Does a single flat rep rate work fairly?

What i am refering to is the fact that when a user gives a person rep (or a moderator/admin negative reps) the amount of rep manipulated is always proportional to the rep of the user, something that creates propblems at the extremes of the rep range.

Take Uberfoop for instance,
http://www.wc3campaigns.net/member.php?u=66734

Negative 15 rep for a single rude comment? Now i've got to say that that is pretty excessive, and if it had been any moderator other than Blade that tagged him, the guy woulda got of far more lightly, soemthing that isn't really fair.

Basically i'm just pointing out what i believe to be an inadequecy of the rep system, as it means that it is not the severety of the transgression that is dictates punishment, but the importance of the mod/admin that catches you.

However the only solutions i see for the problem would be A) Allowing people to limit the rep they give/take OR B)Just having a flat rate for rep-change-power based (with increases for being a mod/admin).

Eh, just a thought.

Admins enter a number, its unrelated to our reputation.

Also, you get more rep for doing something that, say, impresses someone with a lot of rep than helping 10 newbies. Doesn't make much sense.

It does have sense for me.

But you know , we can make a newbie helping fund. Let me see.

Considering that uberfoop made several lame/rude/useless etc. posts and didn't really contribute with anything good, I think -15 was quite appropriate. It is not like 15 rep is horribly much, a normal user with a fair amount of rep can give 9 points, so a few good posts should be enough to recover that amount.

and aniway, bad rep can be given just because we can