"Overclaimer" is much like the word "Fascist". Really doesn't need to be used to make your point. And can be taken offensively. We've found it tends to lead to threads going off-topic and degrading to deletion of entire threads. Hence, we're presently not permitting the term. In this thread it is simply being used as a term and was not directed at a group of people. That's about the only acceptable use, and you'll find attempting to use the word more probably gets you deleted as "flamebait" regardless of the merit of the rest of your post.

I didn't mean to start a lengthy discussion with this thread. But I want to establish a framework for understanding. Are we all clear on what gets a post deleted?

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

Mod. Sense.....Mod.De banned the word outright and deleted all post`s it contained.


It was being used as an adjective to describe behaviour by Mod.De, therefore he was acting in a F way but I did NOT state he was a F.

That's plain nitpicking on semantics. You said he's a f*, because you said he acted so. What's so hard to understand about that?

Just because americans like to live without history and understanding for others doesn't mean they don't exist.

I didn't mean to start a lengthy discussion with this thread. But I want to establish a framework for understanding. Are we all clear on what gets a post deleted?

No.

I still like to know how to describe the claiming of more credit for work done than normal without getting modded. The word Cheaters was banned quite soon, and as some of the users of the so-called optimized clients didn't intend to cheat, I think that's OK.
But the fact still stays that they claimed too much in regard of normal crunchers. Is there a short word for those who did so that won't be banned asap?

But the fact still stays that they claimed too much in regard of normal crunchers. Is there a short word for those who did so that won't be banned asap?

How about "...machines that claimed more credit then..."? Doesn't refer to teams, or participants or optimizations (which is often a class of participants). My statement is a class of participants too, but at least we're just talking about the machines and not the people.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

carl.hm you could have tried the private hearing. You didn't expect to get a fair treatment but you never tried. In some posts I deledet from you there were:

"The fascism being shown by the mods reflects on the project more than the arguments"

Well that is pretty close to calling me a fascist and I don't really see the difference.

When I stated some people call the staff or the mods "morons" in fact I didn't mean "morons" but various other terms which are pretty close. I used "morons" as a definition of various statements like "acting in a fascist manner", "damaging the project beyond repair", "lying", "showing clear bias" etc. All statements in itself are not subject do deletion (with the exception of the fascism accusation) but - and here comes the core argument - if the posts of someone over the past weeks have only such a content the behaviour of the poster becomes intolerable. I did not mean you, since you post only occasionaly such things, which is okay as you express your view, but I repeat if someone posts only such comments it is not the expression of his opinion but a crusade against the project.

---

I am a forum moderator! Am I?

How about "...machines that claimed more credit then..."?........

I think that would need further refinement. It could mean faster "machines that claimed more credit" than slower machines which is legit and not that terrible word I cant use here now. Or something else entirely, which I am not allowed to describe now either. I would tell you what I mean if I could, but I am not allowed to use the words, that it would take to fully describe what I mean. Hope this is clear.

---

Whl. your point is clear. But in most cases, the discussion is about "otherwise identical PCs" and so the phrase would fit well, without malining anyone. I don't doubt that ways can be devised to use my phrase that would still get you moderated.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

The fascism being shown by the mods reflects on the project more than the arguments

O.k. bear with me, accept that I meant an authorative dictatorial stance by the mods. Both sides of the old argument re points and the "C" word have loudly stated that the mods are censoring, ruining the general run of conversation and deleting needlessly.

When both sides that REALLY DO NOT like each other agree something like this it can only mean that the " Authority" (mods) are behaving "Dictatorially"...therefore my only choice of adjective was the "F" word.

I used "morons" as a definition of various statements like "acting in a fascist manner", "damaging the project beyond repair", "lying", "showing clear bias"

I have not nor can I think of anyone I would call a "moron" here, it is an entirely different thing to what was stated.

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

..... I repeat if someone posts only such comments it is not the expression of his opinion but a crusade against the project.....

Mod.DE please dont use the word "Crusade" , as in some parts of the world this could be seen as very offensive, if interpreted the wrong way as the "F" word has been here by some Mods and other people that I cant name ,as refering to them by name is not allowed.

---

..... I repeat if someone posts only such comments it is not the expression of his opinion but a crusade against the project.....

Mod.DE please dont use the word "Crusade" , as in some parts of the world this could be seen as very offensive, if interpreted the wrong way as the "F" word has been here by some Mods and other people that I cant name ,as refering to them by name is not allowed.

I think that's just the way he wants it to be read. Is there a positive way to read it?
Crusade was mainly murder, massacre and maiming in the name of selfproclaimed rightousness.

Sir, He said something bad to me. No it's him. Oh no, it's him....
The 'C' word, The 'F' word, ....
You know what it looks like here? The Muppet Show!
Enjoy.

Whl.....Shoo kran

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

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.

---

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

How about this to get by all this cheater/no cheater thing?

Those that used optimized BOINC clients are 'optimizers' - no bad connotation - simply as statement of fact that they crunched using optimized BOINC clients.

There is a place for the word 'cheater' - those that deliberately change something in their crunching environment to inflate credits, in a malicious manner. We need to keep that word in the usable vocabulary to address those issues when they arise.

Now - the sticky part. Can everyone agree that 'optomizers' are not, and were not 'cheaters'?

And even stickier - will a project principal come here and apologize to the Rosetta community at large for letting the battle of 'optimizers are cheaters' continue for months without their intervention?


Then, maybe we can all get on with business.

---

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

Can everyone agree that 'optomizers' are not, and were not 'cheaters'?

No.

---

How about this to get by all this cheater/no cheater thing?

Those that used optimized BOINC clients are 'optimizers' - no bad connotation - simply as statement of fact that they crunched using optimized BOINC clients.

There is a place for the word 'cheater' - those that deliberately change something in their crunching environment to inflate credits, in a malicious manner. We need to keep that word in the usable vocabulary to address those issues when they arise.

I like this. Optimizers were not necessarily cheaters. Just like some people who were not optimizers certainly did try to cheat in some other way.

---

I did not optimize.

I did not cheat.

These do not mean the same thing.

---

Now - the sticky part. Can everyone agree that 'optomizers' are not, and were not 'cheaters'?

I personally believe that the optimised clients bordered on cheating when run on SETI with a matching optimised application. So if you transfer that to a mismatched app or a different project entirely ...

---

BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8

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

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.