After completing over 10,000 sessions on Focusmate and being a long-standing, highly engaged member of the community, I was permanently banned in a way that raises serious concerns about fairness, transparency, and proportionality.
The ban appears to have originated from a report by a user named Kiera, who believed that something I said at the end of our session was “sexual in nature.” In reality, all I said was:
“Thank you for the session, Kiera. Good luck, and see you again.”
She showed visible frustration, and later I found out she had blocked me. I was never informed of what exactly caused concern. There was no further communication or clarification, and no complaint came from the user whose profile I briefly viewed afterward — no interaction occurred at all.
Shortly after, I was judged not for direct harm, but based on behavioral assumptions.
The decision was made based on perceived “patterns of behavior” — not on actual damage to other users.
It was rooted in internal bias, personal interpretation, and the subjective judgment of a very small support team — reportedly just two people — responsible for reviewing all cases on the platform. This means that case review depends entirely on the worldview, assumptions, and predispositions of a tiny moderation staff.
This is a dangerous precedent.
Roughly a month later, I created a new account for five minutes, solely to check a profile, then logged out. No session, no messaging, no harm. I acknowledged that this was a violation and expressed willingness to continue in full compliance with the rules.
Still, I was permanently banned — despite:
No active violation ongoing at the time of enforcement. The alternate account had already been deleted. There was no concurrent or disruptive use.
Sanction imposed was not clearly defined. While the creation of multiple accounts was noted as a violation in a prior message from support, permanent bans for such cases are not listed in the Terms of Use or community guidelines.
(Archived rules reference)
The rule was applied in the context of a misinterpreted situation. The prior incident (which involved no contact, no harm, no report from the person I viewed) appears to have influenced the decision — even though it was based on subjective perception.
The enforcement feels situational and tendentious. The policy was applied in a way that suggests personal interpretation, not a universal moderation standard.
No appeal mechanism or real opportunity to clarify. The ban was final. A single vague message beforehand offered no meaningful path to dialogue or defense.
Disproportional response to an acknowledged mistake. No user was harmed, no message was sent, no misconduct was proven.
No evidence of damage was ever provided. Everything the platform can point to is a technical violation — not a harm-based moderation issue.
Responsibility cannot be shifted to “policy” when consequences like this aren’t publicly outlined.
Neglecting resource limitations does not justify injustice. Even if internal resources are limited, the burden of unjustified enforcement does not shift to the user. Responsibility for weak moderation procedures rests solely with the platform. Insufficient capacity is no excuse for issuing irreversible and ungrounded sanctions.
When friends on the platform now ask:
“Where are you, Yaroslav?”
— I have to explain that I was removed not for what I did, but for how someone interpreted it.
Focusmate promotes values like accountability, consistency, and community. But in my case, those values were not reflected in how the situation was handled.
That said — I still believe the platform has value. I genuinely liked using Focusmate. It helped me structure my time and improve my focus.
But these moderation gaps are serious, and they undermine everything that makes the platform worth using.
I still hope to be unbanned — and to return, under fair terms, with full respect for the rules.
Report