Drive-by voting

Guys, I just wrote staff a letter, but I would also like some input from regular players on this subject.

Sometimes people in vote chess vote contrary to team discussion.  Sometimes this is a new member who just joined and doesn't know, and sometimes it is people who just vote however they want regardless of group rules.  

In some groups, I am not sure that there are rules about voting unanimously, but in ours, we do ask that all members discuss and then vote on the last day.

Here is the letter I sent staff, hoping to see some change for the good.  I would be interested in some input from fellow members of chess.com - 

"MY question is something that might require a bit of altering chess.com code, but I would like to see implemented a new feature where admins and super-admins can see who are voting for what.  Our team rules are that members need to vote unanimously, and it would suit our team well to find out who is voting for what.  Right now shouldn't be a big deal, but 2x within about 2 moves we are getting "drive-by" voters, and it means that people are simply going rogue and not helping the team.  Admins and Super-Admins needs more control over this - to see who is voting for what, and to be able to remove drive-by voters who have a history of going rogue multiple times.  For the most part, we have done well, but there have been times when members voted contrary to group opinion, and (win or loss) it is important to live by the discussion, die by the discussion, I believe."

LongIsland, that is exactly my point.  I would institute a 3 strike rule:

#1 - Warning with a PM explaining group rules.  This would also be flexible, because honestly, if you don't know team rules, should not be part of a team vote match.  BUT, perhaps it is also my responsibility to pre-emptively post vote rules at the beginning of each match.

#2 - Dismissal from vote chess game.  An admin would have the ability to kick a team member from a vote chess game, but not necessarily from the group.  

#3 - Dismissal from the group.  If they show a continual disregard for the group, there is no need to be a part of this group.  They can join groups that don't care as much about unified team efforts. (On a side note, perhaps staff could allow a feature that allows for group members to be barred from joining vote and team matches per admin decision, as a punishment for breaking team rules).  

There have been countless discussion forums dedicated to this subject.

Click [Here] to see one of the more recent ones.

We had an even larger discussion about ALL aspects of vote chess in which we compiled a list of desirable items and submitted it to c.c staff. They said thank you very much. That was three years ago. That forum was initiated by Martin0. If you contact him he could probably tell you where it is if you want to read it.

I am hoping the v3 version of the website might have some useful improvements to vote chess but I'm not counting on it.

I have always supported a "Candidates List" in which any team member could submit any legal move to the list. Only the moves on the list would be eligible for voting. The person submitting the candidate move would be known (either to the SuperA or to all). This way any bad candidates could be discussed and eliminated in that manner.

Actual voting could be disabled until a time specified at the creation of the challenge. (Such as when 24 hours remain.) 

In lew of these improvements to the VC system, I am currently taking several measures in the 1...g6 Modern Defense Group which you may find useful:

A) I have a topic posted in the group forum which explains what is expected of vote chess teammates.

B) Every person who joins a vote chess game must go to that topic (only once) and post a comment stating that they "understand and agree". Then, at least, they cannot say they didn't know.

C) When drive-by voting occurs in a game I will remove any and all teammates from the game who have not submitted an "understand and agree" comment.

D) We cannot control "WHEN" people vote but I make it clear that I will remove anyone who posts a comment that they have already voted prior to the 24 hour mark. I also do not allow teammates to post the current votes prior to the 24 hour mark.

E) When I post the current votes in a comment, I omit any votes for moves which have not been discussed. I want to make this a rule but haven't done so yet.

To remove a member from the game but not the group:

1- go to [Manage Members]

2- Ban the member

3- After the page updates - Un-Ban the member.

This will remove them from ALL VC games they have joined in the group but they will be eligible to join future games. Once they have been removed from a game they cannot be re-instated. Not even by Eric hisself.

I know this all sounds very strict (even mean) but I haven't heard any complaints and I've heard loads of appreciation.

Will read all of this and take things into consideration, thank you Wormie!

I'd say just don't worry about it and let voting be organic! There are enough things to worry about in the world besides this!

What's the point of having a vote if you have to vote the way you are ordered to?

You might as well just appoint a dictator and let them cast their single vote... all nice and democratic.

I think the point is that the point is in the discussion, not in the voting. So your chance to make the case for move X is in the discussion. If move Y ends up winning the discussion, then the team votes for move Y.

Presumably the whole point is to eliminate the comically ridiculous moves which sometimes win in vote chess.

Yes, that is an excellent idea! I also think that you should not allow people to vote until the last day except in short games.

Good luck with this. Lol.  Mob rule results in watered down moves and lack of overall strategy; a waste of energy marshalling opinions.

this

It is part of the group dynamic to come together and voice opinions, and you detract from the team cohesion when you dictate how people should vote. You could say I want a candidate to win, but not that. Statistically you will always find that there are a few voters that don't follow the mainstream vote. What I would recommend is limiting discussion to a minimum. Cut out all the nonsense chatter, so people can see a discussion which is solely limited to discussion on the game. Another thing to try is send out memos. Let people know what your guidelines are. Third thing is make it a positive learning experience for all.

it's the art of bringing people together and make it fun, because if you can do that you will be successful. :)

It is a very pedestrian view to think that we are trying to tell people what move to vote for. Is that really what you think?

There are two ways to play vote chess:

1) Make every move a free election. That way you are guaranteed to always select low rated moves since low rated players (voters) will always outnumber high rated players (voters).

2) Discuss the moves so that the teammates can make an intelligent decision which move to vote for and maybe learn something in the process.

But once you determine which move(s) are best you still can't play the move if the lower rated and rebellious players have already voted for the poorer moves.

This is not about democracy or personal rights and freedom. It's not a system of government. It's about how to play a good intelligent game of chess.

The idea is that if you are so shallow that you think you can just join a team vote chess and vote contrary to team discussion without providing proof why your idea is useful...can you please explain how this is beneficial to a TEAM match?

As for weaker players, I think they are well advised to listen to the input from stronger players and learn.  This is not to say that a weaker player on a team cannot provide valid input.  On our teams, every player gets the opportunity during the first two days to provide input.  Heck, the other day I provided an idea that was instantly refuted by a fellow teammate.  I acknowledged my error and changed plans based on a plan offered by another teammate.

The idea here is that there are multiple candidate moves, and each teammate gets the opportunity to discuss moves WITH ANALYSIS.  It is the job of each team member to make a case for their ideas, and then we can hash out the pros and cons to each move.  If a move has not been discussed, it makes no sense to allow a member to vote that way.  

It really has nothing to do with a dictatorship, for if that was the case, I Would just say "vote this or else, regardless of team discussion".  What I am saying is that if someone provides excellent analysis on an idea, and no one provides superior analysis, why would it make sense to adopt an approach that snubs its nose at great analysis in the name of individual expression, whether or not it is beneficial for the team.  I think there is very little to be gained from allowing a free-for-all approach.  I guarantee that the best vote chess teams on chess.com use a strong approach that is highly guided by the stronger players.

Having sat under the guidance of linkspringger, one of the best players on this server, I can attest to the value of LISTENING to the input from someone who knows what they are talking about.  It doesn't mean that this person is always right - the rest of the team gets an opportunity to offer their two cents.  However, Link's experience (and the wisdom of many other strong players) comes in handy in these discussions, and weaker players can listen, learn and improve (and possibly offer input as well).

Can you please explain why it is a superior approach to allow a free-for-all vote system if you are playing for a win?

wormrose wrote: It is a very pedestrian view to think that we are trying to tell people what move to vote for. Is that really what you think?There are two ways to play vote chess:1) Make every move a free election. That way you are guaranteed to always select low rated moves since low rated players (voters) will always outnumber high rated players (voters).2) Discuss the moves so that the teammates can make an intelligent decision which move to vote for and maybe learn something in the process.But once you determine which move(s) are best you still can't play the move if the lower rated and rebellious players have already voted for the poorer moves.This is not about democracy or personal rights and freedom. It's not a system of government. It's about how to play a good intelligent game of chess. Right! so the problem is not the platform, the problem is teamwork. You make a good point on the players who make up that team. I think the best stratagem to combat this is to lay the groundwork for how this game is going to play out. Name a board of officials who are the ones officiating on the game, who will be the main spokespeople. I think having the best players on the team who work together on a plan with suggestions. Leave it up to all the rest to vote, but only an official can speak; similar to a live feed. at times it would be best to explain maybe 2 or 3 variations if it is in the opening phase. Here a group consensus is not so important, but consistency is. I think you will find that it's extremely difficult to put in motion a working order, but you will find that it's even harder to make people follow you.

I am going to give you an example of a discussion on a move in a game which BOL lost to the Gambit Players @ http://www.chess.com/votechess/game?id=40928&mv=10&san=Rxh2

I agree. It is shallow, but are these random votes really going to swing the decisive vote?

Looks like you have 90% on board.

This game was from a few months back.  It is an example of a well-run team.