Well, since you asked ...
Like some other members, I have reduced my participation in G2G and am mostly sitting on the sidelines, at least for now. And I have been pondering the questions of what exactly has happened here, and what will the long-term impact be? We have a new set of rules and we are now in a two-month "trial" period. As I read it, it is the enforcement that is now on trial, not the rules themselves. If there are no violations at all, or just a few minor ones, during the two months, seems like that would constitute proof that the new rules are working. If there are dozens or hundreds of violations, that will certainly validate the need for the rules. So I'd expect the rules aren't going anywhere and will stand as now written.
Originally, we were told, we needed these rules because moderators had no specific descriptions to cite to explain why someone's behavior was inappropriate, and we didn't have very objective enforcement of perceived improprieties. But as others have noted, the rules still leave some room for interpretation, which seems like an impediment to truly objective application. And depending on which description of the trial period one reads, we will now assess how the rules are applied and enforced, whether that helps or hurts or causes new problems, and whether the "moderation" in enforcement is appropriate. I suspect the thing that's not very clear to the huddled masses (or at least to me) is how these consequences will be evaluated. No specific test plan or test criteria have been mentioned, there don't appear to be any stated, objective, evaluation criteria, and it's not obvious how "moderation" in enforcement could be measured. It seems like we have the same enforcers we've always had, who will make the same judgment calls they've always made, and who will constitute the "jury" for this trial period -- the only difference being they now have a sheet of rules to point to. In the words of Peggy Lee, "Is that all there is?" Perhaps someone can explain how naive I am about all this.
The other thing I wonder is whether there is any effort to measure or assess or mitigate the collateral damage that has resulted from this process itself, or whether there is even any interest in doing so. Has the result been worth all the ill will and stomach acid that has been generated? Is it just presumed that those who have declined to participate in G2G because we were so insensitive will now flock to the "new improved" forum and will bring more value than has been lost through those who have bailed out?
