1
$\begingroup$

This is a duplicate, but answers may very do to each individual SE policy.

I have a positive reputation. In science and math there are negatives. I thought I was OK but now I cannot ask questions or revise on poor(which is an opinion of a few not of the many) questions.

The rules are defined, but the most important rules not stated like how many votes can one person give to another? How many "questions received poorly" can be asked before restriction. I don't need to know I know now after its to late. I can change/hide my IP and Email easier than tampering with questions that have an answer.

Why can't up grades be made to this system for one user to block another if they are bored and/or annoyed by the questioner thus allowing lower lever users to answer it for them? Is it software design or software limitation?

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

The scoring system is common to all Stackexchange sites, not something users of individual sites can change. The place to discuss the scoring system is https://meta.stackexchange.com/. You can also find answers to your questions about the rules there.

A user can vote on each question or answer only once.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Yes but my concern is the line to cut off is not clearly visible like if you get on more bad question you will be banned assuring the next one I ask will be a good one. $\endgroup$ – Muze Aug 28 '17 at 1:26
  • $\begingroup$ Have you read this: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86997/… $\endgroup$ – Hobbes Aug 28 '17 at 6:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Muze There is a good reason not to publicize the exact cut off point. It helps prevent gaming the system. Most users don't have to worry about this as there is actually a very high threshold to get question banned. By the time you reach that point, you would have to have been ignoring feedback for some time. Note: While deleting questions doesn't work after the fact, if you had deleted after getting only a couple of downvotes, it likely would have prevented this. Why? We want a site with quality questions. Leaving a question up that does not meet site standards is contrary to that goal. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage♦ Aug 31 '17 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ @Muze Obviously there are good reasons to leave up a question that needs revision for a little while, but if you find that you're not gaining acceptance it may be better to delete until you can revise. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage♦ Aug 31 '17 at 14:46
3
$\begingroup$

"Why can't up grades be made to this system for one user to block another if they are bored and/or annoyed by the questioner thus allowing lower lever users to answer it for them? Is it software design or software limitation?"

I am not a Stack Exchange developer, but as a former software developer, in my opinion, there is no reason to change the site in the manner you mention. The vast majority of users do not have the problems you are experiencing. From what I have seen of your activity on this site, you have a long history of poor quality posts that were repeatedly downvoted and closed. This was a clear warning to you, over an extended period of time, that you were not acting in the manner expected of Stack Exchange users. I see no evidence that you changed your behavior, so it should be no surprise to you that there were consequences.

The link Hobbes posted in a comment contains hints as to how to regain access to the site. But you must understand that unless you fundamentally change your behavior on Stack Exchange, the same thing will happen again. Stack Exchange is not going to change to allow poor quality posts.

Unless you are willing to interact with Stack Exchange in the manner for which it was designed, perhaps you should consider whether Stack Exchange is a good resource for you.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "Unless you are willing to interact with Stack Exchange in the manner for which it was designed, perhaps you should consider whether Stack Exchange is a good resource for you." At least as far as participation is concerned. It is certainly possible to use SE as a resource without participating. I know many folks who don't like SE rules and so don't participate but still use it as a valuable source of information. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage♦ Aug 31 '17 at 14:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .