I'd have to see near unanimous consent to move forward with sanctions on answering... first because it is a big change, but also because the execution would fall on us.
So I've thought a lot about how it could be weakened to the point that we could get agreement but there hasn't been much luck there. Again I agree with this, this is just what we'd need to make it happen politically, I guess.
re: @amWhy's point, I think you're right that we need the culture to support moderation. And that there are both recognition and anti-backlash aspects to that.
It's a harder problem, in some ways. I don't have as much control over public opinion. We used to have more when the site was smaller.
It's also why I encourage being... shall we say, overtly temperate, in the face of abuse. It's much easier for us to protect and defend people who aren't hitting back than it is for us to break up a two way fight.
I can think of so many hair trigger suspensions I've dished out with like 30 seconds of thought where some frothing-at-the-mouth new user has told off somebody asking them for context. But when it's a slow build where both parties are polite at first, then gradually piss each other off in a back-and-forth, it becomes a question of whether to suspend both or write it off as "allowing debate."
Over the past few years the moderation culture here has leaned towards the latter. We've become very permissive of arguments compared to other SE network sites. In earlier days, I was more medieval about it. There are several regulars in this room who've felt the sting of my whip, alongside whoever they were fighting with.
Is it better or worse now? It's hard to say. But it's easier to regulate when the situations are less convoluted. I think for CURED users it's important to remember that you're easier to protect when you stay civil and let the other person be the bad guy.
(anyhow. now the gavel pounds for me.)
