@IAMBBW, the mysterious hmm'er of the forums

Thank you Dave the Mod, there are two scenario's, one where you cheat and get booted and one where you are abusive and get booted.  The first account was for a clear fair play violation and he was booted, the second account was simply termed abuse, so are we free to deduce that it was not for a violation of fair play that he lost his account this time and that it was simply as a direct consequence of being associated with the first account.

Not just "associated" - it was definitely the same person. We only act when we are certain.

yes that is understood, but will you now confirm that he was booted not because he cheated with the second account [cryysis] but merely because it was the same person who had previously been booted for a fair play violation.

So there you have it folks, Cryysis was not booted for cheating or being abusive, he was actually booted because of a previous account.  Just a wolf, going about his business, eating grannies and avoiding wood choppers, elements from his past cast up in chess dot coms room 101 which holds that a wolf cannot change or learn from his mistakes.  I have no words.

? If he'd been cheating with his second account, the closure would have been marked with a Fair Play Violation, and it was not. Abuse covers pretty much everything apart from Fair Play violations. He was already getting pretty borderline with his behaviour and was well and truly in line for a mute when we figured out his identity and therefore acted straight away.

if i see BBW in certain contexts, i run and hide.

yes exactly what i said, so lets be clear, Cryysis was not booted for cheating, he was booted because of having a previous account which he did not disclose and allegedly engaging in some good humoured wolf like behaviour.  Why not cut him some slack Dave, why not say, ok Wolfie, we know you have a previous account and could ban you because of it but if you behave we will overlook it.  Why not Dave.

People get 1 chance to own their behaviour: they need to contact the Support team, confess to their behaviour, and promise to not do it in future, and they will usually be allowed to back on the site (with a new account in the case of a Fair Play violation). Their new account doesn't get much slack though, and anyone who doesn't confess doesn't get any slack, sorry. @CRYYSIS is gone and the attitude he was displaying just before being banned does not bode well for his ability to make the necessary changes in his mindset to get a 2nd chance.

At least he is not writing in the green ink now. Green ink is is intriguing 

It's harder to get and must be used for only urgent circumstances, such as warnings.

Yeah, they don't use green ink also if they are giving their own opinion, and not acting as a cc representative.

It will be much better if they remove the green ink option for normal members tho. 

I'd think white ink would be even more intriguing. You'd have to copy and paste somewhere to see what was written (or maybe highlight with a mouse if amenable).

I would have given Wolfie a chance, at least.  Fess up and behave.

He barely ever played, and most of the time it was with people who were his friends, so I doubt he can cheat

OH wait he's banned I didn't realise until now

Read and watch Chess.com's cheat detection processes and approach at https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/discussions-about-cheating, and you'll see that your doubt is almost certainly incorrect.

Why have you bumped this.

because Cryysis who everyone understood was wolfie got banned for having two accounts, when the Mods gleefully pursued him with the intent of expunging him from the platform instead of offering the hand of reconciliation.  He was guilty of showing feelings of an almost human nature and of course that would not do!

I am quite certain, nevertheless, he was still poked here by the community which extends from the one that's here, and he was reported by many for no reason, so I doubt he deserved the fair play block OR the abuse ban