Timeline for Why does a user start off with 1 rep, and not 0?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:25 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://askubuntu.com/ with https://askubuntu.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 21, 2015 at 16:26 | comment | added | user364819 | Yes, as stated here, even when suspended, your rep does not go below 1. | |
| Aug 21, 2015 at 16:13 | history | edited | kenorb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 50 characters in body
|
| Aug 21, 2015 at 16:11 | comment | added | kenorb | Found one blocked user but he has 1, so maybe you've right, it's not possible to have negative rep. | |
| Aug 21, 2015 at 16:04 | comment | added | user364819 | No, my point is that if they changed the beginning rep to 0 then they would also make it so that you were given create posts privileges at 0. To reply to your second point, I have never seen a user with -1 or 0 rep, whenever I have seen a user suspended I have seen the rep go down to 1 for the time of the suspension, but never below that. Can you show me an example of someone who has been blocked and currently because of it has -1 or 0 rep? | |
| Aug 21, 2015 at 15:58 | history | edited | kenorb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added SQL query
|
| Aug 21, 2015 at 15:54 | comment | added | kenorb |
@ParanoidPanda Create Posts privilege is: Awarded At: 1 Reputation, therefore having 0 rep (if it would be possible), you would not be able to post anything. If your account is blocked, then you have exactly -1 rep (which is temporary one on top of your real reputation), therefore you cannot post anything, that's why having privilege of posting posts at 1 rep is useful if you want ability to block users by either giving them -1 or 0.
|
|
| Aug 21, 2015 at 15:38 | comment | added | user364819 | I do not understand what you mean, is it currently possible to have 0 rep? I thought that even if you abusive and suspended that you still stay at 1 rep. I have never seen anyone with 0 rep. | |
| Aug 21, 2015 at 14:00 | comment | added | kenorb | @ParanoidPanda You don't want to give everybody access to post questions and answers with 0 reputation, because of spam which is constantly published. So having 1 reputation is actually privilege as a ordinary non-abusive user. | |
| Aug 21, 2015 at 13:55 | comment | added | user364819 | If it was set so that the minimum was 0, then it could be simply made so that all with 0 rep and above get the rights to post. Currently it is the same, except it is 1 rep which gives you that right and is the minimum, there would be no real difference setting it to 0 and then setting it so that those with 0 and above could post. | |
| Aug 21, 2015 at 9:15 | history | answered | kenorb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |