I was involved in a recent workshop on workshops where there were many concerns about the problems associated with quantity and quality of work in the conference/workshop processes (from submissions, through reviewers, to feedback ,and on to publications and presentation)
it occurs to me that some of this might be improved by more careful design of review forms...viz the addition of judiciously chosen (lightening conuctor) sections in the form:
"Why did you hate this paper?"
(to remove vitriol from the technical feedback part of the review elsewhere)
"What paper did you want this person to have written?"
(to avoid feedback that asks an author to submit something different or do additional work which they might have done but not had space for:)
"who do I think I am?"
Plan B: have an exam which people have to pass to be qualified as PC members/reviewers - it will calibrate them.