Rejected Appeal: 76561198002272483 - (Salmon / SR CAUTION)

Appeal for SR CAUTION

Steam profile: 76561198002272483 (Salmon)

Appeal Plea: I committed the offense(s), I admit it
Appeal Reason: [Change of Heart] I will never scam again.

Victim Repayment: Yes, I repaid the victims of my offense(s)
Previous Appeals: No, this is my first appeal here​

Alternate Accounts:

| steamname: Pollo Slinger
| steam3ID: [U:1:81982687]
| steamID32: STEAM_0:1:40991343
| steamID64: http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198042248415
| customURL: http://steamcommunity.com/id/moustacheofsound
| steamrep: http://steamrep.com/profiles/76561198042248415​

Appeal description:

http://forums.steamrep.com/posts/305184

I fully realize my mistake & will not repeat it. While the idea of returning items to victims is nice, it is not feasible in real world scenarios due to the vast number of different ethical and business liabilities it creates.

Going in, I knew the consequences would be at minimum losing my moderator application. I focused too much on the "sting operations" rule, and neglected the "scamming a scammer is still a scam" rule. I justified it to myself due to my intent to return the item to whoever the case was proven for, when I should have realized the reasons behind these two rules.

I am not and never will be a scammer. No matter the outcome of this, I will still strive to create improvements for the entire community of steam traders.​

http://forums.steamrep.com/threads/scammer-pwned.2967/

I'm not taking any sides on any of this (and I haven't fully read the thing), but here's some precedent and maybe a bit of perspective.

The difference from that case is I didn't seek this out to perform a vigilante move or a sting, the scammer came and tried to sell to me, I "held" it and made it clear from the second I took it that I would wait for the case to be resolved by an admin. I completely followed admin instructions on what to do with the item.

While I disagree strongly with cribbit's actions, I do think that good people make bad decisions sometimes. I have seen him help hundreds of people with fixing their reports, and I don't think that he should have a caution. This is my opinion of course.

I do however, think he should remain to have a public note with a link to the incident, as well as a minor description.

I also think that the caution should apply for a short amount of time. This cannot become a meta of giving scammers of scammer cautions though, I do not feel it is the correct way to go about it as it opens up new avenues of scamming opportunities.