To clarify the situation to outsiders, I have caught the OP spamming via a method known as 'shot bursting' (should be self explanatory). They have also admitted this via PM:
I am really very sorry for that behavior that I showed up, I know I had to be active all week long and shouldn't have done like this. I was not able to come online the whole week due to which I did like this, but I promise I won't post for payment alone again.
I don't think I ever replied to this PM due to abnormal amount that I have been receiving as of late.
I saw about the ban theory, and also one thing that people who are banned for the 1st time, they get it for 7 days..
-snip-
All I want to ask you is, can't this be fair in case of negative trust too that the review that takes place after 30 days should be done in 7 days only and give an opportunity to someone to prove themselves innocent?
To cover some things:
1) This is not related to banning, thus this comparison i a 'false equivalency'.
2) The banning policy has become much softer since BadBear is inactive.
3) Where did you get this '30 days review' thing for negative ratings? There is no such. You may be talking about the SMAS blacklist, which has a review period (on request) 30 days after you've been added. However, that has no relevance here.
Considering the circumstances, and your mature acceptance of this situation I think that this warrants a tone down to neutral (which puts you into my watch list). However, if this has landed you on a blacklist by SMAS, then you don't get a second chance early for that.