I understand Nothingness's reaction, because when a game is long, we don't remember it and each time we need to review the previous moves. Me, I use the note not visible by the opponent.
Also, players without a subscription (pawn) or a subscription with a limited number of games (bishop, knight) can be blocked.
But who is right, who is wrong ?

My opinion is : if people pay for a Rook subscription, which gives an access to an unlimited number of games, they have the right to play as many games as they want. They paid for this subscription, they use it as they wish, they don't have to adapt themselves to other players who chose to pay less or not to pay at all, and they don't have to justify themselves in any way.

I had the same situation as mal4inara. Although I play about 70 games at the same time, some players have been very rude to me because I usually log every 2 days. They said they would ask for banning me from this site because I didn't play fast enough for their liking. I find this unacceptable.

I already thought that a game was too long, for example one started more than 2 years ago. In this case I politely ask the opponent if he wants to play it more rapidly knowing that he has the right to do what he wants.

I think the players have to manage their games according to their subscription. If they can play only a few games, to choose a shorter playing time is one solution. They shouldn't expect anything from others. Everyone is free to do what they want, especially when they pay for a subscription.
I would even say that players can play until the end of their playing time and even use their vacation time if they want !

You could tell me that some people don't have enough money to pay for a subscription. But also, those who pay for a subscription aren't responsible for this. Maybe someone offered them this subscription, or perhaps they saved up to pay for it, or they don't do other hobbies and they prefer to pay for a Brainking subscription. We don't know everyone's situation.