I have no problems to play against best Chess Teams at site, personally and with two my brave Groups: AWARDCHESS and CHESS KINGDOM! And We are already playing a few dozen Team Matches! Thank you - Dream Team , Power Players,...!
We will do our best to fight you on the boards, not under the boards...!
700 + groups and one of such size? Sounds like standard oil to me. Regulate! Bust 'em up into "the dream team of ohio" and the like. Make groups above a certain size pay a 'tax' in the form of moves ceded to the other groups they play. While were at it prohibit members from joining a group without first resigning membership in another if the new group would put them over a limit. At least forbid participating in matches or games where they are members of both teams. It's a clear conflict of interest a corporation wouldn't abide by (not an ethical one anyway) and finally no gosh darn bailouts, if you lose a match it's your own fault, why should everyone else on chess.com pay for it. :)
What have I started? 
Rael obviously has a much longer and deeper history with the Dream Team than I do. I was just expressing my frustration at the moment.
The 'acceptance' of all seeks by the Dream Team is about as unfair as 'not resigning' in a lost position!
Good analogy. They are not breaking any official rules, but just like the resigning issue, there is some courtesy issues here.
On another site, they have an option to limit challenges to only one game per individual. If this could be translated to groups, here, so that the group that placed the seek could stipulate their seeks could not be accepted by any group they were already playing, would this solve Billium248's immediate problem?
Yes. That would definitely solve the problem. As I said, I don't mind playing against The Dream Team, but I'd like to play against someone else too.
one way around this is to directly challenge other groups. but yes, that isn't quite fair... hrmm....
It looks like this is what I'm going to HAVE to do. With 769 groups, I was hoping I wouldn't NEED to pick and choose my opponents. Some of my most enjoyable games have been against someone whom I was unfamiliar with before the game. That's how you meet new people.
I have stopped playing group vote chess as I had my suspicions about a very large team flooding their opponents team with rogue votes. Perhaps it was coincidence - perhaps not, but it is easy for a number from a large group to join a small group for the purpose of sabotaging their efforts.
This would certainly be beyond rude and into cheating. I haven't seen any evidence of this, and I really hope that this is not happening.
And in any case..if you put open seeks and Dream team accepts them , its just that they are the first to respond to them..how is that being 'undemocratic' ? (or even unethical?) If you are against the 'Dream Team' and want Canadian cabals or Australian jumping jacks..you should challenge that particular group(s). Or ask them to respond faster than the dream team.
If they were the 1st to respond to A challenge, then there would be no problem. It's the fact that they took ALL SIX AT THE SAME TIME!!! This is equivilent to having a bunch of friends over and one person eats the whole pizza before anyone else even shows up.
Why not just send a msg to the dream team to let them know of your concerns?
Because it is a private group and I can't post a note or topic in their forums. SuperKnight who accepted all the Open Seeks has apologized for it, and hopefully this will be less of an issue in the future.
700 + groups and one of such size? Sounds like standard oil to me. Regulate! Bust 'em up into "the dream team of ohio" and the like. Make groups above a certain size pay a 'tax' in the form of moves ceded to the other groups they play. While were at it prohibit members from joining a group without first resigning membership in another if the new group would put them over a limit. At least forbid participating in matches or games where they are members of both teams. It's a clear conflict of interest a corporation wouldn't abide by (not an ethical one anyway) and finally no gosh darn bailouts, if you lose a match it's your own fault, why should everyone else on chess.com pay for it. :)
I really don't have a problem with them having 800 members to our 80. Someone has to be the biggest, and just being the biggest is not bad in and of itself. I don't even have a problem with the fact that they signed up with a combined 26,000 rating points more than we were able to muster in the same time frame. What I mind is the lack of diversity.
The reason I set up 6 different challenges of various speeds and sizes was for variety. I was not expecting the same 44 people to fill all 90 positions. As a result, we have 5 members who are playing the exact same player in multiple matches (one person got matched up with the same opponent THREE TIMES (that's a total of six games they will play against each other)).
If all 6 challenges were accepted by 6 different teams, then they all would have started at different times, and different people would have signed up on each side. As it was, only the people who were online in those couple hours had a chance.
http://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/new-team-matches2
It all comes down to one thing: If you see that a person or group has multiple Open Seeks out there, only take one of them!! I can't imagaine ANYONE who issues multiple challenges wants to play the same person or group that many times simultanously. It's a matter of courtesy.
I don't know how chess.com staff allows some people openly accuse a team on the site like this!! This is to damage the fame of the best online group on the site. The mean purpose is to make the Dream Team unable to play any more team match games with any other groups in the future.
The Animal lovers only opened 6 matches. I thought our team are able to play all of them, so I accepted them. After Billium248 wrote a comment in the team match page complaining about us for accepting the matches, I already appologized. I also told Ilovegambits that I will never accept all of the bunch challenges from the open seeks again. But we as a team should be allowed to accept some of them. Correct?
As the result of accepting all the 6 matches, we let a lot of new players to play the team matches, and we will lose some of the matches. If we really only allow the top players to play the team matches, then we surely will win all of the games. Winning is not all we are trying to pursue.
Some people never joined my team. They don't know how good a good team would be. They imagined the lowest things they would do with such a big team. That is the images of themselves. Stop thinking of other people as low as you are!
After Billium248 wrote a comment in the team match page complaining about us for accepting the matches, I already appologized. I also told Ilovegambits that I will never accept all of the bunch challenges from the open seeks again. But we as a team should be allowed to accept some of them. Correct?
Yes you did apologize and I acknowledged that.
SuperKnight who accepted all the Open Seeks has apologized for it, and hopefully this will be less of an issue in the future.
Now let me apologize for possibly coming across too harshly in my original posts. As I said, it was in a moment of frustration. I certainly don't want to stop you from being able to accept challenges, and I really don't even mind playing you guys. As long as only one Open Seek is accepted at a time from now on, it's all good.
I myself am a member of the Dream Team because a friend gave me an invite one time. I am not a very active member and I am not quite pleased by the fact that so many team games are being accepted. At the beginning I was going to register for a couple of them but when all the chess.com messages from them started piling up, I stopped accepting them and stopped looking at them. Right now, in my alerts box, I have a mountain of messages from the group, and I am too lazy to take time out to ignore them. I cannot comprehend how they could play so many games, but I have been letting them do what they want, not that I could stop them even if I wanted to. I had not realized that they were taking all the team game seeks though. It does seem a little unfair. However, I think it is a strech to call a group anti-democratic and a blight on chess.com. I'll make a thread in the Dream Team, if one is not already made, linking to this one so they know how unhappy people are.