<p>My vote against is on various grounds.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I don't sense that the present low thresholds are too high, so that serious members who are able and willing to contribute are disenfranchised. They just need to do some useful work first. It's a fair question what kind of evidence would be expected either way, and that's a question too for those who want to explore change. But I've often seen unexplained downvoting of good answers, which can only be puzzled out as personal dislike or some kind of petty revenge. I think it's sufficient to raise the spectre of someone new to the site who might run riot downvoting those who explain why their new post is poor as posted. The site exists as a resource for anyone who finds it interesting or useful, but that doesn't make equal voting rights for everybody an obvious goal.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Like many others I participate elsewhere and find a general relationship between quality of site and the application of moderation (in SE's sense and wider senses too) and the possibilities and constraints allowed by (e.g.) the SE system of reputation and privileges. I sense that many sites are marred if not ruined by low thresholds for participation, which result in lower standards and all too often lead to multitudes of silly, ignorant, nasty and hateful posts. The single most obvious example in my experience is Twitter (X) but I am aware of (much) more obnoxious sites (even in fields that include statistical work).</p>
</li>
<li><p>Naturally you can't tell precisely what might work better without trying it, a platitude. In this context, I cite another equally ancient platitude, that you need not try to fix what isn't broken.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>This is a gut reaction. Sorry, but I haven't the inclination to read through all the existing Meta thread, but I am confident that if I am missing something important in the idea that this will be pointed out!</p>
