Archived Appeal Review for 76561198240632180 (CatMarrow)

First off, I removed the picture. We don't ask for any kind of personal info, including real name or photo.

The reason you needed an attachment was because evidence is required for both appeals and reviews, and that's to make sure you provide it.

So you are claiming which of these? (pick one)

1. The admin demonstrably broke our policies when handling your case?
2. Extenuating circumstances, which would not happen with any of the other 600-ish appeals, applies to your case?

Please elaborate.

Alright, so you meant to select "The appeals admin violated SteamRep policy" option, not the "Other extenuating circumstance at admins' discretion" one, right?

Hidden Content:

**Hidden Content: Content of this hidden block can only be seen by members of (usergroups: Administrative).**

So are you requesting a second appeal because you believe the admin clearly, and demonstrably violated policy? Or is it, like many others before you, because you simply don't like the outcome and are pressing every possible measure (up to and including tantrums elsewhere in the forums, apparently) until you get the outcome you want?

Change of heart is up to the admin to decide, at his/her discretion, not yours. Because it's impossible to look inside someone's head and know if they're truly a better person or telling the truth (even if we visited in person), change of heart appeals essentially boil down to personal judgement calls. They can get rather subjective, and are handled on a case-by-case basis after a few automatically disqualifying criteria are screened out (e.g. multiple scams, certain types of offenses, refusal to repay, etc) by someone who has been many years of experience in differentiating scammers from innocent traders. Similar to repayment before your appeal: A lack of additional reported scams for X years does not guarantee any appeal will be granted, nor does it entitle you to a granted appeal in any capacity. It never has. Individual circumstances will be taken into account, and unless the admin is personally convinced you've changed after ruling out those disqualifying factors, he/she will still generally end up denying your appeal.

This is not the place to argue your case, that's what your appeal was for. In this step, we're only concerned with whether or not you have grounds to void your previous appeal and disqualify the admin from handling your case on the grounds of gross misconduct. You don't get a second chance at appealing if you don't like the answer, that's not what appeal reviews are for. They're intended as an extra level of oversight, for rare exceptional cases who fall through the cracks, so that someone caught in one of these special circumstances has a formal appeal to re-appeal properly while still remaining fair to everyone else who didn't get a "second chance".

Your personal word that you've changed is not proof that you're safe to deal with, so the admin was not required to take that into account. Glancing over the appeal, he did give a very straightforward explanation of why he felt you were not genuinely remorseful. In doing so, he took both your forgetfulness (in private notes) and "3 years since I scammed" (publicly) into account. I don't see any clear violation of policy here. Was there some other rule or policy I missed? Could you perhaps link me to the relevant policy that I'm forgetting?

Appeal decision upheld.