|Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister|
I guess you haven't read or don't remember or just don't agree with the justifications I've given around consideration.
I find it misguided to put little effort into the evaluation of whether a node should be reaped or not and then providing the careful justification while expecting that the people who vote on the consideration will be the ones who put the effort into careful evaluation.
When presented with a consideration to vote on, it is my experience that the person voting is likely to put less effort into analysis.
Take the root of this very thread. As I wrote my prior reply, I voted "keep" on the root node and found that everybody to that point had voted "reap", as instructed to do by your "consideration" (that lacked any justification). It was more than half way to being reaped.
Looking just now, twice as many have since voted, 100% of which were for "keep".
So, the number of people who managed to consider your proposal and decide to go against it was exactly one: me. The number of people who considered my reply and decided to go against it: zero.
The responsibility to make a determination that action is required must fall upon the person proposing the action.
but for edge cases like this
If you consider it an edge case, then you don't feel strongly that it should be reaped, therefore you should not have requested that it be reaped. If nobody finds it clear that it really should be reaped, then it shouldn't be reaped.
If you request that it be reaped, then (experience shows that) it will usually not be hard to find 5 people who will manage to go along with your request. And experience confirms that for this thread. That nearly happened here. This despite there being several people who feel that the thread should not be reaped, and (now) twice as many voting "keep" as "reap".
No trial balloons! Only consider a node if you feel strongly that your proposed action needs to be done.