This gets brought up every now and then around these parts, and sometimes gets a bit heated (ok, it was once...
). Unfortunately, some people will always take advantage of a system for their own benefit.
Another unfortunately, there is no better solution that handles the abusers while not tripping up the "proper" users.
Requiring CC holds on all ADRs (something tossed around quite a bit) would hugely limit potential reservations from those who do not want all their information out there (or simply do not trust online security to protect said information). Since only very few locations required CC holds now, they can easily skirt that issue by simply not choosing the 6 or so places.
Limiting based on resort reservation wouldn't work either, since there are many people who make reservations at restaurants that aren't staying on-site. Also, it would limit the ability for people to meet up for a meal with others that aren't staying with them.
Lastly, limiting based on email sign-in just wouldn't work either, since often times groups split up for a meal or two, and with one person doing all the reservations, they're going to appear to be double-booked, but in reality they wouldn't be (and this is the core of my hatred.. yes, hatred of the "auto-cancelling" CMs, cutting off the nose to spite the face never works out well).
However, there could be a solution utilizing "sub-parties" where the user could specify the name of the primary person showing up at each. This may help a ton with the last point... hm. Essentially, it would require a second name (which gets added to a dropdown list to make it easier for future ones) that will be "responsible" for that reservation. If your group of Bob, Sally, John, and Mary were splitting up, you could put Bob in "charge" of one reservation, and Mary in "charge" of the other. Allowing a single Disney site login to make valid reservations for different group compositions. It could still be exploited (but any system can be), but it would protect those that split their groups "legally" pretty well. It wouldn't be that difficult either, since the majority of the core systems are already in place (the notify if conflict primarily, and the ability to add a different name to the dining reservation wouldn't be that hard to modify.) They would have to make it so you can't change that name once it's in place though, to prevent trading and possible selling of the reservations (which is how the system works now, you can't change the name of an exisiting reservation).
