Orwellian "Vote Chess"

So I'm in this group "Triple Fork" and got a message to go to the group message board and read the following:

" In order to be successful in vote we must play as a team and discuss our moves and not just arbitrarily submit a vote which in most instances does not go with the particular line.  When we accept a challenge we will then discuss the possible opening or response the TEAM wants to play.  No longer will any one player demand a certain line to be played.  If you disagre with the opening or response then you are invited to propose your theory but not at the expense of ridiculing or berating another player's suggestion.  If you feel so strongly about your position, then play individual chess games that way you can have it your way.  We want team players who are willing to advise good moves and get along with the other players.  Your reponsees are welcome."

Well, I wrote a response that has since been deleted but called these rules "Fascist".  The group admin sent me a highly aggressive note that I had called him a Fascist (I miss obvious things in my chess games too).  He told me that the group board was not for making political statements so apparently discussing rules for Vote chess becomes political when I call the rules Fascist.

In any event, this is not Vote chess and is damn near cheating in my book.  Vote chess is about voting.  If you tell someone how they must vote you have disenfranchised them and calling it voting is simply a lie.  "Team players" are people who vote the move they think is best, not the move that they are told to vote.  It is for learning concepts like this that we go to high school and read 1984 and Animal Farm.

Vote chess is about wacky group dynamics and people voting for stupid stuff.  It's not about the 3 best players on the team dictating what everyone needs to vote for.  It's about having fun playing chess in a different way, not about stacking up W's. 

can everyone please join my group best of chess? Everybody can be admin.

helolo?

@ OP: I get what ur saying, but there's nothing that anyone reading this thread can do about it. A lot of groups here actually play vote chess by those rules, and in each individual case the admins of the group get to decide what the rules are.

I am part of many groups that abide by very similar rules. I think that you miss the point of them. They are not to tell others what move they must make, but are instead to discuss the moves before voting. One of the biggest complaints in vote chess is that team mates spend the time analysing a position and warning others "don't take the knight, it's a trap" and will explain what the problem is. Then others who don't read the comments decide that the "best move" is one that they have come up with in a matter of seconds and then lose the game for the team with their votes.

The rules of this team (that you posted) still leave plenty of room for disagreement about moves, but there is an emphasis on discussion:

"No longer will any one player demand a certain line to be played.If you disagree with the opening or response then you are invited to propose your theory but not at the expense of ridiculing or berating another player's suggestion."

I am not sure how you have interpreted this as fascism, and especially to the degree in Animal Farm or 1984 (which by the way are a couple of my favourite books )

There are groups that share your view that vote chess should be about looking at the position and deciding what to vote for themselves without discussion and then voting so the majority wins. Personally I see this as more "poll chess" than "vote chess" and am not interested, but I'd suggest you join one of these teams. It is simply a different approach to the game.

Aren't all chess games "vote chess"?

Well, you can look at it that way if you like. In live chess and correspondence you're the only one voting, so whichever move you vote for gets played.

"There are groups that share your view that vote chess should be about looking at the position and deciding what to vote for themselves without discussion"

This isn't the point.  Why should someone have to "participate" in a discussion or even listen to what anybody has to say before they vote?  In the US we have elections where the stakes are vastly higher than a vote chess game and there are no restrictions about being intelligent, understanding the issues, listening to Fox news discuss the candidates, etc, etc.  People vote for whatever reasons they vote and anything else is disenfranchising the people.  The beauty of demcracy is that there are few requirements for having an opinion and being able to vote the opinion.  Anything that abridges that is simply wrong and about power, not equity. 

Chia, i am afraid that quite some of these groups are fascist insofar that the leader creates the rules. Some groups go completely nuts about drive-by voters. I read stories about a ponziani group where they were ready to crucify somebody that voted against the majority... Or you leave, or you stay..and comply or discuss..

Because you're not voting for some figurehead president. You (voluntarily) joined a team, with a common goal and strategy. If you don't like the rules of this team, I suppose you are free to leave and join another which more suits ypour needs.

Discussion in vote chess, is in my opinion perhaps the most valuable learning experience on this whole site.

If you come to South Africa and try to play cricket with a baseball bat, you won't be allowed to, no matter how many Americans think that is the correct way to hit a ball out the park. But you'd be welcome to start a baseball league.

Not getting to say whatever you want in a voluntary group =/= facism.

In fact, it is very UNfacist to protect ordered speech in consented groups.

As an anarchist, I must say that you just sound like you were being a dick and you're upset that you can't just do whatever you want without consequences, and anything else is facist. IMO, it makes you sound dumb.

^Yep.

"Because you're not voting for some figurehead president."

Figurehead president?  This guy actually thinks that Vote chess is more significant than voting for the President of the US.  Did you know that the Prez can order nuclear attacks on any place he wants in the world with no oversight?

"Not getting to say whatever you want in a voluntary group =/= facism."

The issue isn't saying what I want (though that would certainly be good) but voting however I want and letting everyone else vote for whoever they want.  Voluntary has nothing to do with it.  I absolutely despise voluntary Fascist groups like the KKK.

Please be relevant, helpful & nice!

Truly, if you don't think that the KKK is a Fascist organization, you know absolutely nothing about Fascism and should be ashamed of yourself.  Understanding and resisting fascism is one of the duties of educated people.  Not being able to identify the KKK as Fascist means you can't do that and are screwing up.  Suggest you hit the books a little.

ahh, another thread where charoscuro insults people, makes unverifiable claims about what they know, is provocative, and complains about 'fascism'. Well, I have a complaint about this little twit who behaves terribly, treats his fellow posters with disdain (and btw doesn't seem to know anything about fascism either). 

I think his type is called a troll. Ridiculous infantile behaviour. If chess.com wanted to get rid of this kind of stuff they'd have to hire a mini army of employees just to patrol the boards and ban little twerps like chairo.