Jose,

I know it won't happen, and that it's impossible now because of lack of data. But just because DB said so, the facts don't change that it's decision that could have been made in another way.

I would have liked to have comparable crdits for the past. I can live without them, but I would still like to know why it would have been bad to make the past comparable, as I said, regardless of the direction of the straigtening, it could as well been done in the direction of the values of the 5.5 client.

This is no flaming, this is an attempt for a new, polite discussion, and with the plus of being strictly academical, without real consequences.

The majority of stock users had no chance to compete...

Sure they did. Just upgrade the client like everyone else with the "competition" mindset.

Ah so now it seems that some people that used stock clients were not in ONLY for the science as they repeated in their mantra.

Hey Zombie: Don't you remember when we were being told that competition was bad and that science for science sake was the only thing that mattered?

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

It is unethical to change the rules ex post facto. In fact, it is illegal to makes such laws in the US.

In this case, people decided to crunch (or not) based on the rules & credit system as they were *at the time*. If the rules/credit system were different, they may have chosen otherwise, for example crunching for SIMAP. You cannot go back in time to allow them to re-decide, and you cannot replace rosetta credits with SIMAP credits. Therefore you cannot go back in time to change the rules.

It works both ways though. There's a bunch of people who can no longer overtake other people so easily because of the new credit system and you can't allow them to go back and change their minds over running Rosetta in the past either...

Clearly not the same. Optomized clients were then (and still are) approved by Rosetta. All had the choice and opportunity to use them at that time. Many chose to use the stock client, and still crunch for Rosetta. There is no ex post facto here.

[edited for grammar]

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

OK, I'll jump in here, since all these posts are minutes from being deleted.

I don't think "backdating" is a cure for much of anything. David Kim stated in the Ralph forum that they had data that could be backdated and it was his plan to do so. Also, that this data only went back to February. At some point later we were informed that this data no longer existed and backdating was no longer possible, so it's a non issue. I wonder what happened to the data? Did it get deleted or did we get lied too?

In any case, backdating to February would still leave the leaderboards skewed, and so shouldn't be done. That's right, Unless the data could be backdated to the beginning, it's not a cure, but a partial move to representing "work done" throughout the projects life. The data is skewed now and would only be "less skewed" by backdating to February. The damage done is...well....Done. Without a complete reset of credit, it will always be skewed.

So, I vote NO to backdating.

tony

The majority of stock users had no chance to compete...

Sure they did. Just upgrade the client like everyone else with the "competition" mindset.

Ah so now it seems that some people that used stock clients were not in ONLY for the science as they repeated in their mantra.

Hey Zombie: Don't you remember when we were being told that competition was bad and that science for science sake was the only thing that mattered?

Not by me.
Science is more important imho, but competition is always one of the best parts in regards of the fun.

And to get one thing clear: 5.5 is not an upgrade, the upgrade will soon be 5.6 or something, upgrades come from Berkeley.

Jose, stop trying to be the thought police.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the words "backdating", "optimised", "client" and a few others are not banned words. In fact, chances are I won't even get moderated for using the word "cheat" in a post, as long as I don't accuse anyone of being one. I haven't accused people of cheating. I have pointed out that the credit system for years to come will be skewed because all work done in the first nine months or so of the project with an optimised client is worth several times work done subsequently.

Hold it there sparky!!!

The issue of backdating was closed by Dr Baker.

The moderators have been, during these last weeks , very active in deleting, moderating out and forcing edits to anyone trying to reopen the issue... regardless of the position they took. Saenger, whose position I don't agree with, has been the target of the moderating activities on this issue on many times. So the issue is now one of fairness to all those whose posts were affected. Allowing you or anybody to reopen the closed issue is unfair , not consistent.

If, holding the moderators to the precedents they chose to establish and that they enforced makes me the thought police : so be it

But Again I remind you:

David baker, the head developer for this project stated that there is no backdating that is Project Policy.

The moderators have delete and moderated out people for less when it comes to the issue of backdating and the use of some fighting words like over-claims, etc)

If this post and others are allowed to stand by the moderators, they will show and leave no doubts that they have taken sides and that they have been unfair and inconsistent in their moderating actions..

It is their call to prove those who have argued that they have taken sides and that they are not consistent wrong.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

And to get one thing clear: 5.5 is not an upgrade

Fine. Bad usage on my part. I should have said something along the line of "use an alternative client".

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

The majority of stock users had no chance to compete...

Sure they did. Just upgrade the client like everyone else with the "competition" mindset.

Ah so now it seems that some people that used stock clients were not in ONLY for the science as they repeated in their mantra.

Hey Zombie: Don't you remember when we were being told that competition was bad and that science for science sake was the only thing that mattered?

Not by me.
Science is more important imho, but competition is always one of the best parts in regards of the fun.

And to get one thing clear: 5.5 is not an upgrade, the upgrade will soon be 5.6 or something, upgrades come from Berkeley.

Saenger: even though you and I have disagreed very intensly on this issue. I will grant you that. You ave been consistent throught . For that you have my well deserved respect.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

I agree on the "how long it will take to catch up" thing. There are several users who signed up on the same day as myself, but who literally had several hundred thousand credits as of the change. Note that this was only using one P4 computer. Coincidentally, when the new credit system was rolled out, many of these users left the project. Even so, it will literally take me several years to catch up for the lead they've gotten in only a few months.

I know it was mentioned, in the past, that they wouldn't stop people from setting up a stats site (similar to BoincStats) where they could either start the credits over or backdate them, themselves. I.E. I would be in position X, officially, but the "unofficial" stats from that site would put me in position Y. I don't currently have the resources to do this (It's all I can afford to keep my two current crunchers running 24-7.), but that doesn't mean that someone else couldn't.

As others have said, I feel that this is pretty much an academic discussion, here. The only possible change I'm suggesting would be something off-site. I don't really see any harm in that. Most people already check their stats off-site, anyway (If you're not in the top 10k, you have to.). This would just be giving them another option.

---

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to."
Leela (From the Mac game "Marathon", released 1995)

I agree on the "how long it will take to catch up" thing. There are several users who signed up on the same day as myself, but who literally had several hundred thousand credits as of the change. Note that this was only using one P4 computer. Coincidentally, when the new credit system was rolled out, many of these users left the project. Even so, it will literally take me several years to catch up for the lead they've gotten in only a few months.

I know it was mentioned, in the past, that they wouldn't stop people from setting up a stats site (similar to BoincStats) where they could either start the credits over or backdate them, themselves. I.E. I would be in position X, officially, but the "unofficial" stats from that site would put me in position Y. I don't currently have the resources to do this (It's all I can afford to keep my two current crunchers running 24-7.), but that doesn't mean that someone else couldn't.

As others have said, I feel that this is pretty much an academic discussion, here. The only possible change I'm suggesting would be something off-site. I don't really see any harm in that. Most people already check their stats off-site, anyway (If you're not in the top 10k, you have to.). This would just be giving them another option.

David baker, the head developer for this project stated that there is no backdating that is Project Policy.

The moderators have delete and moderated out people for less when it comes to the issue of backdating and the use of some fighting words like over-claims, etc)

If this post and others are allowed to stand by the moderators, they will show and leave no doubts that they have taken sides and that they have been unfair and inconsistent in their moderating actions..

It is their call to prove those who have argued that they have taken sides and that they are not consistent wrong.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

Jose,
How can you have a discussion on the what you think of the credit system without talking about credits and what a person think it would be like if it was backdated?

Personally I see nothing wrong with Biggles talk on the backdating and it doesn't matter if Lazy was using a none standard boinc client and claimed more or less than it. It's an example of 'if that was the case'.

Can you not just sod what the mods have done (which at the time the major editing while harsh was to calm things down, which in the most they have compared to what it was like) and just get on with things how they are now.
Drop the issue for a week or so, if you see things are the same after that then by all means bring it up with the administration of the project, bakerlabs.
There is no point in going at moderators since well you know why there is no point.

and to top it all off, biggles was trying to have a discussion about the credit system. It's been long enough after the change to talk sensibly hasn't it.

We know back dating isn't going to be done (like CPDN did recently, though for a different reason).

Also as far as I know Rosetta@home can do what they like with the credit, there are no rules and it's not a game to the project. (though I do not know USA law). If this project stopped tomorrow, there would be no credit, the project could take them down. As I've said they have no value in that respect.

Jose,
How can you have a discussion on the what you think of the credit system without talking about credits and what a person think it would be like if it was backdated?

Personally I see nothing wrong with Biggles talk on the backdating and it doesn't matter if Lazy was using a none standard boinc client and claimed more or less than it. It's an example of 'if that was the case'.

Can you not just sod what the mods have done (which at the time the major editing while harsh was to calm things down, which in the most they have compared to what it was like) and just get on with things how they are now.
Drop the issue for a week or so, if you see things are the same after that then by all means bring it up with the administration of the project, bakerlabs.
There is no point in going at moderators since well you know why there is no point.

and to top it all off, biggles was trying to have a discussion about the credit system. It's been long enough after the change to talk sensibly hasn't it.

We know back dating isn't going to be done (like CPDN did recently, though for a different reason).

Also as far as I know Rosetta@home can do what they like with the credit, there are no rules and it's not a game to the project. (though I do not know USA law). If this project stopped tomorrow, there would be no credit, the project could take them down. As I've said they have no value in that respect.

Are you arguing for Rosetta to close down?

Biggles is trying to reopen the issue of back dating and so it seems you are too.

In fairness to Saenger and the other ones that were moderated out or harshly I have to repeat;

David baker, the head developer for this project stated that there is no backdating that is Project Policy.

The moderators have delete and moderated out people for less when it comes to the issue of backdating and the use of some fighting words like over-claims, etc)

If this post and others are allowed to stand by the moderators, they will show and leave no doubts that they have taken sides and that they have been unfair and inconsistent in their moderating actions..

It is their call to prove those who have argued that they have taken sides and that they are not consistent wrong.


If you don't want me to repeat this. Don't try to reopen the issue.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

Jose,

why are you hiding behind some words of the head honcho of this outfit and don't come over with arguments?

Jose,

why are you hiding behind some words of the head honcho of this outfit and don't come over with arguments?

Because the head honcho aka Dr David Baker established the policy that the moderators enforced here with wild abandon.

So again and with gusto:

David baker, the head developer for this project stated that there is no backdating. That is Project Policy.

The moderators have deleted and moderated out people for less when it comes to the issue of backdating and the use of some fighting words like over-claims, etc)

If this post and others are allowed to stand by the moderators, they will show and leave no doubts that they have taken sides and that they have been unfair and inconsistent in their moderating actions..

It is their call to prove those who have argued that they have taken sides and that they are not consistent wrong.


If you don't want me to repeat this. Don't try to reopen the issue.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

So you don't want to discuss it. I get it. Don't hide behind DB.

I'd like to know your reasons for this aversion, but obvoiously i won't get it.

Will you please leave those, who want to have a polit discussion have theirs and stop disturbing us with ceterum censeos.

I guess you never actually read the post.

---

Team mauisun.org

So you don't want to discuss it. I get it. Don't hide behind DB.

I'd like to know your reasons for this aversion, but obvoiously i won't get it.

Will you please leave those, who want to have a polit discussion have theirs and stop disturbing us with ceterum censeos.

I am holding the moserators to the standards and precedents they enforced. If they dont enforce the now it is not myy fault but it will surely bring out question re their previous moderating actions .

So if what people want is a flame war , I will give you one:



But as long as the issue is tried to be reopened , I wil have to repeat again and with gusto:

David baker, the head developer for this project stated that there is no backdating. That is Project Policy.

The moderators have deleted and moderated out people for less when it comes to the issue of backdating and the use of some fighting words like over-claims, etc)

If this post and others are allowed to stand by the moderators, they will show and leave no doubts that they have taken sides and that they have been unfair and inconsistent in their moderating actions..

It is their call to prove those who have argued that they have taken sides and that they are not consistent wrong.


If you don't want me to repeat this. Don't try to reopen the issue.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

I guess you never actually read the post.

So again and with gusto:

David baker, the head developer for this project stated that there is no backdating. That is Project Policy.

The moderators have deleted and moderated out people for less when it comes to the issue of backdating and the use of some fighting words like over-claims, etc)

If this post and others are allowed to stand by the moderators, they will show and leave no doubts that they have taken sides and that they have been unfair and inconsistent in their moderating actions..

It is their call to prove those who have argued that they have taken sides and that they are not consistent wrong.


If you don't want me to repeat this. Don't try to reopen the issue.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

I guess you never actually read the post.

So again and with gusto:

David baker, the head developer for this project stated that there is no backdating. That is Project Policy.

The moderators have deleted and moderated out people for less when it comes to the issue of backdating and the use of some fighting words like over-claims, etc)

If this post and others are allowed to stand by the moderators, they will show and leave no doubts that they have taken sides and that they have been unfair and inconsistent in their moderating actions..

It is their call to prove those who have argued that they have taken sides and that they are not consistent wrong.


If you don't want me to repeat this. Don't try to reopen the issue.

But Jose I did not bring up the issue, I just asked a question.

---

Team mauisun.org

But Jose I did not bring up the issue, I just asked a question.

Jose never answers questions.