I think most points are still contentious, however after re-reading this conversation, I see the following possible consensually agreed points:
-
Trust level requirements should take (recent) history into account. This means, that you if you need any number of successful things, that this number must be at least 80% (configurable) of all things of that type. (Example: It wouldn’t be possible to reach a 5 accepted edits requirement, if you had 5 accepted edits, but 20 rejected)
-
You should be demoted to level 0, and have to start earning trust again, if any of these criteria applies:
- Your post is flagged as spam by N users (where N is a defineable threshold)
- Your post is flagged as spam and the flag is confirmed by a moderator
- Your post is flagged as spam by a moderator
- Three (configurable) of your posts in the last 14 (configurable) days are deleted as offensive and they are more than 20% (configurable) of all your posts in this time
If the last criterion would apply, but the deleted posts are less than 20%, a priority moderator flag shall be raised.
I think it is also commonly agreed on, that editing should be decoupled from trust levels and its privileges should be given to users, who have a lot of approved suggestions (and to moderators (=TL5) of course).