Can the 100 lurve max for members be seen as an ill-fated Ponzi scheme?

I thought it was a clever way to encourage people to be friendly to new folks.

Wow, @Hypocrisy_Central , I think you need a hobby. You’re way overthinking this stuff. Cold weather is coming, would you knit me a scarf? ;-)

Ponzi scheme…lol

A Ponzi scheme operates on false promises: they guarantee returns that the scheme cannot consistently produce. No one is promised lurve when they join Fluther, however, and it is easier to get it when you are newer than when you have been around (the precise opposite of a Ponzi scheme).

@Hypocrisy_Central I hadn’t pegged you as a lurve whore…I will put you on my lurve prayer list and may many lurve shower down on you! ;)

The curve of lurve hurts everyone.. Shiiittttt, that could be a Kenny G song.

If there are N users on Fluther, the maximum number of lurve points in the system is 100*N(N-1), which is what happens when everyone maxes out on everyone else. This is quadratic, so we do not need a steadily increasing number of users for a steadily increasing amount of lurve in the system.

However, the amount of lurve per person is 100(N-1), or 100N – 100.

This is a linear equation, and with a large enough N, it almost becomes an equation of direct variation. We do need a steadily increasing number of users for there to always be a steadily increasing amount of lurve per person. If we do not have a steady inflow of active users, the lurve system will only remain stable until people start maxing out their lurve faster than new users replace them as potential sources of lurve. If people are removed from the lurve-giving pool faster than new people join the lurve-giving pool, there will eventually not be anyone to give lurve.

@PhiNotPi I give you N lurve for that would have given you 2N had I understood it ;-).

@PhiNotPi Ow, that made my head hurt.

This thread inspired me to create a new avatar.

@SavoirFaire No one is promised lurve when they join Fluther, however, and it is easier to get it when you are newer than when you have been around (the precise opposite of a Ponzi scheme). That is why as a Ponzi scheme it is very ill-fated. I know it is not a Ponzi scheme, there is no value involved. However, if you have the Blackbeard badge, etc. you expect there is an actual way to get it. Otherwise, it is like the carnival game that has the big stuffed whatever, but no real way to win it.

@Cruiser @Hypocrisy_Central I hadn’t pegged you as a lurve whore Quite the contrary my good man, I never whored for any of my lurve, I got it the old fashion way; I earned them. :-)

This question came to mind from several other threads where Jellies comment on how their level never seem to move much, or they were stuck at a certain point. Then another person mentioned you can only give 100 lurve total the live of your Fluther to any other member. That made me think how are many or any expected to get to 50k, 60k, or even 100k off their own single account?

@PhiNotPi We do need a steadily increasing number of users for there to always be a steadily increasing amount of lurve per person. If we do not have a steady inflow of active users, the lurve system will only remain stable until people start maxing out their lurve faster than new users replace them as potential sources of lurve. I think I follow what you are saying. On paper there appears to be enough lurve in the system, but like money, if no one is using them, it is like money in a mattress; it isn’t working. I am sure ever one has member in their collective that are dormant, inactive, or have not logged in for ages. They have lurve in the system but they are not using them. On paper there are X amount of lurve available but they are not in play. I only see a handful of Flutheronians on a consistent basis. Some point down the road their lurve will max out on other consistent Flutheronians. It is one thing to have new members always joining, and another to have these new members stick around and actually get involved regularly.

Shit! HE found out.

CIA, this is agent 13501, immidiate termination of @Hypocrisy_Central Is required, repeat, immediate termination is required!

@Hypocrisy_Central Ill-fated Ponzi schemes are necessarily a subset of the set of all Ponzi schemes. So if Fluther is not an actual Ponzi scheme, then it cannot be an ill-fated Ponzi scheme. Moreover, there is a way to get the Blackbeard award even if no new members join. The number of members we already have is more than sufficient to get someone there. The number of consistently participating members (which does not mean the regulars, but rather the regulars plus those who consistently pop in and out) is also sufficient for reaching 30,000 lurve. And if that doesn’t work, you can always just make sure to sign in 30,000 days in a row.

A Ponzi scheme is about the payout, whereas a Q&A site is about the questions and the answers. Insofar as the money involved in a Ponzi scheme is supposed to correlate to the lurve given out on Fluther, then, the two do not seem to fulfill the same role. There would be no reason to participate in a Ponzi scheme if you removed the money, but there would still be a reason to participate on Fluther if you removed the lurve system. Lurve might be part of the draw for some people, and it might be part of the addiction for others, but it is an extra rather than the main event.

Er hmm. I think people come on Fluther for a lot more than the worth of the larvae. Or at least, stay on Fluther when they get passed the fun of seeing it accumulate. Your point is, technically, a good one, but I don’t think the whole larvae thing is important enough to think about it so much. Not this way. You’re creeping me out. :p
I’m pretty sure you know this already, but people can tell quality without larvae needing to be a barometer for it.
Your point stands for that, but is also slightly flawed in that you don’t consider the amount of time that some users been here for that blows the whole thing out the water even if larvae was unlimited, or that a serious answer may get pwnd by a one liner. (unless you actually include that in the repertoire of what constitutes a great answer, but I didn’t really get that feeling)
Well, I think this is what you were saying…I don’t think I understood everything. We can always look at places like Answerbag where pointing is unlimited. Was there a difference over at that place? Such factors, as what is a GA come into play and mess stuff up, at least regarding what I think you’re talking about.

Larvae!

It be eternal.

@FutureMemory Lurvae*

We think this system works well. While not perfect, it does what it’s intended to do, which is to make lurve gaming more difficult. On many other sites, you see a lot of friends ‘pointing’ friends, artificially inflating their scores. While the behavior happens here, too, (people do tend to lurve their friends) the lurve cap makes it more about fun and appreciation than pushing people up to the top.

You do have to be consistently good to earn a high number of lurve, not just popular, if you see what I mean. You have to appeal to a larger group of members than just your friends. It does move incredibly slowly once you get up there, it’s true. But by that time, you’ve generally relaxed about earning lurve.

We get enough new members for the system to work. If that ever changes, perhaps the system will, too.

@SavoirFaire And if that doesn’t work, you can always just make sure to sign in 30,000 days in a row. I might have gotten bored and left way before that, almost get that bored every three days now. :-)

@Symbeline We can always look at places like Answerbag where pointing is unlimited. Was there a difference over at that place? My time with YA and AB were so long I can hardly remember one from the other. I know one you could give yourself an Atta boy, and the other you did not get a total overall but points under a given category, you got a ranking the more you accumulated in that category. You might be an expert when it comes to computers and gaming but sucked when it came to cooking. I guess if you tried to give people advice on cooking they better hope you were doing it with a SATA HD and a spreadsheet than a spatula, because you didn’t score well under cooking. There were differences, and some I actually liked better. Maybe if AB hadn’t jacked up their site and made it so hard to use, I might never have swam in this lagoon, to the pleasure of some I am sure LOL.

I am glad you’re here, Hypo. On the real. Even if you are a little crazy.

If I were not here, all those other people making human typos would be catching hell. You can Larvae, I mean Roger that. LOL

“You do have to be consistently good to earn a high number of lurve, not just popular, if you see what I mean.”

Looks in mirror and agrees to disagree.

@johnpowell Psh. You give consistently good computer advice. :p

Maybe bird watching? Macrame?

Typing classes?

@Hypocrisy_Central Yeah, that was AB, with the categories and shit. I was expert in the horror movie section. :D But that system was kinda ass, because who ever was the expert in one section didn’t mean they were actually an expert, it just means that they posted there a lot, or everyone gave them points. It was faulty and misleading.

How I became an authority on Chuck Norris jokes, I’ll never know.

@Symbeline But that system was kinda ass, because who ever was the expert in one section didn’t mean they were actually an expert, it just means that they posted there a lot, or everyone gave them points. It was faulty and misleading. That could be said of any system that wasn’t truly based on the weight of the response or question. Not that 100% of the GQ, and GA had any meat to them. IMO I would gander about 30% were from Q&A that wasn’t significant, but popular. I have browsed thread and seen someone make a very pertinent answer to a question or comment, and thought, “why is that still sitting with a bagel?”, then I would give it a GA. Since we only have 100 to give life time I guess I better hold it until it is brilliant, not just very good.

I had an expert rank in relationships, and parenting/family or something like that.

That could be said of any system that wasn’t truly based on the weight of the response or question. Not that 100% of the GQ, and GA had any meat to them.

Indeed, that was a point I was making in my original post. But that a GA can be defined as something different depending on the people blows the point out the water, unless somebody on the Fluther team decides what a GA is gonna be, or unless you’re doing it for yourself only.

Maybe larvae are the GA-clicks you get when you’re under 100 lurve, because they are still growing up. Only when the 100-limit is reached can lurve truly blossom, because it has no agenda, no need to add to some scorecard that someone’s keeping, it just means “great answer.”

Lurve is patient, lurve is kind and is not jealous;
Lurve does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly;
it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,
does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Lurve never fails…But now faith, hope, lurve, abide these three; but the greatest of these is lurve.

Can’t trade it in for a pony, so, Mama don’t care.

Larvae conquers all.

I am going to try and clarify my above response.

I have a “pool” of all of the members who are able to give me lurve. As long as this pool is filled with a lot of active users, the lurve system is stable. If it is filled with inactive members, those members might as well not be in the pool, since they don’t give any lurve.

If the pool is large, I am able to gain lurve by earning it, as it should be. If it is small, places where I would otherwise earn lurve go unrewarded, and the lurve system fails. Every time a person maxes out their lurve for me, my pool shrinks. Every time a new, active user joins, the pool grows.

If everyone all of a sudden maxed out their lurve on me, I would have tons of lurve. However, I will never get any more lurve. My lurve score would be stuck there and will become useless.

@PhiNotPi All the while the guy with a grin tells you, ”Give me $10 more dollars and I will give you 6 more balls, you were THAT close to winning that giant stuffed elephant”, knowing all along there was no way you could ever achieve that. ;-)

It’s just a fun/silly way to show appreciation for each other. A strict accounting isn’t needed, lol.

You really have to get out more.