I agree with chromatic that 'itchy trigger fingers' can
be a bit of a problem here. Recently I've seen quite
a few nodes considered
which end up being kept--and
rightfully so, because they don't meet the criteria
by which nodes should be deleted. Every single one
of these nodes has to be manually removed from
nodes to consider.
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.
| 