I recently asked a question here on meta about what happens after using the "recommend deletion" option for an NAA / VLQ answer that I review - and I was kinda surprised that it takes six reviewers (who don't have the rep to cast delete votes) to recommend deletion, before the answer is deleted. As a fast-growing, subjective Q&A site that is currently in a state of flux and trying to normalize, I think this requirement should be changed -- until the site is more stable.
Some other ways to moderate NAA / VLQ answers is to flag it, or for users with enough rep - 4k, I think - to cast delete votes. But are these two approaches to moderating answers too reliant on diamond moderators (to review flags) and too reliant on the smaller subset of the community that have enough rep?
Would it be a good idea to lower the requirement of six reviewers (who can't cast delete votes) to maybe ... three reviewers to recommend deletion of an NAA / VLQ answer? At least for the short-term, say, six months to a year?
The idea is to moderate the answers as heavily as we moderate the comments - also, the community may not use downvoting enough for NAA / VLQ answers, especially if people are voting based on personal bias, instead of voting on the content.
Currently, comments that don't suggest improvements to a question or answer are removed pretty quickly - or if there's constructive dialogue to be had, the comments are moved to chat. Either way, the comments disappear from the main page. If we could remove NAA / VLQ answers just as fast - and almost just as easily - we could be closer to forming a stable community.