The basic problem is the flawed strats retreat concept.
That may be so, but that doesn't address the crux of my issue with what the nit player did. Granted that I'm being idealistic here, but I'd like there to be fair play. Joining one side in order to sabotage it is pretty much the opposite of fair play in my book. And "cheating" of this sort has recently been done in other ways than the one I referenced. I don't want to spell out what happened, though: I've read the thread and some of the posters would think that what was done was a really good idea and, sadly, might emulate it.
Am I being unrealistic here to hope that the great majority of people playing the game have an ethical sense beyond "if I can do it, it's okay"? Maybe so. And, if so, that's sad, too.
Apparently I'm in the minority here, but I'd still like the 12 (or whatever it is) hour side-switching rule extended to three days. It would definitely discourage anyone loyal enough to their side to sabotage the opposition via side-switching. And I guess I just don't get it why being able to be on any side at relatively short notice is such a precious thing. Some have said they need that flexibility in order to be where the action is (said action changes on an hourly basis, btw). I've never ever been unable to find a fight when I wanted one. Lol, except in Midwar!