Vote Chess matches are ruined for teamplay

There are 2 arguments against the "captain votes" concept and why I do not support it

1. If the captain does not manage to vote, the whole team loses by timeout. Currently this is prevented by votes from the team.

2. In teams are often thrilling results of 50% : 50% where noone knows until the end which move will be chosen. To hand over the decision to the vote captain means giving him the responsibility to decide. Then we do not have any longer a team play but a captains play.

To avoid stupid voters in the team, you need to see who has voted what, so you can remove them. This is what this forum is for and what we are requesting from chess.com

... Maybe banish them to a worse move league until they repent!

I agree with you, these are remote possibilities, but they can happen. In the case of item 1, the captain could anticipate and impute a move, based on the team's initial suggestions, and then correct it at the end. In other words, it would have to be a program, where the captain can insert or remove moves from the system, up to the time limit. In the case of item 2, 50%-50%, I defend that the captain duly appointed by the team should be a person of total responsibility and commitment (to the team and to time), and obviously with chess knowledge above the team's average. Therefore, the deciding vote should be credited to him/her. In the case of the last item, I completely agree with you. In the current model, we need to see who voted and how they voted, and warn/exclude players who hinder the team. In the model I am proposing, there will not be this problem. I appreciate you opening this forum, because all of us, "Vote Chess" club administrators, really need Chess.com to resolve these forum issues/bugs in question, quickly and efficiently.

I should have been more precise. I would like to see some crafted options with one option being the captain vote among others. For those who enjoy pure "democracy chess" I don't want to take their fun away from them - they should be able to enjoy such games.

I definitely agree that "captain vote chess" has a different set of problems than "democracy chess". Certainly a poor captain can ruin a game just as badly as a cast of minions who are determined to inflict a poor move. Personally, I haven't been in many games with a final 50-50 split at time. Also, I hadn't thought about it, but I don't actually know how the moves were chosen in those circumstances.

Peace to you - KK

I'd be glad for any suggestions of clubs worth joining!

Well one I am in appears to be taking the vote game very seriously

But there is a lot of " discussion" there too

Maybe not for you ?

@KrisKross059 - Captain-only voting would be a cure worse than the disease.
The vote chess format is fine. Rogue voters are only an issue for small, undisciplined teams. Once your team is big & disciplined enough so the winning move consistently gets 5+ votes, rogue voters stop being a problem.
If you want to join a good VC team, look at who's playing in the KOVCL or 1WL vote chess leagues. You'll have dozens of good options to choose from.

Yeah, captain-only voting is not a good solution for most clubs.

There are probably four main styles of vote chess play, with most clubs fitting loosely into one of these categories:

1. Disorganised free-for-all. No meaningful discussion. Everyone votes for the first move they see. Games tend to be low-quality since low-level participants tend to win by sheer volume. This is what the master vs the world games tend to look like.

2. Limited participation. Related to the first one, but there are really only 1-3 participants in the game, so the game is really effectively controlled by 1-2 people and reflects their strength of play or lack thereof. This is common for some of the big clubs at the top of the leaderboard - they play a lot of games, but only have 1-3 people in those games.

3. Organised democracy. Everyone is encouraged to participate in the discussion. People are encouraged to wait until the last 24 hours to vote, and to only vote for moves that have been discussed, but are permitted to read the discussion and make their own decision about what to vote for based on that discussion and their own analysis. Rogue voters are warned and eventually removed. This is my preferred style.

4. Captain-led. A captain will organise the discussion and will eventually call the vote and either tell people what to vote for or give them a choice between two or more moves. This is a little too strict for my preferences, but some people like it and it can work very well and lead to a highly enjoyable game.

Captain-only voting would mostly work for the last style (although it would need designed in a way that captains can change or temporarily fill in for each other), but it would completely destroy the other styles. I strongly dislike the first two styles, but there are people who like them and there's no reason that should be disallowed.

If you have problems with rogue voters, that's something you as an admin need to address by warning and removing rogue voters. Of course, that means you need to be able to see who voted and how, so you need that feature to be working properly. But I don't want a complete redesign of the vote chess system in a way that only works with one style of play.

Correct. Yet hard to believe but correct

Thanks for the new names for the categories. Now I can refer to my preferred kind as "Organised democracy". And yes "Of course, that means you need to be able to see who voted and how" - and when (-> early voters).
I doesn't need a complete redesign, just a fix of the errors, and staff just listen to the community and set priorities for the developers.
It will work for the other styles of VC, too - players, and captains (if any) can just ignore features they don't need. Anarchy style doesn't need anything as everyone can see a move, vote a move and that's it.

i completely agree

it should be changed