the JoshMeister's dashboard

Neither Steve's nor w8sdz's fixes worked for me. Version 2.0.0 is completely broken. I still have to downgrade to 1.0.1 to make this add-on work again.

I made a video tutorial showing how to modify the maxVersion string in the 1.0.1 add-on so Firefox won't nag you or force you to reinstall it every time a new Firefox update comes out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEuI5v...

The tutorial is designed for Mac users, but it should be easy enough to adapt the instructions for Windows or Linux. Basically, you just need to trick the old 1.0.1 add-on into thinking it was designed for Firefox 3.5 or later, and it will work again.

I really want the features that were supposed to be in 2.0.0, so I hope the author of this add-on releases a working version soon.

This still hasn't been fixed. This time the é character was dropped along with the rest of the post.

You're not the only one with this issue. skraggy and I are experiencing similar problems -- see http://getsatisfaction.com/plurk/topi...

Likewise. I went less than 6 hours between plurks—and didn't miss plurking during any karma updates—and my karma dropped 0.05. I can confirm that I lost no friends or fans, nor did anyone reject a friend request from me, during that period. Here's my karma graph: http://is.gd/swW The drop occurred at 12:05 PM on 9/13 on the graph (5:05 AM in the Pacific time zone) even though I had plurked at 2:44 AM Pacific time. Here are the karma periods surrounding the drop:

5:05 PM - 9:05 PM Pacific
- I plurked at 5:57 PM Pacific

9:05 PM - 1:05 AM Pacific
- I plurked at 9:07 PM Pacific

1:05 AM - 5:05 AM Pacific
- I plurked at 2:44 AM Pacific

5:05 AM - 9:05 AM Pacific
- I plurked at 8:42 AM Pacific

I didn't miss a single update period and I still got punished! Here's my timeline if you want to verify: http://www.plurk.com/user/theJoshMeister

Edit: All of those plurks were public, not private. They were actual plurks, not responses.

It seems to me that the best way to fix this would be to simply change the muting function so it doesn't harm anyone's karma. Many people mute for other reasons and would never intentionally hurt a friend's karma, but wish to enjoy the other benefits of muting. Almost everyone was surprised to find out that muting hurts karma when I first plurked about this here.

Non-malicious scenarios demonstrating why it's a bad idea that muting hurts karma:

Scenario 1: Bob plurks about U.S. politics, and Sally (who is following Bob) lives in some other country and doesn't care about U.S. politics. What Bob said wasn't meant to be distasteful or offensive, and Sally normally likes Bob's plurks, but since she's not interested in U.S. politics she mutes Bob's plurk. Bob's karma is hurt even though he didn't do anything wrong.

Scenario 2: Bob plurks about politics, and Samantha (who is following Bob) disagrees with Bob's political views. What Bob said wasn't meant to be distasteful or offensive, and Samantha normally likes Bob's plurks, but she simply disagrees with something Bob said and doesn't want to be notified about future responses, so she mutes Bob's plurk. Bob's karma is hurt even though he didn't do anything wrong.

Scenario 3: Bob plurks about religion, and Lucy (who is following Bob) is uninterested in religion. What Bob said wasn't meant to be distasteful or offensive, and Lucy normally likes Bob's plurks, but she simply isn't interested in religion and doesn't want to be notified about future responses, so she mutes Bob's plurk. Bob's karma is hurt even though he didn't do anything wrong.

Scenario 4: Bob plurks a bunch of dancing bananas, which annoys Josh (who is following Bob). Some people like Bob's dancing banana plurks as evidenced by the avalanche of responses filled with other dancing food products. Josh normally likes Bob's plurks, but Josh isn't interested in being notified about future responses to this one, so he mutes Bob's plurk. Bob's karma is hurt even though he didn't do anything wrong (and in fact was trying to "have fun on Plurk," which supposedly should increase his karma).

Scenario 5: Bob plurks a friendly "good morning!" greeting, and Joanna (who is following Bob) cheerily responds "Good morning, Bob!" However, Joanna isn't interested in reading other people's responses to Bob, so she mutes Bob's plurk after responding to it. Bob's karma is hurt even though he didn't do anything wrong.

Scenario 6: Amix (a popular Plurk user who is followed by a lot of people) plurks something interesting. However, because he has so many followers and gets a lot of responses (some of them from people who just want attention), the plurk eventually gets off the original topic. Tom, who follows Amix, loves Amix's plurks but isn't interested in the off-topic discussion now taking place inside Amix's latest plurk, so Tom mutes this plurk. Even if Amix doesn't like the discussion going on in his plurk, he has no way to delete others' responses or close the plurk to further responses, so Amix is completely defenseless and his plurk may end up getting muted by lots of other users. Amix's karma is hurt even though he didn't do anything wrong.

Scenario 7: Bob has 300 followers, and Joe has 30 followers. Bob and Joe both plurk the same thing, and 10% of each of their friends mute the plurk because they do not want to read any responses to it for whatever reason. Bob's karma is (I presume) hurt 10x more than Joe's just because Bob has more followers than Joe. (I'm assuming in this scenario that the karma loss is static for each mute, as opposed to being proportional to the percentage of one's followers who muted the plurk, which may or may not be the case.)

I'm sure I could come up with more scenarios, but hopefully after reading both the malicious and non-malicious scenarios I've shared here, the Plurk developers will agree that it's a bad idea for muting to hurt karma.

Karma Attack Vulnerability Through Muting

Since being muted reduces your karma, this could easily be exploited and used in distributed or non-distributed Denial of Karma (DoK) attacks. This issue is compounded by the facts that:

1. Any Plurk user can mute any other user (all it takes is to follow the user you want to mute)
2. When a user's plurk is muted, there is no notification sent to the author of the plurk, thus making it impossible for the author to know whether he/she has a malicious follower or who that malicious user is
3. There's no way to prevent a user from creating multiple accounts and muting a targeted user from all of those accounts

Following are a couple of possible attack scenarios:

Scenario 1: Mallory has pretty high karma and desperately wants to get into the "Interesting plurkers" list. Mallory follows every person who has karma higher than than she does. Every time those users post a new plurk, Mallory mutes them, thus decreasing their karma slightly and giving Mallory a slight advantage. (Mallory may also create multiple Plurk accounts so she can mute each plurk multiple times.)

Scenario 2: (This one may or may not be possible; it depends on the Plurk API, which I don't know much about.) Malcolm figures out how to automatically mute a plurk via a URL. Malcolm starts distributing links where mute URLs are loaded automatically in an invisible frame or iframe unbeknownst to anyone who clicks on Malcolm's links. Any signed-in Plurk user who loads Malcolm's page and is following the targeted user will unknowingly mute the targeted plurk and decrease the targeted user's karma.

I also discussed this kind of attack here:
http://www.plurk.com/p/1r1y9

I seem to be having the same problem adding my MySpace account to Ping.fm. I get a vague "Could not authenticate your MySpace information" message, and I have confirmed that I am entering the correct e-mail address and password. The e-mail address I use with MySpace contains a plus (+) character in it.

Is a fix for this issue coming soon?