Repurposed discussion: proxy for messaging

I have a few requests for features for discussion (maybe even implementation?), in decreasing order or importance. All except the second apply to chess.com discussions in general, as well as vote chess.

(1) The highest priority request - please revise the tool for posting analysis, so that analysis does not get lost when a line gets promoted. At present, sidelines get lost from both the line promoted and the line demoted, even though they are likely to remain relevant (and, in the case of sublines of the promoted line, become more important). The subtree should surely be preserved, as it is in other chess analysis tools. For an example of the problem see the following two diagrams. The first gives two lines for 1. e4 and two lines for 1. e4. When the same four lines are entered and 1. d4 is promoted (as in the second diagram) both sidelines get lost.

Other than this unfortunate problem, the chess.com analysis editor is great. Especially the three colour text!

(2) When there is a tied vote, please make the move that was voted for last. At present, I have been told the move that is voted for first is used. This is typically going to be a "drive-by" voter: the quality of early votes is observably low compared to the quality of votes after a discussion.

(3) Please add a cancel button when editing posts, as is pretty much universal for any editing tool (and sometimes would be useful, due to editors being human).

(4) It would be useful to have a timestamp for the most recent edit, as well as a rough indication of when a post was originally entered. This is a common feature of forums which are not as time critical as vote chess.

Good suggestions !

Great suggestions indeed...

Hello

Hello. Presumably you posted here rather than message me, as anyone else would.  Do you not agree that blocking someone is a source of ill will every time it interferes with a legitimate contribution to a discussion and that this is not a good thing? It is difficult to believe that you actually aim to produce ill will.

The block due to from my perspective you appear to have difficulty accepting differences of opinion and keep posting or messaging, when in my opinion the matter has received sufficient airing and may progress on to other business.

In terms of Team England VC, I periodically request volunteers for team captains, if you wish to become involved in TEVC arrangements, team captaincy usually a starting point in helping contribute.

For this discussion to be at all productive it is first of all necessary for you to be open to the possibility of not maintaining a permanent block against people (I am aware that there are other examples) for reasons that are not heinous. Is that the case? 

Secondly, rather than ramble on, what would you desire from me to stop what I hope you can see is from my point of view a hostile stance? Please be specific and testable.

Heinous, hostile, I don't recognise the terms in relation to blocking, I'm usually fond of the people I block, for example I like Camter, but block as he rambles in forums.

If desiring unblocking, maybe consider and indicate you will try & resist the tendency to impose opinions (however objectively held), compromise and progress onward. Possible to turn the argument on its head and reply I am imposing my will unduly, but that's the test, are you able to take a more pragmatic approach.

I used the word "heinous" because a reasonable person would consider that blocking someone indefinitely requires something beyond minor disagreement. You are a reasonable person, right?

As I said, I am mostly interested in determining what is objectively true in as detached way as possible. I am unusually keen to express uncertainty in my chess analysis for example, even though my firm conclusions tend to be at the more reliable end of the spectrum (my first guesses are in the mediocre middle, I would say). At the other extreme I am keen to indicate the level of certainty in well-established scientific conclusions, especially where there exists wildly inaccurate, non-scientific beliefs in various sections of the population, for whatever historical, sociological or commercial reasons.

As an (I hope) detached example, a person may feel that the anti-vax conspiracy theory has equal epistemological standing with the conclusions of global medical science, but this is simply not so and it is genuinely hazardous to do so. Such "debates" are not fair chess games between two sides with equal standing: they are games where one side is based on not knowing how the pieces move and will very likely not acknowledge the result at the end.

Anyhow, you need to be specific. Based on what you say there must be a non-null set of examples where I have acted unreasonably in the not too distant history. Draw my attention to one such.

Oh dear, not sure we are getting anywhere, I suggest a more pragmatic approach put things behind you and move on quicker, the reply asking for further drilling down into details for some kind of a judgement call around objectivity.

The block came about with vote chess, unnecessary comments after the vote call, when after repeated requests you eventually decided to stop posting but switched to pms including the same stuff, hence the block.

Maybe I can ask a question, can you point out any of the posts following the vote call that looking back with hindsight the vote call was for a weak move.

This thread has been dead for 7 yrs....and then a bunch of people post on it?! Also I'm surprised that Elroch is still on this site 11 yrs since he joined....

@87654321, to claim that you imposed a block on me for contributions such as mine to this vote chess game would make no sense, could not be effective, and would be a severe indictment of you. We both know that you are being disingenuous: you imposed a block because I sent one last message the best part of a year ago to argue for good procedure in vote chess after you had demanded the discussion end. Specifically, I had been arguing for the importance of basing recommendations on the discussion, especially the analysis (and/or theory games) rather than superficial evaluations and certainly rather than being independent of that discussion. Some of your recommendations at that time had fallen into the latter category and this had led to consternation and frustration from other stronger contributors. Would you like to blame that on me? I accept that your behaviour was an aberration: it is good to see it did not became a habit, and I have no wish to hold a grudge, because I am a reasonable person. The point is that this pretext does not reasonably justify unlimited ill will from you, as expressed in a block: you had no reason to expect this to be needed, did you?

I am pleased to see that my suggestions have generally been taken up by Team England vote chess in an organic way rather than by written procedure. Results in the last year have been very good, a slight improvement I believe, and this is down to the excellent discussions and good choices that have resulted. Has it even occurred to you that there was an important point to be made? Do you think your response to this point being made makes any sense? If you felt vulnerable to more messages appearing in your inbox, a temporary block would have made your point and been entirely successful, without achieving the maximum vindictiveness you appear to prefer.

I politely suggest you consider normalisation of our relationship in the obvious way rather than using a circular argument to justify a harmful habit. You would not only be wrong to believe I would misuse such a change, you would also have a very easy way to deal with that.

Remember what Tartakower said - "a threat is stronger than its execution".

This discussion is taking place here because one of the participants chooses to unnecessarily prevent it from appropriately taking place in messages.

I am surprised that you are surprised that I have been an active member of chess.com for a long time. While I played on other Internet sites before, chess.com is my clear favourite even though there is always room to improve.

Asking for the unblocking, to enable I ask for something as this copy and paste from post 8.

... consider and indicate you will try & resist the tendency to impose opinions (however objectively held), compromise and progress onward.

That's the deal, it requires you to give a little, concede a bit of ground.

I agree.

Thank you, clocked off from the thread.

sooo u still on

bump.