Initially, when a game roster is forming up, one might expect the host, or an established "team" of players, to be discriminating  [based on in game record, or perceived personal reputation] of player "ability levels" or "Skills" in an effort to "balance" the competitive level of the game. 

However, in a recent "Join New Game" lobby dialogue, the 3v3 host [single large random] repeatedly opted to kick  players when trying to join.  This went on for sometime, longer than one might want to wait when the general game lobby is virtually unpopulated, but since this is a typical dynamic of getting a game together, there isn't much choice if you're hoping to get a game.  And although I think everyone understands why a good game host [one of an accomplished skill level] would want to manage the team structure, (especially if you are a veteran, and you place a premium on your time). 

Then a known player that was on my friends list joined, but was shortly thereafter kicked.  When I asked the host "...what was wrong with [that player]",  he said they were on a "Blacklist"  or "Blackboard" as "Known Team Stackers".

This intrigued me, as I've never heard of any blacklist for team stacking in SoSE, but I dismissed it as I wanted to get a game, and there wasn't any other team games at the time.  Eventually a couple of more unknown players filled out my team, and the game launched.

Long story short: Host overwhelms my semi-noob ally on my immediate flank early game with an illum spam rush, while the host's other two allies each proceed with protracted assualts on myself and my remaining ally after the semi-noob quits at the 25 - 35 minute mark even though he still had defensive depth, but nonetheless provided no benefit to the team whatsoever.   The AI presents no obstacle, and with a skilled cohesive team against you, the only fun to be had at this point is to fight a delaying action, to further challenge your opponents, and indeed yourself to see what degree of difficulty you can offer to the inevitable victors. 

This sort of outcome is not uncommon, and although it's frustrating to waste the time and effort one does on a losing side, my personal ethics preclude me from complaining or bemoaning.  But when, at the grim close of the final moments, I offer, in what I consider to be a conciliatory gesture; a "Good game!, too bad our ally quit.  He didn't know the counter to illum's".  The host says, "...he was dead from the start, I hate it when players like you start complaining and make excuses for their horrible play!"  

I have to say, at this point, this sort of floors me as uncalled for and generally in bad taste.  The host obviously had a chip on his shoulder, but then he starts proselytizing about how I'm "one of those players that has to rely on his allies to compensate for his lack of ability".  He then goes on to accuse me as being a "Blacklisted" player, on the "Black Board" that is a "Team Stacker".  He bloviates further on the immoral and unethical practice of essentially "ganging up" with highly skilled teammates against random player opponents. 

His tirade eventually devolves into character assassination, and the ever popular questioning of genetic backgrounds, but this sort of outburst is surprising because he did seem very articulate and convincing, at least in his conviction that he believes what he was stipulating about "moral and ethical considerations".  I actually have given much thought to this, and I would like to solicit input from y'all on the following viewpoints:

Now I have always considered the effort in multiplayer gaming to be goal oriented towards one major objective: Enjoyment.  

I for one, however, don't enjoy wasting my time, and it is experiences like this that reinforce that perspective.  By the same token, I endeavor to maximize my enjoyment by enhancing that experience, through elevating my skill sets, and by in large my online acquaintances.  This to me is a virtual peer group, and associations through clans, or guilds  is one of the most effective ways to do this.

What he denounced as "Team Stacking" many consider simply "Playing with your Friends".  I know some less developed psyches thrive on foolish pursuits where they derive some sick pleasure from unfair domination of inexperienced players.  But to further your experience by playing in random pick up games, anyone playing with your colleagues IMO is preferential to being in a roster of unknowns.  And to insinuate that anyone who does so is in some way engaging in predatory practices is to assume they don't enjoy a challenge, and enjoy defeating lesser skilled opponents.  To further insinuate that "Stacked" teams operate so that they can hide their deficiencies by relying on their teammates to compensate for them is ludicrous.

Here it comes:

THAT'S WHAT TEAM PLAY IS ALL ABOUT!  You are on a TEAM.  TEAMS support each other.  TEAMS cooperate with each other.  TEAMS are...TEAMS!

Therefore, I would offer that this brings about some very interesting questions:

1. What are the ethics of team play in terms of...define them, what are the terms?
2. Should game titles advertise they are "Clan" or "Stacked Opponents Only" or is it a given?
3. Is it unethical to clan-group teams as long as those that want to compete understand they are playing against opponents who are familiar with each other?
4. What are the implications of a "Blacklist" (and is there really one, if so where is it?)
   

I apologize for the long post, but I feel better now.  It's just that I have played far too long with many players that I have cultivated friendships with that as part of their play observe a great sense of decorum and fair play that this disturbs me so when exposed to the mindset that is so utterly retaliatory in nature, I feel it necessary flesh out the consensus within the community.

Protoplazm