Keck, would you agree that those with the optimised legit Seti clients also did cross project work in some cases ?

Yes.
Perhaps I was unclear in my previous post "optimised legit client" is an oxymoron in my opinion.

---

BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8

A scenario to think on:
Imagine you know nothing about BOINC stats, 85% of the projects that run under it's banner and your background in DC is limited to 2 months of F@H for 2cpu.com( a very quiet and reserved forum)and 2 months of running D2OL for XtremeSystems forum( only a small percentage of the 30,000+ registered members do DC there)and then the word Rosetta comes into your life.
You do a little research and what you find says to you that this guy is onto something good and you want to help him as much as possible.
You go to the website and find that Rosetta runs under this BOINC manager app that you never heard of but ok, thats how they do it so you install it.
Your an old fart but on a team with a lot of younger very competitive people.
You lost your ego years ago but your also not dead yet and you have some fun with the competitions and see them as a great way to bring in new people to the project.
You also still have that little part left in you that likes to get a fair shake for the work that you do.
You put your 4 machines on the project and run them 24/7 on that project alone because of your beleif in what it represents.
Then you see over a few weeks that your very high end machines are getting 60% of what some guys gaming rig is getting just because he uses a AMD cpu and you use Intel cpus. You aren't happy with this but there's nothing that you can do about it but deep inside there is that resentment that you can't compete with the other members of your team simply because the manager app was written favoring the AMD cpu's.
This goes on for 3-4 months and then one day a set of files are pointed out to you that finally give you a fair shake in comparison to the AMD cpu's.
You install them and a big smile goes across your face and you say" Now I can compete with my teammates. It's further pointed out to you that the other top teams are using these files and your feeling is "Ok, now everyone is on a level playing field."
Now remember that at this time you are still clueless as to combined Boinc stats and most of the other Boinc projects.
In the world your in, everything is perfect now.
Then one day one of your teammates says to you that there is a group at this forum calling you "names". At first you dismiss it and think this guy is over reacting but after 2 weeks you come here to see for yourself what is going on.
The rest is well known history but I wanted you to understand where I'm coming from on this issue.
I am competitive and I do like to "win" but not at any cost.
Winning at any endeavor by having to "C" is meaningless, you've won nothing.

---

Keck, would you agree that those with the optimised legit(?) Seti clients also did cross project work in some cases ?

Yes.

So would you also agree that from the first instance that these Seti clients were used they skewed all Boinc stats from various projects ?

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

Keck, would you agree that those with the optimised legit(?) Seti clients also did cross project work in some cases ?

Yes.

So would you also agree that from the first instance that these Seti clients were used they skewed all Boinc stats from various projects ?

True. However on most projects it is not much of a problem since quorums >1 reduce the effect. On this project it was a large problem because there was no corrective feedback like there is now.

---

BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8

How long ago were these optimised clients introduced ? Approx ?

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

How long ago were these optimised clients introduced ? Approx ?

Sometime in the 4.xx clients. It seems like 4.63 was the first version number of an optimized client, that would translate to about 4.2x on the release side.

---

BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8

I`m not familiar with client releases, can you approximate a date from them ?

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

I`m not familiar with client releases, can you approximate a date from them ?

Early 2005 source

---

BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8

So would you agree that the points scores here were skewed long before some of the bigger teams got involved ?

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

So would you agree that the points scores here were skewed long before some of the bigger teams got involved ?

No matter how long it has been going on that does not make it right.

---

BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8

So would you agree that the points scores here were skewed long before some of the bigger teams got involved ?

No matter how long it has been going on that does not make it right.

It also isn't wrong, if condoned or ignored by the projects, and allowed by BOINC itself.

This is the attitude that started the whole mess here half a year ago.

---

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

I agree, but what I am trying to get at was.....

1) The initial C was done by Seti users that were cross project.

2) In doing so THEY made the points worthless.

3) That in seeing others using it and with no admonishment from the project, that users felt it necessary to go that way to compete evenly. ( Even if it is outside the spirit, it made little odds as the points were already skewed)

The teams that were/are here have now have mostly gone back to stock client even in other projects. The problem has been rectified here, the past offences are just that.

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

The problem has been rectified here, the past offences are just that.

Amen.

---

BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8

All of this past day of conversation, has nothing to do with the stated topic. Do you see how THIS makes the boards confusing as well? How the content here-under has nothing to do with the subject line anymore? And do you see how the conversation took a swagger on to credits and then just went totally off track? THIS is exactly why moderators have been deleting posts as "off-topic" and "flamebait", etc. Now that we all "get it", there's no need to post in ways that require moderation, because we all know the ground rules.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

Jose, I don't mean to pick on you, but your post illustraits some of my point here. I hope you don't mind if I use it to further explain.

You posted twice, and quoted yourself. I deleted the first post as a "doublepost" since it was entirely quoted in your second. This should not be seen as a moderator disagreeing with you, nor feeling your first post was a bad one. It's a small way to keep the boards cleaner.

I could delete your post as being "off-topic" here. It belongs in the moderators contact thread in the cafe. I could "move" your post there, but that often takes it all out of context, so it might actually be more helpful of me to just delete it, and allow you to review your messages and copy/paste the pertenant parts in to the contact thread. So, again, deletion doesn't indicate disagreement with your point, or a sense that anyone is a bad person. But, sometimes it just seems the solution that allows everything to be revised in a way that will make sense.

Using my own criteria, I have to agree with you. The phrase " - at least nobody who was argumenting rationally." doesn't NEED to be there to make their point. And it is demeaning to anyone that might attempt to argue against their point.

Now, what can I as a moderator do about it? If I leave your post, it has quoted the offensive content and so removing the original poster's post wouldn't clean things up. I could rewrite their post, quote it, and post it as a new one, but this will throw things out of time order, I have no way to drop my new post in to the same thread position as the one I'd be attempting to delete.

The original post was in another thread, which you've not sited, so now I've got to hunt that down and try to locate it. Once I find it, it will often be quoted by other users who made different points about it. If I am to follow this through and remove all of the copies of the demeaning comment, I may end up either with an hour of work, or deleting a whole string of related posts, or, well, it might just be best to delete a whole thread and start over. These are the types of reasons we do such things. Not because we want to, not because we feel any need to censor what opinions are express. I just hope that by seeing what we've got to work with that people will better understand our call for contributors doing their own revisions, and not presume that THEIR post was singled out and deleted.

I will pass along your comment to Mod.DE and point out that we as moderators need to be even more careful of what we post. I hope you will find that a satisfactory response to your point.

Or, you could just leave the posts stand, as it isn't worth the trouble to delete/move etc.

I used this thread as it stated the criteria for deleting posts...that is the stated subject matter. So all I asked was if the same flamer criteria is going to be applied to a Flaming Moderator? So given the subject line, it was indeed on topic.


A moderator using the same criteria that have been used for non moderator should have moderated out DE's posting as it is a flame. And as a matter of fact many people have ben moderated out by DE for less than what he did. ( So the issue begings who moderates the moderators when they flame.)

DE should apologize in no uncertain terms to those he flamed/insulted and he should abstain /recusse himself from moderating post belonging to the people he called irrational. His bias is patent and clear.



I had to double post as I couldn't edit the message that contained my misstatement.

Jose, Mod.DE did revise and extend their remarks as they say in congress (sorry, it's lame humor). However, you are correct, I haven't seen an actual apology, and I have to agree with you, that they should apologize for the inference that people were acting in a mannar deserving of a label.

If you feel there are flaming moderators, there are numerous avenues for you to pursue them.

As for them obstaining future moderation of specific individuals, I don't see how such a mistake should revoke their right to future moderation, anymore then I feel a contributor with many deleted posts should revoke their right to post in the future.

You imply that there is no moderation of the moderators. However, always keep in mind the project team. They see everything that we do and can revoke our moderator status at any time if they see fit.

I hope this thread has lead to greater understanding between the contributors and the moderators.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

I for one, read this thread, and when the mod stopped interfering the thread made sense.
I Strongly feel the mods over mod with personal prejudice instead of following some reasonable guidelines.
Even a well modded forum, has times when some things are allowed that out of context seem to stray off topic.
People talk in different branches all the time and mostly get back to the trunk in time.
Lately these forums have read like the papers the government releases because of the freedom of information act, every third word gets blacked out so that nothing makes sense.

---

Edit multiple post

Edit multiple post.

Jose, Mod.DE did revise and extend their remarks as they say in congress (sorry, it's lame humor). However, you are correct, I haven't seen an actual apology, and I have to agree with you, that they should apologize for the inference that people were acting in a mannar deserving of a label.

If you feel there are flaming moderators, there are numerous avenues for you to pursue them.

As for them abstaining future moderation of specific individuals, I don't see how such a mistake should revoke their right to future moderation, anymore then I feel a contributor with many deleted posts should revoke their right to post in the future.

You imply that there is no moderation of the moderators. However, always keep in mind the project team. They see everything that we do and can revoke our moderator status at any time if they see fit.

I hope this thread has lead to greater understanding between the contributors and the moderators.

How can any of the people that have had to suffer DE's moderation trust him when he has declared his bias. When he actually insulted participants he then proceeds to moderate out when they answer back to his attacks?

If DE were a mere participant, his attacks would be annoying at worst. But as a moderator his attacks become by the nature of his position as a moderator, the position of those who appointed him as a moderator

Given the fact, that any response to him can and is moderated out and worst any attempt to respond to attacks by third parties that share De's stated views are moderated with an abandon that borders on glee , DE's action are de facto an abuse of his position as he can flame with impunity without having to worry about a response.

Finally, DE is given the courtesy to revise and extend. Those whom DE moderates out are not given that chance or privilege: they are erased and told to be civil and polite. This, when DE is the most non polite of the moderator corps, the fastest to use the editing trigger, the one that takes positions against stated views while moderating, and the one that allows more flames against some people (coincidence, the same people DE doesnt share opinions with ) stand unmoderated or un edited.