Of the three tools you mention, only "Nodes to consider" is open to ordinary mortals like me. Beyond the chatterbox, I have seen no discussion of individual nodes that are being or might be considered. This means that feedback is limited, which is why I am grateful for Chacham's suggestion that there be more.

As far as your slippery slope is concerned, I not only agree that it's difficult to know where to draw the line, but also believe that no firm line should be drawn. Trolls come and go. The more trollish nodes there are, the more eager I am to consider for reaping and to vote to reap. In other words, I am inconsistent. When the facts change, I change with them. But I acknowledge that consistency is a virtue and would not argue with those whose approach differs from mine.

These differing approaches are, IMO, part of what makes consideration a pretty good system. If people disagree, the status quo remains.

I repeat my agreement with the OP about the desirability of greater feedback for those of us who are trying to do our best with limited information. I don't know enough about the inner workings of the site (and probably wouldn't understand the code if I were shown it) to know what's possible, but it is not obvious to me why those with the power to consider should be denied the power to read the data in the tools you mentioned. I'd also like to see nodes that clearly should be reaped (right now there's a considered duplicate with 17 reap votes and no other votes) being reaped by the gods or janitors without the necessity for a reap vote after the node acquires a negative reputation. I, for one, don't like downvoting and do it only with strong cause.

Regards,

John Davies