Okay, that helps. Thank you. It confirms what I suspected. We have a different definition of the word appeal.
What I am referring to is more or less in line with what is defined here:
"... where parties request a formal change to an official decision. Appeals function both as a process for error correction ..."
What you have written "right now" is what I would characterize as ... "terms" ... Of their "sentence" ... If the "accused" chooses to ... "appeal" (?) ... them, you (whoever "you" is ...) then subsequently determine the degree to which the "accused" has complied with them. And on from there ...
To "talk straight," your original charge will stand, as it cannot be challenged. "You" are judge, jury, and executioner. Therefore, it is not up for discussion / debate.
Agreed?
When appealing, the user cannot provide evidence to show that is the author behind the articles in the sources, then it is obviously considered fraud and the account may be blacklisted. If blacklisted the user is asked to go through the next step of the appeal process of showing the ability to create original content. It is called an appeal because no user is forced to go through that process. They can always refuse and continue whatever activity they want on their blog. Blacklists are decentralised and so is our blacklist. Many users that got blacklisted by us simply ignore it.
Back "in here" now, from an appointment, nice to find at least some attempt at a response. From "my side," however, you are dodging (or ?) key aspects of what I have written to "you."
Nonetheless ... I would like to address what you have said. And I will ...
First, I am going to "slow down," and get clear answers, one at a time. One way or the other ... To questions which I cannot imagine you have missed. You have simply chosen not to answer them, right?
Starting with this:
#1? Or #2? Not too tough, right? I have faith in you. I know you can do it! So, I will look forward to receiving your answer.
Thank you!
Obviously, we cannot say who we are for safety reasons.