# If I reach 10k reputation and then give much of it away in bounties will I still have moderator privileges? [duplicate]

Basically, my question is as the title asks. If I get to 10k reputation and then give away reputation points bring me below 10k, will I still have access to moderator tools?

No.

If you win a million dollar prize, and then donate half of it to some charity supporting set theorists from Math.SE and MathOverflow, will you still have a million dollars? (Assuming that you had less than half a million to begin with, of course...)

Also on meta.SE, Notify user when setting a bounty will revoke a privilege, for example. Or Can you lose an ability if your reputation falls below a threshold?... and many others here and in other search parties over there.

• Is this an opinion or what is actually coded? One doesn't need to assume that reputation is like money. ;-) – abnry Jun 14 '16 at 13:57
• Also, money allows you to do things that you cannot do otherwise. Money buys you privileges in our society. It's sad, but it's true (and luckily, for us, money is not the only thing that buys you privileges). If you lose your money, often you will lose some of your privileges. For example, I have enough money to privilege myself to fancy bottles of whisky. if I lose all my money, I'm afraid that I will have to do with cheap bottles of whisky, or something like that. That is a privilege I will lose if I lose my money. – Asaf Karagila Jun 14 '16 at 14:06
• It's not complicated at all. If the 10k threshold is exceeded then a boolean flag is set that remains set. In fact, a flag might already be used and in that case the corresponding else-clause would be removed and it would require less code. Actually, this is how it works with badges at the present, as you can't lose them: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/58053/… – abnry Jun 14 '16 at 14:55
• @nayrb, maybe so, but user "privileges" have always been tied to rep ever since the beginning (and thus giving a 500 bounty when you have exactly 10k rep revokes your access until you reach 10k again); this has been discussed ad nauseam on meta.SE, so I would suggest that you pass your suggestions there if you think your proposals have merit. This answer is a very succinct version of Asaf's. – J. M. isn't a mathematician Jun 14 '16 at 15:05
• @nayrb: I'm not arguing about this. I'm replying with the same vigor as you do, plus epsilon (which requires me very little actual energy). You keep insisting that it has to be a good idea, I keep insisting that it isn't a very practical idea, and that it can be seen as philosophically wrong, depending on the approach you take to reputation and privileges. If you think that I'm putting any energy beyond typing, you're fairly wrong. :-) – Asaf Karagila Jun 14 '16 at 16:27
• I don't see what is philosophically wrong or hard to implement in @nayrb suggestion, except inertia. It sounds more logical and beneficial than the current system of tying everying to reputation. Implementation would only require SE to store another integer (greater than or equal to the reputation, and not displayed) representing a user's privilege level measured in points, and use that where reputation is currently used to set privileges. Or a collection of binary flags as SE already does for some of the mod/dev/admin accounts that have priveleges independent of reputation. – zyx Jun 14 '16 at 18:37
• @zyx: If the bounty was divided by 10, and it would say "Award 5 votes" or "Award 10 votes" or "Award 50 votes", would that be better in your case? As a mathematician you should know that it's about the same as a store writing "Costs 100 cents" or "Costs 1 dollar". – Asaf Karagila Jun 14 '16 at 19:08
• @nayrb what if the points are "lost" due to vote invalidation or the user drawing penalties for posting offensive content, would you then also be in favor the user keeps their privileges? If not, I do think it is fair to say the logic of it would become more complex if bounties would be special cased. // Separately, if points basically loose all value once threshold is passed it could (at least in theory) lead to 'passing points around' as a form of gaming the system. You give me 600 in bounties so that I get 25k privileges then I give you back this +1k interest for your 10k priv. Deal? ;D – quid Jun 14 '16 at 19:30
• @nayrb: So you're suggesting more work for the unpaid volunteers? – Asaf Karagila Jun 14 '16 at 20:21
• @nayrb "reaching 10k is hard enough" this is quite besides the point as the issue would arise at each privilege threshold, also the lower ones. Plus there is precedence of users with points in the thousands even ten thousands having cut their points to about half because of some irregularity. On the rest, no one claims it would be impossible to have a different system, the claim is that what you want specifically would lead to some additional complications. Especially as I feel it is a bit of a half-way solution, and, it's illogical that timing of bounty should have a drastic effect. – quid Jun 14 '16 at 20:29
• @nayrb: None of the thresholds make sense, they are all arbitrary. Why 10k and not 12k or $2^{16}$? or any other number? This is not like temperature where we can equate this to relation between boiling point and atmospheric pressure and whatnot. It's yet another arbitrarily chosen cutoff point. If 9k to 10k is not a big difference, then either 9k should be enough, but then 8k, or at least 8.5k is also almost the same, and by induction, just give everyone every privilege. Now who's putting an incredible amount of vigor into their arguments? :-) – Asaf Karagila Jun 14 '16 at 20:42
• @nayrb what do you mean you are not aware of them? All the time you got new privileges did you really miss that? Voting, Commenting, Reviewing, Editing, Closing etc Here is the list math.stackexchange.com/help/privileges // The absolute number of instances at that high level is certainly rare. The details of the irregularities are not disclose so I cannot know. But what I could note is users dropping by thousands of points. Again, everything could be done differently, but first I do not see the necessity and second the specific details of your proposal are not good. – quid Jun 14 '16 at 20:57
• @nayrb: Practical? Who cares. Pure math is not for practical purposes. It has its own beauty for its own sake. Especially set theory, with its elegance, and sleek veneer of "oh that is so frigging infinitely awesome". – Asaf Karagila Jun 14 '16 at 21:23
• I'm missing the point of this exercise: the SE people made the game and made the rules. We're just playing here, with a tacit agreement with the rules in place. Would you demand that the rules of Battleship be changed just because one hit beings you closer to sinking? – J. M. isn't a mathematician Jun 15 '16 at 0:42
• What you said, @nayrb: that's where we ask if the rules can be changed. Altho my Magic 8-Ball says "Outlook not so good" for your particular appeal. – J. M. isn't a mathematician Jun 18 '16 at 18:47