team after leaving an old team he will want his new team to win and so would tell them the information to help them anyway.

If people are really worried, Surely we can have a simple on-your-honor rule, not to talk about (sabotage) your old team?

This would mean that the only reason a team would ever take in a player if they were truly unhappy with their original team, but that seems to solve a different problem.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Wanting your new team to win does not mean that you are willing to break rules or do dishonorable things in order to help them do it.

If everyone knows that defectors are supposed to keep quiet about past teams, then no-one should ask about the old team, and the defectors should not tell about the old team.

 

[hell_hound]

I have no problem with that but what we have just established is that open team swapping doesn't work under thoose rules and that if someone is unhappy in a team they may swap as a solution.

 

[CommandoBob]

Passwords.

Can a team's password to log into the game be changed once the game is up and running? If it cannot be changed, team swapping is very risky to both teams involved and to the swapping player as well. Something goes wrong in-game involving the two teams and the swapped player will be the prime suspect in the mess.

Also...

If we allow team swapping, would we allow team trading, too?

(That would be cute inside the game: we offer to trade Player A, B and C to Team 1 in exchange for Crabs.)

Finally
Team swapping is not something I would suggest we do. Eiither deal with the issue inside the team or drop out. Don't take your problems to another team.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Passwords.

Can a team's password to log into the game be changed once the game is up and running? If it cannot be changed, team swapping is very risky to both teams involved and to the swapping player as well. Something goes wrong in-game involving the two teams and the swapped player will be the prime suspect in the mess.

This is a really good point that I did not even think of. However, doesent the Pitboss Turn-tracker website keep track of who logged in and when? If someone on the wrong team logs in to the wrong team, then...

I guess if someone wanted to be really dishonest, they could change their name before logging in ... What a mess that would be to untangle... I guess CommandoBob is probably right about team swapping unless there is something else I am missing.

 

[Lord Parkin]

You can change passwords quite easily in-game.

I'm still very dubious about this system. It seems like the one case where it might be needed (dead team, both teams and switching member agreeing to switch) is something we don't need a rule for anyway. Aside from that, I can't see any reason why any team would say "yes" to this. Speaking personally, I would be uncomfortable with allowing anyone who was on a previous team in the same game into my team, unless (a) their team was destroyed by ours or (b) my team is dying with no activity. And in those exceptional cases, I'd rather ask for members than have it automatically enforced by a rule.

 

[hell_hound]

Lord Parkin has just put what I was trying to say more eloquently

 

[HUSch]

The change of pw is as follow:
1. give up to the AI.
2. take over the civ and give a new pw.

You must be careful that the AI can't make movements, I don't think the AI will make other decisions, you don't want.


The change of team is sometimes difficult from dead team to another also. I remember a C3C-DG in which my team has an ally who gaves us their mapand some plans. They were annoyed when I want to change to a third team after my team has lost. So it can be, that a third team is concerned with a team-change.