To quote from What is consideration?: "Request that a node be deleted. Please do this for blatant trolls (egregiously offensive) and true duplicates...For useless, stupid, off-topic, and annoying nodes: if it is a root node, then don't approve it for any section; if it is a reply, just ignore it."
I think it is becoming neccessary to limit the power to consider nodes. I'm against 'raising the bar' to a higher level because I think that just keeps newer people from participating. In my opinion it would be better to allow a group (power users, perhaps) to be able to prevent a person from using consideration for a period of time in much the same way someone can be kept from the chatterbox temporarily.
It has been suggested that this be linked to response to the consideration, but I don't really care for duplicate purpose voting. What if someone made a mistake and accidently considered a node when intending to message, or considered the wrong duplicate? It also starts to seem a bit circular with meta consideration for the consideration, will we soon need meta meta consideration? For that reason, I'd rather see a selected group responsible for this (and note that I'm *not* a member of power users, whom I recommend for the task).
As for the specific node in question that was reaped, I'm of the opinion that it should be reinstated. There were several interesting answers to the question, and it looks as if enough people here would have voted keep if they'd been around at the time it was considered.
On the subject of not allowing the front-paging of negative nodes, I don't see any need for it. The Gates should contain a spectrum of nodes, and if there is disagreement over the front-paging of a node, the mechanism is already in place to remove it from the front page. However, I admit to not reading the Gates at all, so I'm not sure if front-paging nodes is a widespread problem.
|Replies are listed 'Best First'.|
Re: (kudra: consideration limitations) Re3: Front Page with Negative Rep..
by giulienk (Curate) on May 17, 2002 at 17:49 UTC