-10

For what it's worth - my question is absolutely NOT a duplicate of the 'hypocritical' one linked above.. though it is similar. I wasn't asking WHY Rep is independent between SE sub-sites (it's perfectly obvious to me). I was instead suggesting a way to take other rep into consideration, and the question was answered quickly and succinctly, stating that, in effect, my suggestion already exists.

I understand the rep-required functionality to prevent poor quality comments and whatever else rep is used for.

That being said, it is VERY FRUSTRATING when I (and I imagine others) have something valuable to contribute, or an important, relevant question to ask, but am denied the ability to 'comment' because my rep is lacking on the particular Stack-Echange sub-site that I am using.

I end up posting as an 'answer' instead (because I'm the rebellious type like that) and then I get in trouble (frowny face)

Might it be useful to somehow consider other Stack-Exchange sub-site rep when determining restrictions? Perhaps an average across all enrolled sub-sites? Or as a specific example, considering Server-Fault or Stack-Overflow rep for Super-User requirements? (As it would seem unlikely to me that someone with a good SF/SO rep would offer a low-quality contribution in SU)

Yes I know the management of this could be tedious.. but perhaps it is something to ponder?

I speak from experience.. petty hand-slapping infractions by self-righteous moderators for not 'following the rules' is the FASTEST WAY to alienate a user who is otherwise trying to offer legitimate help.

marked as duplicate by Mokubai Mar 20 '16 at 22:30

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • From a general point of view, it seems that StackExchange sites overall attempt to deliberately isolate themselves from users who are easily alienated by being told to follow the rules. Therefore the active users on the site are usually the type who are very attentive to rules, and likely to read help docs up-front, or at least learn from their mistakes and apologize gracefully when they err. Being told "you've done something against the rules" shouldn't cause people to leave; if it does, they're probably not the type of people we want on the site anyway. – allquixotic Mar 20 '16 at 22:10
  • And this is fine, IMO: the vast majority of people who use Stack Exchange sites will never contribute anything to the sites at all; they'll just view answers, get the answers they need, and move on with their life. And that's fine, too. The few who decide to stick around and contribute will embody all the qualities we want people to embody to be a good contributor to the site, including things like patience, and not easily throwing a temper tantrum when somebody else tells them they've done something wrong. The ones who don't fit those criteria will contribute little or nothing. – allquixotic Mar 20 '16 at 22:12
  • You should read up on personality types. It's usually those who don't 'follow the rules' (or at least the relatively petty, beurocratic rules) who have the most to offer. (E.G. I rarely follow the speed limit, but i've never been in a wreck, and have even pro-actively AVOIDED wrecks where others would be at fault - including one that would have left both vehicles totaled - by BREAKING traffic laws) – goofology Mar 20 '16 at 22:15
  • And I must say.. (can't resist).. aren't we 'breaking the rules' by "having huge discussions in the comments"? – goofology Mar 20 '16 at 22:23
  • You should be aware that having a number of your answers being downvoted and deleted due to them being comments rather than actual answers has the potential for getting you banned automatically by the system. This is not a mod-ban and we can do nothing about it. Just a heads up. superuser.com/help/answer-bans – Mokubai Mar 20 '16 at 22:42
  • Thanks for the info. – goofology Mar 20 '16 at 22:43
  • Discussions in comments are perfectly acceptable on the Meta sites. There are a significant number of rules that are different on Meta compared to the main sites. Downvoting of questions is also used more liberally on Meta: it's used to signify "I don't agree", rather than "this question is bad". Indeed, it's standard for people to downvote questions on meta, even if the question is extremely well-written and makes good points, if they disagree with the main point of the question. – allquixotic Mar 20 '16 at 22:45
  • See, I'm learning as I go. Thanks for the info. – goofology Mar 20 '16 at 22:47
  • Also, it's a proven fact that the likelihood of accidents is reduced, and the severity of accidents that do happen is reduced, when traveling speed is lower. Going the same speed as those around you also reduces the likelihood of accidents (by a lot), but that doesn't change the fact that we'd all be a lot safer if we just slowed down a little bit on the roads. If what you "have to offer" to SU is analogous to a speeder, well, the good news is that this "road" (site) is loaded with police, so you will get pulled over if you speed. We are under no obligation to cater to every "personality". – allquixotic Mar 20 '16 at 22:49
  • LOL. good thing i have a fast car. catch me if you can :p – goofology Mar 20 '16 at 22:58
  • In all seriousness though.. i respect your opinion, though I have a different one. – goofology Mar 20 '16 at 23:04
  • I'd also add 200 reputation points anywhere gives you a 100 point bonus that would unlock basic privileges like commenting. While my reputation on one site (say SU, where I'm roughly at 85K( does not reflect my skills on another (SO, where I have close to none. Or for a more extreme case, one of the religion sites), that does reflect that you get how things work in general. – Journeyman Geek Mar 21 '16 at 0:17
  • If you have something valuable to contribute, you should be answer questions, not commenting on them. If you are continuously being told to do something else, and you want to continue to do it, that it is perfectly fine. I just can't understand the logic when people, who continue to do what they are told not to do, then think the community must change to support or the community is actually wrong. – Ramhound Mar 21 '16 at 12:21
  • Wow. So you're saying that if I only have a comment or question, then I don't have anything valuable to contribute... – goofology Mar 21 '16 at 12:35
  • As far as 'understanding the logic'... Your fundamental assumption that the 'community is ALWAYS right' is flawed. That's why you don't understand. Communities (real and virtual) can, do, and MUST change to support their members or they risk extinction and irrelevancy. As an obvious example.. African American people 'continued to do what they were told not to do' by refusing to comply with segregation, because they knew the community MUST change and WAS ACTUALLY wrong. It's the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT you just used. No logical fallacy. Open your mind – goofology Mar 21 '16 at 12:52
7

Might it be useful to somehow consider other Stack-Exchange sub-site rep when determining restrictions?

It kind of is already. Once any of your accounts on the Stack* network reach 200 rep, the other accounts will receive an association bonus of 100 points, which is more than enough to clear the more tiresome new user restrictions.

Unfortunately those restrictions, annoying as they are, have to be here. It's kind of hard to explain until you've had a chance to look at the review queues, but people do a lot of crapping on the site for lack of a better term. And not even maliciously - just things like misusing the answer box for questions or commentary (cough), or having huge discussions in the comments, or spamming, or...

There's a lot of value in keeping the feature set restricted until someone has demonstrated that they know how the site works by reaching the lower reputation thresholds.

  • I wasn't aware of that. Perhaps I need to contribute a bit more elsewhere. – goofology Mar 20 '16 at 22:00
  • That's the way to go. There's a ton of sites, and very likely to be a topic or two that you can really participate in effectively. – Mikey T.K. Mar 20 '16 at 22:03
  • I just wanna say props to Mikey T.K. for his quick, succinct, accurate, non-opinion, answer. This guy gets it. He answered the question directly. he didn't try to interpret the intent or comment on my worthiness (or lack thereof) as a contributor, nor did he scold me for 'not following the rules'. He did not offer his opinion of MY question or his opinion of the the subject IN question. He just answered the question. If you ask me.. He is an example for all of you. And his answer is an example of how ALL SE answers should be. I aspire to be as excellent a contributor as him. – goofology Mar 21 '16 at 17:26
  • Meta is the one place where sharing our opinion is appropriate. Yeah we get it, you don't like us, or that's what your last comment indicates. – Ramhound Mar 21 '16 at 21:41
  • Don't get too bothered by the downvotes, @goofology - your question is rather frequently asked. Meta is different in that votes mean agreement, not quality. – Mikey T.K. Mar 21 '16 at 21:47
  • And given the amount of curt-reply-newbie-biting that happens around here, @ramhound, I can't really blame anyone for thinking that. – Mikey T.K. Mar 21 '16 at 21:47
  • I have just notice a pattern with questions like this, they indicate they think that they are right and we as the community are wrong, and we the community should change. I rarely see any of these questions ending in a situation where the user realizes that, yes, perhaps they are wrong about (whatever) and the community might be right. Sort of like this question being a duplicate or not – Ramhound Mar 21 '16 at 21:50
  • That one's on me - I asked them to post here in a comment. That said, a lot of the norms around here are counterintuitive. – Mikey T.K. Mar 21 '16 at 21:52
  • Forgive me, Ramhound, but in this case, you keep failing to see past what you ASSUME my question is about. I clearly stated in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE of my post that I UNDERSTAND the rep-required functionality. NOWHERE in my question did I claim that it was wrong, that SU should conform to my wishes.. NOWHERE did i say that 'comments' should be allowed in answers. – goofology Mar 21 '16 at 22:06
  • If i could link to the 'Answer' i posted that stemmed this conversation, perhaps it might be more clear. I clearly stated that I KNEW what I was doing was wrong, that i would have rather posted as a comment, but that unfortunately i could not, because I did not have enough REP. Mikey T.K. politely critiqued me and the post has since been down voted and deleted (as it should have been and as i knew it would). My point is.. you are impressing upon this question your disdain for people who complain (which I am not doing), rather than taking it at face-value. – goofology Mar 21 '16 at 22:20
  • I saw the answer. You don't need to link to it. You could if you wanted take a screenshot of the deleted question and provide the url to the image so somebody with enough reputation can inline it into your question. – Ramhound Mar 22 '16 at 12:39

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .