Essentially, the 4th paragraph is what worries me. Specifically:
"These decisions from participants feed into an algorithm our team developed. That algorithm takes several factors into account like how many participants believe there had been a violation and how reliably those individual members’ historical decisions aligned with the general consensus. The system can then determine whether or not to apply an enforcement action like requiring a Gamertag change, or if the complaint should be escalated for one of our enforcers to review more closely."
I don't like the idea that a system which is already abused may be receiving more authority and less oversite. It's fine to factor in community feedback, and arguably essential. Allowing those actions to strengthen what is already an abused system, with little room for argument, is however, not. This could possibly turn out much better and may be another victim of Microsoft's recent inability to communicate the scope or rulesets of its programs, but based on how easy it is to get an account monitored or "devalued"(within the current reputation program), this compounds the recent increase in focus of reputation with the "Online Experience" and gives me reason to worry.
I've held tight over the past generation the idea that Xbox Live is the dominant platform in regards to online experience. However, with the increase in PSN benefits including sales, support and price-structure, coupled with the lowering value of XBL due to increased focus on directed marketing and server access/control to third parties (essentially enabling companies like EA to shut down access to online components of games instead of allowing for XBL-hosting duties or individual host-based matchmaking for older games), I'm becoming more and more worried about the future of the platform, and what it means for console gaming as a whole.
