We would also love to have a new forum. One in which people would post only constructive and polite responses, one in which people would not respond to provacation but instead inform the mods about that and one in which we could edit posts, to just edit the inflamatory content of a specific post and not to delete the whole post although most of the content was ok. :-)

As to moderator bias: All mods started here with the wish to bring peace and reason back and to moderate the different views. It turned out that a few people are/were not interested in a reasonable discussion but just try to use every possibility to discredit the project. Although we should try to be impartial in any discussion we are also committed to prevent damage to the project. If someone constantly repeats accusing the staff and the mods of being morons we need to act. That is the moment we become "biased".

---

I am a forum moderator! Am I?

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.


Carl.h said : Is that not opinion ?



Yes it is, and it is my opinion as a Mod. The new credit system was scrutinized over many threads and nobody (and here I mean nobody) could disagree that the new system is at least "somewhat" fairer - at least nobody who was argumenting rationally.

This from a mod seem`s to state quite clearly that no rational discussion on the credit system is needed "it is my opinion as a Mod". "Somewhat fairer", yes. "Not perfect", yes but beyond discussion ?????? Ludicrous !

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

I deleted a couple of posts calling the mods fascist and some debating whether this is an insult or not. Calling the mods fascist or acting like fascist is an insult at least for me. So this will be deleted in future as well.

---

I am a forum moderator! Am I?

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.


Carl.h said : Is that not opinion ?



Yes it is, and it is my opinion as a Mod. The new credit system was scrutinized over many threads and nobody (and here I mean nobody) could disagree that the new system is at least "somewhat" fairer - at least nobody who was argumenting rationally.

This from a mod seem`s to state quite clearly that no rational discussion on the credit system is needed "it is my opinion as a Mod". "Somewhat fairer", yes. "Not perfect", yes but beyond discussion ?????? Ludicrous !

Hi,

I think not being a native speaker is a disadvantage for me sometimes. I did not want to say that there is no way to debate the new credit system in a rational manner or that this should not take place. In fact it took place in several threads and was debated heavily. What I was trying to say was that it seems a rational discussion does not seem to influence the opinion of a few who repeat their statements again and again despite any rational argument. So I wanted to say, it seems a rational discussion does not solve the flaming problem since people flame whether a rational discussion took place or not.

I edited my first post to better reflect my intentions.

---

I am a forum moderator! Am I?

I deleted a couple of posts calling the mods fascist and some debating whether this is an insult or not. Calling the mods fascist or acting like fascist is an insult at least for me. So this will be deleted in future as well.

I am trying to be constructive and give you a positive recommendation. If this message is deleted, at least I am happy you read it. :)

The solution is simple don't want the adjective to be used then, don't give reasons for the adjective to be used . You many not be a fascist, (hey, as one of your favorite targets I may grant you that.) but, don't be disingenuous : you are acting like one.

Again, the issue is one of perception: given the environment under which you have been functioning, and sorry if you get offended, given the selectivity of many of your edits ( and yes you have been extremely selective) you have given the impression that you have taken sides.

DE : Please remember I am talking from experience: I have received many of your deleting messages and I even received a banning threat from you so, at least to me, you seem to be biased ( am going to be charitable) when you allow to stand or worst moderate in a way that allow nastiness against my team or me. You also seem to show bias in some of the comments you have made .

And given what has transpired here perception is stronger than reality

Yes it is, and it is my opinion as a Mod. The new credit system was scrutinized over many threads and nobody (and here I mean nobody) could disagree that the new system is at least "somewhat" fairer - at least nobody who was argumenting rationally.

This is an insult and flame-baiting without question : You are calling those who not agree with you non rational . So if the moderating here were consistent and applied uniformly , your flambeing should have been deleted and moderated out .

Worst, you are accepting bias. Those who not agree with you are non-rational. A moderator that has stated a bias MUST stop moderating and intervening as a moderator in the threads involved. A moderator cannot take sides and still believe his moderating power is going to be accepted without reservations by those he has taken a side against: a moderator, like a judge, has to recuse himself when he shows bias : real or potential

You want to give your opinion on a neuralgic subject : change to your member's id and do so. You are free to do so and your opinnion may not be shared but your right to state is and wil be protected .

And please : If you want to use the excuse that English is not your first language be ready to allow others to use it. I can think of one person you have deleted and threatened that is not a native speaker (me ;) ).

Deleting the facts does not make them any less the facts, infact in this case it proves them.

The discussion was not abusive, nor were it`s participants name calling, flaming or other.

We can play another game of copy and paste if you so wish !

You are being authorative, in a dictatorial manner which is fascistic behaviour whether you like it or not. It is a pertinent description that is acceptable the World over. It is a descriptive word not an insult!

Edit: I see you do want to play.

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

edit: Nah, I need to stop baiting Jose. As much fun as it is it would just get deleted :)

Yes it is, and it is my opinion as a Mod. The new credit system was scrutinized over many threads and nobody (and here I mean nobody) could disagree that the new system is at least "somewhat" fairer - at least nobody who was argumenting rationally.

This is an insult and flame-baiting without question : You are calling those who not agree with you non rational . So if the moderating here were consistent and applied uniformly , your flambeing should have been deleted and moderated out .

Worst, you are accepting bias. Those who not agree with you are non-rational. A moderator that has stated a bias MUST stop moderating and intervening as a moderator in the threads involved. A moderator cannot take sides and still believe his moderating power is going to be accepted without reservations by those he has taken a side against: a moderator, like a judge, has to recuse himself when he shows bias : real or potential

You want to give your opinion on a neuralgic subject : change to your member's id and do so. You are free to do so and your opinnion may not be shared but your right to state is and wil be protected .

And please : If you want to use the excuse that English is not your first language be ready to allow others to use it. I can think of one person you have deleted and threatened that is not a native speaker (me ;) ).

I'm not saying those who disagree with me are irrational. I just said that nobody who followed the rational discussion about the new credit system can deny that it is at least "somewhat" fairer than the old one was. That does not imply that people agree with me whether it was right or wrong to change the credit systen, whether it was done in the correct manner, whether...

---

I am a forum moderator! Am I?

Yes it is, and it is my opinion as a Mod. The new credit system was scrutinized over many threads and nobody (and here I mean nobody) could disagree that the new system is at least "somewhat" fairer - at least nobody who was argumenting rationally.

This is an insult and flame-baiting without question : You are calling those who not agree with you non rational . So if the moderating here were consistent and applied uniformly , your flambeing should have been deleted and moderated out .

Worst, you are accepting bias. Those who not agree with you are non-rational. A moderator that has stated a bias MUST stop moderating and intervening as a moderator in the threads involved. A moderator cannot take sides and still believe his moderating power is going to be accepted without reservations by those he has taken a side against: a moderator, like a judge, has to recuse himself when he shows bias : real or potential

You want to give your opinion on a neuralgic subject : change to your member's id and do so. You are free to do so and your opinnion may not be shared but your right to state is and wil be protected .

And please : If you want to use the excuse that English is not your first language be ready to allow others to use it. I can think of one person you have deleted and threatened that is not a native speaker (me ;) ).

I'm not saying those who disagree with me are irrational. I just said that nobody who followed the rational discussion about the new credit system can deny that it is at least "somewhat" fairer than the old one was. That does not imply that people agree with me whether it was right or wrong to change the credit systen, whether it was done in the correct manner, whether...

You can try to explain yourself to you turn blue...but what what you stated was unambiguous...

"at least nobody who was augmenting rationally.

Sorry DE, what you stated was very clear, those who do not agree with your position are not arguing rationally , thus they are irrational.

Simple statement with a simple but damming meaning: you called us irrational, you ,the moderator used flaming language and you have not been moderated out by another moderator, nor have you have the courtesy to apologize...

My opinion still stand: you dont have the temperament to be an unbiased moderator. The least you can do is not interfere with the postings of those of us you have called irrational.

Yes it is, and it is my opinion as a Mod. The new credit system was scrutinized over many threads and nobody (and here I mean nobody) could disagree that the new system is at least "somewhat" fairer - at least nobody who was argumenting rationally.

This is an insult and flame-baiting without question : You are calling those who not agree with you non rational . So if the moderating here were consistent and applied uniformly , your flambeing should have been deleted and moderated out .

Worst, you are accepting bias. Those who not agree with you are non-rational. A moderator that has stated a bias MUST stop moderating and intervening as a moderator in the threads involved. A moderator cannot take sides and still believe his moderating power is going to be accepted without reservations by those he has taken a side against: a moderator, like a judge, has to recuse himself when he shows bias : real or potential

You want to give your opinion on a neuralgic subject : change to your member's id and do so. You are free to do so and your opinnion may not be shared but your right to state is and wil be protected .

And please : If you want to use the excuse that English is not your first language be ready to allow others to use it. I can think of one person you have deleted and threatened that is not a native speaker (me ;) ).

I'm not saying those who disagree with me are irrational. I just said that nobody who followed the rational discussion about the new credit system can deny that it is at least "somewhat" fairer than the old one was. That does not imply that people agree with me whether it was right or wrong to change the credit systen, whether it was done in the correct manner, whether...

You can try to explain yourself to you turn blue...but what what you stated was unambiguous...

"at least nobody who was augmenting rationally.

Sorry DE, what you stated was very clear, those who do not agree with your position are not arguing rationally , thus they are irrational.

Simple statement with a simple but damming meaning: you called us irrational, you ,the moderator used flaming language and you have not been moderated out by another moderator, nor have you have the courtesy to apologize...

My opinion still stand: you dont have the temperament to be an unbiased moderator. The least you can do is not interfere with the postings of those of us you have called irrational.

I have a bias for rationality. Do you still know people who think the old credit system was fairer than the new one?

---

I am a forum moderator! Am I?

Yes it is, and it is my opinion as a Mod. The new credit system was scrutinized over many threads and nobody (and here I mean nobody) could disagree that the new system is at least "somewhat" fairer - at least nobody who was argumenting rationally.

This is an insult and flame-baiting without question : You are calling those who not agree with you non rational . So if the moderating here were consistent and applied uniformly , your flambeing should have been deleted and moderated out .

Worst, you are accepting bias. Those who not agree with you are non-rational. A moderator that has stated a bias MUST stop moderating and intervening as a moderator in the threads involved. A moderator cannot take sides and still believe his moderating power is going to be accepted without reservations by those he has taken a side against: a moderator, like a judge, has to recuse himself when he shows bias : real or potential

You want to give your opinion on a neuralgic subject : change to your member's id and do so. You are free to do so and your opinnion may not be shared but your right to state is and wil be protected .

And please : If you want to use the excuse that English is not your first language be ready to allow others to use it. I can think of one person you have deleted and threatened that is not a native speaker (me ;) ).

I'm not saying those who disagree with me are irrational. I just said that nobody who followed the rational discussion about the new credit system can deny that it is at least "somewhat" fairer than the old one was. That does not imply that people agree with me whether it was right or wrong to change the credit systen, whether it was done in the correct manner, whether...

You can try to explain yourself to you turn blue...but what what you stated was unambiguous...

"at least nobody who was augmenting rationally.

Sorry DE, what you stated was very clear, those who do not agree with your position are not arguing rationally , thus they are irrational.

Simple statement with a simple but damming meaning: you called us irrational, you ,the moderator used flaming language and you have not been moderated out by another moderator, nor have you have the courtesy to apologize...

My opinion still stand: you don't have the temperament to be an unbiased moderator. The least you can do is not interfere with the postings of those of us you have called irrational.

I have a bias for rationality. Do you still know people who think the old credit system was fairer than the new one?

DE: The issue in your case is not the new credit systems. It is simply your use of an insult and the fact that was not moderated out. Again , you restate that those that do not agree with you are not rational ( That is the logical consequence of your last statement.

Again you prove, you should not be moderating threads where an opinion different than yours is spouted or where people that have challenged you and that you have moderated out are participating.

And yes I know people that think the new system is not fair. DO I agree with them? In some cases I don't. But, I would never call the not rational. Much less insult them by tagging them in an open forum ;specially, if I were a moderator

To the moderators that told me DE was sorry, that it was a mistake because he did not intend to insult/flame and that he was to apologize.: not only did he did not apologize, he restated the basic claim of his insult ( those who don't agree with him are irrational) so the mistake argument is false: he clearly understood what he wanted to do and say ( Which it was to hurl the irrational insult.)

So when is DE going to be subject to the same moderating standard against insult and flames the rest of us , mere mortals are?

Mod De:
A simple question to ask you:
Before you became a moderator here, were you a poster on this forum?

---

Mod De:
A simple question to ask you:
Before you became a moderator here, were you a poster on this forum?

DAve, more important which participant and which team?

Jose you are sidestepping my question. I asked, do you still know people who think the old system was fairer then the new one? I did not ask, do you know people who think the new system isn't fair. Of course it's not totally fair it even has some significant shortages which were discussed here and elsewhere.

@Vietnam_soldier

Yes I was and am still an active poster here with a different poster name. I plan to "disclose" my non-mod-identity but wanted to wait until Dr. Baker introduces us (which was planned but perhaps will never come). And you know what, I even used the 5.5.0 for quite some time! ;-)

---

I am a forum moderator! Am I?

Jose you are sidestepping my question. I asked, do you still know people who think the old system was fairer then the new one? I did not ask, do you know people who think the new system isn't fair. Of course it's not totally fair it even has some significant shortages which were discussed here and elsewhere.

Let me answer that for Jose.
The old system when using the stock boinc client was very unfair to anyone with an Intel cpu based machine.
IF the 5.5.0 fileset was used by everyone on Rosetta then you would have had parity within the project and since there is and never was a parity between all Boinc projects that wasn't a factor against it's use.

---

Jose you are sidestepping my question. I asked, do you still know people who think the old system was fairer then the new one? I did not ask, do you know people who think the new system isn't fair. Of course it's not totally fair it even has some significant shortages which were discussed here and elsewhere.

@Vietnam_soldier

Yes I was and am still an active poster here with a different poster name. I plan to "disclose" my non-mod-identity but wanted to wait until Dr. Baker introduces us (which was planned but perhaps will never come). And you know what, I even used the 5.5.0 for quite some time! ;-)

Ahh, so you sort of jumped in feet 1st into the project?

---

Jose you are sidestepping my question. I asked, do you still know people who think the old system was fairer then the new one? I did not ask, do you know people who think the new system isn't fair. Of course it's not totally fair it even has some significant shortages which were discussed here and elsewhere.

I am telling you point blank that as a moderator, protected as you are by anonymity and your fellow moderators ; having used if not abused your moderating powers ; having insulted participants that do not agree with you ( a clear violations of the of the rules) the first thing you have to do is apologize for the flaming you have done as a moderator and are still doing.

The second thing you have to do is read. I am repeating what I said and obviously you did not read.

And yes I know people that think the new system is not fair. DO I agree with them? In some cases I don't. But, I would never call the not rational. Much less insult them by tagging them in an open forum ;specially, if I were a moderator

That said: I wont enter in a discussion with you re the credits as long as you are hidding under the moderator tittle. That title gives you powers in this board I dont have and a protection from your fellow moderators.

Jose, I apologize that I didn't make that statement with my non-mod-handle. Then I would have avoided the dicussion whether a mod can make such a statement or not.

I still can't follow your reasoning why the statement could be interpreted as an insult since nobody is argumenting the old system was fairer than the new one - not even you or Vietnam_Soldier do. ;-) There are many differences on other subjects whether the transition was good or bad, whether there were viable alternatives, whether the project suffered or profited from the change and so on and I didn't call anyone who disagrees with me on those topics irrational.

---

I am a forum moderator! Am I?

Jose, I apologize that I didn't make that statement with my non-mod-handle. Then I would have avoided the dicussion whether a mod can make such a statement or not.

I still can't follow your reasoning why the statement could be interpreted as an insult since nobody is argumenting the old system was fairer than the new one - not even you or Vietnam_Soldier do. ;-) There are many differences on other subjects whether the transition was good or bad, whether there were viable alternatives, whether the project suffered or profited from the change and so on and I didn't call anyone who disagrees with me on those topics irrational.

Sort of a simple thought process happened here:
Since the widespread use of 5.5.0 caused those that would not use it because of the cross project issue, the project had to make changes. That I fully understand and don't find issue with.Baker Labs had a hot potato in their hands and didn't want to offend the parties on either side of the issue.
Both sides had said at one point or another that they favored a work based credit system so thats what they set out to do.
The mistakes that were made were in many areas:
communication of when the change would take place was one that was seen as a major issue by some. Not even the Mods here knew what was going on.
A problem with some of the first WU's sent out under the new system caused additional tensions here. Personally I thought that a minor issue, as they say, crap happens.
The big issue with the new system seems to me to be the premature rollout of that new system itself. That combined with essentially kissing off the thousands of mac users with the reasoning of " Mac was going to Intel processors" was a major mistake. Can anyone imagine how many non Intel Mac users were on this project and they were essentially told that" Your not worth our time"..BTW: I am not a mac user at all.

GEE! Posted for 20 seconds and already a minus one on the counter.
That is another problem with this forum. This plus/minus voting system, allows a group to get together and effectively silence an opposing view.
So now I hit the plus, then ask my buddy Jose to also hit it and what do we have?
A waste of everyones time over a childish display of temper.
If you have an issue with what I say, post it, don't lurk in the shadows and play this silly game. Be a man for God's sake.
It's the lack of those qualities that caused this whole mess in the first place.

---