Barriers to consistent and systematic enforcement

Well, I don't share the prejudice against pejorative language questions. But they do need to be couched in non-trolling, language terms. And they shouldn't accuse named living people of the behaviour they seek to describe -- certainly that last criterion is something that I stamp on rigorously. Because they will inevitably attract low-quality answers, I see no reason not to protect them pre-emptively; and if they are of poor quality then I see no reason not to deal with that.

@Tonepoet That supposition does not hold water. And protection does not apply to every question, so it still allows bad answers on the site. It protects questions which might actually attract bad answers. But it doesn't even stop bad answers on those questions.

@AndrewLeach Well, protection is the only course of action which can be argued to be prejudiced because it is a course of action taken directly against a post sight unseen (closure also prevents answers, but it is an action taken against the question). Supposing every positive contribution a person could possibly make is to a protected question, then it might bar them from making any of those contributions, on questions that are otherwise considered worthy of being open.

@MetaEd I think that's fine. Maybe even a necessary evil. I do protect some that I see has crossed 3k views and has at least 3 answers upvoted. But since Tom does it for us, I've almost become jobless in that regard. There's usually nothing left to protect by the time I'm here. Hehe.