what are you suggesting is the benefit of having more negative ratings? ...right... you assumed it.
I mean, I didn't say that in the slightest. In fact, I said the exact opposite:
I think there are too many negative ratings left
No evidence? How about simple logic.
If you have no proof of your statement, then you are making an assumption that it is ture.
Either they will meet the standard of evidence or they don't. If they don't or this is disputed then that's when more discussion will be needed.
How is the community supposed to decide if they meet your "standards" without first having a discussion? Either there is a discussion for every case before any action is taken, in which case the workload is insurmountable and your system fails, or DT1 members are free to tag people without presenting their case first, in which case your system is no different to what we have now.
You can get caught up on whatever assumptions you think I have made but it doesn't change my points. The system you have outlined either doesn't change anything or doesn't work. This conversation is probably now moot, however, given this recent post from theymos:
But I don't believe in having a set of hard rules which is to be applied to all cases.
A+ selective editing. Now try logic.