["Betty23"]

If we look at the users with the highest posts on the member list almost all of them (who are not banned or RF'd) have a reputation above 1,000 or more. I've always thought that post count did determine reputation although obviously it's not true in all cases, one example would be Ty, FamousHater or SαнεηSнαн, however even their rep comes partially from sales/giveaways rather than the content of their posts. If we sort the member list by order of reputation we'll see that majority of the list have a very high post count.

So my theory is, if you post constantly would you be able to achieve a high rep? In some cases it could be quantity rather than quality of the posts.

I think post count has nothing to do with rep, but if you have a high post count you are more involved in discussion with people so you are more likely to get more rep if you are a HQ member or a good personality.

["Betty23"]

The reputation system is flawed in the sense that it is purely based on opinions rather than experiences alone.
Think of it this way, Member A comes on the forum multiple times a day and posts in several sections.
Then comes Member B, who comes on the same amount, but instead of post, he lurks.

Member A is going to make more interaction than Member B would with other users.
Naturally, Member A will get more attention/opinions than Member B, which directly relates to reputation in this case.
(Keep in mind that all this relies on positive interaction.)

Activity = Interaction = Reputation

I do agree, but you base people on reputation via interaction, you can't get to know someone if you don't talk to them, but I am 50/50 with the rep system.
I could understand if the rep system was based on actual knowledge, but the rep is purely based on your personality and iterations mostly.