Feedback: Pointing out an annoying grammar mistake.

Well, that's not so much grammatically incorrect as it is downright colloquial: "ain't" ain't really a word.

Taking issue with the slight bending of the formalized rules in favour of something that's in common use and arguably becoming a part of the formalized grammatical rule-set is merely nitpicking.  This is an evolving language -- if those that insisted no allowance be made for incorporating reasonable usage that's been largely adopted then there'd be little use for that grammatical rule-set at all, as no-one would actually use it in practice due to its being entirely out of touch with the language as spoken.

No I'm just nitpicking for fun, not to critisize chess.com. I just happen to find a plural being used for a singular a little strange.

It works the other way around too -- singulars used as plurals, as all of you can see.

I always thought you was both a singular and a plural. I guess if people want to (what basically makes grammatical rules) they could start to think the same for they. But to me it doesn't sound quite right, but it works well enough I guess.

Is using but at the beginning of the sentence grammatically incorrect? I don't think there's anything wrong with contrasting something with a new sentence, it's just a different way of doing it. Sometimes I want to end a thought and then contrast it after a big pause (bigger than comma or semi-colon).

The way I see it, "you" is both a singular and plural -- just like "they".

To each their own, I suppose....

Yeah the only thing that bothers me is that something only makes sense when enough people think it makes sense. I do think using "they" for lack of a much better option is fine though, even though it seems weird.

Precisely.  If someone prefers "they" over "he/she" or simply "he" then they should feel free to use it so long as it gets the message across.  There's not a real ideal answer here unless you accept that "they" is in fact both singular and plural or that "he" is gender neutral (I reject "he/she" outright as it's clumsy as hell).  The only alternative is to completely restructure the sentence to avoid the need altogether:

"This account was closed because the user was found to be cheating."

or some other alternative, however I never found the statement to be unclear in the first place, so I really don't seen the need.  The bottom line is that I see it as pedantic nitpicking.  (If anything needs to be fixed its the prompt on the main page above the daily puzzle the Loomis highlighted -- that's where I'd prefer to direct my pedantic nitpicking).

I'm done with my nitpicking. I've said all there is to say.

This account was terminated, the cheater is still on the run. We're working on it.

Ain't ain't not no word.

zzzzzzzzzzzzz StFu

uh oh.... more trolling.... Don't feed the trolls ppl!

It doesn't matter if it conveys the message well. It still has to be correct grammar. If you have the option of conveying the message with proper or improper grammar, why would anyone choose the improper way? For example, the entire site could be written something like this: "If yalls be wantin' to join in the fun we is havin' in chess.com, become a premiam meamber today." We understand the message, but the grammar is wrong. Basically, if the message is the same, don't choose the one with bad grammar.

This is a popular misconception.  For years, even as far back as old English, ain't was an accepted contraction for the words am not.  When the language began to be formalized by "scholars" some muckity-muck English scholar had a personal dislike for the word and bent his power to eradicating it from the class room--I wish I could remember the dude's name, but I learned about this long ago, in an Old English class (yuck, translating that gobbledy gook to real English wasn't a lot of fun.)

So, ain't is often used incorrectly, such as the example given by Elubas, but it is perfectly correct to use the word as a contraction for am not. 

I ain't writing any more.

Many prescriptivist prefer "Aren't I?" in this situation (which is confusing to non-native speakers as "aren't" is a contraction for "are not", which is not the correct form of 'to be' for first person singular use), and for speakers of non-rhotic accents this may only be a baroque spelling of one possible pronunciation of the eighteenth century an't. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraction_of_am_not

     The word "ain't" usually sounds uncultured but then it sounds so good when
used in many classic songs.  I find this an interesting contradiction.

Fixed that for you. 

uh oh. "If it ain't fixable, don't break it."

Language is not perfect and neither are people, maybe we should quit whining and eliminate language entirely.  Besides i'm sure there are better things to do than worry about the use of the word "they".  This post is just plain stupid.

Not true at all. The choice of grammar is part of the message conveyed. It is improper talk to your friends as if they were English nobles, as much as it would to use slang in front of your boss.

If chess.com wishes to portray itself as a website not dominated by English professors, it would do well to choose convenience over perfection.