Movieman:
You took exception to a quote by Biggles who quoted yet another person, who made reference to the reason a 3rd person stated for using a particular optimized client. Biggles did not claim in that post that he was talking about a team, he did not claim to be talking about your reasons for using the client. Re-read the quote.

You can moderate and try to rewrite history as you want. But, the memory of what happened will not change.

Movieman:
You took exception to a quote by Biggles who quoted yet another person, who made reference to the reason a 3rd person stated for using a particular optimized client. Biggles did not claim in that post that he was talking about a team, he did not claim to be talking about your reasons for using the client. Re-read the quote.

The Rosetta team mentioned that it was okay to use optimized clients. During CASP and during his current trip, Dr. Baker has been very quiet on the boards. I missed his daily updates and comments. Real life intruded and ran off with two of the project's moderators. The comments about the optimized client use were not directed at any one team, but at the users of the optimized client. As the clients had already been said to be okay to use on Rosetta by the Rosetta team, the comments should not have been taken to heart by those using the optimized client. Those that were talking about the editing of a certain file that allowed them to increase their benchmark by 1,000 times were accused of insulting your team when your teammembers were represented in the group that was identifying those editing their benchmarks.

When it comes to presenting, what those of a different mindset would call mis-information, over and over, there's more than one group guilty of this. We need to stop the practice of shooting first, and asking questions later. And if neither side can see the position of the other side, let us agree to disagree.

If you want a comment from Dr. Baker, wait until he's actually taking part on the board on a regular basis again.

Regardless, the topic is closed for this thread. We have a new credit system. This thread is for discussing the new credit system. If you have suggestions on how to improve the work based solution we have now, then make them. Members of XS asked for a work base credit system. Members of other teams asked for a work based credit system. >WE< asked for this. Now it's >OUR< responsibility to understand how the current system works, how the scores average out, point out any perceived flaws, and make constructive suggestions. Perhaps we can get the programming staff to step in and describe the system in better detail. But give the Rosetta team a bit more time.

I saw a comment, disagreed with it, quoted it and responded.
I had not realised that he was quoting a 3rd party.
He made his point and I made mine and now you have made yours..Every side was represented.You probably wonder why do I keep on this point. I was SO in favor of the project that it really got to me when this happenned.
You find something that you so totally beleive in that you pour yourself into it 100% and try and make it grow. Unfortunately the reverse of that is true also. When for whatever reason you find or feel that those"passions" that drove you were misguided you feel the other end of the emotional scale and look for any way to salvage what you orginally felt.
This is why I pushed for Dr. Baker to post in this section as I saw it as the only way for XS to continue on Rosetta.
Now back to your discussion of the new credit system..
Movieman

---

Movieman:
You took exception to a quote by Biggles who quoted yet another person, who made reference to the reason a 3rd person stated for using a particular optimized client. Biggles did not claim in that post that he was talking about a team, he did not claim to be talking about your reasons for using the client. Re-read the quote.

You can moderate and try to rewrite history as you want. But, the memory of what happened will not change.

I really don't get it. You got nearly everything like you wanted it. The old credits stayed the way they were, so you can still claim you did far more than those who only claimed less credits but did the same work.

The topic of this old overclaiming is verboten, nearly every mentioning will be deleted asap, but still you lament about the big unjustice that's been done to you.

In the future everybody will get the same credits for the same work done. No more inflated credits because of inflated benchmarks, everybody will get "payed" for what s/he has really done. So there is a big improvement of the credit system because of these discussions.

The numerical value of this is secondary, but is done to suit you (as a synonym for user of "opt." clients) more as the avarage user, as it's harder to catch up with the inflated credits from the past, so you will stay at the top for quite a while.

I really don't get it.

Well you can go and read

http://www.boincsynergy.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7582&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

The thread topic is supposed to be the Rosetta Credit System.

This thread makes for very nice reading : there is even a neat comment about David Baker's intelectual integrity.

Even today the "C" word is used in the discussion of the credits .
See all that has been done is that for moderation purposes, a nice game is played here; the true colors are shown in threads like the one I read.

I really don't get it.

Well you can go and read

http://www.boincsynergy.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7582&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

The thread topic is supposed to be the Rosetta Credit System.

This thread makes for very nice reading : there is even a neat comment about David Baker's intelectual integrity.

Even today the "C" word is used in the discussion of the credits .
See all that has been done is that for moderation purposes, a nice game is played here; the true colors are shown in threads like the one I read.

Jose, if you wanted to point out that there are people who judged the use of 5.5.0 on a 1-quorum-project like Rosetta cheating than you are right, there are still such people. Such accusations are forbidden here and the project stuff made very clear that it was/is grateful for any contributions with any client and does not want insults towards specific users (which is btw a commitment for both sides). What people do in other boards is beyond the control of the project staff, or do you want to imply that Dr. Baker should post in the BOINC Synergy forum and defend you?

You insult people on your board, BOINC Synergy does this on their board but I don't see what is the connection to Rosetta@home-staff and board.

I really don't get it.

Well you can go and read
http://www.boincsynergy.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7582&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
The thread topic is supposed to be the Rosetta Credit System.
This thread makes for very nice reading : there is even a neat comment about David Baker's intelectual integrity.
Even today the "C" word is used in the discussion of the credits .
See all that has been done is that for moderation purposes, a nice game is played here; the true colors are shown in threads like the one I read.

And I will happy use the C-word over and over, as I still cosider the use of 5.5 with non-optimized app as such. It's verboten here, as the mods don't want it (they've taken your side here imho), but they can't restrict calling an apple an apple on other boards.
I havn't heard a single argument why the use of this client by a minority was good for the project, and why the majority of normal crunchers should bow to the wishes of this vocal minority.

I really don't get it.

Well you can go and read

http://www.boincsynergy.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7582&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

The thread topic is supposed to be the Rosetta Credit System.

This thread makes for very nice reading : there is even a neat comment about David Baker's intellectual integrity.

Even today the "C" word is used in the discussion of the credits .
See all that has been done is that for moderation purposes, a nice game is played here; the true colors are shown in threads like the one I read.

Jose, if you wanted to point out that there are people who judged the use of 5.5.0 on a 1-quorum-project like Rosetta cheating than you are right, there are still such people. Such accusations are forbidden here and the project stuff made very clear that it was/is grateful for any contributions with any client and does not want insults towards specific users (which is btw a commitment for both sides). What people do in other boards is beyond the control of the project staff, or do you want to imply that Dr. Baker should post in the BOINC Synergy forum and defend you?

You insult people on your board, BOINC Synergy does this on their board but I don't see what is the connection to Rosetta@home-staff and board.

All I have stated is the very obvious: the animus that permeates the discussion of the credit system here.

The words used here are carefully chosen to stretch to the maximum the so called prohibition on the "C" word. See, at least Saenger is intellectually honest: he admits to what he means behind all his carefully chosen words.

As to having David Baker going to Boinc Synergy Board to state what is and was the official Rosetta position regarding the "C" word: that is not needed. What was needed and what was expected was a clear , unambigous ( as in using names) statement from him here. That did not happen.

Movieman:
You took exception to a quote by Biggles who quoted yet another person, who made reference to the reason a 3rd person stated for using a particular optimized client. Biggles did not claim in that post that he was talking about a team, he did not claim to be talking about your reasons for using the client. Re-read the quote.

You can moderate and try to rewrite history as you want. But, the memory of what happened will not change.

I really don't get it. You got nearly everything like you wanted it. The old credits stayed the way they were, so you can still claim you did far more than those who only claimed less credits but did the same work.

The topic of this old overclaiming is verboten, nearly every mentioning will be deleted asap, but still you lament about the big unjustice that's been done to you.

In the future everybody will get the same credits for the same work done. No more inflated credits because of inflated benchmarks, everybody will get "payed" for what s/he has really done. So there is a big improvement of the credit system because of these discussions.

The numerical value of this is secondary, but is done to suit you (as a synonym for user of "opt." clients) more as the avarage user, as it's harder to catch up with the inflated credits from the past, so you will stay at the top for quite a while.

Mr. Moderator: This is off topic but in direct reply to Saenger's post.

Do you really beleive in your heart that points mean that much to me after all I have said on the subject?
Points are a tool to use in competitions and to bring in new people.
You don't compete so you fail to see that side of the equation.
You talk about work done for the project. Ok, lets examine that point.
Your credits show 3302 for Rosetta using the stock client.
Mine( my contribution to VNS) is app 1.2 million using 5.5.0 since it was released BUT from Jan-April 2006 I was using the stock client.
Divide the points I show by whatever factor you consider that 5.5.0 overclaims. I've heard a factor of 3 and a factor of 6 tossed around this board.
So take 6 as the factor. Divide 1.2 million by 6 and you come up with 200,000.
Factor in that Jan-April were with the stock client and that 200,000 figure just gets larger.
You want to talk about who did more to help Rosetta?
Those numbers show that JUST I contributed in excess of 60 TIMES what you have done in real work.This is my machinery, at my home, paid for by me. Not run from someones business on their dime but on mine.
That is 5 top end machines running 24/7 from Jan 11,2006 until this month.
Uptime on the project in excess of 97% during that timeframe.
If that investment in this project doesn't show where my feelings were about rosetta, nothing will.
I have never had any issue with the" small cruncher"..My only issue was with a small cruncher that thought he had the right to turn the project upside down to suit his idea of what was right or wrong.
In that respect you have suceeded but at what cost?
Over 2000 PC's from just XS have been taken off of this project and that is something that you and your group can take direct credit for starting.
How many more from other teams have done the same and pulled out?
I can't answer that except in vague terms but it is substantial.
No matter how many new people sign up for Rosetta the point is that number would be significantly higher had this all never taken place.
That is your(sic) contribution to this project in real numbers.
I rest my case and wish you a good day.
Movieman

---

All I have stated is the very obvious: the animus that permeates the discussion of the credit system here.

The words used here are carefully chosen to stretch to the maximum the so called prohibition on the "C" word. See, at least Saenger is intellectually honest: he admits to what he means behind all his carefully chosen words.

As to having David Baker going to Boinc Synergy Board to state what is and was the official Rosetta position regarding the "C" word: that is not needed. What was needed and what was expected was a clear , unambigous ( as in using names) statement from him here. That did not happen.

IMHO there is such an unambiguous statement from David Baker here:
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2143#23462

What you seemed to expect though was a statement in which David Baker denounces two users directly based on your threats to withdraw. I'm very glad David Baker did not make such a statement.

All I have stated is the very obvious: the animus that permeates the discussion of the credit system here.

The words used here are carefully chosen to stretch to the maximum the so called prohibition on the "C" word. See, at least Saenger is intellectually honest: he admits to what he means behind all his carefully chosen words.

As to having David Baker going to Boinc Synergy Board to state what is and was the official Rosetta position regarding the "C" word: that is not needed. What was needed and what was expected was a clear , unambigous ( as in using names) statement from him here. That did not happen.

IMHO there is such an unambiguous statement from David Baker here:
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2143#23462

What you seemed to expect though was a statement in which David Baker denounces two users directly based on your threats to withdraw. I'm very glad David Baker did not make such a statement.

Actually we never told Dr. Baker that we were "threatening to withdraw"..
We asked over and over and when that statement was not made by him we left.
I don't threaten people, thats not my way of dealing with them but neither do I support a project that allows people to question my integrity and call me names on a forum that the project controls.
Movieman

---

IMHO there is such an unambiguous statement from David Baker here:
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2143#23462

If you call that unambiguous, so be it. I dont see it as unambigous and thus, I see it as perpetuating the use of the "C" word by those who did use it and who are still using it.

@Movieman

Your contribution and that of Xtremesystems was never questioned and helped very much. However the fact that you contributed more than e.g. Saenger does not mean that the project should name him as the bad guy in a discussion in which you both disagree (whether the use of 5.5.0 is cheating or not). It defined its own position (no cheating) and took care that nobody gets insulted but it could not condemn people who disagree with the view of the project.

I agree that it is important to listen to the big guys carefully in order to understand what they expect. The project did and quickly discarded the backdating (which was favoured by Saenger btw.). As for BOINC cross project parity I assume the team just feels part of the BOINC framework and does not want to undermine the efforts of other projects by arbitrarily granting 3 times the average credit. You disagree, others agree - in the end this is a decision of the project, which one can understand as they had to weigh in the long term implications and pressure when granting more credits than a host physically can compute. That would have created a long-term liability and threat to the project. It has nothing to do with listening to a "vocal minority".

I just can't see how you came to the conclusion that the project listened more to other people than to you. In the end imho they took the most reasonable stand with not altering the past but introducing a fair system for the future.

@Movieman

Your contribution and that of Xtremesystems was never questioned and helped very much. However the fact that you contributed more than e.g. Saenger does not mean that the project should name him as the bad guy in a discussion in which you both disagree (whether the use of 5.5.0 is cheating or not). It defined its own position (no cheating) and took care that nobody gets insulted but it could not condemn people who disagree with the view of the project.

I agree that it is important to listen to the big guys carefully in order to understand what they expect. The project did and quickly discarded the backdating (which was favoured by Saenger btw.). As for BOINC cross project parity I assume the team just feels part of the BOINC framework and does not want to undermine the efforts of other projects by arbitrarily granting 3 times the average credit. You disagree, others agree - in the end this is a decision of the project, which one can understand as they had to weigh in the long term implications and pressure when granting more credits than a host physically can compute. That would have created a long-term liability and threat to the project. It has nothing to do with listening to a "vocal minority".

I just can't see how you came to the conclusion that the project listened more to other people than to you. In the end imho they took the most reasonable stand with not altering the past but introducing a fair system for the future.

I understand and see your perspective on this.
My major issue was the name calling.
How in this world can you support someone who can't rise up and put a stop on their own forum to what happenned?
Who it was that used the word is really not important but dear God, without respect you have nothing.
I used the numbers between myself and Saenger just to show a real world contribution.
All I ever wanted from any credit program was that it be fair across the platforms within the project.Whether it was one point or a hundred per WU didn't matter BUT when I saw that the new system came across as "coincidently" the same values as what the people across the aisle from me on this issue wanted that said to me that the drvelopers had also caved in to what the SETI people wanted.
As to the backdating and here I am speaking for myself only not representing the teams opinion: It wouldn't bother me in the least.
I should note that both myself and LV_Dicedealer stepped down as co-captains of the XS Rosetta team last week over these issues.
I have never pursued points as a goal. I put all my machinery in another guys account more than once to help people out and have some fun with the competitions. Look at the " Guys we have a battle brewing" thread on XS.
We have fun with the competitions and thats the only value of the points to me personally. Some do take them more seriously and I respect that and support those that do so.
I just felt and feel so frustrated that I could not get across to the developers the importance of the word respect.
Without that you as an individual have nothing.
Movieman

---

I understand and see your perspective on this.
My major issue was the name calling.
How in this world can you support someone who can't rise up and put a stop on their own forum to what happenned?

It's not my forum, mine is SETI.Germany. I'm a participant over there, like on some other team fora as well, but I consider me as a guest. Chrunch3r was a member of S.G when the trouble with his client started over @Seti. He was treated a bit prematurely as a c***, because he didn't move all his puters in time to his newer client, and thus claimed too much there (on only one or two puters of his farm). He got hold of the wrong end of the stick and left for SETI.USA, not without retraction of his client from his site. AFAIK he went to other projects to help with optimization of the application there.

Who it was that used the word is really not important but dear God, without respect you have nothing.
I used the numbers between myself and Saenger just to show a real world contribution.
All I ever wanted from any credit program was that it be fair across the platforms within the project.Whether it was one point or a hundred per WU didn't matter BUT when I saw that the new system came across as "coincidently" the same values as what the people across the aisle from me on this issue wanted that said to me that the drvelopers had also caved in to what the SETI people wanted.
As to the backdating and here I am speaking for myself only not representing the teams opinion: It wouldn't bother me in the least.
I should note that both myself and LV_Dicedealer stepped down as co-captains of the XS Rosetta team last week over these issues.
I have never pursued points as a goal. I put all my machinery in another guys account more than once to help people out and have some fun with the competitions. Look at the " Guys we have a battle brewing" thread on XS.
We have fun with the competitions and thats the only value of the points to me personally. Some do take them more seriously and I respect that and support those that do so.
I just felt and feel so frustrated that I could not get across to the developers the importance of the word respect.
Without that you as an individual have nothing.
Movieman

The word respect is something I miss as well for those crunchers who got flamed and called names like "zero-RACers" (meant and taken as an insult) by those who claimed too much.
I never said, and would never say, that I did more or even just the same amount of work for this project like you. Considering your farm, I definitely did even less in regard of all BOINC, but that's not the issue. The issue was fairness, and claimimg more without doing more isn't fair.
The flaming of us, who wanted fairness by those who wanted their inflated credits (and the obvious bias by the project team towards the overclaimers) was something that nearly drove a lot of people away.

The result is a compromise: The past will stay as it was (imho no useful stats for any comparsion and a jumpstart for the overclaimers), but the future will be a fair competition, work done will be granted the same, regardless of the machine and the client it's done with.

I can live with it, although I find it quite hard, and I think you can as well, as the new system is definitely fair and nothing is retracted. I really can't understand what problems there still are on "your" side ("your" doesn't necessarily mean you personally, but you as a representant of your group/team).

I understand and see your perspective on this.
My major issue was the name calling.
How in this world can you support someone who can't rise up and put a stop on their own forum to what happenned?
Who it was that used the word is really not important but dear God, without respect you have nothing.
I used the numbers between myself and Saenger just to show a real world contribution.
All I ever wanted from any credit program was that it be fair across the platforms within the project.Whether it was one point or a hundred per WU didn't matter BUT when I saw that the new system came across as "coincidently" the same values as what the people across the aisle from me on this issue wanted that said to me that the drvelopers had also caved in to what the SETI people wanted.
As to the backdating and here I am speaking for myself only not representing the teams opinion: It wouldn't bother me in the least.
I should note that both myself and LV_Dicedealer stepped down as co-captains of the XS Rosetta team last week over these issues.
I have never pursued points as a goal. I put all my machinery in another guys account more than once to help people out and have some fun with the competitions. Look at the " Guys we have a battle brewing" thread on XS.
We have fun with the competitions and thats the only value of the points to me personally. Some do take them more seriously and I respect that and support those that do so.
I just felt and feel so frustrated that I could not get across to the developers the importance of the word respect.
Without that you as an individual have nothing.
Movieman

Okay I see your point as well. In fact I can understand the importance of respect as it is the only acknowlegement a volunteer can get from the project staff and I want that for my efforts as well. I repeat myself but I think that you indeed put a great effort in supporting this project and even spent a lot of money for it (hardware upgrade and electricity). The only reward you ask for was support and a statement like: Hey thank you very much, your effort is really appreciated and helps us a lot.

In the end I think it was a tragic misunderstanding since I think the project staff and David Baker especially respect your efforts indeed. As for that statement you called for I think it did not happen due to several reasons. First you and your teammates reacted quite sensitive to the name calling and answered that with some bad posts as well. This lead to a quite heated atmosphere which was hard to control (especially in the absence of active mods). I must admit that I myself warned David Baker from preferential treatment of XtremeSystems and perhaps that was a mistake, since you didn't ask for preferential treatment but just for a clear message that your efforts are appreciated. David Baker was probably surprised about the chaos emanating from his posts so he decided to not comment any longer on the issue. Your call for "straight talk" was perhaps also misinterpreted as taking sides and choosing some participants over others. That is one great downside of internet communication that you can't really assess a statement since you are missing a great lot of information which you can obtain if speaking in person to someone. Believe me or not, I'm really sorry that Xtremesystems left, since it was impressive to watch the dedication the team put in supporting Rosetta and I'm sure David Baker feels the same. I understand now your frustration but feel at the same time that you contributed to the run of events as well with some harsh and ambiguous posts as well. Well that's it basically but now nobody can change it. Give WCG a kick as you did for Rosetta and perhaps some time you and your teammates feel like supporting Rosetta again.

I understand and see your perspective on this.
My major issue was the name calling.
How in this world can you support someone who can't rise up and put a stop on their own forum to what happenned?

It's not my forum, mine is SETI.Germany. I'm a participant over there, like on some other team fora as well, but I consider me as a guest. Chrunch3r was a member of S.G when the trouble with his client started over @Seti. He was treated a bit prematurely as a c***, because he didn't move all his puters in time to his newer client, and thus claimed too much there (on only one or two puters of his farm). He got hold of the wrong end of the stick and left for SETI.USA, not without retraction of his client from his site. AFAIK he went to other projects to help with optimization of the application there.

Who it was that used the word is really not important but dear God, without respect you have nothing.
I used the numbers between myself and Saenger just to show a real world contribution.
All I ever wanted from any credit program was that it be fair across the platforms within the project.Whether it was one point or a hundred per WU didn't matter BUT when I saw that the new system came across as "coincidently" the same values as what the people across the aisle from me on this issue wanted that said to me that the drvelopers had also caved in to what the SETI people wanted.
As to the backdating and here I am speaking for myself only not representing the teams opinion: It wouldn't bother me in the least.
I should note that both myself and LV_Dicedealer stepped down as co-captains of the XS Rosetta team last week over these issues.
I have never pursued points as a goal. I put all my machinery in another guys account more than once to help people out and have some fun with the competitions. Look at the " Guys we have a battle brewing" thread on XS.
We have fun with the competitions and thats the only value of the points to me personally. Some do take them more seriously and I respect that and support those that do so.
I just felt and feel so frustrated that I could not get across to the developers the importance of the word respect.
Without that you as an individual have nothing.
Movieman

The word respect is something I miss as well for those crunchers who got flamed and called names like "zero-RACers" (meant and taken as an insult) by those who claimed too much.
I never said, and would never say, that I did more or even just the same amount of work for this project like you. Considering your farm, I definitely did even less in regard of all BOINC, but that's not the issue. The issue was fairness, and claimimg more without doing more isn't fair.
The flaming of us, who wanted fairness by those who wanted their inflated credits (and the obvious bias by the project team towards the overclaimers) was something that nearly drove a lot of people away.

The result is a compromise: The past will stay as it was (imho no useful stats for any comparsion and a jumpstart for the overclaimers), but the future will be a fair competition, work done will be granted the same, regardless of the machine and the client it's done with.

I can live with it, although I find it quite hard, and I think you can as well, as the new system is definitely fair and nothing is retracted. I really can't understand what problems there still are on "your" side ("your" doesn't necessarily mean you personally, but you as a representant of your group/team).

The only thing that I can't live with is the fact that Dr. Baker wouldn't come to this section of the forum, make a simple statement that the use of 5.5.0 was accepted by him and that would have put an end to it.
What you and I both wanted was a system that gave fair credit to each machine for the work it did. Where we differed was in how to do so. You were fine with the stock Boinc client. It was not fair across the platforms and gave a huge advantage to any AMD based cpu.Crunch3r's 5.5.0 solved that issue and fairly but at a higher level.
Since you didn't compete at a high level this was not important to you but I say to you that if you had 5,10, or 20 machines that were Intel based you would have very quickly changed your opinion.
Now you could compare apples(AMD) to Oranges(Intel) and get a fair point value between the 2 types. I agree that this would only work within Rosetta but that is the project that we competed in.
Had everyone within rosetta switched to 5.5.0 the parity within rosetta would be fine. It is only when you bring the other Boinc projects into the discussion that it becomes a problem.
This is all past history at this point as Dr. Baker by his lack of statement in this section did state how he felt.
I was just too much of a "thick mick" to understand that at first.
I do now.
Movieman

---

I understand and see your perspective on this.
My major issue was the name calling.
How in this world can you support someone who can't rise up and put a stop on their own forum to what happenned?
Who it was that used the word is really not important but dear God, without respect you have nothing.
I used the numbers between myself and Saenger just to show a real world contribution.
All I ever wanted from any credit program was that it be fair across the platforms within the project.Whether it was one point or a hundred per WU didn't matter BUT when I saw that the new system came across as "coincidently" the same values as what the people across the aisle from me on this issue wanted that said to me that the drvelopers had also caved in to what the SETI people wanted.
As to the backdating and here I am speaking for myself only not representing the teams opinion: It wouldn't bother me in the least.
I should note that both myself and LV_Dicedealer stepped down as co-captains of the XS Rosetta team last week over these issues.
I have never pursued points as a goal. I put all my machinery in another guys account more than once to help people out and have some fun with the competitions. Look at the " Guys we have a battle brewing" thread on XS.
We have fun with the competitions and thats the only value of the points to me personally. Some do take them more seriously and I respect that and support those that do so.
I just felt and feel so frustrated that I could not get across to the developers the importance of the word respect.
Without that you as an individual have nothing.
Movieman

Okay I see your point as well. In fact I can understand the importance of respect as it is the only acknowlegement a volunteer can get from the project staff and I want that for my efforts as well. I repeat myself but I think that you indeed put a great effort in supporting this project and even spent a lot of money for it (hardware upgrade and electricity). The only reward you ask for was support and a statement like: Hey thank you very much, your effort is really appreciated and helps us a lot.

In the end I think it was a tragic misunderstanding since I think the project staff and David Baker especially respect your efforts indeed. As for that statement you called for I think it did not happen due to several reasons. First you and your teammates reacted quite sensitive to the name calling and answered that with some bad posts as well. This lead to a quite heated atmosphere which was hard to control (especially in the absence of active mods). I must admit that I myself warned David Baker from preferential treatment of XtremeSystems and perhaps that was a mistake, since you didn't ask for preferential treatment but just for a clear message that your efforts are appreciated. David Baker was probably surprised about the chaos emanating from his posts so he decided to not comment any longer on the issue. Your call for "straight talk" was perhaps also misinterpreted as taking sides and choosing some participants over others. That is one great downside of internet communication that you can't really assess a statement since you are missing a great lot of information which you can obtain if speaking in person to someone. Believe me or not, I'm really sorry that Xtremesystems left, since it was impressive to watch the dedication the team put in supporting Rosetta and I'm sure David Baker feels the same. I understand now your frustration but feel at the same time that you contributed to the run of events as well with some harsh and ambiguous posts as well. Well that's it basically but now nobody can change it. Give WCG a kick as you did for Rosetta and perhaps some time you and your teammates feel like supporting Rosetta again.

Thank you.
I was never even looking for an "ataboy" from Dr. Baker.I don't need that.I am 54, have very little ego and my motivation was self imposed. I orginally asked Dr. Baker to come and post at XS months ago in the hope that it would help recruit more of the members at XS to the Rosetta team and was very happy when he did come and speak there.
I even came up with what I thought was a novel way to tripple XS output in Rosetta but that never got any attention at Baker Labs.
PM me at XS and I'll explain that one to you..<BG>
I totally agree on the written versus spoken issue. A lot is lost.
Is the person genuine or is it BS. Do they sound as if they know what they are talking about,etc. I would have loved to have had 15 minutes on the phone with Dr. Baker to try and get across many issues. I think had he heard it from my lips things may have turned out different on many fronts.
Time to let this go for today.
Movieman

---

In the end I think it was a tragic misunderstanding ...

It was not. A reading of what transpired at Boinc Synergy and is still transpiring today , shows it was not a misunderstanding at all.

http://www.boincsynergy.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7582

Any posts after the first post in this thread may be hidden in this thread. They've been moved here as they were off topic, and I'd made the request for them not to be posted in that thread.

If I can allow someone to imply that I'm lying, and he posts links that prove the point I was making, you should be able to drop this battle of words as well. Let's be respectful of each other's opinions, and agree that we disagree.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Tymbrimi
ROSETTA@home FAQ
Moderator Contact

Any posts after the first post in this thread are likely hidden in this thread. They've been moved here as they were off topic, and I'd made the request for them not to be posted in that thread.

If I can allow someone to imply that I'm lying, and he posts links that prove the point I was making, you should be able to drop this battle of words as well. Let's be respectful of each other's opinions, and agree that we disagree.

I have yet to see a thread in the numbers crunching setion of this forum stay on topic for longer than 3 posts,
When someone posts a statement in a thread and someone responds to that statement, to remove the response without removing the orginal off topic post is negligent on any mod's part as it only allows one side of an issue to be seen by the public.
I've just gone thrugh my post list and seen some have been removed as "obscene"..By what defination of the word?
Obscene, according to Websters is the following:
Main Entry: ob·scene
Pronunciation: äb-'sEn, &b-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin obscenus, obscaenus
1 : disgusting to the senses : REPULSIVE
2 a : abhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity b : containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage <obscene lyrics> c : repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles <an obscene misuse of power> d : so excessive as to be offensive <obscene wealth> <obscene waste>


I don't beleive that I made any post that fit that description.
What your asking for is only light and fluff posts that say what a wonderfull world we live in when the reality is that it is not.
You also have a BIG problem with people playing with that voting system in the threads as I mentioned a while back.
When a post can be deleted by one groups convergence on it and hitting the minus box you have a serious problem.
The net effect is that only one side of an issue is ever seen.
I really don't know why I bother. Bakers lack of character in stopping that crap weeks ago and now Mod's that seek to stifle anyone who dares to open their mouths in any way of opposition.
This brings back thoughts of Nazi Germany and only fortifies my resolve to get this whole mess out into a public venue.
Sign me,
Disgusted

---