Your question has a tripping point: "Also, you are judged by how many points you have." The way that statement is implemented has far more of an effect than any other detail. For example, if there is a 50 point government sanctioned minimum to comment on an election, there will immediately be a market for cheap ways to quickly and artificially acquire 50 points. The ability to close a discussion at work (500pts) would be quickly farmed by everyone.
I would also expect to see dirty things like gangs doing "run by"s where they quickly downvote someone's answers a few dozen times, just to ruin their reputation.
On the other hand, if it is a social contract sort of thing, where everybody not only pays attention to points, but has a great interest in cultivating its validity, you have a situation like "honor" in feudal Japan. You seek to cultivate honor, and there are well accepted paths to take, but they're not always straight forward.
SE seems to take a third approach. Points are fun, but there's not many places where they really interact with the world, so there is little incentive to break the system. Area 51 is pretty smart that way.
If you think about it, what you've really done is create something that has both aspects of a currency and a free goods
- It scores on a single dimensional metric scale. Someone who does one monumental task is given the same value/score as someone who does a bunch of small tasks. Someone who only does desirable tasks has the same value/score as someone who only does undesirable tasks (thank you moderators!).
- It is freely creatable with little effort. As long as you've logged in, an upvote is virtually free. Compare this to currency, which is a scarcity economy -- in order to give a coin to someone you must lose a coin.
Now, one solution to your system is that you are judged by your reputation, but just barely. When it is clear that reputation has little to nothing to do with how you want to interact with someone, people will ignore it. Remember, most people like to interact with people who aren't one dimensional.
If you want your society to actually pay attention to these, a little feedback is needed: we're going to want a society which has an interest in these reputations being valuable. They're going to have to change their perceptions and actions to make this reputation system more valuable than it actually is.
One of the first things I'd expect to see is dramatic clothing choices. Different groups are going to have different opinions on how reputation should be used. There's no way there will be agreement, so the best society can do is break into subcultures. Each subculture would have its own way of managing points. Clothing choices would be a natural augmentation to the point system to show which reputation group you belong to. Dress like a type A personality executive, and it's expected that you'll get 1k to 2k a day, or its a sign you're off your game. Suspend enough disbelief to give Tibetan monks VR implants and reputation, and they would treat it different. If you see someone in orange cloth with 8 or 9 rep, they are likely quite the pious soul.
I'd be interested in seeing a Dali Lama like character in such a world. The world would naturally seek to give him many reputation points, and he would be too humble to not accept them. There might even be a giant ceremony where his fellow monks kindly downvote him so that his numbers don't get too high.