I guess I have been modded for "taunting" HUH ?

I guess I am gone - modding has gone just a little to far.

maybe next time.

---

SETI.USA

From Kevint on Sept 16th:

[quote]Huh? Where did you get that? It was not team XS that requested a change to the system. At least not that I saw here.

15239

Appears to me that this was started by stephen.t [.. Edit by T.M.] member of CFVault.
And one of the first mention of credit adjustment - [.. Edit by T.M.] chrisjej
same thread


And you point is ?
XS did not start the discussion on credit-
I was here crunching when it started - and from my memory it not from team XS, but from several crunchers who's contribution to the project individually was minimal at best, however, those added up together do contribute a large chunk of the work done, thus the beauty of DC projects - even the smallest cruncher can contribute.
But why damage the project because of their crying and - well I don't know what else to call it but jealousy ?

---

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

From Anders_n on Sept 16:

Appears to me that this was started by stephen.t [... edit by T.M.]

Sins Stephen.t is not here to answer I´ll try to.

Stephen.t stopped cruching Rosetta when the project choose to allow

the use of optimized boinc clients.

Hopfully he will return again :)

as I recall history.

Anders n

---

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

From XS_Vietnam_Soldier on Sept 16:
[edit of text quoted by Movieman - T.M.]

[quote]Huh? Where did you get that? It was not team XS that requested a change to the system. At least not that I saw here.

15239

Appears to me that this was started by stephen.t [edit - T.M.] member of CFVault.
And one of the first mention of credit adjustment - [edit - T.M.] chrisjej
same thread


And you point is ?
XS did not start the discussion on credit-
I was here crunching when it started - and from my memory it not from team XS, but from several crunchers who's contribution to the project individually was minimal at best, however, those added up together do contribute a large chunk of the work done, thus the beauty of DC projects - even the smallest cruncher can contribute.
But why damage the project because of their crying and - well I don't know what else to call it but jealousy ?

Kevin:
Your right. XS was not the first to bring up the subject of changing the credit system but we did want to see it changed to a work based credit system.
We were also the ones that brought to Baker Labs the info that people were modifying the XML files to obtain huge benchmarks as shown here:
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=458#15239
People tend to think that because XS is highly competitive that we will stop at nothing to get to #1 in a project when that is just not true.
If it was true, why would we have brought this info to Baker Labs in the first place?
I've explained many times why we used crunch3r's files so there's no sense in rehashing that again.
Was what happenned here jealousy? I don't know. I've thought about it many times and what I came to was this was an attempt to force the project into "cross project parity" at any cost, even if it hurt the project in the long or short term.
When XS left Rosetta the timing was such that the colleges were just reopening so the effect of XS leaving was not really seen.
That effect will not be seen until next summer when the schools close again.
As much anger as I have towards certain individuals here, that is not directed at the science end of Rosetta as I did and still continue to think it's the best option for breakthroughs in the next 2-3 years.
What bothers me the most is when I think of what could have been had the developers taken the time to see what we could actually do for them.
I kept hearing that everyone was "busy" and " no time" for this or that.
That is management.When someone says to you that they have an idea that can add another 20-30% to the total results that can be crunched on a daily basis and it will take 10 minutes of your time to help make that happen and not one dime from your pocket, you make that 10 minutes.
You don't blow off the people that are tying to help you.

---

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

From Zombie67:

...a [deleted insulting term - T.M.]...

Careful. I was censored twice for using [deleted insulting terms - T.M.]. The first time they gave no explination as to why I was censored. The second time, they told me it was the second time for using the term.

Of course, they never provided a suitable alternative either. So, let's guess positive alternatives:

[deleted potentially insulting terms - T.M.]

Others? I'm stumped.

My response:

I assumed from seeing your edited message and the explanation posted that you'd be able to figure out which terms you used weren't allowed. If it's being used to insult, potentially insult, belittle, or disparage the other side, then don't use it. If you can't find a polite way of referring to someone, then refrain from referring to them.
If you really need suggestions, then remember Charlie Chan and use phrases like "Most Honorable Fellow Rosetta Contributor" <an attempt at humor>.

The core topic to this thread is the New Credit System. Let's try to stay on topic.

Guidelines 2
Guidelines 1
taken from those two posts:
Be careful with the terms you use to describe others. Be polite.


I started this thread to allow the discussion of a topic, and not allow it to break down into war because of use of words that are taken as insults from one side or the other. The terms used do not bother me; nor do the terms they can be claimed to represent. Perhaps I'm being overcautious. But if it helps keep everyone focused on the topic instead of trying to find sneaky ways to insult each other or find sneaky ways to interpret innocent things said by the other side as insults, then I will have succeeded.

---

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

The whole point of a credit system (see, this *is* on topic) is competition. By definition, everyone has more or less than the next guy.

What's the point in having RAC if someone cannot talk about it? You might as well just get rid of the whole thing.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

What's the point in having RAC if someone cannot talk about it?

It wasn't a discussion of RAC; it was using a RAC reference to belittle someone. It is not pertinent to the conversation, is not being polite, and is not neccessary.

Discuss the topic of the New Credit System, and help keep this a peaceful conversation.

Thank you.

---

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

What's the point in having RAC if someone cannot talk about it?

It wasn't a discussion of RAC; it was using a RAC reference to belittle someone. It is not pertinent to the conversation, is not being polite, and is not neccessary.

You are absolutely wrong here.

I was belittling no one. It was an observation and pertinent to the point which was "many who instigated change to the credit system (on topic), had contributed little or nothing to the project." That was a necessary distinction, in contrasting to the group that was chased off, who had contributed much more. Because the first point I started out with, was that the change in the credit system (yet again, on topic) was a nice-to-have change, but that it was not worth the net loss in crunching power it caused in the end.

Do you see? It was analysis, not belittling in any way.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

Do you see? It was analysis, not belittling in any way.

Given your logic, the "c" word and many replacements for the dreaded "c" word should also be allowed here. They are not. Therefore, disparaging and belittling comments about those that dedicate less than an eMachine from Walmart running 24/7 are also not allowed in this thread. It's unneccessary to use such terms in this thread.

Movieman claimed that they did not leave due to credits or the New Credit System, so that no longer needs to be brought up in this New Credit System thread.

---

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

Given your logic, the "c" word and many replacements for the dreaded "c" word should also be allowed here.

Credit?

My logic had nothing to do with what you just wrote. If you can't understand what I am writing, there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion on the point. Moving on.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

carl.h posted on Sept 16:

Anders_n said....Well I think he said but it maybe Mod.Tymbrimi..

Sins Stephen.t is not here to answer I´ll try to.

Stephen.t stopped cruching Rosetta when the project choose to allow

the use of optimized boinc clients.

Hopfully he will return again :)

as I recall history.

Anders n

So Stephen thought more of the points than the project, unlike **XS and **Teddies who quit for other reasons. [removal of phrase that was used in a non complementary fashion. - T.M.]

The use or not of optimised clients was not and is still not in Rosetta devs hands.

What it all boils down to is what people have said time and again.....Boinc is the problem. Look at the facts....

1) The initial use of optimised mostly stemmed from Seti, who a lot were cross project. This infected all other projects.

2) Some rogue elements used highly optimised (for points only)clients to skew the scores even more.

3)Crunch3r`s client was optimised to legitamely take into account SSE etc., even though SOME projects could not make use of such. The fact that Boinc is used cross project therefore makes crunch3rs files legit.

4) There is no parity between projects though they are working on it, it hasn`t happened yet. Therefore total Boinc scores are ludicrous and not an accurate measure.

5) Points are a device to give the user some semblance of how his units compare to others in an attempt to create competitiveness. They are not a serious measure and are infact worthless.

6)The grudges and sectarianism the points issue has caused is only cushioned by the fact this world is virtual else serious violence would have broken out.

** Not all XS and Teddies quit this project!

Thanks for pointing out that I didn't credit Anders_n.

---

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

What's the point in having RAC if someone cannot talk about it?

It wasn't a discussion of RAC; it was using a RAC reference to belittle someone. It is not pertinent to the conversation, is not being polite, and is not neccessary.

You are absolutely wrong here.

I was belittling no one. It was an observation and pertinent to the point which was "many who instigated change to the credit system (on topic), had contributed little or nothing to the project." That was a necessary distinction, in contrasting to the group that was chased off, who had contributed much more. Because the first point I started out with, was that the change in the credit system (yet again, on topic) was a nice-to-have change, but that it was not worth the net loss in crunching power it caused in the end.

Do you see? It was analysis, not belittling in any way.

The need for a new credit system was never challenged by [edited:] somebody until the new credit system went into effect. Then some people realised that it will cause less credits for them and they started to question the need for a new credit system.

The net effect of the credit change is already positive. More active hosts than ever. Those [edited:] hosts from XS (they claim it were 2000, I assume it was something between 500 and 100) are outweighed by many new hosts.

Two edits, for a) correct grammer and b) no flaming

Given your logic, the "c" word and many replacements for the dreaded "c" word should also be allowed here.

Credit?

My logic had nothing to do with what you just wrote. If you can't understand what I am writing, there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion on the point. Moving on.

We are not allowed to name the blatant fuffing of credits with no reason what it is (the "C"-word), but the constant diffamation of multi-project single puter users is OK?

That's not my definition of fairness, that's more my definition of mobbing.

Mod.De said

There is indeed no point for a rational discussion. The new credit system is better than the old one, it is quite fair although perhaps not yet perfect.

Is that not opinion ?

Now there are three sides to the argument, with the mods leaning heavily one way !

Tralalala said

The need for a new credit system was never challenged by nobody

So it was challenged by somebody ?

And again a jibe at XS with no moderation.....

Smells around here a lot !

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

Saenger wrote

We are not allowed to name the blatant fuffing of credits with no reason what it is (the "C"-word), but the constant diffamation of multi-project single puter users is OK?

Multi-project single users were mostly to blame for irregularities in the points system as they bought Seti optimisations into the main. So one could say they are the main culprits of fluffing and the cause of it`s spread!

The Boinc system of points was spoilt long before anyone heard of XS not that it ever worked on a parity anyhow!

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

Given your logic, the "c" word and many replacements for the dreaded "c" word should also be allowed here.

Credit?

My logic had nothing to do with what you just wrote. If you can't understand what I am writing, there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion on the point. Moving on.

We are not allowed to name the blatant fuffing of credits with no reason what it is (the "C"-word), but the constant diffamation of multi-project single puter users is OK?

That's not my definition of fairness, that's more my definition of mobbing.

Fair enough. BUT I think you have to ask yourself in all fairness by splitting one older machine up between many projects are you actually helping any of them in any tangible way?
By splitting the resources of that one older machine over many projects your not really helping any of them.
Pick one because your heart and mind tells you that it is important and then do what you can for that one project.
We have guys at XS with just one older machine and they are welcomed just as someone with many machines is.

---

Just a few numbers:
At one point XS had over 600 registered members on the Rosetta team.
That was a max number but a more realistic number was closer to 220-250 daily contributers.
One of these people had close to 100 machines by himself:DDTUNG
Windforce had 38
XSTM had close to 20-25
serlv had between 20-25
VNS varied between 14-20
LV_Dicedealer had I beleive 6-8
Many of the members had 4-6 machines running 24/7 on rosetta
Maybe a better number is in the 500-700 range.
The number is really unimportant but if you want to get an idea, just go to the WCG page and look up device installations for each of the members there on XS.
Keep in mind that this is far less than 1/2 of what we had on Rosetta.

---

It's obvious that there is still an issue here related to credits and why the system was changed that has not been resolved, and does not appear to be going away.

Trying to ignore that the problem exists between two groups of users by deleting posts is not going to make the issue go away, but continue to inflame it.

The folks from the project refuse to come here to discuss it, so it will remain a problem.

---

Nemesis n. A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent.

I started this thread to allow the discussion of a topic, and not allow it to break down into war because of use of words that are taken as insults from one side or the other. The terms used do not bother me; nor do the terms they can be claimed to represent. Perhaps I'm being overcautious. But if it helps keep everyone focused on the topic instead of trying to find sneaky ways to insult each other or find sneaky ways to interpret innocent things said by the other side as insults, then I will have succeeded.

Your mistake was opening the thread. Given what had happened , any discussion of the new credit was going to be used to attack and for the attacked to defend themselves.

Alas to compound that first error, the way used to moderate this and other threads have left you and the other moderators open to the accusation of bias. Is accusing you and other moderators of being biased against a person or team , unfair? Maybe , but given the situation that serve as background to this and other similar threads , you and the other moderators were naive if you did not foresee what happened and alas , given the way you and the other moderators have moderated , it gives the impression ( which given the environment is stronger than possible reality) of bias.

Okies...I know it will be deleted...but you will have Read it. :)

snip..I started this thread to allow the discussion of a topic, and not allow it to break down into war because of use of words that are taken as insults from one side or the other. The terms used do not bother me; nor do the terms they can be claimed to represent. Perhaps I'm being overcautious. But if it helps keep everyone focused on the topic instead of trying to find sneaky ways to insult each other or find sneaky ways to interpret innocent things said by the other side as insults, then I will have succeeded.

I think that's where your mistake is. Research any of the threads on this entire section and you'll find that they start in one direction and then branch off as new information is added.
Your attempt to force by deletion to keep a thread only on the straight and narrow as you perceive it is not moderation but censorship.
I will admit I've said some rather imflamatory things in this forum over the last 2 weeks but I think if you open your eyes you will understand what brought out those feelings in me.
I always beleived that what I was doing was fair and honorable and then to be called what has been said here really pissed me off.
You talk to anyone that knows me and the one thing you will hear is that I am a fair and honest person. I live my life by the ideals of honor,trust and loyalty.
Very old fashioned in that way and when my integrity was questioned I responded in anger. I do admit to being ignorant of the overall BOINC world when I got involved with Rosetta and so never saw or understood the importance to some people of "cross project parity".To me I saw a political type of maneuver by a few to subugate the goals of the project to what they wanted as standards.
When I saw that these individuals were not contributing very much, I couldn't understand why they yelled so loud for change to meet what they thought was the ideal system.
I'm far from a perfect person, but one thing I can tell you is that what I did for Rosetta was based on beleif of the projects goals.
There was no private agenda and the points that came from that effort meant very little to me.
Had I realized the effect of using the crunch3r fileset back in April or May when I came across it, I never would have touched it. It did give parity across the cpu types but the hell it caused here simply wasn't worth it.
There have been many mistakes made here by the Baker Labs people:
1) Using a flawed BOINC manager in the first place.
2) When they realized that it was flawed, not moving away from it.
3)Not taking a firm stand on the use of Optimised files when the issue first came up months ago.
4)Failure to properly moderate their own forum with trained moderators from day one.
5)Hiring Moderators after the fact and recruiting those from teams that come with their own predudices no matter which side they favor.
6)Deploying a flawed new credit system that is not fair across all major platforms and OS's..If you disagree with this, just ask a mac user.
7) An overall failure by the Baker people and by this I mean David Baker and David Kim, to understand and communicate in straight non political talk with the people who support their project.
They may be great scientists but they are total failures as managers.That is not meant as an insult, just my feeling after dealing with all of this.
My beleif is that they thought they would have thousands of users putting PC's at their disposal with little or no imput needed by them.
Some have said that these people are very busy and have no time for this.
Some have said these people "live" in the lab and aren't aware of what is happenning.
I disagree. Both of these people grew up in the real world with social interaction and I assume have the verbal skills to interact with the average person.They are both certainly of well above average intelligence.
I submit that they have no other choice as this communication is an essential part of any project and if the project managers can not make time for this essential, perhaps they should have hired someone to do this for them.
Either way you look at it, there was bad judgement shown on their parts.
There are some that will not like what I have written here, but I assure you, there was no malice in me when writing this.
To this day, despite all that has happenned, I still think that Roestta is THE project that will bear the most fruit.
I just can not participate in this out of principle.

---