I seem to have been ambushed by a subtle difference: elsewhere, Meta seemed to be about discussing solutions and expressing one's agreement or disagreement with them by upvotes or downvotes, with the latter being free (unlike on main sites). Yet at some point when I decided to voice my opinion on Meta Stack Exchange, it seems to have resulted in me losing the privilege by way of rep reduction, like on a main site. I didn't notice/realise what's going on until it became too late to undo.  Now, obviously I'm new to Meta.SE, and may not understand all the ways in which it is different from other metas, so I won't jump the gun and conclude that this is a bug. But trying to think of it as a feature, I can't figure out what purpose does it serve.   What makes it necessary to limit expression of disagreement with proposals or replies on Meta.SE in a way that isn't seen on other metas? Is this purpose currently relevant, or is it just a thing that remains from the time when the circumstances and necessities were different?
104363
On main sites downvotes are usually used to show that answer is incorrect. On meta sites downvotes  to express agreement or disagreement.  On main sites downvotes cost reputation so that people downvote only posts that  it as it may give bad feelings to answerer. But it can't be a reason on Meta as it's explicitly said that votes mean another thing here.  So why downvotes cost reputation on Meta?
112594
I have been using Stack Overflow for a month now. There are "yes" and "no" options for positive and negative response, respectively. I was wondering, how does this feedback affect my reputation?
80746
Why can't there be (or is there?) a way to gain credence from one's reputation on one site to be able to do something on another (SE vs. SO)?  As someone who has long consumed StackExchange, StackOverflow, SuperUser, but only within the past few years posted questions or answers, I am confused and frustrated by the whole reputation thing.  I understand why reputation exists, but it is frustrating to want to upvote, comment, answer, or whatever, and be told you are not allowed because you don't have sufficient reputation.  If I had some new original questions I needed to ask, then I could gain reputation, but "the system" seems to think I am unworthy or clueless to be able to contribute or assess.  Finally I had enough rep (small by most standards) to be able to vote, and maybe even comment(?) on StackOverflow, based on technical questions.  But when I went to Stack Exchange for a question on OS X stuff, I have to start over with 1 rep.  Seems a bit like a slap in the face, particularly since (so far as I know) some questions could appear either place.  Yes, I have ready folks talking about exchanging bounty and how it is more difficult to earn rep on SE than SO, and I don't claim to know all about bounty and the ins and outs of types of rep.  But I do know that I feel as if I have to start over in each meeting place for technical questions, and it is a disincentive (for me) to be involved.  I realize not all (maybe nobody) will agree with my sentiment, but since I only have 1 rep, I guess folks' downvotes won't hurt me, right?
110299
Weird thing, I'm not sure if it's intentional design, so I'm asking here. On one site, yesterday I reached rep cap but then some votes were cancelled saying "User was removed". Now, the weird thing is that those votes still seem to count towards the cap, effectively “limiting” me to a lower cap:    Is that correct?
43237
appears to have been question banned because of two unpopular Meta suggestions. (He says so in )  Look at the two contributions that appear to have gotten him banned. Like those of many others, they may not be of perfect quality, but they are not actively harmful to the site, either. As it stands, you can get question blocked on Meta simply for asking questions that aren't popular with the Meta crowd.  Why does the team insist on keeping the question ban active on Meta?  Why can't real problem users be dealt with through manual moderator action? Don't tell me it's a problem of scale; as far as I can see, actually toxic users are very rare on Meta.  People will frequently complain that Meta actively discourages the expression of unpopular viewpoints and suggestions. With the threat of question bans in place, I find those complaints difficult to refute. I hate that.
66300
Honestly, I feel handicapped not being able to edit other people's posts here on Meta (and until recently could not even retag questions).  Why does our hard-earned reputation on SO not count in Meta?  There are already a lot of questions that need editing, and there are practically no users (aside from the mods) that can do that at the moment.  The  question itself contains so many spelling and grammatical errors that it's down right irritating not being able to edit it (on SO it would have been cleaned up in two seconds).  There should definitely be some conversion rate - or at least just carry over the privileges, if not the rep itself.
10313
Upvotes are easy on both Main and Meta sites. You like something, you vote it up.  Downvotes are trickier.   On Main down-voting a question means that the question is a poor one. Poor meaning badly written or really annoying for some reason (e.g. give-me-da-codez).  Downvoting an answer usually means it's plain wrong.  On Meta, however, many questions revolve around matters of taste (e.g. ). When voting on answers to such questions, I want to be able to push down the suggestions that I disagree with and promote the ones that I think are correct. But I don't want to hurt people's reputation by doing so.   Downvoting on Meta isn't really saying "your answer is stupid and wrong"; it's more like "I prefer we do it the other way". The whole site is basically meant to discuss matters of social preference, etiquette, do's and dont's, etc.  In Main most people wouldn't downvote an answer just because some other answer is better. People generally accept that there may be different solutions to a problem and feel comfortable in letting upvotes alone decide on the most popular one.  In Meta, on the other hand, there might be groups that really care about some issue and would like to see it solved in a particular way. And, in case , voting on answers would really be voting on preference more than correctness.   Should downvote semantics on Meta be different than on Main?   Perhaps the system should not deduct reputation points if your answer gets downvoted, thereby allowing/encouraging more free downvoting.
65525
Badges earned on per-site meta sites are separate from the main site, but reputation is carried over from the main site (because you don't earn any on Meta).   I perfectly understand keeping the rep the way it is (meta votes are too subjective to integrate them with rep) but the badge split seems odd to me.  Multiple badges are in fact impossible on Meta; Mortarboard, Bounty related badges. In addition badges in general are much harder to earn due to the lower amount of users and content; badges like Great Answer are nearly impossible.   As a result of this, most users on Meta end up with the easy 5-10 bronze badges for basic participation on Meta and not much else; stuff like Supporter and Critic that are hard not to get.   I understand the want to drive more people to meta, so perhaps badges are separate to institute a reward system; however this doesn't seem to work well since Meta badges (mostly) don't appear on the main site. This in combination of the 0 rep gain makes Meta feel almost not real. It also makes part of your progress (badges) on the main site invisible on Meta, and vise versa.  IMO the badges should be the same on both Meta and main site, but more Meta-oriented badges should be added to encourage use of Meta. This way Meta badges feel "real" instead of "Meta".  Is there an official reason for per site metas having separate badges?
122892
I'm a member of , but I'm not able to be a member of . I asked a question on here and it's migrated to Meta Gaming.SE, but I cannot handle the question because it's not considered mine. I also can't login or sign up in Meta Gaming.SE because it seems I'm already a member of it.  Can anyone help me solve the problem? Previously I thought every Stack Exchange site membership means you are member of its meta too.   This is from Meta Gaming.SE:    But I have  from here to there.
70719
When I came to post (about an unrelated SSL cert bug that turns out to be a duplicate), I saw a warning about a potential question ban on meta.SE.  I seem to have three questions on meta.SE, all with positive scores.  Why is this, and do I need to worry?  I am banned from asking questions on programmers.SE.
75911
This is a question related to the new .   (Meta Stack Exchange) has various functions: (per the help center)     Meta is for...         ... Stack Exchange users to communicate with each other about the Stack Exchange network (asking questions about how the websites work, or about policies and community decisions)   ... Stack Exchange users to communicate with Stack Overflow, the company (posting bugs, suggesting improvements, or proposing new features), and   ... Stack Overflow, the company, to communicate with the community (soliciting feedback on new ideas or features, or discussing policies that affect the whole network)      Summarizing this, there are these main use cases for Meta:   suggesting new features/improvements to features posting bug reports announcements network-wide policy discussions.   The first three of these use cases seem to be moved off, to another platform:     In early December, we are putting a strategy together for the tools and systems we’ll need. Bug reports, in particular, have been a significant pain point internally and externally! We plan to transition things like bug reports, user and customer support, user feedback, and company announcements off of Meta over the course of next year.   emphasis mine  This leaves the last point, which also seems to be covered by the creation of a moderator advisory board:     we’re putting together a moderator advisory team drawn from our 550 existing moderators (folks who volunteer their time and donate their knowledge and leadership to the community): a small, self-replacing council of moderators who will be tasked with keeping our moderation guidance and methods up-to-date, along with ad-hoc working groups of moderators to work on specific initiatives as needed.   emphasis mine  These changes seem to render Meta Stack Exchange useless.  Do you plan to remove it after doing these changes?  (Note: This doesn't mean I am advocating/agreeing with it. I am just curiously asking)
16422
Since high rep users gain some pretty powerful privileges I wonder what checks and balances are in place to prevent them from abusing their privileges.  I am not near these privileges on any SE site, but a particular user that I think might abuse them is. , demonstrates one way that misuse can be highlighted.  Is that the only thing that prevents bad behavior for high rep users? You have to 'report' them on meta? What if you try to stop them but they 'punish' you, and you can't do anything about it because you are low rep? It would be nice if all their actions were public record; maybe some where on their profile page.  Things that might be done that abuses privileges in my opinion:   Someone may edit questions so they favor his own answer, or disfavor yours because your he does not like your answer. Delete votes on questions (I don't even know what this means) for subjective reasons. Dismiss flags that are valid.   Also, I am a bit confused between a moderator and a trusted user. I know that mods have more power but I would like to see a side-by-side comparison.
15007
There is a distinct decline in the level of civility on all the sites here.  Some of this is due to new users coming in and posting spam and other nonsense, but the off-topic and downvote buttons are doing a pretty good job of keeping this under control. Unfortunately, a lot of this is coming from more experienced users, and the site's built-in moderation system does not (and probably cannot) handle this very well.  Folks are rushing to pound new users down with &quot;this belongs on meta!&quot;, &quot;this is off topic&quot;, &quot;this is a duplicate!&quot; and &quot;read the Help!&quot;. (Which is correct, but should be done nicer) All this, of course, is accompanied by a flurry of downvotes.  This is not very welcoming to new users who don't know about meta, the Help, or what counts as off-topic. Now I am not proposing that we just allow off-topic, meta, or duplicate questions.  However, I think we could be gentler in the way we express these sorts of things.  Explain what meta and the FAQ are and provide useful links.  Just using please and thank-you when asking folks to read the FAQ or post something on meta would be an improvement.  I also think we could rein in the downvoting a bit.  Not that we shouldn't vote stuff down, but unless a new user's post is clearly spam, voting it down to -1 or -2 should be sufficient to send a message without piling on. I like Stack Exchange and I want it to become a resource for everyone, not just an elitist site for high-rep users on the sites.
51111
Since  from other SE sites and is not thought to point out a lack of quality or helpfulness, but only to express agreement or disagreement, I'm wondering why downvoted answers here on meta are shown semi-transparent.  Shouldn't they be non-transparent then (like upvoted answers)?  Or am I missing something?
80725
I have posted different suggestions in the recent days, that many users didn't like. Although some are common practice in other forums, and some even if you don't agree are true (ie, new users get "bullied" by higher rep users many times).  I see that if users with a different way of seeing things, come and ask something here, and it gets downvoted, how is this different way of seeing things will ever affect this forum? I have been downvoted so much, I have each time less "voice" in here. I am not sure even if you can run risk of being banned here.  SO is a highly developed site, many things already implemented, it is hard to suggest something that everyone that has been here for long while will agree, something ground breaking. I suggested things that I as a responsible SO user, but with low reputation, I haven't asked many questions.  I think people on SO should be nicer to new users, I am not saying to allow them do whatever they want. Just be nicer.  So what should I do —    Quit in my attempt to participate in Meta because I will continue being downvoted?  just never propose any new idea, try to harvest Reputation by posting bugs, trying to answer things that are not too controversial so I don't get downvoted? Then when I finally have tons of reputation I can go and shutdown the reputation of new users that suggest new Ideas.   I think it is fine not to agree with me. But why do I lose reputation on meta because of a question that is proposing something new? If most people deem something not good for SO, well my question was useful. I mean my very downvoted ideas got attention, it was a useful discussion. The result was "we don't want that here", but it was useful, in the future other people won't need to ask the same. So is it really right to lose reputation because of that?  Edit:  I am adding this, because I think that by putting myself as example my point was a bit lost.  The FAQ says:     Are upvotes and downvotes different on meta?      Voting here works a bit differently from other Stack Exchange sites.   On Meta Stack Overflow, voting is often used to express agreement or   disagreement, not to point out a lack of quality or helpfulness.   Please don't be concerned if you receive downvotes – members of the   community may simply disagree with your bug, feature request, support   issue, or the nature of the discussion.   Some people in the comments have stated they don't even look at the reputation because of this very reason, which totally makes sense. But basically it means they are ignoring a part of the website's functionality, because it is not useful for that.  So does it make sense to lose reputation for something that people doesn't seem to consider?  I mean it is not the same to be downvoted on SO for posting "nonsense" and to be downvoted here for posting something others don't agree with. And I am not even talking about me, I am sure this has happened to everyone.  If it worried me that I am losing reputation, as it is I would have deleted the posts that are making me lose reputation. That is not my point.
17532
These 2 questions have clearly wrong answers with upvotes. And they're still getting votes.  The log file one especially could be tried out, it would fail, but someone still voted it up. A downvote and comment has no effect.  Like we have "vote to close", what about a "vote to delete" for answers. I'd suggest a fairly high rep limit. Or badge ownership realting to the question tags (eg SQL Server)   (SF)   (SO)  Could be similar to this meta question:
94673
A downvote on a question generally means that the quality is low and should/can be improved.  However questions tagged  have a different meaning as per the      On posts tagged feature-request, voting indicates agreement or disagreement with the proposed change   That being said, when a question is downvoted the following tooltip is displayed (I guess only for low-rep users like myself)    I think the tooltip should be changed to something different that states clearly the difference between a feature request downvote and a "normal" one.  Also I believe the tooltips displayed when hovering the up/down arrows should be changed accordingly to something like I don't agree with this proposal / I support this proposal      There's was a similar proposal a couple of years ago () but it was about changing the tooltips on every question on meta and it has been rejected.  I instead propose to change the behavior only in questions tagged as , as this difference is clearly formalized in the site description.  The motivation behind this proposal is that being an experienced StackOverflow user but sort of a new user on Meta, not later than today I was very confused by the meaning of a downvote, until someone pointed me to the help center.