The grey x means they closed it themselves. The red x means violation of the terms of service; multiaccounting, being abusive to other members, etc. The other red symbol may mean fair play violation (i,e, engine use), but that symbol is somewhat confusingly also used when an account is closed with no public explanation given.
If you look at the profile of a closed account, there will be a message explaining the reason. For example, look at @Vicky-verma as an example of a fair play closure.
No, the workflows are the same, I never questioned that, however you were inducing that because the version is the same, old accounts should also state reasons...
No, I was inducing that because it wouldn't make sense and is not common practice dealing with such things. At least it's quite unlikely.
"old accounts should also state reasons ..." again, distinguishing between old and new accounts (implying the workflow differs depending on the accounts), for what? And if you write "the old version didnt have that parameter" is of no relevance either. Whatever version a user uses and whatever version is rolled out on the server side is dealing with the entire user-list.
Actually my point was quite clear and dealing with answers like you did yesterday is not a good base for a solid discussion.
It's good to know I guess. Always learning something new on here everyday. Incredible. I think i'll write down what the signs mean so I don't forget. Memory like a sieve so I have.
Great Jolly. If you see the sign on your profile it could be too late, maybe 
Ok @CookedQueen, I am gonna abstain myself from acting as you did, I will try to be as civil as possible.
Imagine you get blank cards that just contain a name, each time you get a new one you store it in your closet, one day, after recieving many many cards you decide you will write on them the date you recieved them, so in the end your closet is full of cards that dont have date and cards that do have a date.
That is just what happened with chess.com, they updated their methods and there is no way in hell they are going to go back and add reasons (for our past example, dates) because:
1- They did not keep a record of the reasons, so they dont know
2- Too much work for something that is not really important.
At least that is how I think it works, far more logical than your answers that have nothing to do with the subject in hand.
Ok @CookedQueen, I am gonna abstain myself from acting as you did, I will try to be as civil as possible.
You act very emotional and anything but civil and now you imply me not acting civil. Ridiculous, everyone here can read the posts. Read your own strange post from yesterday instead. You don't even try to understand what was wrong in your post. Not possible for you discuss things in a normal way. Instead of making up things troll someone else.
.
Why dont you refute the other part of my comment?
It was clear I was joking, and that it was friendly banter, if I wanted to be emotional and anything but civil I would have ignored you in the first place, but I took my time to try and explain you something.
Ok @CookedQueen, I am gonna abstain myself from acting as you did, I will try to be as civil as possible.
You act very emotional and anything but civil and now you imply me not acting civil. Ridiculous, everyone here can read the posts. Read your own strange post from yesterday instead. You don't even try to understand what was wrong in your post. Not possible for you discuss things in a normal way. Instead of making up things troll someone else.
.
Still waiting for someone to refute my theory on why chess.com old accounts dont show a reason...
Im still wondering why CookedQueen can act in a preponent way, saying my posts are not relevant and then when confronted just say I was mean and leave...
Anyways, anyone with a half decent brain can read my logic instead of the drama and realize who is right and who is wrong.
You can find all the answers in my last post. Your post was not intended to discuss, rather than to provoke. This is pure trolling. And you really expect answers on such posts? WoW
No, the workflows are the same, I never questioned that, however you were inducing that because the version is the same, old accounts should also state reasons...
That is what I wrote. You misquoted my whole post and started arguing about non-sense I never questioned. Thanks. And again, the fact that the old accounts did not have that parameter is the whole point of my comments, because that is the reason why old accounts dont state reasons.
Yes, I think thats the core point of the discussion
With parameter / without parameter --> triggers a different workflow to be handled, hence the conclusion. If the parameter needs to be checked then the workflow can't be the same. In an Activity-Diagram (specifying the workflow) for example the 'activity-path' would branch there. If you say old accounts din't have that parameter, ok u might be right.
Actually one mod has given a good answer, didn't he?
Having been a pretty long-term member here, with multiple accounts spanning from 2013,
"Account closed" means pretty much nothing - you can't conclude anything from it.
"Closed: Abuse" means you were banned for some non-chess-related breach of TOS, such as profanity, multi-accounting, or public accusations, or harassment, etc.
"Closed: Fair Play" means you were banned for sandbagging, engine use, rating manipulation, etc. Basically chess game / rating related stuff.
The last one should be fairly obvious.
I have seen fair play labels on some accounts that were closed a long time ago. However, the abuse label is new, as is the label for self-closed accounts. So when someone closed the account themselves, or it was closed for abuse, if that happened before those labels were added, it will simply say "account closed".
Yeah, fair play's been around since V1.
You can actually check with V1, since fair play accounts will have the little blue shirt symbol, and accounts that were closed don't have it, but say "account closed" when you click on them.
Think more Dr. Watson
I was actually thinking of giving you a second chance. But you sir have earned your block. Have fun.
Think more Dr. Watson
I was actually thinking of giving you a second chance. But you sir have earned your block. Have fun.
Why are you blocking this guy for?
The same reason he reported me.
Nothing logical or reasonable.
Ummm, if someone came in and mocked a post I had made in 2 of the first 4 posts, I'd have blocked them, too. Perfectly logical. Trolls act like they are somehow entitled to spew their garbage everywhere. Not so. Some people will let a troll push and push the boundaries to the breaking point before doing anything. Others, myself included, will give one chance, then take action on the very next time that a person shows trolling intent. Trolls do not deserve anything but the very minimum benefit of the doubt.
Ummm, if someone came in and mocked a post I had made in 2 of the first 4 posts, I'd have blocked them, too. Perfectly logical. Trolls act like they are somehow entitled to spew their garbage everywhere. Not so. Some people will let a troll push and push the boundaries to the breaking point before doing anything. Others, myself included, will give one chance, then take action on the very next time that a person shows trolling intent. Trolls do not deserve anything but the very minimum benefit of the doubt.
Well said.
Think more Dr. Watson
I was actually thinking of giving you a second chance. But you sir have earned your block. Have fun.
Why are you blocking this guy for?
The same reason he reported me.
Nothing logical or reasonable.
Mmm, if you see the sign it also states the reason...
The red X is for abuse in the forums and stuff like that --- saying big bad words, or saying that down kids should be aborted will get you that icon.
The other one is for fair play violations... sandbagging or c-word. Cherub deliberately sandbagged as if there was no tomorrow.
The last one is when the user closed the account himself, just because he felt like it, and not because he broke some rule.
@pdela is a prime example of the last one, MAY YOU REST IN PEACE GRANDPA.
Wait. Does that mean Diakonia's account was closed because of fair play violations?
https://www.chess.com/member/diakonia