Anthere wrote:
So, if the community widely agree, the guy will be blocked, but a unique sysop trying to act will not be criticized too heavily for having blocked perhaps too quickly. I think "fear" of acting often paralyse our sysop :-)
Which I understand...
I think Anthere is very wise here.
I think that one key is that any system under which a sysop is supposed to make a *sole* judgment is going to necessarily involve second-guessing afterwards as to whether that judgment was right.
The advantage of quickpolls (in some configuration) is that they allow a fast method to *get something done* but which also allow for *community oversight* and *legitimacy*. Setting a high percentage threshold is a good way to avoid "personality contests", at least I hope so.
It's very easy to say "This sysop blocked me because of political bias" or "This sysop blocked me because of a personal grudge". And it sounds plausible, because no matter how good we all are, we all know that personal temptation to bonk someone can get pretty high sometimes. (One reason I decided to form the mediation/arbitration system is that I was getting perilously close to a banning rampage myself, but thought that some form of due process was critical.)
So single-person-deciding solutions are going to be very efficient in one sense, but extremely divisive in another sense.
--Jimbo