I think that is a great suggestion. It would help to avoid false accusations potentially.
Enhancement request for player endpoint: status:closed to show abuse, please
Sort:
Jul 23, 2018
0
#3
Great suggestion Giles! I'm out of sequence today - wish I'd read this before posting my note about the same thing 
"Why I care about "closed" vs "closed:abuse" is for scoring a match according to a particular competition's rules. I am going to have to give a partial score in some situations with a list of boards in the match to examine manually as a workaround"
That's a problem for me too as you know but I'd also make the argument for consistency - closed for fair play violations is explicitly stated in the ednpoint so why are other categories not given explicitly?
Jul 23, 2018
0
#4
In another forum (not in this group) it was pointed out that status:closed clobbers any information about "basic" or "premium" membership too. I'm not asking for that to be changed, but if someone has to revisit this area of the API, it's something (possibly) to bear in mind or (equally possibly!) to defer for later. 
Jul 23, 2018
0
#5
The player profile endpoint won't help much with scoring of tournaments or team matches, since it it represents the current state of the profile and not the state during the match. The team match and tournament endpoints have been (or are being?) updated to include information about accounts closed during the match.
I don't see a reason not to include "abuse" when appropriate. For completion, then, self-closed accounts ought to be indicated too.
What information about basic or premium does "closed" clobber? Again, this status is current, not historical. Reading a profile that says "basic" does not mean it was not "premium" while playing a team match. There is no meaning to the idea of communicating "the current state of this account is closed, but the instant before it was closed it was basic/premium." Can you explain what information you are hoping to get?
Jul 23, 2018
0
#6
@bcurtis, some competitions have cut-off dates different (later or earlier) than match end dates and calculate adjustments even after a match is finished, or use an in-progress score to decide which team proceeds. That's background as to why the profile information is relevant beyond the adjustments chess.com is making to team matches. I suspect some competitions might decide to simplify and use the chess.com calculated result and not their own rules, but I am speculating and not speaking for any of the many competitions out there!
To answer your third paragraph, there is a perception in some circles that premium members are in some way protected from closure for cheating. I know of no such thing and reported a premium member today whose account is already closed. But that's where the thought came from. It may not be a sensible thought; someone can not pay and switch from premium back to basic I assume, too.
Hi,
This isn't a bug as the API is working as documented, but it's on of those nice-to-have things that the website does and the API doesn't.
https://www.chess.com/news/view/published-data-api#pubapi-endpoint-player
Could we please have "closed" split into "closed" and "closed:abuse" for accounts for which the abuse icon is shown on the website?
An analogous enhancement would be to add "closed: self_closed"(*) again in the interest of matching the website, but I don't need that today.
(*) Space added after the colon to avoid emotion, obviously unwanted.
Why I care about "closed" vs "closed:abuse" is for scoring a match according to a particular competition's rules. I am going to have to give a partial score in some situations with a list of boards in the match to examine manually as a workaround.