I'm not sure I understand why re-reaping is a bad idea. Nor why it's coming up - has there been a recent rash of bad considerations resulting in unjust reaps which were then unreaped, considered poorly again, and garnered the popular vote to be reaped a second (or third or fourth...) time?
If you don't want to trust those who have the power to consider or vote on considerations to make these decisions, then I think you should just stop that, and leave all "considerations" in the hands of those who you do trust. Or, if you decide that it's better to decentralise this ability across so many people, then I'm not sure why you're trying to circumvent it.
But, if you are going to put this type of veto power in, then I would suggest that the approval nodelet must tell anyone who would consider that the delete button won't be available because this node is marked as being non-reapable so no one tries to consider for "delete: troll" or something that encourages people to vote for delete, only to find out it's not there. Of course, a similar message should show up for those voting on it so they know why delete isn't an option when they think it really needs to be deleted (again/still).
In reply to Re: Enforcing unreap
by Tanktalus
in thread Enforcing unreap
by Arunbear
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |