|Don't ask to ask, just ask|
In my opinion it was 100% Ok for LanX to consider the three nodes you mentioned. They all contain personal attacks on a certain monk, and by the way they are written I get the impression that the personal attack was the main reason for writing them (and not the small piece of information inside).
Obviously, a sufficient number of monks agreed with LanX that the nodes should be reaped.
I don't think that the power of consideration has been abused since I am monk. Therefore I don't think we need a way to punish monks that use that feature. And I think the current definitions are good enough as a guideline for the monks.
But I don't have a full picture of all nodes that have been considered. So maybe some changes are indeed needed. If you think that the consideration-process runs totally wrong, please provide suitable evidence. I don't consider the three nodes you have cited as suitable, as they convince me that consideration works, and not otherwise.
Have a nice day! Rata
btw.: I don't understand your initial conclusion Being Anonymous Monk can be hard. Any nodes with questionable content may get reaped, not only those written by anonymonks!
In reply to Re: using the power of consideration responsibly