I wonder if you're referring to the Stack Overflow decision to do this. They've made several strange modifications to their reputation system since the beginnin

I wonder if you're referring to the Stack Overflow decision to do this. They've made several strange modifications to their reputation system since the beginning, and I'm not sure any of them have really added value: paying for downvotes, daily reputation caps, etc. All of these tweaks to the reputation system are to encourage a certain kind of behaviour, but I'm not sure it's the right kind of behaviour. Does it make sense to stop someone from providing answers when they are clearly good at it? I find that, for myself, when I cast a downvote on Stack Overflow, I see an opportunity for 9 more free downvotes. (I'm a little OCD about having a score that's divisible by 10.)