deleted

He will be back. His premium account is not expired  @SCM Send me a PM.

Only username is banned, not the user. It's easy to open new account. I called others anyway I liked. Right BMW?

Quite the wrong "policy" IMO if in fact CC gives 2nd chances for fair play abuse. To start, what ever happened to the idea of deterring such unwanted behavior? A lengthy ban is more in order. Since when has a slap on the wrist ever caused a 2nd thought for abusive behavior?  The bottom line becomes that of making the almighty $ by permitting premium members to return in short order.

No person is banned in CC. Only username and all achievement collected by that username. Fair punishment in a recreational website.

And fair policy violation means engine abuse. An engine reported for being abused 😎 

Wait, who reported the abuse? Did an engine do that?

Probably 😀 CC won't mind if you consult engines for a move or 2 during ongoing game. 

So an engine reported an engine?

That can be easily disputed, whether the policy is "fair"or not. Fair for whom ? No two gaming sites deal with the difficult issue in the same manner. Whether the site is recreational or not , is NOT relevant IMO. It is an ethical question that far too often is over ridden by "business priorities."

Disconnecting during live games is obvious. I doubt poor internet connection is always the cause.

Allowing people to come back (after abuse or cheating) make sense because it's easier to keep track of them. Mods can leave invisible notes on your profile and find all the activity for your IP (even if it's many accounts ago). So asking people to promise to be good and letting them come back is a win-win for chess.com. The most effect for the least amount of effort.

But sure, with unlimited resources, it would be better to ban people for a set amount of time. Just donated a billion USD to chess.com annually so they can keep tabs on every user 24/7 no matter how they try to hide.

Of course people who conflate or confuse revenge and justice, and people who can't think logically will not understand this at all.

Ethics is a matter of concern for the minority only. The majority cares for the Law only. Some even dares to break the law if the reward is huge and punishment is not scary.

A perspective exists that internet sites are "recreational" and therefore free game to abuse at will, without recourse, is far to prevalent. Of course, enforcement is problematic and difficult. But that should not excuse such behavior by throwing the arms up in surrender.  

Just ask 2Q whether or not chess.com surrenders, heh.

You make it worth their while, and they'll put a lot of effort into keeping a person gone.

*Allowing people to come back (after abuse or cheating) make sense because it's easier to keep track of them.*

LOL !

That policy has worked well ! Over time we have witnessed a dramatic decline in abuse as the abusers are "tracked." Too funny

It is correct it's a "win/win" result for both parties. CC and abusers are both happy. The bills get paid. But it can not be claimed that "tracking" abusers in any way, shape or form deters/reduces abuse.

Clearly, the victims of the abuse are the ones who suffer. But their standing is seldom of concern to either CC or the abusers. They are merely bystanders in the on-going cycle.

I knew you wouldn't understand. Shrug*

Same sort of idiots who think a probationary period before posting is a good idea. No sense at all.

unfollowing

Am thinking Still_dumitha will get chopped soon.. Charlotte and Autobunny seem to have gone... no great loss.

Lewis! Stop copying threads!