I didn't say tournaments. I said rated games. SO again you support alt accounts in rated games?
Again, no argument, just garbage. Again, I challenge you to find anything I've said that can be taken as 'supporting alt accounts' in tournaments or anywhere else.
Pay attention. I'm not interested in your ideas about alternate accounts in tournaments or rated play. No one advocates for that. I'm not interested in your discussion of sandbagging. No one advocates for that. My only argument with you concerns your exaggerated perception of cheating and your constant trashing of others (you do very little else), chess players in general, gamers in general, chess.com, forum posters (including the OP), etc. To refute your view of cheating, I've made arguments, cited statistics, even quoted several GM's and the US Chess Federation. You ignored, or dismissed with cheap retorts, all of it. Saying that it doesn't exist is a lie... it's still there, and not only in this thread, and I'm not going to rephrase or repost any of it. You're immune to everything that contradicts your opinions. And my arguments are not about semantics, by the way, a cute phrase, but a lie. Quote anything I've said that was just a question of words. I dare you.
Your only response was to call the numbers 'doubtful', no (reasonable) argument, no evidence. Do you have one now? Pay attention. I am not interested in your ideas about alternate accounts or sandbagging. No one advocates for them. My argument is with your exaggerated view of cheating (and your constant trash talk). How many times do I have to say that?
You advocate for that [alternate accounts], by complaining that I'm advocating against it, for all of the world to see.
I have never said anything, good or bad, about your opinion of alternate accounts. Arguing against things I didn't say is pointless.
Because somehow you have convinced yourself it is a different reality that deserves less respesct. The truth is The digital and physical realm are simply extensions of each other and you should be applying the same principles.
Another straw man argument since I never said it didn't deserve respect (arguably, you have, in contrast) and, by the way, the digital and physical realms are not extensions of each other. The digital is an extension of the physical and if that's what you meant to say, it's true but also a truism... as opposed to what, an episode of the Twilight Zone?
1) Why would anyone think someone with a rating consistently under 1400 cheats? Why not look at your opponents history?
2) While I consider the 1300 range to still be "beginner", it's still high enough that most people at this level have embarked on some bit of studying and can easily beat most of their family and friends who aren't professional chess players. So how did *he* get to this level without realizing how ridiculous his assessment was?
3) Why would you accuse someone like this AND report them without even looking at their history? Up until he made a really terrible move with his queen, every one of my moves was a book move I have played in multiple games before. After he moved his queen to that terrible position, the choice for me was suuuuuuper obvious. Then it was the very next move he accuses me.
Not really expecting any fruitful conversation from this... it just makes me feel better to write it all down, lol.
You could have been banned for the 12 days since your first post, but the ban never came. So, it's pretty much obvious that you did not cheat in any way, and it's your opponent who is just unaccepting of a loss.
That said, for every user who accuses me of cheating, I take a snapshot of the chat (just in case) and send in a report to Chess.com. It's more likely that their account, rather than my account, will be banned (or at least muted).
I don't agree that the accuser should be banned or muted. There is nothing wrong with accusing someone of cheating to chess.com. You are simply doing a check on an account. Publicly shaming them without proof or and admittance from them Like Magnus Carlsen did to Hans Neiman is another story. That should not be allowed. But even if they were verbally harassing you just block them. turn off chat if you don't like it on. simple solutions.
You could probably win an award for the greatest double speak in the shortest paragraph.
"Oh, it's totally okay to accuse people just to keep them in check."
"Wait, it's not cool to publicly shame someone who obviously cheated you in a major tournament if you don't have a smoking gun even if they have had a history of cheating that can be verified by the biggest online company in the business who just happens to have state of the art technology to identify cheating AND, you know, an actual admission of cheating!"
And no, just turning off my chat is *not* a "simple" solution. You're suggesting that if I don't like being accused of cheating, then I shouldn't enjoy chatting with others (which I do enjoy).
Metaphorically speaking, you seem like an advocate for the devil. That is, when the devil puts his foot on someone's neck and they protest, the devil will actually find a way to twist the situation into one where the person who's on the ground is really the one at fault. You know, if they would just shut up then he wouldn't have to press his foot down so hard, after all. Or if I would just turn off my chat, then there wouldn't be any problem, right?
Absolutely ridiculous.
Do you not really understand the difference and why? The only people who should be worried about getting banned wrongfully for cheating are people who play at a professional super GM level, or CHEATERS! Period.
Reporting someone to chess.com cause you think they are cheating is you asking a question. Publicly shaming someone is you making a possible false statement of fact and possibly wrongfully ruining someone elses reputation, or simply because you just want to be spiteful after losing a game. Very very different actions. And one is shameful and why the OP is not allowed to post the persons name.
In fact when someone does that like Magnus did to Hans Neiman, it usually makes them look like the cheater which is the only way they can know the other person is 100% without a doubt cheating. Its the mentality of everyone cheats so I might as well too that is so prevalent amongst gamers.
I understand what you're trying to say... it's just wrong because you're biased, and because of that you don't even understand why it's wrong.
So like SFLovett you can't explain how or why? ...
Would you listen if I did? I mean, you'll say yes and then I'll explain and then you'll come back with some response that shows me you still don't get it and you'll still think I don't get it and in the end we'll just have to agree to disagree.
You really wanna go through all that or you want to just agree to disagree now?
poor excuse. Not even an excuse similar to why you have none for using multiple accounts in rated games or for picking your opponents ratings, or for why you are so afraid and scared of being accused a cheater to chess.com....
What other account am I using? At this point you are just making up baseless accusations. Like I said, you are convinced in your own mind and all we can do is agree to disagree. Well, that's all I can do. You can, of course, continue to make baseless accusations against the innocent while defending the guilty if that's your pleasure.
I didn't accuse you of using one. But the fact is you want to argue with me for saying it is wrong to do which means you support others who do. Shame on you and Shame on chess.com for allowing it.
You said "Not even an excuse similar to why you have none for using multiple accounts in rated games or for picking your opponents ratings"
That sounds like you're accusing me of using multiple accounts and of picking my opponents ratings. Perhaps you did not word that the way you intended, but it is what you said. I welcome you to retract your statement if it was made in error.
You also just said this "But the fact is you want to argue with me for saying it is wrong to do which means you support others who do.", which is both untrue and a logical fallacy. I did not argue with you for saying it's wrong (feel free to find where I did and show it to me if you can; but I'll save you some time... you can't). And you use this false premise to make a logical fallacy in stating what my only intent could be based off your untruth.
I notice that SFLovett points out how many think you are a creep. When you constantly make things up and employ fallacies based on your own fabrications, people just really don't like that.
Are you repeating yourself? Whether you use alts or not I cannot prove, just like I couldn't prove any of my opponents were. But the fact is chess.com allows it, and you support it. If you didn't you wouldn't even be arguing with me. So shame on you and them.
SFLovett is another guy who just made his account last month. The fact he is trolling me to argue against fair play and ensuring competitive matches, like you, is what is creepy. I just made my account, but everyone knows who I am and why I did.
"and you support it."
It doesn't matter how many times you keep repeating that. I never argued with you about that. I don't even know why you're making a deal about it. I don't really even give a crap about multiple accounts. You brought it up, and you keep repeating yourself saying that I support it by virtue of the fact that I'm arguing with you... even though it literally has nothing to do with any reason for which I ever responded to you.
Do you even read the words I write or do you just kind of scan and assume you know what I must have said? If I am repeating myself, it's because you haven't comprehended the words I've written yet and you need to hear them again.
Haa!!!! I've been accused of cheating a couple times it's really hilarious!!!!! If you know how to play chess to the point of self analyze your game then you should know how to spot cheating!!!!!
But even a game with 100% accuracy doesn't prove cheating. I've had several, including one with 24 moves. I think it's best not to worry about it unless you have some other reason to be suspicious. And if you are suspicious, the best thing to do is just report it. Odds are, they just had a good game and deserved a thumbs up. You may well agree with all this, I wouldn't know.
I just made my account, but everyone knows who I am and why I did.
I seem to remember you condemning anyone who had multiple accounts, even if their previous ones were closed. Ah, @CooloutAC, I wonder what you say about that now...
I've been here for longer than you have with both of your accounts, and I still promote streamers being allowed to speedrun (all points are refunded!! Where's the lost experience there, if you also say that playing people higher than you is a boon that should be shared?) As well as alts for privacy reasons (for example, if I wanted to do something with my school team but didn't want to be doxxed). I do believe people who have been here long enough know I have supported these things, as do you. I do not hide from that fact 
so when will you find a personal attack that works against my arguments?
Your only response was to call the numbers 'doubtful', no (reasonable) argument, no evidence.
I didn't call the numbers doubtful.
35 k banned for cheating for the month of November. That is an EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT, EXTRAORDINARY!!!
35 thousand out of more than 20 MILLION active users
0.175%
1 in 571
active? hahaha. doubtful.
In fact it kind makes the whole 100mil subscriber thing seem fraudulent.
Not at all. And the idea that they're lying about the number of users is ridiculous, just more trash talk from you.
Haa!!!! I've been accused of cheating a couple times it's really hilarious!!!!! If you know how to play chess to the point of self analyze your game then you should know how to spot cheating!!!!!
But even a game with 100% accuracy doesn't prove cheating. I've had several, including one with 24 moves. I think it's best not to worry about it unless you have some other reason to be suspicious. And if you are suspicious, the best thing to do is just report it. Odds are, they just had a good game and deserved a thumbs up. You may well agree with all this, I wouldn't know.
True and there are lessons all over the place about better/more fun lines to use..... Depends what you like
You just can't stop trashing people, those who disagree with you, your opponents, chess players and gamers as a whole, chess.com, etc. That only makes you look bad, not them.
What looks bad to everyone reading is when all you do is make personal attacks with no argument on the subject.
In your imagination, 'everyone' is cheering you on. Funny how absolutely silent they are. Pay attention.