...you get automatically an "average" opinion on these issues, which --I assume-- will be very much in line with what the gods think.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree on both points.

1. The number of monks involved in a typical consideration "event" is very small. One to consider; 4 can vote and effect reapage; but 2 can vote oppositely and prevent reapage. And if, as is entirely realistic, one monk downvotes and just one other monk upvotes, reapage is prevented. So no, it is very much a stretch to imagine that these things reflect anything like a consensus of the fraternity.
2. The rank and file monks are notoriously independent-minded relative to the wills* of the gods.

* Yes, plural, since even the gods are not always 100% in accord.

Yes, you are right. I should have said that the system is stacked against reapage through consideration. And that is indeed the general trend in the Monastery (in my humbled opinion).

CountZero

A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

My blog: Imperial Deltronics

But so are most of the active Perlmonks and as one Monk's consideration alone cannot do much, you get automatically an "average" opinion on these issues, which --I assume-- will be very much in line with what the gods think.

Consideration sets the tone, its the most important part of the process

See Re: Small Perl quests for a beginner? Considered: jdporter: reap. spam.

and see what tye says on consideration Re^3: swissprot assignment (worth), Re^5: swissprot assignment (effort), Re^7: swissprot assignment (effort)

Even monks tend to assume that those who consider nodes have done their due dilligence

Consider Reaped: Re^5: Should I list core modules as dependencies? and what LanX says about it in Re: using the power of consideration responsibly (what is personal attack what is trolling, can you lose power to consider) , his bias clouds his judgment

See Re: Small Perl quests for a beginner? Considered: jdporter: reap. spam.

I freely admit that was a mistake. I judged, and acted, too hastily. Immediately after I submitted for consideration, I upvoted the node and voted Keep. :-)

I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

I am not saying the consideration system if fail-proof, but I still prefer having it over not having it or revoking consideration powers from *some* by a decision of gods or handing reaping powers only to a select *few*.

CountZero

A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

My blog: Imperial Deltronics

I am not saying the consideration system if fail-proof, but I still prefer having it over not having it or revoking consideration powers from *some* by a decision of gods or handing reaping powers only to a select *few*.

Remember /borg ? There is no reason for the losing of power to consider to be permanent

My node is a bad example: Reap 1, Keep 6, +2 votes at the moment.
لսႽ† ᥲᥒ⚪⟊Ⴙᘓᖇ Ꮅᘓᖇ⎱ Ⴙᥲ𝇋ƙᘓᖇ

My node is a bad example: Reap 1, Keep 6, +2 votes at the moment.

What do you think its an example of?

I think it is an example of a bad consideration , one that should not have been made, a very fresh consideration -- there have been more, but I don't keep track and its not like I can search for them