Instead of saying plurk karma lacks "objectivity" I should have said it lacks subtlety, since any numerical rating system can be "objective"

Should someone like me, who reads & comments on Plurks almost every day, drop down to 0 karma simply because I fail to launch new plurks?

I read & chat on Plurk nearly every day, just avoid opening "new chat rooms" as you call it. So the scoring is crude if it gives me 0 karma

I would conclude that Plurk encourages heavy users and discourages light users - and that's vertical stretch

a "just" social system aims to bring up those at the bottom and moderate the consumption of those at the top - see John Rawls

you're right, they do discourage over-plurking, and they do give more points for plurks by those at the bottom

so plurk DOES embody characteristics of a just social system, I'm glad we discovered that

but there is still a problem, because someone who only reads & replies to other peoples' plurks drops down to zero karma,which seems unfair

they should at least be rewarded by having more points than someone who never even logs on

whatever reward there is for responding is microscopic, because when all I do is respond to others, my karma falls towards zero

whereas this one single plurk, with your replies, boosted my karma back up to almost 5

Karma could count replies made over time & give some points accordingly. Maybe it wants to limit replies, using them to measure popularity