The ruling in question is this one.
How I assessed the situation:
I was reading what was going on in the thread and realized that a lot of the stuff that was being said was pretty bad and would result in severe punishment if discovered (it did). I wanted these people to realize the danger that they could get into if they don't stop their behavior and change soon, which they continued with anyway. I was simply trying to warn them that I thought it was a bad idea to argue about what happened. I was hoping that if they learned what kind of trouble they were getting into, they would stop their behavior. I already knew that it was reported and I figured not to report it again. I said that I could relate to what happened (which I believe is why I was warned) and that they should cut it out. I may not have a lot of say in handling thee sorts of matters, but when I say to stop, I literately mean it and that something bad will happen.
I was just trying to make them see that they shouldn't be acting this way. If warning someone of the dangers of what could happen is considered spamming, then why should people try to help them out? If it is that bad, don't we have the right to intervene to try stopping something before it got worse? I think I was judged harshly just because I posted on something that was reported. If I am wrong in my reasoning, I don't know why I even try to help.
That is why I believe it should be appealed. I will defend my reasoning for as long as it takes.
