History of players that have been reported?

Is there a way to find out out the past history of players that I have reported? I know I can block them permanently and can do a custom search, but want to know if it would be possible to quickly figure out when and during which match I had blocked whom. Even a history of the reporting messages and official responses should help.

ALL cases that I have reported so far have had 0 inaccuracies and, 0 mistakes, 0 blunders with barely 2 digit average centipawn loss compared to their < 1800 rating levels. Today I observed and reported 3 such instances for the same player in a single day and he is yet to be banned. Apparently, only some of the reported players are getting banned and I have reported maximum cheating cases during weekends.

I am seriously considering to avoid playing during the weekends.

A player playing a good game does not mean they are cheating. 0/0/0 is not equal to cheating.

But how likely is it that player who has freshly joined is consistently demonstrating 0/0/0 for 3 rapid matches in the same day through fair play?

Its either that they are cheating or some expert player is creating fake profiles to artificially boost the ratings on their actual profile.

Thanks for the action. I see that the player is now banned and my ratings restored.

"Naming and shaming" has long been abandoned by chess sites. For either Staff or members to post flagged players names; only a negative outcome results. Nothing good comes of it.

The lesson was learned early on by CC when they posted such a list. Disastrous results.

@mdinnerspace
I'm just curious. What sort of 'disastrous results' are we talking about? I'm racking my brain to come up with one potential negative outcome; and I can't.
Not saying there isnt one; or lots of them; just cant think of any.

The whole 'naming and shaming' is a bit antithetical.
If its so bad; why do we have a 'worst defeats' on our profile?
Thats kinda the very definition of naming and shaming :l=
A slap to the player listed; showing them as 'so bad they shouldnt of been able to beat me' and a slap to the player themselves saying look how bad I am I lost to THIS guy.

Point being; it doesnt make a whole lotta sense to say its okay here not okay there; especially when ...the players would be banned ...so who cares if their feelings get hurt?

IDK I just dont get it; doesnt mean anything.
I dont get a lot of things.

@breakreign

If you don't get it, so it is. No explanation will change a perspective when the explanation is not agreed with. Not a problem, just a difference in a "philosophy".

The resulting consequences of permitting/encouraging "naming and shaming" is the issue at hand and not the actual deed. You compare the "deed" as similar to listing worst losses. I see no such comparison. Two entirely different things. I never give best wins and worst losses a 2nd glance. Don't really see the point of. We all know mitigating circumstances most likely are at play.

The consequences: the posting of examples, the public accusations and resulting denials all lead to an unhealthy atmosphere. Some see this as trivial, as of no importance. By "disastrous" was meant CC mods found themselves in a full time battle with members over a single issue. The forums became full with nothing but players calling out other players who they suspected. After all, if the sites policy was to name, then they had every right to do the same. Often the naming had nothing to do with reality, just a way to make personal attacks, mentioning a negative term along with a players name, is a sure way of starting a fight, of which plenty did.