Let's get the most important point out of the way first.
It is more important for the node reaping system to be capable of reasonable responsiveness than for it to be incapable of action until after a lengthy process of notification and waiting for a response has been invoked. Nodes can be unreaped (and any visitor can still see the original contents of a reaped node with a single click).
The reaping system will never be perfect. There are reasonable checks and balances in place before the reaping takes place but it is intentional that no lengthy processes like giving the author a chance to respond are required before action. Infrequent adjustments to the pre-action checks and balances will certainly continue to happen.
Notification when one's node gets considered would probably be a good idea (though I don't think it will be an unmixed blessing). Notification when one's node gets reaped is already in place.
Some facts: All of the nodes in that thread got considered. Most of them got more 'keep' votes than 'delete' votes. A few got reaped, all with 5 'delete' votes and no dissenting votes at all.
I unconsidered severel that had more 'keep' votes than 'delete' votes because they were all considered as simply 'off topic' (by jasonk) which doesn't qualify as a useful consideration reason based on a great deal of discussion on this topic that I've seen. I've unconsidered a lot of nodes that jasonk has wanted reaped (usually for that reason, IIRC) because they got more 'keep' votes than 'delete' votes. I notified him (via /msg) of this the first few times but have yet to see any response so I didn't /msg him this time. Note that getting more 'keep' votes than 'delete' votes is a clear indiciation (once enough votes have been cast) that the node should be kept. It is no accident that it takes a lot more 'delete' votes to reap a node than 'keep' votes to prevent reaping.
I unconsidered them in part because I think that too many new Friars see such casual (careless?) considerations and take them as good examples to emulate. Since this is a fairly common consideration reason, I keep paying attention to see if the mood is shifting or if On Responsible Considerations still resonates with the community.
I didn't particularly want any of the nodes in that thread reaped, in no small part because I figured someone would make a ridiculous claim of "censorship" or at least use it as an excuse to extend the flame war. My worst fear was that the flame war would be propogated to multiple threads as a result.
Yes, I called a claim of censorship "ridiculous". The moving of your words to a slightly less visible location is not censoring.
Part of the purpose of reaping is to allow people to express their desire that the topic be dropped. Considering a node is also meant to do this. This is why the consideration reason is displayed to everyone when they view the node directly (It would be nice if you could also see that a reply has been considered and if you were informed that you were replying to a considered node). That appears to be too subtle to prevent replies. So reaping is not subtle. It appears to do a reasonable job of disuading replies.
The second line of your node invokes Stalin. And now you are not only surprised that your node got reaped but you are offended and think you are being censored? I'm not sure what to say about that. Your first node in that thread looks a lot more like flamebait/trolling than reasoned argument, in part because this is a Perl site. You make a big point about how long you've been at PerlMonks. That just makes me more puzzled by your inability to predict that your node would be considered and likely reaped.
Perhaps you should take a break or find a more appropriate forum for expressing yourself in that manner on that topic.
- tyeIn reply to Re: Seemingly-inappropriate reaping of nodes (sigh)
by tye
in thread Seemingly-inappropriate reaping of nodes
by dragonchild
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |