Reading this thread will even show you Crunch3rs' thoughts(at that time) on Rosetta, and how his optimized Boinc client 5.2.13 was affecting it.

NOTE: This thread is dated the 17 of December 2005

This sounds like the SETI people who came in 4 years after it started and wanted credits zeroed so they could catch up to, or the ones who didn't migrate from Classic to BOINC until the last minute, then cried that they wouldn't be able to catch up because all those other folks had a head start.

DOH

The teams that were here first, and with the most power, are in the lead. Those that weren't aren't, and they better get crunching if they want to catch the leaders.

The BOINC package does not allow moderators to edit posts. For some reason the BOINC developer have made clear that they won't change this, so there is little hope that this will be possible in future.

Movieman:
On online games that I've belonged to - having a moderator reveal their mortal's identity was reason for their suspension. Public guessing was not something that was allowed on their forums.

[deleted response to your deleted paragraph]
"That person is exactly who I said he was. I wasn't making a guess.
People are not as cloaked as they think they are."

Your detective skills suck. <rolls eyes>
.. and your claiming you had conclusive proof that my mortal account is someone other than me - kinda bugs me, too. <smile>

I've been part of the supervisory staff on an online game before. We were reminded to treat people as individuals. The groups or teams they belonged with did not define them. Granted, it was hard to keep in mind when dealing with a whole team of jerks that caused problems. Keeping my past experience in mind, if I judge you, it's for your actions and words - not your team's. And I'm pretty good at not judging your team because of your actions and words.

Dang.. responding to a now empty post makes this look silly. <smile>

mmciastro and Jose, now I'm curious what your solutions are. I have slight doubts that they are identical though. ;-)

OK, here's the solution. As a cancer patient who doesn't work a 9-5 job, I have lots of time I can choose to allocate to whatever I choose. It appears Jose does as well. Make Jose a moderator, and my myself a moderator. Jose will then delete every single post that doesn't line up exactly with what his vision of this project should be. Then I will delete every post that supports his views/side of any issue.

What would be left is only the posts that can't conceivably be leaned one way or another. Posts by newbies asking for help would probably make it through both filters and that's what we really only need to see/respond to anyway.

tony

But when I hear you, who are you to ask all what you ask. Are you the owner of this project?
1) You want to use the client you want
2) You want your credits system
3) You want to remove the small users
4) You want no anonymous moderators
5) You want that D. Baker comes on the board for a hara-kiri
- ...

Is this a free and disinterested contribution?

Before you became a moderator here, were you a poster on this forum?

I sure hope I haven't been the official monthly calender poster. I didn't get any royalties. If they have a poster of me, then perhaps we can ask them to take it down. <grin>
Seriously, though, what difference would that make?

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.

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! ;-)

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.

XS_VS: I wanted to just point out that moderators are not hired.

And also that, while your post of 17 Sep 2006 5:24:31 UTC seems well thought through, non-flaming, etc. there are still two words in it which warrent deletion. One with a double "s" and one with a double "l". It's taken me this long to awake from my night's sleep, and to delete your original post now would be more disruptive then it is worth for two words. However, had I been here when that post was on top of the thread, I would likely have deleted it simply based on two words.

I'm just trying to be clear here so we all understand each other. And so when we delete such posts, please don't accuse us of censoring your views, or stifling the message boards.

It's with long well-thought-out posts like that where we sometimes repost it with the two words removed. However, if I did that, it would drop my new post in this thread in time order, by the time of my revision, not the time of your post. This would be disruptive to the flow of the conversation. I hope you can see that posting those two words puts moderators in an awkward position. And I hope that puts in to perspective why so many posts and threads have been deleted this past week.

[quote][quote]Everybody who delivers results back within the deadline is helping the projects.

In the most extreme definition of the word "helping" yes they are.
But is it a meaningful "helping" and not just giving such a small amount that you can convince yourself that you are actually contributing when in reality if everyone did what you do no project that is worthwhile( a subjective decision I admit, but we should all be able to agree that there are worthless projects out there)would ever make any headway.
The last time I looked you did either 3-4 WU in a 3 month timeframe.
I was doing 66 WU a day from 5 machines at my house.
Based on those numbers it would take over 1900 people working at your pace to equal one working at mine.
Can a project expect to make any headway if everyone worked at your level?
I'm not a big player by any means. There are hundreds that contributed much more than I did but at the level your at to call it a real contribution is stretching the meaning of the word.
Put that machine on one project and give that project something that is measurable in real numbers.

But isn't this the essential of distributed computing as such: Everybody gives the spare circles of his/her CPU that would otherwise go wasted?
Even the 24/7 running of machines like mine, that would otherwise be simply switched off, is an increase of output and energy consumption, that imho has perhaps to be researched of the real value and efficiency. If it's necessary to have extra dedicated machines, just donate mobney to buy a Blue Gene.
It's of course fine, if people do more then originally intended, but that's just an extra (and a wellcomed one of course!). And, as I said, the efficiency of the energy use has to be put in this equation as well before you start accusing others of being worthless.

[quote][quote]Everybody who delivers results back within the deadline is helping the projects.

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.