This is way better, thank you man. Greentick.

Allowing players to take any action they want on behalf of another player without needing any consent seems very dangerous. I understand that this is only within groups, and players can change groups at any time, but a player could, say, join a group, and then another player abuses that player while they’re asleep IRL, and by the time the first player gets a chance to leave, the damage has already been done. Now, there’s probably not too many things in our current ruleset that would make this a big deal, but things could be added. 

You can’t instantly join groups and you can just decline any attempted group-joiners if you don’t trust them enough for this.

It’s a bit extreme, I agree (all actions ?!), but it makes grouping much more interesting.

Ok I changed my mind. I think this really is too extreme as it gives too many possibilities to abuse groups. This might be too much of an incentive to refuse grouping. Limiting it too movement and maybe coordinated attacks on someone outside the group might be better.

Maybe have explicit opt-in for this mechanic in particular like ATMunn suggests, call it a Bond action for example; like “I Bond with John Doe”, thus allowing them to use this mechanic on you.

Given that there’s two players who’ve been inactive for a couple of days, we probably should flip the group joining to require explicit approval.