I really hope you are not referring to anyone who challenges <AJ's> frequent violations of posting guidelines as one of "the trolls," as he does.

Some of these "trolls" are among the very best contributors to this website.

At the moment, I am currently keeping track of new posts <AJ> makes. This is partly in response to the two recent admin posts on this subject, which I repost below. I'm mainly doing this (at the moment) because his past behavior demands this, in order to prevent important Player and Games pages filling up with off-topic squabbling, often rising to the pitch of actual obscenity.

If <AJ> is spamming his own external material- meaning repeatedly reposting the same links to his own web pages and videos on the same cg.com game or player page, as he does frequently (and recently) then he's violating the posting guideline "no spamming."

That's a bigger problem that it might otherwise seem, because- sadly, despite you and others enjoying much of <AJ's> content- all too often AJ presents this material in a way that many find exceedingly arrogant.

This engenders often mocking or even heated objections to the "posting style" of so much of <AJ's> contribution.

<AJ> then typically defends himself by launching attacks against such objections, reminding us of his credentials as he does so.

Then the objectors respond again and we're off to the races, resulting in an important game page looking like this:

Capablanca vs Tartakower, 1924

#####################

This has been happening for a decade, and the admins have very recently acknowledged this to be a problem.

<"chessgames.com: <<<<Please look at the GARBAGE on this important games page>>>> We agree that page (and the other one mentioned) needs to have a thorough cleaning. We've done that before to several other important game pages.">

In fact, the problem has become so endemic and severe that the admins have very recently entertained my suggested solution of <suspending AJ's privileges to post on games and player pages>:

<"chessgames.com: <<<<WCC Editing Project>>>> Just in case you found my previous answer superficial, let me add that we are considering your suggestions, at least as a last resort.">

The admins have already tried rather drastic solutions to solve this problem, including temporary kibbitzing bans on <AJ> and those who most frequently object to his contribution, and the suspension of anyone's ability to comment on <AJ's> game pages (still in force).

This has not solved the problem, as you can see from the game page I linked above.

Until this problem is actually solved once and for all, important game and player pages will continue to become cluttered with childish, off-topic arguing.

Do the admins of <chessgames.com> belong to the trolls - as <LMAJ> calls them morons and idiots regularly?

For 10 years now, <LMAJ> has been haunting the site and 9 of them I had the "pleasure" of witnessing his behaviour. He is not the victim, but the perpetrator.

Even the slightest and most friendly criticism (or everything perceived to be a disagreement) is immediately met by several posts targeting the person uttering the "lèse-majesté". The phenomenon of the "trolls following him around" is merely an effect of people being verbally annihilated by <LMAJ> (or witnessing it).

These verbal attacks include not only making clear that he was in every respect superior to his "opponent" (i. e. everyone who is not adulating him) but also by

fantasizing about killing the trolls

suggesting them to commit suicide

comparing them to cancer

tracing their behaviour back to child abuse

insulting their families

insinuating that they are inmates of an asylum

suggesting lobotomy as a cure

These are just a few examples, as I would take up too much time and space to cover the "usual" insults "punk", "retard", etc. Suspiciously absent are always on-topic posts as the matter in question is never adressed (even in cases of chess analysis).

We should not make the mistake and switch cause and effect: People attacking him are the effect, his behaviour is the cause. He reaches his goal as he receives the attention he needs. I don't deny that the opponents behaviour is often over the top and also destructive, yet they are merely the symptoms - this is no excuse for their behaviour but the point is not to lookf the one to blame, but for the one who is responsible. <LMAJ> is responsible.

Now, after the last crisis still fresh in our memories, he turns pages of great past games into mere advertising space for his output and to post reminiscences about personal experiences. I absolutely agree with <jess> that this is not acceptable and I'm not sure that merely deleting his off-topic posts is enough.

If you are joking, please forgive my following words, which would be misplaced if you are indeed wholly in jest.

I think your idea is a poor idea.

The administration of this website must take responsibility for this website and any problems they perceive to arise here.

Finally, the hint in your post that this is some kind of slippery slope to an atmosphere of fear of being banned by peers is irresponsible at best.

It's undoubtedly true that some of <AJ>'s critics aren't very nice people, but the root cause of these flame wars is <AJ> and only <AJ>. It should be quite telling that most of the supposed "trolls" seldom fight with anybody but <AJ> (or a few other people at most), whereas <AJ> fights half the site. And as <jessicafischerqueen> noted, many of <AJ>'s most vocal critics have contributed a lot to this site and the wider chess community beyond it.

Believe me when I say that I hate being right about such things but to me it seemed inevitable as to what would eventually happen.

You wrote <Benzol: <FSR> Don't get dragged into a flame war with <AJ>.>

That is certainly excellent advice that all should follow. You are right about that.

But I should add that you can't just let <AJ> get away with flouting the posting guidelines in the first place.

As <Switch> noted, the root cause of all of this trouble lies with one person and one person only- <AJ>.

The problem would not be solved simply by everyone not responding to the litany of irresponsible and outrageous posts <AJ> has made over the years.

What about the example <Switch> gave us of <disco jew>?

That is not an isolated incident.

This last round of <AJ-caused> antics actually started just over a year ago when <AJ> publicly accused <GM Hikaru Nakamura> of cheating.

That kind of irresponsible, not to mention actionable, charge cannot just be left to sit in the website.

It has to be answered.

Most of all, <AJ> has to answer for his own behavior over the last 10 years.

The rest of us are routinely held accountable for our actions by the admins. I have had my kibbitzing privileges suspended four times at this website, each time with good cause.

The final result was that Daniel gave me "one more chance" to conform to the posting guidelines and I took it.

I submit that <AJ> will never take advantage of "one more chance."

<permanent kibbitzing ban>

I don't think this should be necessary either, although <AJ's> totally unrepentant attitude- gusting up to routinely, and recently, spitting poison at the admins in public, and also "blowing the whistle" on Daniel to an external "better business ethics" website (which beggars belief, by the way)- almost demands that this at least be considered in his particular case.

A series of suspensions might be the answer. It worked in my case at any rate. If Daniel subjects <AJ> to the same kind of temporary bans that I got, each time with an attendant email more strongly worded than the last, then maybe <AJ> will get the message.

If that didn't work, then and only then might such a draconian action as a permanent ban be something the admins could justifiably explore.

I really doubt you have to worry about a "can of worms" in the future either.

Daniel has bent over backwards to be more than fair- much more than fair, to be honest- to all of us here for the entire history of his website. Why would that change in future? I don't buy it.

As has been pointed out today and dozens of times in the past, <AJ> is a unique problem not just at this, but other chess sites.

He is certainly gone from <chess.com>, as a search for his name reveals.

We have been apprised of the situation on
Capablanca vs Tartakower, 1924 and Steinitz vs Von Bardeleben, 1895 and will purge posts from both of those pages shortly. At that point we'll determine if any further action should be taken.