Now *that* is a good, practical approach. An ounce of prevention and all that.

This might not stop sockpuppetry altogether*, but it would certainly make it much less convenient. If every application for a membership were screened by live admins, and IP numbers/email addresses/etc. checked prior to approval, it could put a significant dent in the problem.

---

*I continue to question the advisability of allowing duplicate accounts except for admins and special projects conducted by trusted users, such as we see with <JessicaFischerQueen>, who can be generally relied upon not to abuse this discretion.

For a banned member to return by guile is trespassing. There is legal recourse for this, and if left no choice, Daniel will resort to it. This could involve criminal charges against <q.c>: an unappealing prospect, but if his hand is forced....

When you use the search kibitz feature to look him up, you see other posters responding to him, but no responses from him.

Yes, it's obvious, I know.

RIP the handle of <JoergWalter> 🌺

I believe that dubious award goes to <GMShirtlessRocketman>.

I agree there are trolls who cause trouble. But I also see that they troll generally in specific areas, and my comment is directed to those who engage others in those areas and are then unhappy when the attacks get out of hand.

We all know the AJ problem has its own venter of gravity.

Aha I have just accidentally sent you two (2) identical emails, the content of which, ironically, are an apology for pestering you with something I could solve on my own.

I did solve it on my own! That "size problem" I found a workaround for it so no need to do anything.

However the reason I'm posting here is the reason two copies were sent.

The first email I sent prompted one of those "Mailer-Daemon Failure" notices, with a long text underneath it stating that I was on the <cg.com spam> list.

So I double checked your address was correct-

chess@chessgames.com

Then I found the last email you'd sent me and tried to send the same message with the "reply to sender" function.

That email went through fine.

Imagine my surprise when I went back to my "sent box" to see that both emails were indeed sent.

So my question is why did "Mailer Daemon" tell me my first email was not sent, and why did it tell me I was on your spam list?

I'm not saying it's a bad call to put me on your spam list, believe me.

But it seemed more like some kind of "code" problem so I thought I'd mention it here.

Sorry to bend your ear.

Just to help you find out what happened better-

This is the text line from the first "failure" notice I got:

<chess@chessgames.com:
Remote host said: 553 Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?98.... [RCPT_TO]>

You sent me an email to confirm I was a premium member. The email included my password and I think it would be better not to send passwords across the internet.

Nowadays a site normally responds to a "forgotten password" problem by emailing a temporary password that enables the user to access the site.

Unfortunately, demon-trolls are as able as legitimate registrants to log in with a temporary password, set another one, and then use it precisely as if they had any business being here.

This is why, ultimately, there may be no substitute for a registration system that can pass the Turing test. ;-)

First, about <JoergWalter.> After some discussion we concluded that it's not a member's right to see their account deleted. In fact, our policy has always been to flatly deny such requests. While Chessgames LLC does not acquire a copyright to things you post here, we do retain the right to archive them indefinitely on our site, as well as remove them.

Nevertheless, we honored JoergWalter's request and removed his account as well as all of his posts going back to day #1. This does not mean that we will honor such requests in the future from other members.

It is worth mentioning that due to the extraordinary measure we took, we prudently backed up JoergWalter's data just in case we either find some technical problem, or some other kind of problem.

Next, <banning users.> There's been a lot of speculation here about the best method(s) to ban users. I don't like to discuss the technical end of this in great detail because I have a few tricks that some of the notable sock-puppeteers seem to be ignorant of. (And why should we tell them our tricks?) But let me say a few things. "Banning by IP" is an old-fashioned method that doesn't work well for large sites. The best we can do is temporarily put an IP on a ban-list only to remove it again a few days (or hours) from now. "Banning by MAC address" doesn't even make sense. Some people seem to believe that we have some powerful high-tech button that we could press to ban somebody forever. We don't have such a button, and no site on earth does, because it just doesn't exist.

<Legal action> borders on absurd. Think about what you are saying. We would contact some ISP in India or the Philippines and convince them that one of their customers should have their account cancelled. The voice on the other end of the phone says "Are they posting child pornography? Are they dealing in stolen credit card information? Are they terrorists?" We reply, "No, they are just making a nuisance of themselves among chess fans."

FWIW, I think that was a mistake. I am sure you know the reasons I think so, you considered them, and still made the decision.

<This does not mean that we will honor such requests in the future from other members.>

Well, you've set a bad precedent.

<<Deputizing longtime respected members as admins> is a subject we have been exploring for some time now and in fact we've dipped our toe in the water in that regard. It may be the ultimate solution.>

Sounds like a horrible solution to me.>

We used to do it at the MSN Gaming Zone, although that was a while ago. Users had to install a bunch of binaries to play (unlike here at cg I realize), one of which would sniff out the MAC address of the computer that person used to play on the site. As a privacy shield the actual address wasn't stored on the MSN servers; instead it was run through a hash function to create a unique string identifiable to that one computer only. The upshot was that sockpuppet accounts were immediately discovered and automatically blocked.

<The Internet Gaming Zone Requires Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser. Play chess for free in the five game areas which are further divided into rooms. The areas include the Social Rooms (Park Bench and Corner Pub) for casual and beginners, Competitive Rooms (Castle and Checkmate) for serious competition, Rated Rooms (Knights Room, Kings Court, Grand Masters, Queen Me) which automatically report your scores to the Zone Rating System, Tournament Rooms for tournament play and the Ladder Room for ladder play. Other games can also be played here.> Image http://www.chesscorner.com/play/zon...

I agree with <OCF> and the <Colonel> (and the mere fact that *they* agree tells us that something extraordinary is afoot).

Put this power in the hands of some members, and it will become the <final solution> for anyone whose personality or politics the "deputy" doesn't like.

I don't rule out all possibilities for this, but it would have to be implemented with extreme care. At a minimum, any action taken by such a member would have to be subject to automatic review. Even then, I would be leery of it.

Perhaps the best approach is prevention rather than cure: Let no one register automatically. Require a live admin review of every application, which at least offers a chance to check for certain clues. Not foolproof, of course, but it could help.

Will everyone be informed about who those 'longtime respected members' are?

For myself I am neutral on the idea of people gaining such access, which could be revoked any time the admins find necessary,

Others might support or oppose your idea as they find the words they think fits their views,