2

Possible Duplicate:
New reputation changes. Is applying it retroactively fair?

An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from after the action") or retroactive law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. Source: Wikipedia

I am one of the affected the scoring change on Meta.SO

Though I disagree with the idea, that is only my opinion and it is not what this post is about since it's too late for being sorrow and it's not so bad.

I do agree with cutting the score of question to half but not retroactively. I just want to say that I don't think it makes any sense at all to take point's away from a user once they have earned them.

You could argue that the reputation was never really earned, but in first place, it was, and second, if you play by the book, you should be able to ask for coherence in return.

Should we cap reputation gained from questions at +2000? Also had retroactive effects.

Again I am talking from now onwards, but I believe once a user legitimately earned rep points, the they are his, no going back.

It doesn't make sense concerning the privileges either, we once trusted you to do something, well actually...

Though I know it is not the case, and loosing some rep points and privileges is not the end of the world, loosing rep points should only exist as a way of "punishment" (or disagreement in meta) since that is what it feels like.

I love that the fact that Stack Exchange is always evolving and being flexible to solve and change things as they come up, but I think that some things must be more strict.

This is not a Post for discussing whether cutting the rep point's was a good idea.

The point is to ask that once some reputation is earned, it's yours.

0

Browse other questions tagged .