Nek, we have a game going now where the game shifted because a drive-by vote decided the next move. It didn't put us in a hard position, but it was contrary to team discussion, which defeated our team purpose.
Let me explain too. I am rarely the one that provides the best ideas. However, I have tried to steer discussion and voting towards what appears to be the best ideas presented in the discussions.
Nek, we have a game going now where the game shifted because a drive-by vote decided the next move. It didn't put us in a hard position, but it was contrary to team discussion, which defeated our team purpose.
Let me explain too. I am rarely the one that provides the best ideas. However, I have tried to steer discussion and voting towards what appears to be the best ideas presented in the discussions.
A board of officials? How do we chose them? By what criteria? And if the board is making the decisions then why have anyone else? That doesn't leave much room for creative ideas from novices.
In practice, the "team leaders" usually emerge on their own, just like in any other team sport. I want a venue which allows talent to emerge and students to learn and teachers to teach. This kind of teamwork actually exists much of the time in a very natural manner but the problem with drive-by votes is that it interferes with and can disable the process.
A bunch of votes for a poor move can sway a vote. And we all know that a great game of chess can ruined by just one bad move. A vote chess game is a large investment in time. A plan that has been worked for months can then be ruined by some thoughtless votes. That's discouraging to the whole team. Even when just a single vote appears for a bad move that has not been discussed by the team, it's discouraging, it's demoralizing, it's insulting because it means there's someone on the team, hiding in the anonymity, who has no respect for the others.
So you are right. Teamwork is very important. And the measures we are asking the website to provide are those which enable THE TEAM to maintain control of the game. That is the intent of the measures which I have described above. But I hope someday we will have a system (the website software) that will provide this type of team control in a more natural manner so that I don't have to be a ruthless, facist, dictator anymore. 
How about we implement an interface which gives you three options to choose a select plan. The interface would be user friendly and would limit the number of wayward votes. The idea could even be engine driven showing the possible line. What I envision is something similar to Madden playbook in the popular game. This takes all the problems of having user generated responses, and creates a fun atmosphere. Of course with the volume of openings the selection would need to start off with options that allow you to play certain lines. Every selection shows the move, with a heading that gives the opening name and code. This may make some players unhappy, but if the interface is interactive and user friendly it may appeal to the majority. Tell me what you think.
I guess I don't take vote chess too seriously, so part of the fun is seeing which moves win, on both sides.
In reality, there are many chess players who are extremely competitive, group admins especially, so you get groups which prioritize winning, and which create rules around that.
I agree in principle that having rules in a group is suboptimal, because you're dealing with people, and having policy in the code is much better.
But I also think that to have the "code policy" out of sync with the "group policy" is not a good idea, which is why I don't take vote chess too seriously.
Nek, it would be possible I suppose, but the coders would have to allow for admins to have the possibility to only allow certain moves. Then the possibilities could be plugged in. For instance, if a discussion is unified (which one is for us at the moment in a game), then only one move would be allowed for voting. However, if there are two VERY good lines, then both would be allowed. I have seen moments where it was very hard to choose between two good lines.
Ozzie, I can understand that idea, and with that approach, I would create a team that caters to what you are talking about - having fun and discussing ideas. However, after a few bad moves, you are really swimming against the stream, and eventually it just feels like a big frustrating outlet. Part of the joy for me is seeing the efforts that the team puts in going so far. To me, I would lose interest in a match where we just get ourselves into a pit, and then there is practically no return.
I think That is also part of joining a group - catering to their rules. Each group is different, and I do presume there are tons of groups that are more laid back. I just prefer a more active discussion and votes that reflect that discussion. And actually, many of the members of the groups I am part of also like that approach. This is part of the draw, to be part of a community that discusses and then votes on what they finalized.
I joined a couple of voting groups but their rules are often so long and prohibitive I gave up...like only "allowing" voting after 24 hrs...the requirement to make sure I'm in the right time frame to vote is a pain and I forget to vote - so don't bother at all.
I am NOT in favor of Admins having the ability to see who is voting for what. I think it gives Admins the wrong kind of control. It would work fine if all Admins were good and fair people but that's not the case.
And I favor TEAM vote chess rather than the free for all random election. But I think both types should be made available by the website.
Most of the time there are only a few candidate moves that make any sense. If we had a member submitted "Candidates List" of moves to chose from, the better moves would appear on that list and then it would be a matter of refining the list down to the best choices through discussion and analysis.
If the person submitting the candidate move to the list is made known to the team, it would eliminate foolish, reckless and joke entries. If blunders and poor moves are suggested, they would be eliminated through team discussion. I think this method would be mostly self-correcting and natural and there would be no need for Admin intervention.
If voting is disabled until the final 24 hours then all teammates have the same opportunity to vote for their choice. Early voters are playing blitz and they have an unfair advantage over the players who take the time to give thought to their choices. Blitz players usually make poor choices and often blunder. They vote secretly and the team has no awareness of them. Therefore they are not team members by definition.
If I miss the vote during the final 24 hours it's not so important as long as the team is in control of the game. If drive-by voting is eliminated then the team is going to chose one of the better moves and the game will progress in an intelligent manner.
If you don't like the way a group does things then you should leave that group. How basic is that? If you think the group is unfair and enforcing too many controls then get out of there! Run as fast as you can! People who stay and defy and disrupt the procedures adopted by a group are simply interfering with what they are trying to accomplish. That's not freedom. That's tyranny!
From what I see your doing great. I wouldn't let this drive thru voting become a worry. Looks like you have everything working good here.