No Thanks Adding Reputation limit for Premium

That is because you think of it as "by the rules", not "by the value of the contribution". There is no "fair", and should be no "fair". Whether something is a contribution is up to those who read it, not a ruleset. If there is a fair, then you can manipulate the rules and post "fair" things without forethought or bringing anything new to the table.

Which many have done, including you.

I disagree. Forcing new people to work harder while those who have one thousand posts fail to meet the requirement is completely unfair to the new members. If someone has one thousand posts and less than half of that in rep, as seems to be the current going price, then they do not deserve their premium status and should be made to gain it just like the new guys they are competing with.

I see no reason to reward someone who has not earned the respect of the community.

Yes, they would! And not everyone deserves to get Premium. Some will have trouble because they are not contributing anything worthwhile to the community. Such people exist, you know.

You already have the "spam until you reach the requirement" problem without the rep requirement. If anything, it would only become harder to become Premium because your posts would have to be valuable as well as counting.

The Spam Zone is pretty much the center of the community for a lot of us, such that the members that have been here the longest and the members that stay the longest as well as those that end up being key members all post in the Spam Zone at one point or another. While the other sections might contribute to content and some community projects and games contribute to the community, most of the contribution to the community comes from the non-counting sections. Games played, Question Times, majorly popular threads. A lot of the things people remember about this site come from the non-counting areas, and they actually count as a larger contribution compared to short-lived threads talking about new releases or gaming news.

Or am I wrong in all of that?

Agreed. I have seen it happen with several members since I have joined alone. Was it this bad before?

Would you rather have a lot of incredibly bad posts, or people trying to post things that please a majority of members? Is there really a problem with giving people an incentive to post things the community values?

Exactly.

Which, you have still failed to define "truly unfair". Never did get over that. You never take away a positive rep, but you also fail to give out examples of "truly unfair" and "subjectively unfair".

You will have to define them for certain if this requirement is put in place.

You would need a rep power of forty to derep twenty points. If you have that much rep power, you would have to be incredibly influential in the community. The problem with your logic is that you seem to think that some random user should be able to out-do someone with admin-level rep power.

If two people with forty rep power rep you and derep you, respectively, the end result will be twenty positive rep points. If three people with five rep power rep you and one person with forty rep power dereps you, you will be out five points instead.

This is fair because those three are not as valuable to the community as the one with more rep, so their opinion does not matter as much in terms of the community. Even combined, they have not proven their worth and so their opinion is worth less in terms of their overall influence to the site.

Again, exactly. There must be one to go with the other. The world is not made of only good things, and the forum is not made of only good posts. It does not make sense to only reward when there are negative goings on as well.

Incorrect. See what I said above about people with equal rep power.

A person's derep power is half of their full rep power. The reason why you see it this way is because only the currently worthless members rep you and the ones that actually count in the community derep you. You need to please the bigger fish or many more small fish or it will seem that way to you.

If people do not see you as entertaining, then you are not a good contribution to the community. You must become entertaining to become a good contribution. Community is based on working with others to please both you and them. Mutually beneficial interaction. If they do not benefit from interacting with you, then you are not contributing well.

It is very simple.

Please note the "if". This is not a personal attack or judgment of what you are or are not, but a conditional statement based on objective analysis.

This is rather ridiculous. If you are not going to filter the good opinions, then you should not filter the bad ones. Especially if you are going to actually take action. A slap on the wrist of a child (a literal slap) is not as effective as refusing to talk to them for a day, nor is it as healthy for their development of why it was a problem and what the consequences should be for doing it.

Behavioral modification happens no matter what. If you deny a reward, they will act to receive the reward. If you express distaste, they will amend their actions. This is the best way to amend behavior, and believe it or not, your job as staff is to amend behavior, so amending behavior itself is by no means against your personal values.

Rather, you seem to think that only those awarded a staff position should have a say in how people behave. As if force and authority are more valid than direct influence via being shunned by others. If you wish to do well in society, the fact is that you must amend to fit the society. You cannot come into a society demanding that everyone else change what they like and dislike or demand that they show you respect. It would no longer be the society you came there for.

If you can think of a reason why, say, deleting a post or giving an infraction is any less behavioral modification and how it is more effective even without the social, internal and emotional aspect, please do so.

I find that giving people the choice to either respect your opinion or not while still attempting to change them is the best option for a civilized community, not forcing them and appealing to a specific group for enforcement of quality.

If you are a social outcast in a community, then you are not welcome in that community. That is the only basis for good and bad outside of yourself, and if you mean "good for the community" then you mean "what pleases most of the community". It is the same no matter where you go.

Let us say that I am a rapist, and I am open about it. I do not attack anyone on this site, but I upset many members, and am hated. Should I be able to get to Premium when I get 1,000 posts even though I am regarded as worthless by most members and they would say that I have not contributed?

Yes, it means they do not deserve it. They joined either to be entertained by or to entertain the community. In all likelihood, they were entertained without entertaining others, which is not a mutually beneficial exchange. They did not please the community enough. Leeches do not deserve to be rewarded. Is there something I am missing?

Please read what I said above.

What is the criteria for a contribution, if not member enjoyment?

If rep were required, people would care again. The reason why it went down is because it was not needed. It became superfluous. People would naturally become more generous if they knew that it meant something. Mutual benefit is what communities are based on, after all.