Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
My guess:
Because they used a signed integer type for rep, therefore it's not capped at 0.
(And hypothesizing that because of lazyness and simplicity rep substraction performs just a substraction instead of a capped substraction).
rep := rep + -penalty;
vs:
rep := (rep + -penalty > 1) ? rep + -penalty : 1;
Here using a simple substraction has the advantage of easier detection of arithmetic overflow. But I doubt it's using raw/machine numeric types. Because it's Ruby - I guess it auto promotes to arbitrary precision. But it was supposed to be C#. There are raw/machine numeric types in C#.
your comments
I don't think the Q was about technical details.
I agree. However, in the particular case of Codidact1, many current - interim? - design decisions are tightly intimate with the corresponding technical implication, because they actually predate Codidact2 itself, in some cases by many years. I could guess therefore, some of those might been taken probably with simplicity in mind.
1: This Codidact occurrence, you can read as Qpixel.
2: Codidact in the broad sense. Post-"Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.,".
As noted by @OlinLathrop in a comment:
The real question is why some sites artificially cap rep at 1 or 0. Some people can make a net negative contribution. Rep should reflect that. If it were clipped at 0, then doing bad things don't count anymore after a while. That makes no sense.
This is a pattern across the internet. Some e-commerce sites have eliminated negative - or even "0 star" reviews. SomewhereElse you can upvote comments but not downvote comments. Etc. This is an artificial situation that really makes no sense to me. I have no problem with the idea of "starting with 1 point instead of 0" and similar things. But to say "you can only go up, never down" or "only overall positive, never negative" dilutes the power of any point/reputation/etc. system.
Think about it another way: money. You can earn money. You can spend money. In the real world, there are consequences (at least in the long term) if you spend more than you earn. It doesn't matter whether that is because you don't earn much (don't provide quality answers to questions) or spend too much (bounties on your own questions without getting points from others first). The end result is that you have a negative balance and it has consequences.
All that being said, Codidact is, over time, heading away from "reputation points" being a core feature. It may stay on in some limited form, but won't be the direct driving factor behind privileges the way that it is in SomeOther sites.
1 comment thread