Post History

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.