stop degeneration of votechess!

 This would be less constructive.  I look at vote chess as something of a chess lesson that allows me to see how really good players think while playing chess.

 IMHO that definitely browbeats 1400-'s. (i am 1914 so i speak disinterestedly.)

Should there be a draconian leader. No. That is not vote chess.

Should we care about browbeating, and in-fighting, and other forms of non-abusive persuasion. No. You can vote how you like, and people can whine all they want about it - who cares?

Should there be voting out of members. No. Methinks NJY should be careful what she wishes for there.

Why are we having this paternalistic discussion about what I think is the most remarkable learning opportunity on the web. You dont like what was said vote the way you like - God, everyone votes against my ideas - and who can blame them?

 With all due respect erik, I think this is an oversimplification. :-| Apparently someone felt this subject was worthy of discussion and in a short period of time a lot of people posted a lot of ideas. And then more people responded to some of those ideas with enthusiasm. I would see this as an indication that there are chess related activities which could attract a market of potential memberships if those features were available. As it is now, chess.com does not offer anything I can think of that can't be found at other sites. On the plus side, more of those things are available here (at one site) than at other individual sites and the site is easy to navigate making it easier to access features than at (some) other sites. But when people express an interest in something it seems like it would be a good idea to consider those ideas as marketable features to attract members. 

well, it is a nice learning tool if you look at it that way, but the others are right in the point that they are trying to formulate around in that the discussion was meant to be more balanced. its not so much that people are unable to vote the way they want, but the majority are swayed by the discussion nonetheless, so in that sense vote chess is not really what its supposed to be: vote chess!

and you might be putting yourself on a bit of a petistool by saying that it is "THE BEST", it's good, but i prefer annotations of classics 

 I've already voted myself out of all future votechess games, thank you! this thread is not about me. Re ongoing games, if you can persuade erik to shift the goalposts midways.. I don't think erik is that kind of person and anyway there is such a thing as voting with one's feet, and there is this great new france-based left-leaning english-language free chess site...

If that was directed at me I did not say "the best" - and what I did say was qualified by "I think" - regardless, you get out what you put in to some extent, and I find the interactivity useful and insightful. The comment certainly generated interest - and we could go on for ages about the qualities of democracy and bevolent dictator - and I suspect we will till the end of time.

My problem is the quality of the play. Perhaps if we killed or enslaved the players who were on the losing side the chess would improve somewhat. It would certainly stop the cheater accounts.

 And in the last paragraph you've brought in malevolent plutocracy. This is waaay off-topic; and i suggest you take it elsewhere.

OTOH Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman's Manufacturing Consent are very relevant to this thread. (late Ernesto 'Che' Guevara's 'The Art of guerrilla warfare' is OTOH not relevant to this thread yet IMHO, unless there is more talk of dictatorships, benevolent or otherwise.)

 I second that heartily. aamof I thought it was clear that that was one of the two joint-primary purposes of this thread.

I have a suggestion for votechess.  What if you divided each move into two parts: a discussion period, followed by actual voting.  Those who enjoy the discussions (abusive or not) are free to participate, while those who are not interested can simply wait until the second period and go straight to the voting.

Of course this doesn't address the issue of discussions being hijacked, but it does allow people to bypass the discussion phase entirely.

Johnathan Swift be dam#ed. Those subtle "modest proposal" jokes just dont work. I suspect Erik would hate what death chess did to the subscriber base anyway.

As for plutocracy: I have never been to Pluto and know nothing of the government there - is it nice this time of year?

As for thug: nerd - yes, driving wife nuts playing chess - yes, sarcastic jerk - definitely. Thug? The last Canadian thug was Brett "the Hitman" Hart, and even he was sweet and lovable.

Kewl enough?

 nice try - remembering swift's piece almost just in time, but won't do. Doesn't fit in with above.

 i respect that and i agree. the problem is that we always have to strike a very very delicate balance between freedom and control. if we change things in one way, one group of people will be upset. if we change it another way, another group is upset. i do read these comments and recognize that all opinions are valid. but i have made the mistake in the past of dedicating engineering resources to "fix" something that a vocal group wanted changed only to have to undo those changes later due to a larger problem. i'm not saying that we can't/won't do anything, but i want to make sure that all ideas and comments have been heard before we act. 

 additionally, i have my own opinions which i do express: that i like Vote Chess as is: you can discuss as you want, vote as you want, research as you want, etc :) 

 then how do you have interesting discussions about possible moves? :)