When you register for a new subdomain of StackExchange, your reputation is 1, which means the only thing you can do is ask questions or answer them. If I find someone already asked my question, and someone else already provided a great answer, I can't vote it up to pay them back with a little reputation until I myself have 15 reputation. That's messed up.
|
|
|||||
|
migrated from tex.stackexchange.com Aug 23 '12 at 7:31
|
I'm not so sure that's that messed up. The rationale behind it is to avoid trolling and falsifying votes. Imagine someone answers a question and decides to boost his rep. All he would have to do is frantically create new accounts and hit the upvote icon. Now that would be messed up... At first these things are less obvious and probably seem absurd, but IMHO stackexchange is one of the systems that is best tuned out there, in terms of community voting systems. |
|||||
|
|
For what it's worth: the system does have a concept of "we trust your account, go ahead and skip the initial low-permissions phase". This privileges-conferring mechanism is called the association bonus, and the threshold is set at 200 points: once you have earned that much reputation on one Stack Exchange site, you automatically get a bonus of 100 points on every other SE site you are on. (Also on sites you sign up for in the future.) I don't know why 200 points is the threshold. Lastly, on a purely personal note: In life in general, saying "this has disadvantages. Why is it so anyway?" is a better opener than "This sucks." Less accusatory == more better: one comes across as much nicer, and one gets answers that are more complete. |
|||||||||||||
|
|
The problem is that no laws can be "fair". As Count Zero explains, the SE laws are quite fine-tuned to make the sites run fluently. But each law puts someone in "wrong position". Your situation is so occasional that the law cannot cover it. I believe you'll soon bump into a problem that you can ask about and get the necessary reputation points. |
|||
|
|
