If he were to decide not to, or forgot to, that's up to him/her. Nobody is under any obligation to actually award bounty.

While you were awarded bounty in this instance please remember that the OP can accept the answer and still award bounty to someone else. The two are quite separate.

Using "u" instead of "you" is just as bad as "sez".

You seem to have only observed two extremes. Contrary to what you say there ARE a lot of servers and other systems designed for medium sized businesses, as well as those for small and large.

And in case it isn't obvious enough - A network admin IS a system admin.

Those with 3000 or more rep having voting rights and will generally deal with those questions (mostly) appropriately. Flagging them for closure merely adds to the mods' workload. Be patient, it really doesn't take all that long to rack up 3000 points. :)

@Warner, bear in mind that security questions which involve system administration don't normally get closed or moved. Those that have no such component don't belong on SF.

it wasn't a personal voting issue, just a pattern I'd never noticed before. The pattern is certainly not there now but when I posted it was as I said, all but one answer had been downvoted. i.e. One answer at 0, the rest at -1. Perhaps the script squillman referred to do a cleanup.

@Robert, that "tactical downvoting" would be pretty pointless for those who display the answers sorted by most recent. :)

I thought that job only looked for users systematically downvoting individuals.

@jscott, I did notice that but not until after I'd posted that comment. I guess in this instance my suspicion is most likely incorrect but it is a pretty reasonable conclusion to jump to.

Thanks. I agree that suspicion must point to the poster of that one answer that wasn't downvoted. Imagine having to work alongside a person like that.

@gWaldo, I'm of the opinion that hardware issues will be taken to SU, as they generally have been in the past, because that's where the appropriate expertise tends to be. When it comes to things like networking, policies (think GPO and the like) SF is definitely more appropriate and the desktop people should not be discouraged from asking such questions where they are appropriate. While desktop people may not have been involved in such areas where you have worked that is not the norm.

For those like myself who work in smaller companies desktop support is also very much part of the day to day tasks we perform. Also, the level of expertise most desktop pros have means that we shouldn't (and I really want to stress the word "shouldn't") get too many SU type questions from them. However, questions regarding issues with those desktops on a corporate or similar network should in my opinion be on SF.

@Jeff, I think so. There is a difference between supporting a few computers at home or for family and friends and the same role at say a large company or school. While at first glance the difference might not be obvious in reality those who do desktop support in a professional capacity normally need to work within fairly tight limits and have to work in conjunction with the admins, or at least their policies. Continued below...