-5
  1. Let me know if I'm wrong, but 25K of reputation unlocks all privileges, and is the maximum reputation level that can be accomplished.

  2. I picked 40K as the cutoff for this question, as I acknowledge that users want to conserve these privileges.

  3. I'm assuming that these users won't be returning to the site. Thus most of their "wealthy" reputation will be useless.

I'm thinking of users like Arturo Magidin who has 270,960 reputation. He was "[l]ast seen 2 hours ago". His profile emblazons that

I remain "gone for the foreseeable future" from math.SE, tex.SE, and meta.SE. Though I may very occasionally post a comment or an answer, these do not signify a desire to re-start my heavy prior participation.

Please do not send me private e-mail to call my attention to comments, questions, or other matters related to those sites. Thank you. Also, as I no longer participate in those sites, I do not wish to be sent, by private e-mail, questions that you can just as well ask on those sites. I would have thought it was obvious, but apparently I need to say so explicitly.

Thus before quitting, ought such users not donate some of their rep, or at least offer to do this?

I don't need to panegyrize the advantages of donating rep, rather than hoarding this rep or wealth. In a few words, donating rep can capacitate impecunious users to contribute, like by awarding bounties on underrated questions, and gaining privileges.

migrated from philosophy.stackexchange.com Jun 25 at 12:56

This question came from our site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

  • Maybe is best suited for "meta" ... – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jun 25 at 9:19
  • 1
    Have to agree with Mauro, this seems more like a meta question. In particular the meta sites of the SE's to which such user is abdicating. – christo183 Jun 25 at 11:07
  • You might as well ask, regardless of leaving, whether it's unethical for users with very high rep to not donate rep. But since donating via bounties takes a substantial amount of time (you have to find appropriate questions, can only 'donate' so much at a time, etc.), I don't see why anyone should be compelled to spend their free time doing this. – Eliran Jun 25 at 16:36
  • 4
    SE rep is not a finite resource, it is fictitious, so it is not like somebody hoarding it deprives somebody else of anything. And users can contribute without much rep, which is supposed to provide the psychological incentive. Showering cheap rep may well interfere with this function. Besides, "donate" it to whom? To award bounties intelligently they'll have to stay active instead of quitting. Whatever the issues with underrated questions it is the active users and SE itself that have to deal with them. – Conifold Jun 25 at 17:35
  • 3
    Is it unethical for SE users with more than 40K rep to leave without donating their rep? No. – YiFan Jun 27 at 9:34
  • It’s weird, it’s like a strange kind of deja vu. Every new site I visit I find some new account you’ve created, disconnected from all the others, but still you. Why do you create so many accounts? What’s the point? – Dan Bron Jun 30 at 11:41
  • 1
    it may be irritating but 'unethical' strikes me as too harsh – another_name Jun 30 at 20:10
0

Any user with 15 reputation or more can up-vote a post if they want to. When doing this the one who made the post receives reputation points.

This is one way almost any user, not just those with very high reputation, can award reputation to others.

Those users who say they are leaving may one day change their minds and want to return. So the assumption in point 3 does not seem reasonable to make.

You must log in to answer this question.

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