You see people playing as a social group as something that is inherently bad, evil, wrong, incorrect, aka cheating.

The internet makes it difficult to figure out who is cheating and who is just playing with a couple friends. I understand that difficulty. I also believe that your current mindset has blinded you to the current trend in gaming on all levels and in all aspects of life. Please tell me a good way that I can socially play CF? There is no way. I cannot have my roommate/brother/sister/friend play from my site when I play or I will be smacked down, severely. Your rules you have in place state that there can be no interaction at all. Even in the same cabal, the simplest "infraction" meaning giving a piece of equipment to another same site individual is seen as, at the very least, a direct violation that warrants a ROTD transfer and warning.

Your comment of,

Allowing permagroups will necessarily lead to more gangs. Also, for every person who is helped by your perspective (a 'mentoring' permagroup), you're going to have a person who finds the game, wants to play, and soon figures out that they can't compete alone.

Is, on its face, and examined, a needless and ultimately self (CF) destroying position. First, the "stay" rate of individuals who are shown CF by another friend in real life, and are able to group with that person, and get help from them, is by far astronomically higher than a random individual who happens on CF through mud finder/blind luck/CF internet friend. Therefore, you retain a much higher number of individuals at CF through this kind of "mentoring" system than you do anywhere else. That much can be agreed on.

Second, ganging, in itself, happens, no matter what, which is what you also fail to understand. People are going to side up and gang even if they do or do not know each other in real life. People time logins when they find a time that is advantageous to themselves or find an individual who they "gang" well with. Its rampant. People look for the ideal, and when they find it, exploit it. I can certainly rattle off, right now, a list of 7 or 8 "permagroups" who most likely do not know each other in real life, but have same playing times. Who log on at the same time, just from experience, to "clean" up their pk. Some are imperial, some are outlander, some are battle, some are maran, and some are just plain non-affiliated people. Its there, exists, and continues.

Also, dealing with ganging, individuals are usually hooked, through the "peer-mentoring" idea way before they experience the ganging situation. From a manager's point of view, who is seeking players, get them hooked, and let those who cannot handle it filter out. Most will stay and suck it up, and maybe, heaven for bid, get their own personal social circle hooked on CF. And you know what happens? At any time and day, you won't have group A dominating because group B and group C are there causing havoc too, all in the same PK (Hero), all rumbling each other, all creating an air of competition. Individuals who play the game can always be recruited IC to tip the scales, or do their own ganging. To be honest, if the CF immortal staff thought this bad of "ganging" it would have been removed as an option. It has not.

Third, you are also turning a blind eye to what gaming is becoming. It is not the "sit in a dark room in front of a monitor and mud" world. It really never has. Humans are social creatures, and thus the games they play are social in nature. What is the replay value of, lets say, Final Fantasy 5? You beat it, its over. How about Metal Gear Solid 2? Beat it, its over, wait for the next. Games like Halo, Unreal Tournament, Diablo, Never Winter Nights, etc., are bound in the idea that although you beat it, you can always play with your friends and try new things. Its a reality, a reality that the immortals fail to understand.

Fourth, what you also don't grasp is that neosoft, smug, entropy gangbang possie, etc., not only logged in all at once every week or so, but also logged in by themselves more than that, constructively adding to the player base on exactly the same level as you wanted. Not only do you have to pander to the people who want to compete by themselves no matter what, but you also have to pander to the social player who does not want to make CF their "####ing" job. CF is a timesink, and I think if immortals were not so brutally, and horribly tough holding up these current (outdated) rules, you would see a lot more social players, and therefore a lot more players in general.

Lastly, answer me this, just for fun's sake. How did the immortals (current) and mortals of CF get hooked on it? I'm willing to bank Valg that you learned this game through a real life friend who showed you the ropes, or at least alerted you to the game and its general rules/guidelines. That you talked to this individual about the game and went from there. I'm betting 80% of CF population (who stayed longer than 6 months) is like this. I know I'm like this, I know Smug is like this, I know Neosoft is like this, I know so many players like this. If you are going to John Kerry this and take a poll, it would show you exactly what I'm saying here. And I am also not speaking out of the blue, I have taken the time to speak to a number of CF players and former players, because i wanted to know, and here is the answer.

Solution. I am a firm believer that if you reject the current set of rules you offer a solution, even rough. Get rid of the hard and brutal rules that people cannot play from the same site. Allow a low level of peer assistance and grouping. Allow social players to exist on CF, because right now, if you are not willing ot dedicate 10 or more hours a week to CF, you can summarily eliminate yourself from the CF community. Especially if you are seeking a leader position, or any other position of somewhat enjoyment besides grunt. The game does not pander to the social gamer at all. Those who are rewarded the most? Those who spend the most time online dedicated to CF (or have immortal ties, but I'm not bringing that up here). The guy who spends 20 hours a week on CF is going to be chosen as leader over the guy who spends 5 hours. That is a proven, and illustrated fact. Examine some of your own immortal comments and its proven right there. The social gamer has no place anywhere in CF except as the fodder guy. This leads me into incognito's point.

And one last point. Something that alienates both younger and older players alike. The seemingly unlevel playing field when it comes to rewards. You have leaders of some cabals who get 4 quest powers. Those under him gets 1 quest power each (Empire). You have Tribunal where each position has its own set of quest powers. You have Battle, where their leaders get summarily nothing except a leader weapon (maybe if the immortals are up for it). You have Scion who gets a "supposed" bonus to their powers, but as the leader you have no clue at all, nor see any real benefit from it. And then you have Outlander who I will not comment on here yet, to maintain game secrets and respect for the immortals, but the hoops that need to be jumped through are astronomical in nature. And then you have Fortress whose leaders not only get a leader weapon, but at some point, some kind of leader power. Where is the continuity to this? The immortal position has always been don't play the character for quest powers. Yet for some reason Cabal A and B have Hardcoded quest powers they get, yet Cabal C, D, and E have none to speak of.

People quest for greatness. People want cool quest powers, people want to feel special in nature. Why not reward leaders equally? In a world where the extra 20 minutes of doing the "hard stuff" gets you something, when someone drops 500+ hours on a chararacter and adds dramatically to the CF environment and gets the goodbye thread of, "I was away but was going to reward you with something, but you aged died, great character, keep trucking." leaves an awful taste in the mouth of the player.

A lot of things to think about. Including what Qaledus stated, which is also factors. And keep in mind that those factors should not be an issue if CF was keeping up with the social gaming environment it had 7 to 8 years ago, where uni enrollment meant an upswing in numbers, not a downswing. At some point you have to grasp the fact that you need to attract younger, newer players, because us old vets are dying off quick (I being close to first in line).