I'm currently unable to connect with the web site over on Ralph@home, or connect to its servers. Is there a problem over there?

It's the usual problem with this topic.

The Project admins or scientists (D. Kim or D. Baker) refuse to come on here and say one way or the other whether backdating is even possible, or if they would even consider zeroing out credits and startin over with Rosetta 2 or whatever you would call it.

Until that happens, this is just all noise.

They have, WEEKS ago - to them it is a dead issue - they have come here on this message board and said NO -

That is why this thread is so stupid, discussing a dead issue.

KevinT find that post and I'll close the thread.

tony

Agree, this project was coerced into the new credit system by a few and you are exactly correct - if those with little or nothing to loose (can't use the z word here) keep complaining then the project is going to die a slow and painful death.

I believe I was one that requested the change to a credit-for-decoy based system because it would eliminate problems like xml editing, and get us away from the accusations of optimized clients users cheating. If you consider me a "ZR", then so be it. I recall there being at least one post by a larger pharmer that agreed that a work based system was a fair solution to the problem, so it wasn't just us smaller members of Rosetta. If we post once and were listened to, I take it as proof that our single posts were better thought out than any of the alternatives that were presented.

It's the usual problem with this topic.

The Project admins or scientists (D. Kim or D. Baker) refuse to come on here and say one way or the other whether backdating is even possible, or if they would even consider zeroing out credits and startin over with Rosetta 2 or whatever you would call it.

Until that happens, this is just all noise.

They have, WEEKS ago - to them it is a dead issue - they have come here on this message board and said NO -

That is why this thread is so stupid, discussing a dead issue.

KevinT find that post and I'll close the thread.

tony

Post 30 by Dekim was in relation to having just one column labelled "granted credit", instead of having both "Granted Credit" and "Granted work credit", as they had in Ralph during the testing.

I`ve nothing more to add now, so I`ll disappear into the night once more. I hope I`ve gained a little respect from some, I know some hate me which is fair, I`m a big loud character not to everyones taste. Some here have gained a lot more of my respect, some not.

I honestly do not think the project will zero the points in anyway but I do believe in free speech for all. I think the concern from Kevin and the likes is that the project was talked into a new credit system by a few and might be talked into the same about zeroing, not that I`m saying either is true. I believe that is how some see it.

And with that I wish you adeui, till another time perhaps.....

<Big sigh of relief all round>

KevinT, I agree they said Backdating is not an issue. This thread isn't about backdating.

Post 30 by Dekim was in relation to having just one column labelled "granted credit", instead of having both "Granted Credit" and "Granted work credit", as they had in Ralph during the testing. See this post and this post which all lead up to that comment.

I have never seen a post saying "we won't be resetting credit and starting over" or any such post.

Resetting of credit was only ever brought up ONCE by a newer poster and he was quickly roasted into submission. There is no "over and over and over".

It is far better for users to come to the conclusion one way or the other and to drop this subject on their own, rather than being forced to do so. If it's done naturally through civilized discussion, then it will be agreed upon and long lasting.

It's the usual problem with this topic.

The Project admins or scientists (D. Kim or D. Baker) refuse to come on here and say one way or the other whether backdating is even possible, or if they would even consider zeroing out credits and startin over with Rosetta 2 or whatever you would call it.

Until that happens, this is just all noise.

They have, WEEKS ago - to them it is a dead issue - they have come here on this message board and said NO -

That is why this thread is so stupid, discussing a dead issue.

KevinT find that post and I'll close the thread.

tony

It's the usual problem with this topic.

The Project admins or scientists (D. Kim or D. Baker) refuse to come on here and say one way or the other whether backdating is even possible, or if they would even consider zeroing out credits and startin over with Rosetta 2 or whatever you would call it.

Until that happens, this is just all noise.

This would be like voting on whether the rich should be taxed and selling votes for a dollar each.

Good point that there's also a potential for gain.

Is there any way that we could take a random poll of users about the issue? It would need to be solicited of the entire contributing community rather than just those who visit the message boards.

RE: Making Jose a moderator... let's do that. Jose, identify the posts in your thread here which require deletion for taunting others, name calling, and being off-topic. There's 70 posts in here. And only about 2 or 3 ideas express about annonymous moderators.

In fact, if you were faced with the realization that this thread has degraded into nothing on-topic anymore... and had to pick the posts that represent the topic and start a new thread... and move them one at a time, which message IDs would you preserve?

[edit] You, as moderator, have no Ban feature. You can only delete, move or manually copy content in to a new post that you create yourself.

It is ironic that the first thing you wanted to do as moderator was to ban certain posters.

ok everyone, can we discuss the new vs old credit systems here (i.e. on topic!)? What's anyone's thoughts on the old vs new systems?