It makes no sense to require such high reputation just to add comments. It's possible that trolls can study enough physics to stick around a few days and get good reputation by asking interesting question, give best answer, etc., and then start being "bad" on this site after they get to 50. Higher reputation isn't assurance that only good quality answers come from the person in question who has achieved it.

This is like voting a president and then they can lead the country to the floor afterwards.

I personally would like the reputation changed to perhaps 10 or 20 at most, as that's more fair and logical, reasonable, and achievable in a respectable amount of time.

I feel it's an insult against me personally if the reputation is too high, like putting me underneath the users who have the power to post comments anywhere and anything they want. Consequently, I ask that you please lower it and be fair for everyone here, not keep it at 50 to keep the elite users in control.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Answered on the mother meta: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/214173/… $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 3:56
  • $\begingroup$ I said I wanted it changed, not answered. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 5:02
  • $\begingroup$ It's a network wide policy and Stack Exchange has been very clear on it. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 5:10
  • $\begingroup$ You are the one who answered the questions. I came here for change, not discussion on what you've already sewn. In other words, I want it to change. How can I get it to change to what I want? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 5:13
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Well, if it's a network wide policy and he provided a link to the site that discusses network wide policies, that would be a good place to ask for the change. Which of course is different from your question in the comment -- "How can I get it to change to what I want?" To answer that, go to the main meta site and write a clear, polite, and well-reasoned argument in favor of your view point. But that's not a guarantee it will change. And odds are good, the real answer is "You won't get it to change, sorry." But either way, here isn't the venue to try. $\endgroup$
    – tpg2114
    Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 5:22
  • $\begingroup$ Who owns this website? I am sure they will change their mind for something in exchange. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 5:23
  • $\begingroup$ Like I said, that's all done on the main meta site which is the site to discuss the Stack Exchange system (which is who owns this site). $\endgroup$
    – tpg2114
    Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 5:26
  • $\begingroup$ How about $7,500,000.00 U.S.D. to give me this site and all control over it? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 5:27
  • 19
    $\begingroup$ Deal, I accept PayPal. I've also got a bridge in New York available. $\endgroup$
    – tpg2114
    Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 5:37
  • $\begingroup$ Give your email; I'll give the money right now to buy the site if you guarantee transfer of ownership in written terms. Not kidding. Get yourself a lawyer if you need one, but I certainly don't. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 5:45
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @ Margaret Rosa, for your kind information. ".SE" is not a buissness or a money making website network. Its a nework of websites where people share and learn the knowledge about a specific topic or subject. $\endgroup$
    – Sushant23
    Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 17:00
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The fact that newcomers have to stick around for quite some time before they can do things like comment is probably one of the reasons this network is generally pretty high quality. It's not just a question of making sure users are qualified to provide information; it is a Good Thing that the reputation limits ensure that users understand the site protocol well before they are able to post freely. Also, approaching any online community with harsh demands and attitude will never get you what you want. $\endgroup$
    – DanielSank
    Commented Dec 12, 2014 at 0:24
  • 18
    $\begingroup$ The troll is strong in this one. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 12, 2014 at 1:10
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Honestly, if you really want to comment on any post, you're most likely dedicated enough to earn the extra 49 points needed. $\endgroup$
    – HDE 226868
    Commented Dec 12, 2014 at 1:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MargaretRosa This question is reaching the heights of hypocrisy. It's possible that trolls can study enough physics to stick around a few days and get good reputation by asking interesting question, give best answer, etc., and then start being "bad" on this site after they get to 50. You yourself are saying that people like you can easily earn that 50 reputation required for chatting, then what's stopping you from doing that? $\endgroup$
    – user243267
    Commented Dec 21, 2019 at 6:00

1 Answer 1


It's unfortunate to hear that you are so personally offended. I assure you that the people who implemented this policy were probably not aware of your existence when they made it, so I hope that knowledge helps to lessen the amount you feel personally insulted.

The sad reality is that this policy works extremely well. 50 reputation points is not difficult to come by for any users that intend to contribute more than one or two opinions. It is not restricting commenting to the elite users since any user that spends a day or three on this site could easily accumulate the necessary reputation if they wanted to.

Although you seem very avid to have this policy changed to something more to your own personal liking, you need to realize that there are a significant number of other people that use this network; majority of whom enjoy this policy. That means that in order you to change this policy to what you want it to be, the owners of the site would have to change it away from what the vast majority wants it to be.

You asked in your post that we be fair to everyone here and you imply that the reputation requirement be fair, logical, and achievable in a reasonable amount of time. That is a noble request. It's understandably impossible to be fair towards everyone all of the time, but we can strive for fairness to the majority. The current policy satisfies the wants of the majority; it is in place to decrease the occurrence of spam, trolling, etc; the necessary rep is low enough that it can be earned by writing one or two good posts or through 25 approved edits; and it is widely agreed that it works well and does not exclude anyone unnecessarily. These make it fulfill the requirements of your request. In trying to be logical, reasonable, and fair towards the greatest number of people, it is a good idea for us to leave the policy as is.

Unfortunately, you may still view this as unfair or unacceptable. If so, the only thing I can tell you is that some things in life will seem unfair to you and some things can not be made to change simply because you disapprove. Learning to live with and not be angered by minor inconveniences (and that is exactly what this is; not being able to post a comment on Physics.SE is no more than a minor inconvenience in your life) is something we all must do. Life sometimes isn't fair.

  • $\begingroup$ Then I am excluded from the majority and again unsatisfied. This policy doesn't give fairness to all because if it did I would be satisfied. Why can't the network allow me and me only the privilege to comment anywhere? Then wouldn't it be more fair since my desires are different than most? If my desires go unfulfilled because the site complies with the majority, the site is, after all, not satisfying everyone so it's not fair. To be fair, the network should allow users to request as they wish and fulfill these requests in some manner to suit the desires of the individual preferences. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 14, 2014 at 21:03
  • $\begingroup$ If the site denies my request and instead sits with the majority, the result is correlated to racism ideologies in societal structures: blacks, minorities, hating whites, majorities, because they make the rules ... supposedly. That is just like how this site operates, but instead of with race it's about majority of anyone. What that means, in the end, is that the majority is in power and the minority are never satisfied nor reach power unless they join the majority through majority-given standards. Explain the key differences between this and societal, racial dominance hierarchy. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 14, 2014 at 21:06
  • $\begingroup$ Considering, of course, that this site isn't racist and just uses social dominance hierarchies in its communal-system, rules, and regulations, which racial domination hierarchies use. Where is the Affirmative Action for StackExchange network? They don't want us minorities to have any power, lest we become majorities like them. This ain't democracy ... it's power-driven, social dominance hierarchy. It doesn't matter if it takes two days or two seconds to get the points ... you in power always have the power, and must make everyone wait to join you. Any more like this & you'll be dictatorship. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 14, 2014 at 21:09
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @MargaretRosa are you being facetious now? Fairness never means satisfying the desires of all, it means producing the most agreeable outcome that benefits as many people as possible and detriments the fewest. And yes, we rule by the majority. If you can think of a better system than that, please suggest it. Would you rather us rule by minority? So that anytime a majority of users would rather we do something, we go with what the least number of people want? Can you honestly say that would produce anything sustainable? Accuse me of whatever you want, but my answer now will be TFB $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Commented Dec 15, 2014 at 14:19
  • $\begingroup$ Oh well ... Go to all black people that the whites will always rule them. They are the majority. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 18, 2014 at 18:44
  • $\begingroup$ @MargaretRosa That's awfully racist of you to say that all black people have the same views and opinions and that they are always different from those of all white people. If the public opinion on an issue happens to be split in such a way and if the majority of the population is white, then this system would implement the desired outcome of white people, yes. But that is rarely the case. The minority is only a minority in views and opinions, it is not a minority based on race or other factors. Rule by majority only means majority opinion. Saying all of a race have the same opinion is racist. $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Commented Dec 19, 2014 at 15:29
  • $\begingroup$ You know what I mean. If you don't, you're not smart enough to. You just admitted that white people would dominate, and white people are the majority of the StackExchange community. The community rules by majority, so, like society, whites win. Thanks for letting us know who the real racist is. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 19, 2014 at 23:38
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @MargaretRosa You seem to be grasping at straws; resorting to unsubstantiated insults and trying to put words in my mouth in a futile effort either to irritate me or to prove a point that has clearly and concretely been refuted (I haven't determined which yet). To save you time, you should know that I won't become irritated by any of this; don't let that stop you from trying if that is your goal, just forewarning you. $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Commented Dec 20, 2014 at 0:11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If you are trying to prove a point, nobody who reads this will agree with you. You're fighting tempered and rationed responses with insults, baseless accusations, and intentional misinterpretations. I've explained that the concept of a majority is not one defined by race, but by point of view. And I made myself very clear on how majority rule operates and is applied to this network. Trying to turn what I've said around on me won't work. $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Commented Dec 20, 2014 at 0:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You're best advised to calm down, think rational thoughts, and pose well reasoned statements. Saying "that's the way it is" or "because it's obviously that way" is not good reasoning unless you are giving something as a definition. I'm just trying to help you continue the argument if you want to; I'm giving the opportunity for you to have a "do over" for that last rebuttal you made, which was pretty ineffectual and unsatisfactory IMHO. $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Commented Dec 20, 2014 at 0:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This answer may seem a bit harsh, but it really hits the nail on the spot, I think. $\endgroup$
    – Seth
    Commented Dec 20, 2014 at 5:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is not the place for this discussion. Jim's right, you're grasping at straws. The rules aren't racially biased, and the community is a good mix. Any further discussion of race should be taken off-site. As far as participation barriers, they're not hard to overcome and the community certainly doesn't suppress newcomers from passing them. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 20, 2014 at 5:29
  • $\begingroup$ It is not racist; it is in the same sense as racism by using classism and letting dominating groups have power. Remember da struggle? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 2, 2015 at 7:35
  • $\begingroup$ @MargaretRosa Ordinarily, I'd not consider drawing from fiction, but this is one of the cases where sci-fi presents a valid point. In the words of Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". The many have spoken, they disagree with you (the few); the policy stays as is. Further discussion is pointless. $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Commented Jan 5, 2015 at 14:22
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @MargaretRosa ranting and raving like this is not going to get what you want - if you don't like it, the Internet is a big place. $\endgroup$
    – user60063
    Commented Jan 12, 2015 at 11:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .