Chess.com's Biggest Blunders

I'm not convinced that this ranks in the top ten of chess.com's blunders (or even in the top 1,000). My nomination would go to ...

...the haphazard and impulsive forum moderation?

When they took the power to Super Admin groups from non paying members, ooouch that was cruel, yo!

Let's say 100 posters contribute to a thread. Why should the original poster be entitled to throw all their efforts away on a whim?

The OP originated the thread, but may have only been responsible for creating 1% of it.

Suppose someone suggests playing a game of football. He has created the suggestion. A few dozen people join in and start playing. Suddenly the originator says: "Everybody must stop playing because I don't want to play any more."

Does that sound reasonable?

 well if he takes his ball home that's exactly what will happen.

I guess that's why they don't let people kill entire threads!

Say, what was the final outcome of the reduced administrative duties?  During this period that I'm back to a basic member, am I barred from being just a Super Admin, or am I also barred from becoming an Admin?

Precisely.  Not only intolerant, but irrational, too!

I demand that this thread be deleted because it was started with a quote instead of with the thread originators own words.

Does it really work that way???  I had no idea! 

I've only blocked three people, but I thought all I was doing was preventing them from being able to message me directly.  I don't start many threads of my own, but even so, I never intended that anyone should be prevented from posting something, no matter how asinine or personally insulting it might be.

If you guys verify that blocking works that way, I'll free my three!

--Cystem 

Nawh.   I keep a ball in my car.   If he takes his and goes home we'll just grab mine and keep playing.

By the way, I'm very disappointed in this thread.   I was getting all excited to tell the story about the time I missed a mate in 1 while playing drunk at 3 am...  (this game), and instead it turns out we're just bitching and talking about balls.

Where I used to work, a lot of proposals got circulated for comment. I recall one document returning to its originator, and him saying: "Who is L.O. Balls and why is he commenting on my document?"

(this game) would be the subject of Travisjw's Greatest Blunders surely - not Chess.com's?

OK, I give up. Where's the blunder?

As the OP, I'm not entitled to delete it! Can you believe that?

Wow!  I didn't know about "Admin" positions.  I think i'd like to be one!!!  I don't know what the duties are; but the title would enhance my low self esteem....Just thinking outloud here...

At least he wins a knight though, and he did win in the end...I'd say it counts more as a ? than a ??, since it doesn't change a winning position into a drawn/lost one. Though yeah, missing forced mates (not to mention mate-in-ones) is always a bit .

This might qualify as blundering about - but not as a blunder, surely?