<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by NJDavid:
If verification limits the trolls and multiple posters to only those who are willing to commit bank fraud, it would have done OK IMHO. 
Back to my earlier points....
They will tell you that it is not technically possible to have a functional, cost effective safe verification system, and you will spend hours going over each objection point by point showing them in great detail that it is technically possible, done at lots of other sites, and not a problem. Then, just as you’ve made your point and expect an “oh, I see you’re right”, they’ll change tactics and begin to argue why it will keep people away and they would never have joined if they had to be verified. You’ll then spend hours debugging that myth and showing why a slightly greater level of exclusivity wouldn’t keep away anyone except those we want kept away and show how it has worked at many other websites. Then again, just when a normal person would say “oh, I see you’re right”, they’ll change tactics and begin to argue about technical impossibilities again as if you hadn’t already proved that one incorrect.
Xenophobes opposed to the idea of verification just are, and no amount of showing them facts will make them see “black” as anything other than “white”.
*****><><>><><><& gt;<>>>>><>><>< ;><><*****
Don’t try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
</font>
If it's the holy grail of solutions then why hasn't Randy implemented it yet? Don't you think that traffic and user numbers is more important than getting rid of a couple of trolls? Sorry, but your double posted arguements still haven't convinced me.