[Curtis Rutland]

I'm pretty sure it's not a magic number. There is a cap on the rep one can give in a day, as several people found out the day that they turned rep back on in the lounge. But I'd be willing to bet that the only way to end up in the rep abusers group is by manual intervention.

[Anday]

In theory, giving negative rep when an answer to a question is incorrect would stop people from attempting to answer unless they are completely sure of themselves. Though, with a member base this large that may be a useful trait as someone will know the answer.

In response to Lemur's post, I think the rep system shouldn't be available in certain forum boards such as ones not designed for anything particularly useful except entertainment purposes.

[Atli]

no2pencil, on 25 May 2011 - 04:27 AM, said:

Atli, on 25 May 2011 - 12:19 AM, said:

Helps tell justified votes from... others.

It shouldn't even be a question. A member is to down vote if the answer is incorrect, inaccurate, or unhelpful.

OK, I wont argue with that. I'm probably making this more complex than it has to be.

I guess it's better to just post an actual response to explain the why.

[Curtis Rutland]

Wrong in this context doesn't mean "that answer didn't solve the problem." It means "that answer is factually incorrect or horribly bad to use."

The difference would be someone giving valid suggestions that don't pan out, compared to someone posting code that won't work or can't compile, or demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge on the question they're trying to answer. It's hard to explain, since most people don't actually post answers like that, at least in the language forums I spend time in.