Vote chess improvements

Removing a person from a vote game or team match is often preferable to banning them from the group but we currently have no option but to ban them. So, yes that should probably be on the list but I would reserve that action for the group super.

Good post and good discussion!  I would definitely support these improvements!

One of the most important things in my opinion is the feature that voting may start at a certain delayed time - e.g. in a game with 3 days/move voting would (by choice of admin) only be enabled 24 hours before execution of the move. In that case, we would need two alerts however: One alert when it is "our move" and the discussion starts, and one when voting time starts.

I already have basically what you just said on the list. Item #13 and#15. The difference is that admins can set whatever time they like and everyone will get an alert when it is not much time left to vote regardless of when it becomes possible to vote.

Personally I agree banning should be left to the super admin only, but currently all admins can ban players from groups, so it would be very strange if only super admins could ban a player from a part of the group while all admins can ban them from the whole group.

Good point! Hadn't thought of that.

It's not quite the same, though. I would prefer to be alerted when voting time starts rather than when only very little time is left (I might not even see that message until it's too late).

@joeydvivre: I kinda see what you mean. But then, not all the suggestions on the list are about getting better moves/votes, though. Many - like being able to quote or having one-click-access to the discussion about the last move - would just make things much more comfortable.

Also, the discussion regarding admins being able to remove players from the team was certainly not meant in an elitist way. Rather, there is at times a certain issue of people joining a game seemingly intent on sabotaging it by voting for obvious blunders (without discussion). This can be a real problem if the team was small to begin with. It would be good if admins could do something about that. 

I strongly support the right of super-admins to remove people from the game and from the group. But I believe it should be done by Supers and not regular admins.

People get booted for causing trouble. Trouble can come in many many forms. Voting to resign or voting to offer a draw when it has not been discussed by the team is disrespectful and insulting to the team. A person like that needs to be removed from the game. Voting secretly for moves not discussed by the team is also insulting and degrading to the team who have invested a lot of time and effort into the game.

I once experienced a member who showed up near the end of a vote game in which there were only two of us still discussing moves. The game was looking bad for us but we were not ready to resign yet. This guy made his first comment in the entire game telling us we were cowards for not resigning.

In a case like this the new player becomes a danger to the continuation of the game. He is also insulting us by calling us cowards. I think he needs to be removed from the game. I couldn't remove him from the game so I banned him from the group. (He could still be un-banned.)

The funny part of this story is that I did not hear from him for more than six months. It took him that long to notice. No great loss for the group or for him either. But in that short time he participated in the game he could have ended it which would not have been the will of the team.

That's why I believe we need a system which will passively (automatically) eliminate a lot of these problems, such as the [Candidates List] which I already mentioned.

If someone comes into your project and insults you and threatens to wreck your project; what does that make them? What gives them the right to do that?

This brings up another suggestion/question: Should there be a cut-off time when new members can join a game?

With not much time I mean for example 24 hours left at a 3 days/move game for example. I don't believe the timing is a problem. I just want to have this second alert even for teams that want to be able to vote directly.

I believe no, I don't mind people joining vote chess games even late in the endgame or when the results is clear.

Sorry joeydvivre, you're not making sense.

I think it should be added to the list for consideration that admins could have the option to stop new members joining a game at some point. I have seen it happen enough times that a new member will wreck a game that the team has invested months of hard work. In fact I've seen it lots of times. All we are trying to do is show respect for the team.

Edit: joeydvivre got his account closed for cheating, so all comments by him is removed and therefor some of the discussion isn't making sense here.

@joeydvivre, these improvements will in no way be worse for lower rated players and vote chess is not about everyone voting without discussing anything. Vote chess is about cooperating and come up with a move together like a team and then vote for it. It is true cooperation is at its best when all players are at about the same level and therefor I added item #7.

Can you be more specific what of my improvements it is that you don't like?

I'd love a vote chess where each voter is limited to one comment per move, so that one loudmouth can't continually dominate the conversation.

Not that I'm thinking of anyone in particular.  Heavens to murgatroid, how could anyone think such a thing.

@wormrose, I don't understand how one person could wreck a game and I don't believe preventing everyone to join vote chess games at any point is the right way to solve it. If he votes for a bad move then that move wouldn't win and it would be identifiable. If he insults the team in the discussion he should simply be removed/banned from the game and also reported to chess.com as being offensive to people is against the rules of chess.com.

If only 1 comment/move was allowed I think it would be impossible to have a good conversation there. I agree spamming is bad, but I don't believe any rule should prevent it. If it would be pointless (intentionally) spamming an admin should be able to remove him from the game, otherwise just try telling him to not have too many or too long comments that nobody bother to read because it is too much.

I'm just suggesting it be put on the list for consideration. Is it so different from locking the roster in a team match?

I don't see how anyone could play vote chess without having seen the effect of drive by voters. I'll try to find some examples but I think this is a fairly common occurance or people wouldn't complain about it so much. It happens mostly in small groups but those groups also deserve a chance to get started.

Honestly, there hasn't been much participation in this forum and it's also very unlikely that any of these suggestions will ever be implimented. We are just brainstorming.