"If we can vote to close a question, can we vote to suspend an user?"
I am quite disappointed that one of the trusted users from StackOverflow just got "temporarily" suspended (penalty box) for 1 year. I know the interval is by staged accumulation. But no matter what it says literally, it has substantially driven an expert user away from the SO.
Is this reasonable? As far as I know, while the suspended user seems to be picky and harsh sometimes, he is actually a perfectionist who cares about the quality of posts and tries to make the community better all the time.
But I am not here today to argue the disputable suspension. I wonder if it's possible to implement a tribunal system in StackExchange communities (especially in SO) ? From the case above, as a user who frequently visits the tag, obviously I cannot accept the suspension because I am really worry about the substantial damages caused by removing a "tag MVP" from a small community.
The Qt tag is kind of a cult tag. It's not a very popular tag and it receives merely around 20 questions a day. Under the circumstances, the removal of a productive user will truly undermine the prosperity of the tag community. The moderators could say they ban the user because of the violation of manners. But to me, those red lines are vague and subjective. Besides, how can moderators evaluate the suffering of a small tag community such as Qt after it lose a productive answerer for a year?
Askers + Answerers + Moderators = Stack Overflow
It doesn't mean users with high reputation are allowed to act whatever they like. Instead, I just wonder if there is a better system to weight whether an user is detrimental or beneficial to the community. This is why I think a tribunal system is needed for the account suspension.
My point is simple: just like how the privilege system and review system works, can a tribunal system works too? At least the decisions of account suspension would be more convincing after an open trial. Technically, there is a variety of ways to implement such a system on the SE, but all I am looking for simply is an OPEN trial where different opinions could be considered before making the decision, instead of a privately made decision that partial reason comes later to eliminate possible Streisand effects. Still, I think the suspension system is needed, but the system is not perfect at present.
In short, I wish moderator could be the district attorney instead of the final judge.
Reference and suggested readings:
- Why is Stack Overflow so negative of late?
- Avoid the Streisand Effect - be clear about the reason when suspending an account
- Semi-Automated suspension
- Suspension Reasons
- Is it possible to find out reason of suspension for another user?
Are you appealing to populism?
I am not sure. that's why I ask here.