What group are you talking about? And whos account did they close? Both of these anwers would be helpful.
State coup
Sort:
As written above the account they closed was our super administrator's and the group is Cheers! but I don't understand why that can be helpful.
buster-47, I am a member of Cheers!, but I can't figure out what you are talking about? Why was the account closed?
Why the super Administrators account was closed is another matter which you will have to ask chess.com, as nobody else have the answer.But this is not the issue of this topic, the issue of this topic is why can chess.com name a super administrator with out asking the members of the group if they agree.As a lot of groups are private at least to a certain degree it should be the member's who name their leader and not chess.com.
As for the group CHEERS! I don't know well the new super administrator and it is not a attack against him as a person but the way chess.com handled this matter.
The way things looks to me right now is that chess.com can go in to any group of yours and chance your leader's, I don't know if in the rules of chess.com this is made possible but to me it is quite scaring.
what i know:
1 - kohai (from chess.com staff) closed the account of Leth
2 - still don´t know the reasons why
3 - Leth sent me an e-mail saying that he would be glad that philios would be the new super admin
And what has this to do with the topic
buster47 wrote:
And what has this to do with the topic
So the topic is whether Chess.com can ask someone to replace an administrator in a group on THEIR site without a democratic vote from the members of that group? How is a private site offering you a format to have a group on their site, constrained by being democratic?
tryst wrote:
buster47 wrote:
And what has this to do with the topic
So the topic is whether Chess.com can ask someone to replace an administrator in a group on THEIR site without a democratic vote from the members of that group? How is a private site offering you a format to have a group on their site, constrained by being democratic?
It should as we pay for it
chess.com named philios because, as written in CHEERS notes, is Leth´s will.
i think philios asked kohai to be the super admin...
So this is was you calll democratic I would call it aboslutism
well, CHEERS was(is) Leth´s group.
there are members of CHEERS that suggested to finish the group.
others,like me, think that accepting Leth´s idea of philios being super admin and mantain CHEERS group is a good option.
so, i think here the question is not about democracy, but maintaining the CHEERS group.
wich u prefer : a super admin suggested by Leth or an election for super admin ?
because now philios can put who he wants as a super admin.
while we had no super admin we had no control over our group as only a s.a or chess.com can appoint someone s.a, if members want a vote for s.a then that is cool with me,my intentions towards this group are purely to keep it alive.I approached Kohai and asked her to make me s.a, so we can continue to have control over it.There is no ulterior motive or conspiracy leth was my friend but he could be hot headed at times and i can quiet easily see him loosing it with chess.com rightly or wrongly. So if anyone wants the job of s.a we can put it to the vote and i will be happy to hand them the role.
Phil 
Phil, i think u had clarified the situation better than me to buster47.
CHEERS !!!
philiosmaximus wrote:
while we had no super admin we had no control over our group as only a s.a or chess.com can appoint someone s.a, if members want a vote for s.a then that is cool with me,my intentions towards this group are purely to keep it alive.I approached Kohai and asked her to make me s.a, so we can continue to have control over it.There is no ulterior motive or conspiracy leth was my friend but he could be hot headed at times and i can quiet easily see him loosing it with chess.com rightly or wrongly. So if anyone wants the job of s.a we can put it to the vote and i will be happy to hand them the role.
Phil
As the topic isn't a attack at you as a person or even as super administrator, but what I am trying to make you understand,is that this might happend to every group at chess.com. that chess.com set-s in a new super administrator, what happened once will happen again.
As for CHEERS! I think it died with Leth,and we didn't fight enough to get him back.Talking about a conspiracy I never thought that, as this involves at least 2 parties and what happened here is only from one side, chess.com.
My point is that it is the same person banning a super administrator, and at the same time name a new, if you can't see anything wrong in that then fine with me. Then there is no reason for having "private" groups and just name "Big Brother" as super administrator for every group at chess.com.
We should make sure Leth is not imprisoned at one of Chess.com's bases.
Thomas, of course we are under the rules of chess.com - It´s the staff who decide the things of their site, no ? And there are rules that we have to respect if we want to stay at chess.com.
CHEERS !!!
P.S. - Of course BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.
Leth was the super administrator of the group CHEERS.
His account was closed by the staff.
i understand that your not attacking me personally and your grievance is with chess.com but if they see fit to ban someone what exactly can we do about that there has to be rules or we have anarchy , i have seen leth ban people from cheers for next to nothing ,we are and always will be a sub group of chess.com they will always have the final say whether we like it or not,i will keep cheers alive because i and others enjoy the group and don't see any reason why we should disband it.
Phil
How is it possible that chess.com closes our super administrator for the group CHEERS! account, and then without asking the rest of the group, name a new super administrator?
I would not call this way to handle the changes as a democratic proses, but might be a "big brother" way to sort out things.