Sugestions

Few suggestions and opinions of my own:

1.When submiting new forum topic there should be more options like when posting group news(youtube videos, tables etc.);I really dont see the reason why in news you can do this and when submiting new forum topic you cant.

2.Limit numbers of groups and teams people can be in; (exsample:Basic:5;Gold:20;Platinum:40;Diamond:Unlimited)

3.Limit numbers of groups and teams that one person can manage(be admin or superadmin)(exsample:Basic:0;Gold:3;Platinum:15;Diamond:unlimited)

This is good for chess.com because more people will pay for membership.

Situation that exists now SUCKS. You got people who join teams and never do anything for the team. You got people who are admins in 30+ teams and those teams fight each others....so either way they win....in group leaderboard, leagues and competitions they can decide which team goes in next round....This is wrong!

4.There should be possibility to make personal trophys(simple paint program or somthing)

5.Superadmins should have "recent history" option where they can check who started match,canceled match, deleted member from a group, ban a member from a group,(got more but you get the point)....So this way it is all transparent so there is going to be harder abuse admin "powers"

6.

All sugestions are made with best intentions and I would like to hear your sugestions, opinions and point of views

This is good for chess.com because more people will pay for membership.

Chess.com can demand payment for use if they wish. Why would you penalize people for not paying? There are already restrictions to what I may enjoy at this site, why suggest more restrictions based on payment? Are you making money somehow from chess.com? They appear to wish for many people to enjoy their site. They offer more fun things for those who can pay to be at their site. I don't understand why taking away some of the things a nonpayer may participate in is anything but sour grapes. But I am in agreement with you on the members of teams having issues of conflict of interest. I don't think one can play on a team match if they are a member of both teams. Is that even allowed now?

As far as I know, not allowed. Although, in vote chess, you can choose which team to play for. I've often wondered if saboteurs infiltrate groups to mess up vote chess games. But then I realise chessplayers would never stoop so low

First thanks for your coment.Second: I am not making money from chess.com.

It is good also because people will not join groups just to be in some group and without having intention to participate in that group. I see people who are members 100+ groups and they participate in none of them. This makes groups stale and they die out...therefore it is bad for groups-bad for members and bad for chess.com. I think that for a basic member it is enough to be i 5 groups and be active in them and not in 100+ and not be active in any of them...

Not chessplayers, rooperi. I mean you're talking about chessplayers. Chessplayers aren't cheats, selfish, or even sociopaths. No rooperi, not chessplayers.

I realise chessplayers would never stoop so low ....I wish that chesplayers are better than other people but that is not true....take look at the banned cheaters list. And I was also talking about admins not just "ordinary members"...There is a reason why in any sport there cant be 2 clubs that compete in same league that have same owner.

Defacto, the "banned cheaters list" is an anomoly that scientists from the best universities have been working day and night to account for. We are talking about chessplayers, Defacto. It's not like it's played in prison or by crazy people. It's chess for aardvarksake!

I feel that non-premium members should not lose priviledges, rather premiums should gain them.

I kinda agree chessy4000. Reason why I want to limit number of groups pople can be and admins can manage is so there is no suspicion about won games and no conflict of interests.

You 2 are members of 10+ groups and in how many are you active? and those people who are members in 100+ groups in how many is it possible to be active...so they wouldnt lose priviledges because they simply cant be active in so many groups.

The reason I am in so many goes as follows, some are national/regional teams.

I like to take advantage of lots of opening groups to get free material, .

2 are a failed attempt to make a league.

In several there were perks on joining and I have remained.

I would say I am active in about five of them.

Thanks. So Basic:5 groups is enough.....and those who are in more than 100 groups should pay for making groups stale(because they dont help those groups)

I'm in about 12 groups, I think, plus one or two that are for admin stuff only.

I'm active in most of them, although I'm thinking of dropping one or two, which I shouldnt have joined in the 1st place.

That is what I am talking about...you cant be active in more than 100 games. You only make problems for groups you are in and that is why it should be controled somehow....maybe not this way but I dont see other ways..do you?

Hey, I am really careful about my groups. I am in 3 groups and I make sure I am active in ALL of them (all=3) admin of one of them. I agree with the only 5 groups.. rule, but not with the admin rule. I think that members have the right to be an admin of at least one group. All these restrictions would make the site not as fun for me.

If you didnt read previous posts: Problem is:

You got people who are admins in 30+ teams and those teams fight each others....so either way they win....in group leaderboard, leagues and competitions they can decide which team goes in next round...Where there is can you can bet that that it will happen...This is wrong!

thats basiclly my point

I'm in about 40 groups and I'm active in almost all of them (it of course depends on how active the group is :)). I don't think it would be good to make a limit. What should be done is to make group alerts forced so people don't join groups in which they won't be active. What's the point of joining a group where you can't be active? If you can't keep up with the alerts - just leave the group. That way there would be less people with 100+ groups.

Also, the group admins and super admins can take care of people who are not active. You can just ban them or delete them. Or the site should have this thing where if you haven't done anything to do with the group for say 10 days, the site takes you out of that group automaticlly. But the site shouldn't be really strict about basic members. I mean, if the site did what you suggested, it wouldn't have been as fun for me. Basiclly, if the site did that, the only thing I'd be able to do would be play and say tatics trainer.

Interesting sugestions. I hope that something is done about it.

what do you hope the site does? your suggestions? (sorry memory loss moment) tell me what you mean