I am in the same boat as Sharat VC was, so I have no other option but to "answer" instead of comment (even though I intended the latter).
Sharat made an excellent point. Yet by ranting about this issue, he generated interest & commotion, which made his reputation shot up to 363 at present and he can now make comments -- but based on what new evidence or elements, really? It shows the system is fundamentally flawed: meta commenting does not prove anything about the genuine stature, knowledge, diligence, etc. of the person as relating to the pertinent topical area (maths, in this case).
A better and fairer system would be to start everyone off with 50, then increase or decrease according to his/her technical input, so that privileges (if they are needed at all), can be more easily lost as gained. But I guess SE would become far less popular if reputation can go down as easily as it goes up.
The fundamental problem is the excessive emphasis on posters' hierarchy, particularly as its foundation is ill-based and could have been gained outside the pertinent SE category. Earning points on simply editing someone's post, commenting on Meta, etc., how does that make one more reputable/authoritative/trustworthy/reliable on topic?