-13

I have a friend who would like to do some down voting on SE meta. This friend has only 88 rep on this site. However, the friend has also been a loyal-ish servant of SEcorp and has a reasonable reputation with some communities. I think my friend should therefore be allowed to downvote on the SE meta.

Therefore, copied from this answer, I propose:

Meta.SE specifically should have a lowered bar for downvoting that is equivalent to upvoting.

Improve this question
12
  • 4
    And why exactly should this rule be applied to MSE only? It can't be because you're just trusted on Gardening and Landscaping that you know which network wide policies require down votes. That also requires a bit of trust that is easy obtained here on this site
    – rene Mod
    Commented Oct 13, 2016 at 19:48
  • 7
    Your friend could do like he did on these other communities - participate - and he'll get to >=125 rep in no time.
    – Mathieu Guindon
    Commented Oct 13, 2016 at 19:50
  • @rene good question - because metaSE applies across all communities
    – Lee
    Commented Oct 13, 2016 at 19:50
  • @atomh33ls so? Because MSE has more impact on all sites, all privileges should be higher, harder to achieve, not easier.
    – rene Mod
    Commented Oct 13, 2016 at 19:52
  • 2
    @rene my argument is that a contribution to an SE community is a contribution to SE therefore a voting on future direction is an earnt reward. That influence mightn't have been earnt for a new-user at a particular community's meta.
    – Lee
    Commented Oct 13, 2016 at 19:58
  • 1
    gah.. "an SE community" should be "a SE community"
    – Lee
    Commented Oct 13, 2016 at 20:16
  • I wholeheartedly disagree, I simply don't buy that having contributed in one community should automagically give you privileges on a site that has a completely different scope. Trust needs to be earned here, that is important. A contribution in a community doesn't mean you're good at making contributions here.
    – rene Mod
    Commented Oct 13, 2016 at 20:19
  • @rene It may not be 500, but I'd say that there is some number of rep earnt elsewhere that translates to "trust earnt here".
    – Lee
    Commented Oct 13, 2016 at 20:24
  • elsewhere and here are not synonyms and never will be and the same goes for the rep.
    – rene Mod
    Commented Oct 13, 2016 at 20:45
  • @rene "X rep elsewhere is worth Y rep here" is my argument, not that the words are synonyms!
    – Lee
    Commented Oct 14, 2016 at 7:50
  • sure, doesn't matter still disagree.
    – rene Mod
    Commented Oct 14, 2016 at 8:06
  • As in this post it's now only 100 rep to downvote- Not your 15 for upvoting, but much better for those who do spend time on other sites. (Well, and haven't lost the rep on posts here already... Meta can be a harsh land.)
    – Kendra
    Commented Nov 1, 2016 at 16:20

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
12

If you have 500 rep elsewhere, then you start out at 101 rep here. So that's 24 points you need to earn to downvote.

  • Three answer upvotes
  • Five question upvotes
  • 12 approved suggested edits
  • One upvoted and accepted answer
  • Some combination of the above

Really, a trivial amount of participation.

Now... One might argue that participation sufficient to gain the association bonus elsewhere on the network should give you full voting rights here by default - and that's actually a reasonable argument. See: Change rep required to downvote on MSE

Improve this answer
6
  • 1
    If you have 500 rep points on one specific SE site, you can downvote on that site's Meta. Why not here? This is Meta, ain't it? This Meta is special because it deals with issues covering the whole SE networks. Other than this, I don't see any difference from the site Meta and I don't understand why the OP's proposal is not reasonable when it is not that easy to earn reputation points here compared with other sites.
    – Rathony
    Commented Oct 13, 2016 at 19:58
  • 2
    If you have 125 points on one specific SE site you can downvote on that site's Meta, @Rathony. If you have 50 points on one specific SE site, you can comment on that site's meta, Ranthony. If you have 15 points on one specific SE site, you can upvote on that site's meta, Ranthony. If you have 5 points on one specific SE site, you can post on that site's meta, Ranthony. If you have 1 point on one specific SE site, you can't really do much on that site's meta... But you can still participate here, because it's an entirely separate site, Ranthony. That's why.
    – Shog9 Mod
    Commented Oct 13, 2016 at 20:01
  • 1
    I don't think it is an entirely separate site. It is a related site. You give 101 association bonus just because you have 200 points on another site, My question is why can't you give 125 association bonus on Meta SE when an OP has +500 reputation points on other sites? Well, I think it is very reasonable.
    – Rathony
    Commented Oct 13, 2016 at 20:04
  • 2
    I think this one is also relevant; meta.stackexchange.com/questions/271315/…
    – Lee
    Commented Oct 13, 2016 at 20:06
  • 2
    No, I mean it is literally a separate site, @Rathony. Separate database, normal association rules... There are a few special-cases to handle things like links and tags (mostly because of the long history in which it was MSO) and a few special privileges (of which there could be more - see the link in my answer above), but there's certainly not anything like a special reputation system such as is found on child meta sites or Area51. And as interesting as it would be to build such a thing, just tweaking the privilege level would be a hell of a lot less work for the same effect.
    – Shog9 Mod
    Commented Oct 13, 2016 at 20:09
  • 2
    My point is very simple. I find giving <125 on MSE and >500 on other site users the privilege to downvote on MSE will do less harm than giving >200 users on one site the privilege to upvote on any site on entire Stack Exchange networks. I understand your point. :-)
    – Rathony
    Commented Oct 13, 2016 at 20:13

You must log in to answer this question.

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