I remember that one way to combat status quo bias is re-framing. I am about to read the new deletion policy for the first time, but I am going to consciously frame it as "this is a deletion policy already in place for a site I am considering joining" rather than "this is a change to a deletion policy for a site I have already joined."

[Goes to read the policy]

In that frame, I would like the deletion policy and it wouldn't otherwise discourage me from joining the site. I would appreciate that the moderators would be taking moderation seriously, as opposed to some other sites I know of. In particular, the example about academic conferences is a great illustration of the argument.

My only concern is about the broad language used under the sections "Prolific trolls" and "Trollfeeding." The policy refers to commentators who

been downvoted sufficiently strongly sufficiently many times

as well as

Sufficiently downvoted comments.

Can the policy be amended to quantify those qualitative standards? Or if for practical purposes we can't quantify those standards, then include an a sentence to emphasize that interpretation of the standard is at the moderator's individual discretion.