Chess.com Feature Request and Wishlist #6

Users should absolutely have control over whether or not their online status is presented -- if they want to override the defaults in order to appear offline then that should be solely their prerogative and right.

Word.  Assuming the default would always be to current behaviour, all anyone would 'lose' is the ability to see the online status of users who didn't want their online status seen.  :-)  Not much value there anyway.

Here's mine! Top priority please! 

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/a-change-for-the-worse

But if someone's chosen not to be seen as online surely they're not interested in being matched up as though they are.  I feel it is the right of whoever is online to choose whether they broadcast it or not -- this way you have some control over your opponent's expectation that you're going to play because they've decided that online is the same thing as playing games.

 First off, what if they want to do stuff on chess.com that does not involve playing games, but they don't want to appear online because they don't feel like being bothered. Secondly, having a special symbol for those who are online but choose not to show it would defeat the purpose of the feature. And last, I don't think any member has the "Right" to know when others are online or not. If they want to appear offline, then more power to them.

Agreed -- it is absolutely not your right to know whether I'm online or not.

Look at it this way, One DOES NOT have the right to know other people's doings unless the people in question decide to make their actions public. This is true for (almost) ALL scenarios, in life, not just in chess.com. On the other hand, One DOES have the right to privacy if they feel the need for such. Again, this is true for (almost) ALL scenarios, including real life.

Also, as long as the players in question are conforming to the predetermined time conditions, there is no reason for you to "investigate" their "stalling"

The point is that if your opponent is suppressing their online status there's no need to stay on this game because they're likely doing it because they're not playing.  In either case we should probably take this discussion to another topic if we want to continue it because we're beginning to hijack this thread.

I would think that discussion about possible features is precisely what this thread is for? I'm sure Erik and team wouldn't mind some pre-staff discussion deliberation; it would only mean most of the main argumental points are already laid out in front of them!

Yeah, I'll throw one more in here, for what it's worth... (Again, not a big deal.)

I feel like everything Karl_, for instance, has added to this wee debate only reinforces my conviction that the ability to 'appear offline' would be a good addition as an option. 

Karl_, in my view, you're coming from a very specific set of values around restraints (i.e. "hurry the heck up") on "your opponent" in a context that I, on the other hand, see as a multi-faceted chess site that just happens to allow server-based correspondence chess as one of its features. And it's pretty clear that I think of correspondence chess a bit differently from you too.

As long as I'm playing within the confines of my alloted time limits, I don't even recognize the existence of what you refer to as "stalling."  I regularly (and shamelessly!) log on to this site time and time again, fully aware that it's my move in one or more games, with no intention whatsoever of making a move or even looking at the game(s).  And I'm far from alone in this respect.  I'm not "hiding" at all -- I'm just not playing.  And I don't want anybody getting their tights in a bind wondering what I'm waiting for.

(To each his own, btw.  Some of the most tiresome forums on this site have seen attempts to "resolve" the issue of A. how people who take > 50% of their allotted move time are scum and people who log on while on 'vacation' are vermin, or B. how people who believe A. should chill out, pick up a few more games, go play Live Chess, or learn to respect the slow pace of traditional correspondence chess.  Whatever.  It takes all kinds, and I think this site supports a wide latitude of player styles & attitudes.)

In short, some value the online indicator because they think they know what it signifies and act (or make judgements) based on that signifier.  But I think it's ironic to argue against the option to suppress it, because let's face it:  If more people like me were "invisible," that little radio tower might truly mean what they think it does (i.e. "I'm here to play, people!!") a heck of a lot more often.

Cheers

maybe the option to remove pieces from the board before the game...

for my groups, when i invite, i have to gather a bunch of usernames, which takes a long time. There should be a feature that fills out the box with random usernames.  Usually i have to go to the members page,  write down  a bunch of usernames,  go back to my group, and  invite them. Then I have to repeat . And repeat . And repeat. It takes a long time, that feature would be useful.

can we see people's correspondance grades when they post in forums.

Also a vote chess setup similar to the online chess one.

What about admins being able to make votes for their group, like the ones on the main page of chess.com, just for their group?  That could be useful...

OG

Seconded

Also, in 'Manage Members' in a group, if it was possible, it would be nice to have a 'Search for Members' section, as when looking for a member, it often takes ages if there are many pages to look through.

Thanks,

OG

Thirded

I don't know why y'all are getting so cranky about the Appear Offline feature request; if you don't want it, don't use it. I want it because sometime I'm busy doing Admin stuff...at least add a "Busy" symbol so people can know I'm here if they really need me.

Ugh -- the last thing we need is a feature that makes it easier for people to spam group invites.  I get enough unsolicited invites as it is.

There's the 30 people limit, so there should be no spam at all. I must admit that 50 would be a bit better.