I've been banned from reviewing for 2 days, after failing a whopping 2 audits recently (edit: I don't believe I have previously failed any before these two, though I could be wrong. It certainly isn't a frequent occurrence).
This seems a little harsh, since I have successfully reviewed several hundred posts, including at least a couple dozen other audits. The one just now was a decision to downvote based on the fact that the question was a decent question, but pretty terribly worded, after which I was going to edit it to be less terribly worded, like I usually do.
Apparently, no, it was actually a good enough question that the badly-worded-ness shouldn't have counted against it, and now I'm banned (I totally don't remember what the other one was; it was a few days ago. I probably didn't agree with that one either, but I can't argue, because I don't remember what it was.)
Anyway, my point isn't to argue a particular review as being right or not, but really, dozens of audits successful but two "failed" and I'm banned for 2 days (presumably just from the luck of the draw that they happened to only be a couple days apart)? That seems just slightly too quick to decide I need a break. It's driving me crazy; I like taking short breaks from coding to check the review queue.
Not the end of the world, being it's only a couple hours this time, but my understanding based on other posts is that now if I pass a bunch of audits, and then fail another one months later, next time I'll be banned for even longer? How is that helpful to SO?
Seems like serial-upvoters or whatever would fail all their audits, not just one every once in a while?
