I think Terry is trying to say that if a player leaves a team, that player would have to wait a week to join another team. Not that the player would be forced to stay on a team for a week after joining.

Would it be possible to list on the player profile the teams that members have belonged to? (obviously this can't be done retrospectively, but could be incorporated from currentish date).

Also, could players wishing to join a team be subject to team leader acceptance, which would give team leaders the opportunity to decline a player they are 'not happy with'.

I'm reading two methods here, right?

One says to start a clock on entering a team that prevents joining another team before the clock runs out (The person could quit or be ousted at any time during that week - join, stay 5 days, leave, wait two days and join another team, as an example.

Second says start a clock running on leaving a team and not allow joining a new team until the clock has run down. (Example: join a team, three days later decide you don't like it, wait the week and on day 10 join a second team)

Start to tick-tock on join or leave? I'd structure the algorithm on the leave event. (edit) I feel that a way hopping was being done was that every 6 months, players would leave their team and reconoiter other teams so the clocking after a leave, whether in an hour or in six months , is more targeted to stopping the problem.

Edit: Excellent add, Surdoux, with the profile data. Team membership history could come with a block one per current month option by the player to protect privacy. At my age, I need the list to remember where I've been so I don't stumble into the bee's hive a second time.

Currently, the team leader can set the team to 'Closed', rather than 'Invite Only' or 'Open'. If that is done, only the team leader can issue an invitation.

The word 'Draconian' springs to mind. Teams have the option to be either 'closed' or 'invite only'. 'Invite Only' needs tightening up, because there are easy ways round that, but either of those options could satisfy surdoux's suggestion of letting people join only at the Team Leader's discretion.

Why do some people want to stop the free movement of players? What is the point in banning players (who may have paid for Gold Membership) from joining a team that is shown as 'open to all'? There may be a few players who are abusing the system; are they going to be allowed to force restrictions to be imposed on everybody? If teams don't want certain players to join, then they should control access themselves, and not ask the site to punish those who have the temerity to join their team and then decide they don't like it.

I think the one-week thing will do just fine. If you join a team, you can't join another for a week afterwards, whether you stick out those seven days with the guys you joined or lasted all of six minutes and then are teamless for most or the week.

Another thing - can we implement a very small waiting/activity period before a total newbie can join a team? I'd say making level 3 should be good enough - just getting rid of the quite high percentage of "level 1, 0 points, join team, never come back" duds.

(We could use the "can't join yet" message to point those very new players to our intro challenges. That way, they'd be shown a way to get their desired level 3 very fast )

WesleyCrusher, are you saying that after six months on a team (which is past the week wait), a person could leave a team and immediately join a new one and then a second clock starts its timing on that transaction? That is the 'clock starts on join' method. I think a week hiatus after a leave would be preferred. That gives ample search time to read team recruitment blogs, send PMs asking team members about the team, etc. Just jumping into a new team is part of the identified problem associated with team hopping.

To be honest, I wouldn't even think that "team hopping" occurred often enough for anything big to be implemented. The week limit (you can only enter one team within a week's period) sounds fine enough to me. If someone has to spend most of a week teamless or in a team they don't particularly like, I'm not sure it's the end of the world. Anything further than that just seems like a lot of effort for a few people who abuse the system.

mehaul, I don't see the need for a week off after *leaving* a team. I get messages from people who are currently on a team, but are looking around, and ask about the team and whether we are interested. If they've been on their current team for 6 months, why should they have to be teamless for a week? They wouldn't fit the definition of 'team-hopping'.

Yes, I say that - I do not want to stop or slow any legitimate, occasional changes. After all, being on a team also comes with some perks in the form of being able to play the team games (which you are unable to access at all without a team). When a member changes teams after a long time, they're doing their shopping BEFORE leaving anyway - after all, what good would it do them to leave if they're not sure to find anything better?

In the rare case that someone really needs to leave in a hurry or gets removed, they're well advised to do their shopping before joining something new as well - after all, if they join something only to find out it's not a fit, they'd then be stuck with the week's wait. But why stop them if they find the right new team quickly?

I'm sorry, but I don't recognise this perfect world where everyone has the chance to 'shop around' for a new team. If you're going to make it so hard to change teams, then I think you need to make more information available to those who are looking to change.

At the moment, the only way to find out what a team is really like is to join it, and read the message board. People may tell you about a team before you join, but that's all subjective; you have to form your own opinion.

If you want to impose restrictions on free movement between teams, then I would suggest that prospective members should be able to access a team's message board before they join; there is no other way for them to make a considered judgement. I'm not sure that would be a good idea, because people may feel a bit inhibited if they thought their posts were available for everyone to see.

What we have here is the usual contributors expressing their views; I wonder how many have changed teams in the past year? Imagine a new member; they join the site, get to whatever level it is proposed they must achieve to be able to join a team, make their decision, enjoy playing the team games, but don't like the team they have joined. This new member, probably still very enthusiastic but knowing nothing about the various teams, then has to decide on a new team. Important decision; they've maybe only been on the site for a couple of weeks, but they now have to chose their second team, knowing if they get it wrong, then they are in limbo for a week. That should keep them nicely motivated! Imagine they do get it wrong; their only options are to be on a team they don't want to be on, or not on a team, just feeling totally alienated from FUNtrivia (just thought I'd stress the first part of that word).

I see pros and cons to both strategies. Which is easier to write code wise: tagging the removal of a team name on the profile; or, making the tag part of generating a new team name on the profile or is there no difference?

Edit: Is a hybrid approach workable? A day on the leave, week on the join?

If "team hopping" is REALLY the problem that some folks say it is (do we have any sort of stats to support that?), then I think if you've left one team already, have joined another, then I don't think it's "horribly" unfair to have to wait a week to move on to the next one. You certainly don't have to STAY with that team for a week, you'd just have to be "independent" for 6 days. Call it "research time", if you like : ). Or you could stay for awhile (even if it was "mandatory") and discover that the first impressions you had on "day one" were completely wrong and you had found the right team after all : )

If extreme team hopping is NOT that big of a problem, I wouldn't mind seeing the whole "status" thing more or less done away with. "Closed" seems sort of snooty to me (unless a team deliberately wants to stay either "small" or "medium" - and I don't see anything wrong with that) and "Invite Only" doesn't work, because, as Dippo mentioned, people are quite able to enter through the back door. All this is further complicated by the numerous teams whose status says "closed", but have a "blurb" that says "send us a message if you're serious". The whole thing seems kind of "wishy-washy" to me, so perhaps it's no wonder folks (especially new members) don't know WHAT to do when trying to choose lol.

How about if nobody can join any team without team/team leader approval (meaning there would be a link on the team page to "apply" and the person could absolutely NOT join until the team leader clicked some link permitting them to do so)? Not sure how that would be implemented or if that would cause extra work for team leaders, but hey, if the team leader happens to be on vacation and the player wants to be on the team badly enough, I'm pretty sure most of them would wait until they got a response (yea or nay). Team leaders would still be able to send out invitations, of course.

And I love surdoux's suggestion about the profile showing what teams/when/how long the player was a member as I think, in most cases, it would provide some sort of decision making information for a team leader contemplating someone's application for membership. It would certainly show evidence of multiple/EXTREME "team hopping" that may be going on, which could be dealt with in some other way (not sure what though lol) rather than implementing a "universal" form of punishment for the innocent folks who are just looking for a comfy "home". And again, as Dippo mentioned, there is absolutely NO way to tell what a team is REALLY like from the "recruitment blurbs" alone. It's just "advertising" (for the most part) anyway : )

It would also be nice if somehow team member names could be removed from the "recently joined" list on the team page if they're no longer with the team. We have had at least two very fine gentlemen who went on to form their own teams (kudos to them as they're doing very well!), but they're still showing on our list. That's just confusing for everyone involved lol.

__________
edited to add 16 words.

I'm broadly in the Dippo camp on this - I don't think it's necessary or in the Funtrivia spirit to make changing teams too restrictive. So I'm opposed to be a delay period, once someone leaves a team, before they can join another.

That's partly because I don't have a sense that team hopping is a big, big issue engaged in by lots of people ... and I don't think the irritating behaviour of a small number of people should dictate processes for the majority. Team leaders already have the ability to remove a new joiner if they recognise that person as a team hopper (I've done it once recently in respect of the player that other posts have referred to), but on the whole I think it comes down to people legitimately needing to join a team in order to see if it 'fits'.

I strongly agree however with the suggestion that new entrants to the site shouldn't be able to join (or set up!) a team until they've reached a certain (modest) level. Teams are clogged up with people who have joined but never played, or played for only one day before disappearing.

And if it were possible to remove their names from teams' 'recent members' list once they've left that team, that'd be a bonus!

I agree with this 100% Also, I wouldn't list what teams people have joined in their profile. I think that will become a competion in its own right. We had one person where we played "where's Waldo" I think Terry stickied them to one of the several teams they started.

Is changing teams all that devastating? Really? People come here for all kinds of reasons. But they don't come here because they get paid to play. This isn't a workplace, we don't need it to be highly regulated. There are certain norms of behavior that are expected but we don't need to be scrutinized for every little thing.

If someone changes teams it's not a reflection on the team leader. Or maybe it is. As people come and go on a team the tone changes and some people might decide it isn't for them anymore. So what? We like to carry around a list of our accomplishments on our profile; why should we have to have a list of past teams on it like some kind of criminal record?

Some people will come to FT and find it to be just what they're looking for. Some will come and find it to be just what they're looking for - until tomorrow when the next best thing comes along; that's the nature of the Internet. The goal of management here should be to make people want to stay and, preferably, pony up the money for a gold membership, not to say "This is just like work."

I'm not a fan of the idea of only team leaders being able to approve members. It shouldn't be such an ordeal to get into a team and, if you ask me, would put off new players the most. How scary would it be to have to be "approved" to get onto a team for a new player? Or even some of the older players!

I agree with CmdrK in saying that it doesn't need to be regulated so tightly - why not just make it the case that team leaders could call "team hoppers" to (perhaps) an admin's attention, who could then send a little warning about it? Something further, like a restriction, could be put into place only if they ignore the warnings, but then: does it actually happen that often in the first place?!

And no, definitely don't keep a list of previous teams on the profile. When a member leaves their team, I think it's mostly for a good reason and maybe they want to let that go. :P

All we've discussed is site wide team changing and nothing about being team specific in the method of curtailing the hop. If some of the problem is spying (in a friendly competitive way), that could be stopped by restricting the return to a team for a longer period. Allow the new, different team hops on short stays, if finding the right fit is the problem, waiting two days to visit a new team wouldn't be too much of a burden. You could be a member of 4 teams in a week. But if there were a 6 month 'return to a previous team' restriction the purposeful, nefarious hopping might be curtailed. Okay we'll cut the bargaining over time length and go down to a one month restriction on 'return to a previous team'. If you've been through 15 teams in a month and have identified one you expect you'd stay with for a long term and want to settle into, then a 4 week wait to get back to it won't hurt.

There, the need to look around has been balanced against the desire for privacy. Peeking allowed but no staring and reporting back.

I am very new to this site,joined in June while on an extended holiday but only really been playing and finding my way around the site for last 8 weeks or so
My team seems fine to. me but I am a bit dismayed at reading the posts on this link!
Seems to me that overall this is a fun site....horrified to think you can kicked off a team! Hope it doesn't happen to me. what would be the grounds for being asked to leave a team? I am completely absorbed In the treasure hunt at the mo and not really posting much on team board. Is that grounds for being kicked off? hope not. Cheers Muspratt

The ethos of a team is generally set by the team leader, usually (hopefully) in association with other regular players on the team ... so it can be different things that are important for different teams.

Reasons that people might be removed from a team (in some teams) are: (a) not playing at all or VERY infrequently, (b) not participating in the main team games (TvT and Team Heroes), and (c) disruptive/offensive activity on the team message board such as criticising other team members.

In my experience there aren't (usually) very severe or draconian standards applied ... but the simple truth is - as in any internet community - along with the vast majority of players who are nice sensible people there are a minority of highly unpleasant, offensive and weird individuals about. So in those cases removing individuals from a team (practised in moderation) is a very reasonable course of action.

Where are these offensive and weird indiviuals at? Are they any good at TvT? They can always join TVC!

As a team leader, I would not ban a player unless (s)he would repeatedly show very rude behaviour.

LOL, that's Dave. Always on the lookout for a good fit for his team.

No one has ever actually been kicked out of The Bees Knees. We do go through periodically and remove any members who have not been to Fun Trivia in the past three months under the assumption that they have gotten too busy with mundane activities to play. At that time we send them a note telling them we'd love to have them back when they return to Fun Trivia.

Happy to help, Dave. Next time I come across one I'll signpost them your way.

we have been patiently waiting.

Actually the edit feature for team message boards would be nicer. This guy just keeps on moving on. We just delete him.

How is this coming, Terry? There are dozens of threads I would love to be able to delete. We have a very messy chatboard right now. The "sticky" feature has come in handy to keep our most used threads on the top, but I have been long awaiting the ability to delete posts and threads.

And the messaging the entire team once a month feature would be nice, too.


I sure hope this is implemented soon. I could really use it.

It would also be handy when someone posts something that they didn't mean to post; or duplicate threads, or something that they didn't realize was offensive but was.


Plus, with an active team, sometimes you need to create just an entirely new thread when the old one has 3000 or more posts. It would be nice to delete the old one; sometimes both are used for a few months before people realize there is a new one.

+

Amen! Thanks for revisting the topic, Salami. It's been on the back burner for a couple of months now.

Well, we are still waiting. Seems like you forgot.

From another post on possible new badges, I think Terry is planning on getting to his "to do" list over the holidays. It sounds a little rude to say "It seems like you forgot".