Oddly common rep powers

[KCJones]

There comes a point where the notion of 'max rep' becomes no longer a contest, and I think the system is well-justified in making all of us 'maxed out' at a certain level. Those with such "maxed out" rep have proved their commitment to the community so frequently that any real 'difference' is meaningless.

If anything, being a 'high-rep' member carries responsibility to NOT dole it out unduly. IIRC how it works, any of us "high roller" who contribute rep to a newb can jump them up to parity very quickly. That's not a lightly-taken responsibility. I think we're sorta like professors at a university: we should not lightly enshrine new PhD's unless justified.

As to the 'high rollers' I think we all take it with a measure of reailty. E.g. The fact that 'free' is a gadfly who regularly challenges folks here to confront their own views versus that Scruff is an all-opportunities offender versus me being in the 'can't we all just get along' nether region, or that Phil has so-often offered free legal advice becomes meaningless. We are all dedicated members who support the dialog here and have contributed to the general good over a long period of time and earned a super-high feedback.

Basically, as it stands right now, anyone pushing 21-22 MIL rep points should simply be viewed as having well-proved their commitment to the forum and contributing positively.--