Closed Accounts

My suggestion plain and simple:

Differentiate between accounts closed due to cheating and accounts closed for other reasons (it would be nice to also differentiate among other specific reasons like the member closed their own account, they were deleted for spam, or they were deleted for other abuse, but that is not absolutely necessary). And keep the member's page intact.

My suggestion in detail:

For accounts closed for cheating, the old format used to put a box explicitly saying that the person was deleted for cheating and then went on to talk a bit about why cheating was bad, while accounts closed for other reasons just had the generic "account closed" message. On this new format, all accounts closed for any reason take you to the same Account Closed page. I personally don't like this because when someone I know has their account closed, I would like to know why it was closed and also make sure it wasn't for cheating. But with the way it is set up, I have to go to all sorts of trouble to do so. It is also not fair to non-cheaters because many, probably even most, people automatically think "Cheater!" when they see a closed account. And many, maybe even most, don't even know that someone can be deleted for something other than cheating (I know I didn't used to).

It would also be nice to keep the page of the member intact and just put like a box at the top saying that the member's account is closed (and stating the reason), and just disable the contact features (people can't post notes, or send messages, emails, or invites). It's nice to be able to view the pages of friends who have left, and it would be really great to be able to leave a "farewell message" on your page (as a note or on your "About Me" section) if you're going to close your account.

To help people visualize what I'm thinking of, here's an example of what it might look like if I were to close my account. Zoom in on the picture to really get the feel for it. http://www.treksoftware.org/Graphics/closed_account.bmp

And if I was banned by the spam-bot for spamming, or for cheating, or whatnot, it could say something different in the box specifying exactly what it is so that others know. And even so that I could know if I wasn't the one who closed the account!

What do others think? Do I have support?

Only accounts closed for cheating have the person with a stop sign symbol by their name. But still, that isn't completely ideal because you either have to have played them or do some URL manipulation.

All my confidence

Yeah, I also figured that out, Scott. But as you said, you sometimes have to go to some trouble to find a place where they might have that symbol, and it's also not very obvious or explicit so many probably don't know about that.

Thanks Franky and coneheadzombie. :)

[Note: I'm not suggesting this because I'm planning on leaving any time soon! ]

Phew 

I like the idea to being able to differentiate accounts closed due to cheating.

But I don't like the idea that if I close my account my profile remains public.

Argh, that was not directed at you. lol

@skullx3: But they used to openly label caught cheaters as such on the old format. And they still have a whole part of the site dedicated as a hall of shame with a list of all the caught cheaters...http://www.chess.com/cheating?page=1

Then maybe there could also be an option when someone asks to close their account to choose whether it stays public or not...

I like the idea, helps out a lot.

Oh...does that mean chess.com won't even consider this suggestion now?  I've had many thoughts on things I would like to have changed that would make the site better, but only this one did I think was important enough to bother the staff with and have the guts to post about...

Not everyone wants the rest of the site knowing why their account is closed.

Oh, I see...then scratch the idea of being so specific. But what about just saying if it was closed due to cheating or not? Would any fair playing chess player not want to be clearly set apart from those who don't?

If its cheating then they appear on the cheaters list. A small cheater icon appears by their username which is seen if they are in a team match or tournament and any of their normal turn based games. Its also seen on peoples games history.

Yes, but that was the whole issue. It can be hard to find those little icons, and it's not even very obvious that only cheaters get those, you kind of have to know the site well to figure that out. And you have to do some searching to find it, which many wouldn't bother doing and just brand anybody who has a closed account as a cheater.

Or maybe even treating *them* the same as now, but just treat the fair players with a little more resepct and add a little line something like, "This account was not closed for cheating."

I totally agree with Elizabeth that kohai (whom I hold in high esteem myself) and everyone else who is in charge of the site would make the distinction between an acoount which was specifically closed because the member had been found to be cheating.

It does not have to state the other reasons why an account might be closed nor specify whether it's the member who closed his/her  themselves or chess.com.

The way things now stand, it is virtually impossible to figure out  whether someone whose account was closed was or not among the cheaters.  And the list of "cheaters" which is updated every day does nothing to remedy the situation.  It is not indexed and there is no box in which one would be able to type the name of a member whose account was closed and find it.

The only way would be to go through the list of named cheaters page after page and look up all the names, since day 1.  This is clearly not a viable option!

Very rational your suggestion Elizabeth, the more information we have for a closed account the better! especially when the closed account is a friend's account...

Thanks Bane and Vertmouron.

It is one thing for an account to be closed b/c Chess.Com thinks it has ample proof that player "John Doe" had been cheating. It is another matter to state unconditionally that "John Doe" is a cheater. In a word: LAWSUIT! If kohai is correct in what she said in this thread, I hope she passed her comments by this site's lawyers. Remember, anyone can sue almost anyone for almost anything, and just b/c the plaintiff does not win, it does not mean there will seemingly be no end to the headaches involved in defending a suit. ...... Yes, I am speaking from experience from the POV of both a plaintiff and of a defendant.