If you "LIKE" the appeal in that format, then why not have "REPORT" in same format?
That would be an incorrect usage of the report system. Unlike others, I have respect for the staff and I do not wish to add more to their already-high workload.
If I begin showing "HOW" lovely some Feedback are then probably it will take days to get even 50% of it. And I am sorry I am not going to waste my time on that.
Note that I asked for "AN EXAMPLE" meaning "ONE EXAMPLE" rather "THAN" all of the "POSSIBLE" cases "THAT" exist on the "FORUM"
It's called DT1. [...] It's called Reputation.
So, basically you want to "TEACH" things here. Do you seriously think I am not aware of it? So, please talk sense if you can.
You asked for systems. I responded accordingly.
An action by Admin or Mod is far more "RESPECTABLE" than done by these genius and self-claimed admins.
All you're doing is just changing the title, not the definition. If we tautologically redefine the words 'admin' and 'moderator' to what the DT1 title currently handles then we essentially have what you want.
Lastly, IF you read my post "AGAIN" you should understand I NEVER said that it should be checked "DEEPLY", but just a moment of overview to see anything really wrong while there should be record of appeal against anyone, so if there are too many appeals against someone, then that person can be checked properly for once, at least.
Surface-level reviews will do more harm than higher workloads. When we're talking about a trust system, I don't think it's very pragmatic to skim over the details.