Change Vote Chess Rules

I'm just saying that when a person makes a vote in vote chess that they should be able to change it later as long as the clock hasn't expired on the teams' move. Drive-by voters really can ruin a game. Am I right, or what?

You are correct. There is a newly created group called Vote Chess Forum that discusses things like this. This was also included in a list of Vote Chess Improvements I made some time ago and as far as I have heard most people seem to agree it is good to be able to change votes.

Sounds reasonable but I would add only one change of mind allowed...

Why only one change of mind? I think it should be ok as long as there is time left.

VOTE CHESS FORUM

http://www.chess.com/groups/home/vote-chess-forum

It might be useful to keep in mind that Vote Chess is not a socio-political system bent on suppressing the masses. It's a manner of playing chess in a chess group. However, in political terms; the drive-by/secret voter is comparable to the terrorist/suicide bomber.

I can't help, but to think that that it indeed is some kind of control we want with the votes. Those that votes for things we don't want them to vote (like things that haven't been discussed) we simply want to get rid of them from the game. It is similar in a sense to have a "democracy" where everyone can see what you vote and you will be killed if you vote wrong. However vote chess isn't politics and we aren't actually killing people, so there might be something wrong with the comparison. I think admins should have some control over the votes.

Also if you don't like the group leader it is easier to just go to another team than to move to another country.

Control is not a bad thing. Remember, even Ghandi wanted control. In my group(s), I don't want to control the "votes". I want to control the "method of voting" because I don't believe the current system is fair.

Thats funny!

Thing is some of the comments in vote chess from some people are of a very poor quality.  People will just leave a comment such as Nc5 without anything to explain why they think Knight to c5 is a good move. 

@blowerd, I think that is a lot better than nothing (if the move hasn't been mentioned before). It might create discussion of it and is similar to "how about Nc5?". I make short comments like that sometimes without explanations to see what other thinks of that move.

With our vote chess team, anyone can mention any possible move. If that person just mentions the move and says nothing--no problem as others in the team will look at the move and comment.

We have a full and long discussion on every move except some very obvious moves in the opening.  We even "go against the book" when the book does not give what we think of as the best move. And when we see say Qxd2 gets 60%  and Nbd2 gets 50% we very often go with the 50% as it is just a better move--and we give reasons why one move is better than others.   

vote chess was supposed to be a place where we could all learn from each other and get into some lines we would normally not have ventured into. It is a great idea, but that is only if the discussion is there. Without discussion there is no communication and therefore no actual learning. I still think Vote chess has a lot of potential to be a great learning tool, but how do I get my team to read the discussion and post something? As an admin should I be able to bump a member from the match that never discusses? I think the team makes the entire difference. The hardest part would be to find a high rated player that is willing to mentor a group and is not cheating with a computer, We had a 2000+ player helping us find moves, but he couldn't describe why the move was best, and he was unwilling to speculate what would happen in certain lines. We found out later his account was closed due to dishonest play.

Although I would prefer some reason be given, I don't mind one move suggestions. I make them myself sometimes. I'll usually say "How about ____?" Often it will provoke discussion. It's better than finding a surprise waiting for us when it's time to vote. For me, Vote Chess is the best way to learn.

There was an opponent team I saw once while reviewing a post game archive, where each team member had submitted a comment for each move. Most of the time it was just agreement with the suggested move, but I was impressed with the high level of participation. Can't remember which group it was but they sure seemed like a friendly bunch. And there appeared to be a high level of understanding of what was going on in the game.

In my group Ponziani Power  I am one of the "experts" who will suggest moves especially in the openings of our games. I go into great detail why a certain move is good  or bad or best. There is also another young player who is quite good and makes suggestions. And we get suggested moves from several of our team mates.  We discuss all moves suggested.  Actually, we have a great time, we make [or I make] jokes and try to add some humor sometimes.

Once we get past the opening there are several of our members who pitch in and try to suggest lines or the one move.  We use diagrams which are available to all to suggest moves sometimes.  It is very educational.

We have some members of our team who mainly sit and watch and then vote and most always it is for our suggested move and it is fine they do not suggest moves--they are just learning--a lot!

In general we ask people not to vote until all the discussion is over and that is approximately 1/2 the time period or 24 hours.  Almost always we reach a consensus of one particular move or at the most two moves.