I don't see a problem with questioning the staff members judgement, thats a main point of appeals , if they can't handle the fact you disagree then its hardly your fault, clearly it wasn't that bad as no punishments were overruled.

If you were wording things wrong in replies, giving the wrong vibe, then thats hardly grounds for an official, especially considering the stupid amount of appeals that you handle and from what I've seen, each response actually looks like you put time and effort so the user understands the situation.

If they really have a problem, and it's happened multiple times, then surely someone should tell have spoken to you so you would stop, rather than stacking up evidence for an official.

To me it seems they don't want you as SA and needed a denial reason.

I don't see a problem with questioning the staff members judgement, thats a main point of appeals , if they can't handle the fact you disagree then its hardly your fault, clearly it wasn't that bad as no punishments were overruled. If you were wording things wrong in replies, giving the wrong vibe, then thats hardly grounds for an official, especially considering the stupid amount of appeals that you handle and from what I've seen, each response actually looks like you put time and effort so the user understands the situation. If they really have a problem, and it's happened multiple times, then surely someone should tell have spoken to you so you would stop, rather than stacking up evidence for an official. To me it seems they don't want you as SA and needed a denial reason.