And now somebody I've never heard of is calling me names. One of those deranged sockpuppet types, presumably. But if I'm to be called a 'sewer rat', I seem to be in rather good company, given the other people similarly attacked.

I hope you don't regard my post, expressing my quite real concern about certain patterns of behavior I've witnessed on this site, as part of the same "thread" as the post from <q.c>.

And I certainly hope my post will not simply be deleted without reading, because *that* would confirm all of my concerns as valid and firmly grounded in fact.

Do you suppose for a second that that is what I want? There is nothing I would like better than to be proven unequivocally wrong.

<•When I post here with a complaint, again quite moderate in tone, about a user who's been maligning me in various forums since 15 July, and the post is deleted without comment;>

We used to allow people to voice complaints about other users here, and very quickly that was the entire content of this forum. Posting complaints also became a backhanded way to insult other users. The "trolls" soon figured out that they could come here and complain, and in some sense their posts were protected speech.

So we put an end to all of that many years ago. Now, all complaints must be submitted either via the Whistle function or to chess@chessgames.com.

<•When multiple kibitzers post requests to ban <AJ>, some of them quite harsh, and they remain on the page;>

You are right, that stuff should and will be deleted, consistent with our stated policy above.

<•When I post a question as to why another troll, easily as disruptive as <AJ>, has not been sanctioned, and that post too is deleted without comment>

Absolutely, for all the above reasons.

<•When I send you an email, quite moderate in tone, requesting a ban of a raving troll who was blatantly violating site rules, and you never reply in any form;>

If you are referring to your email from May, I am sorry I did not reply. However it was certainly read, and interpreted as a statement of facts, and the member in question was in fact placed on probation. If there is a more recent email then my apologies, and please resend.

<•When I "blow the whistle" about kibitzers in clear violation of guidelines, including some making death threats against other users, and there is no response in any form;>

I am not clear on the specific incident you are referring to but I promise we would take an actual death threat very seriously. If such posts are still on our site I would urge you to bring it to our attention again. I also see one Whistle from you about two weeks ago which was promptly acted upon.

Note that usually the only response to a Whistle is the removal of the post in question; we very rarely email people over Whistles.

Also: I am to understand that you are allegedly the target of an attack by another member. I know this because of complaints issued by other members, and admittedly I don't really understand what's going on. If you would like to discuss that with me I would very much like you to email chess@chessgames.com.

I have sent no email since May, but I was startled, after putting the effort into it that I did, to have had *no* reply. And it did not appear at the time that any restraint had been applied to <q.c>, who somehow found out about the email and taunted me for it.

I understand that disciplinary matters must be handled circumspectly, and I would never expect you to tell me what action, if any, you were going to take regarding a given complaint. But should such a situation arise again, I do request that you let me know you got the communication, and that it is being taken seriously. Otherwise, it's easy to reach the wrong conclusion and think you're ignoring me.

Wow.

I will not reproduce my long email here, but a great deal of it was given to addressing this exact problem and the series of steps that must be taken if persistent trolls are actually to be kept off the site.

Precisely as I anticipated, <q.c> has a dynamic IP, which means the admins can't just ban one address; they'd have to ban a *range*, and that in turn means that other members will be unable to get on the site.

About the MAC address I know little; I'm not sure if banning that would be effective or not. My suspicion is that it's not so easy as that, or it would already have been done.

Unfortunately, the next step is a significant escalation. The admins would have to contact the offender's ISP, report the behavior, and ask that his service be discontinued. If it's not readily apparent, *that* is a tall order. Even the best ISP will hesitate (as I suppose it should) to cut off its customers' internet access at the request of any private entity. And many of them will simply refuse to do so at all.

This means the next step, realistically, may be the involvement of law enforcement agencies, to which the ISPs *will* listen. But of course this entails getting the agency itself to listen, and "trolling" is not among the complaints given high priority. Not to say it can't be done, or won't if someone persistently enough harasses people on the site, but I can certainly see why the admins would be in no rush to try this solution.

And even if the admins go this far, and the intruder's internet service is cut off, it's only a matter of time before he finds a new ISP and the whole dance begins afresh.

So, where do we go from here? Web sites, by their nature, are vulnerable to any really determined intruder, and the actions necessary to stop such intrusions are themselves difficult, costly (not necessarily financially) and offer no permanent assurance of security.

I do not envy the admins this battle, and still less the long war of which it will be only one stage.