I guess the real question is what makes someone deserving of a rank. The current exp system would suggest that writing posts, voting and logging in all contribute towards making someone deserve a rank. If these are not the ways that someone should be able to earn a rank, wouldn't it make more sense to change how exp is given out? Personally, I think that exp should remain at least partially influenced by other forms of participation.
Not wanting newbies to hold higher levels sounds to me more like a subset of the ongoing debate on exp escalation due to the increased number of users. Describing gaining levels as 'increasingly' easy lends to this interpretation.
Gaggio's suggestion of required minimum reputation will suffer from the same problem.
I think the real problem is the scalability of the exp system. Note the following: "This is not meant to be offensive toward the higher level monks we have now." This suggests that the changes wouldn't be applied retroactively, which strikes me as a bit unfair.
It looks as if lhoward saw something similar in the original post (he posted while I was writing this). I can't say I like having monks in competition with one another for levels, however. I guess I favor one of the suggestions from the previous discussion, which I believe was to have the required exp for each level to be related to the total number of votes available. But however the exp system is changed, if it is, it probably shouldn't include exact numbers as it does now.
In reply to RE: Higher level posts (kudra: exp escalation, not unqualified monks)