I had visited Codidact quite some time ago when it was still being built. At that time, there weren't many talks about having the reputation system built on this site.
Partly, The reason why Slack communities and Discord communities are so easy-going and helpful has something in common between them both - the lack of any actual rep points.
You don't need a number to show your expertise - your arguments should do that. Treating everyone on an even playing field produces a much more productive debate than any other measure.
I am going to be brutally honest here - I was initially interested because Codidact seemed something new, but now it's another StackExchange in the making.
The rep system is completely useless and negatively affects the flow of debate:
1. Your arguments should be your support in a constructive debate, not reputation
2. Trust Levels seem to be a better way (established by upvoted answers and the like) but showing a title rather than a flashy number.
3. Making it a rep game would lead to lower quality answers and questions as the primary aim would be points, not for spreading knowledge.
4. People who want to answer questions (and are knowledgable) really need no 'fake internet points' as an incentive - having a trust system would work pretty well giving them extra privileges, while not signifying that they are all-knowing.
Simply put, there is no amount of reasons or arguments that can offset an actual real-life example - StackOverflow has already become what it was always destined for, and now is the last chance for Codidact.
Either you have a smaller range of numbers (1-10) to denote their moderation powers, or you take trust levels. That would be the closest simulation to Slack and Discord while working far better than both by having a formal framework.
Please don't spell death for this forum!
