I have missed a lot of updates these days with the new house and stuff, so I don't have the whole picture.
What I want to say is that high scores were easily attainable from the start, people have got used to the good numbers (we have had that conversation in the moderator chat some months ago, I don't remember the details now). I can speak for my team, I know we will still keep working even if the scores are lowered. I have supported lowering the score/voting strength ratio for a long time, what I meant by punishing is that if this questionnaire (the one I saw 2 days ago) is implemented, some users may be put off by the lower scores they will be getting for the same effort (and I don't mean those who are close to the good-excellent threshold, but those who continuously provide excellent examples of work).
Now, regarding the limit of contributions/team, we already set a limit on contributions/translator, I think it's more or less the same and more fair. If we set team limits then translators in larger teams will be even more "confined". Maybe setting a maximum limit of translators/team would be more fair (4-7 sounds reasonable depending the language and how broadly it is spoken).
I see lots of people have posted their views, I need to catch up with some more posts today...
I don't envy you, moving it's thought I did so myself in June (during our first recruiting window) so I appreciate that you found the time to answer my comment. In the new questionnaire we tried to reward more contributions without errors (also to add some objectivity to the scoring) and increase the score difference between average and excellent translations. About the number of users I think each team should not have a set number. We should look instead at the outputs of the teams. For example 5 German translators will make fewer contributions that 5 Spanish translators. So we need to allocate a fixed amount of contributions per team and then recruit enough users to keep that number balanced.