Like I said, I've got nothing against coplaying: Later in the game especially it's essential to offset fatigue, and coplayers joining a world on the same account is fine. (Though it would be nice to see a more intelligent version of limited hauls implemented on most if not all worlds to offset the 24/7 farming advantage.)
Gifting villages by quitting players is tricky, especially in the age of premium farming; in a couple of weeks I'll be gifting my own two villages on W101 to a total stranger. Though with that said, it'll be over six weeks in (on the rim) and they'll be mediocre villages for that stage; not quite the same boost as getting two or three good villages as soon as nobles are out. If someone starts a world specifically to build up a village and clearing force to help their mate out then yes, it is obviously pushing even moreso than building up a village to merely send resources, it just can't be policed.
Coplayers starting and merging different accounts early on are just as clearly pushing the main account (and are probably more common too), but in that case it could be banned and policed reasonably well, and should be. Yes, I'm sure there would be convoluted workarounds to whatever policing were implemented; but there's workarounds for multi-accounting too, so that's hardly a good reason not to have a rule. And honestly, maybe I'm just a bit naive but I imagine that if it were clearly and explicitly against the rules, most people who currently see it as an acceptable and smart way to gain an edge would not do it even if the workarounds were easy. Most folk are generally fairly decent in my experience, and they have their pride to think of too. Account merges could be banned until the bigger account has 15 villages, say.
Again, it's not coplaying itself that's the issue; but allowing big early game advantages for coplaying both discourages newcomers to the game and decreases account numbers/world size/profitability from experienced players too.
Not to make this a needlessly long post, but i think there are various faults within your point of view.
Firstly you make a point relating to the tw ;fatigue;' as you put at, as a reason coplaying should be allowed, however then alluding to the fact that a more intelligent mechanism to do limited hauls would some how offset the need to have coplayers. Anyone who has played limited/no hauls would tell you this is extremely naive, in fact while in theory it seems pretty sound, I have found that i actually spend more time on the game playing no hauls for instance compared to hauls; since no hauls by default a more punishing at it relates to the resource factor unlike haul worlds where you could always 'farm' out your inefficiencies. Apart from that, i think the activity that tw demands actually has little to do with farming to begin with. Any serious player on a limited/no haul world would tell you they literally spend hours seamlessly looking at the map for changes hahaha. But generally, i think the need for efficiency will force one to be active regardless, such as having to adhere to stringent upgrade schedules in order to get those minute advantages and see them multiply.
The entire point about merging/ gifting seems rather pointless, as you are trying to differentiate what is legitimate gifting and what is illegitimate thus pushing. I am actually willing to bet that waiting say 4-6 weeks before 'merging' your coplayers is actually the more beneficial strategy and it presents you with a plethora of advantages such as being able to use their troops longer, giving you a safe haven/security, it even protects you from obvious public scrutiny which may have negatively affected some tribes on this world. However if we were to ignore that fact that I think your suggestion is counter productive, how would it be policed? Surely it wouldn't be hard to make a conquer look legitimate. Hmm maybe monitor ip changes to the conquering account? Simple have a partner who gifts their 'freebie' to you and vice versa... not very difficult.
Again, for some reason you seem to believe if something is 'illegal' or rather not legal, people would shy away from doing such. I for one don't think very highly of that assumption. Anyone who has played tw for a while is obviously well aware that there a some scripts that are on the forum here, and other scripts that are....well not. Before tw created the in game train function, everyone who couldn't be bothered to dig up opera and wanted to send fake trains or any type of trains for that matter probably used some form of the tw extension for sending trains. This was widespread simply because it wasn't something people got banned for apparently due to it being 'undetectable'. Therefore my point is, i think people will gladly do something that's in the grey area as it relates to legality if it gives them some sort of competitive advantage.
Lastly, I'm not certain why you think coplaying affects new player joining rates whatsoever, as pointed out early, tw has a tribe culture where you typically play with your friends who you know/trust/etc. Thus tribes have a distinct advantages against new players, irrespective of whether accounts are coplayed or not, new players would be rimmed.
Also I would argue that if coplaying weren't allowed, actually less players would choose to play tw. I for one wouldn't ever play solo, even if it were just for start up. I consider it a pain to do so, and a huge drain on my personal time, especially if we were to ban mergers up to say 15 villages as you suggested. Players who have played with their coplayers for years upon years suddenly being forced to change, this would probably cause more old players to simply quit. cuz ya know....people typically resist change...
Though as my own suggestion, I would think revamping how morale works may somehow impact the 'pushing' epidemic. Due to making it less lucrative to grow substantially in a short time, although im sure this too has loopholes.
