(Another alternative would be to encrypt Rosetta___.exe with different, somewhat equitable benchmarks for Linux, OSX, and Windows and get rid of BOINC.)

The solution is to get rid of BOINC

There are no optimized science applications for Rosetta, therefore, optimized BOINC core clients are merely a cheat.

John, I think you're aware comments like these aren't going to get positive feedback. The lab never stated that 5.5 was cheating. . it returned valid results just as the standard client does. How that affects the new credit system we're trying to work out.

---

There are no optimized science applications for Rosetta, therefore, optimized BOINC core clients are merely a cheat.

John, I think you're aware comments like these aren't going to get positive feedback. The lab never stated that 5.5 was cheating. . it returned valid results just as the standard client does. How that affects the new credit system we're trying to work out.

It is comments like that that you have allowed to pass without comments for weeks.

Too little too late, Ethan.

Give up John. There is no way. We crucnh with the BOINC idea. Means, many projects, many users, uniformity in credits to stay comparable. They don't want to ear that.

Finally I agree with Jose, the way this project and a part of its users do things must be done outside BOINC.

Yes, that's quite clear.
But the actual system doesn't even give any useful results even within a Rosetta-only environment. Any bogus claim gets granted, so the stats don't reflect in any way the crunching power really donated.
The new system will be more accurate in regard or really donated science (if it works right), and so it's definitely better, regardless of in an Rosetta-only environment or with the amounts of credit adjusted to the BOINC-norm. A retroactive adjusting of the credits to reflect the real devotion can imho only be a benefit if it's really possible.
In a Rosetta-only environment you could alteratively norm the credits to the inflated 5.5 values, and thus give the regular users a big boost in credits, that's just as fine, it only would not fit in BOINC any more.

Again, Who cares about BOINC?
Boinc and its worshipers are the Problem.

Again, Who cares about BOINC?

The designers and developers of BOINC as well as those that crunch for more than one BOINC project.

Telling us that we are the problem is quite insulting, and thoughtless insults are the major reason for the flame fest.

---

BOINC WIKI

Again, Who cares about BOINC?
Boinc and its worshipers are the Problem.

If you had really read my post, you would have read that even in an Rosetta-only environment the current system delivers no comparable values. The new one does, and I can see no harm in the retroactive exchange of an invalid system by a valid system.

The values of this adjustment are another matter:
If you want to stick with BOINC (like I would wish), you have to retract credits from the comparable overclaimers.
If you want to let the credits of the users using 5.5 intact, you have to grant additional credit to the regular crunchers.

This is getting off topic. If you'd like to discuss other options for Rosetta, ie not using boinc, please start a new thread.

Jose, you make comments about how the forums weren't moderated until recently, and continue to make demeaning ones yourself. Please respect that I am trying to mod the forums and help from posters would be nice.

---

This is getting off topic. If you'd like to discuss other options for Rosetta, ie not using boinc, please start a new thread.

Jose, you make comments about how the forums weren't moderated until recently, and continue to make demeaning ones yourself. Please respect that I am trying to mod the forums and help from posters would be nice.

If by demeaning you mean that I do believe you have not been impartial on this issue, yes you are right: I do not believe you have been impartial. And the more you try to put me down will only comfirm my opinion.

Saenger

Dr. Baker has clearly stated elsewhere there will be NO backdating,this is now for me a closed issue.

The NEW points system is running in tandem and can be seen to be being implemented.

As far as points go, I think everyone should step back until the next move by Admin.

Jose come and have coffee with me !

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

Saenger you have stated the same on numerous occassions, I think people get your point of view, howether it is not everyones.

As a worldwide project we have many Nations here, what maybe a normal word to you is deeply offensive to others. Cheat is one. You would cry loudly if I called you certain things that to you are hurtful, that to me maybe normal.

Are you here to help the project and make it better or to flame ?

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

Ignore.

I'm all for free debate, but inserting comments into your opinion that belittle someone else only sparks more personal attacks.

---

I am not being impartial. Itr is not my job to be impartial: A MODERATOR job is. And ETHAN has not been: he has clearly taken sides.

Call me a cheat, insult me you will be not be seen the nice Jose everyone loves. Yes I will be very angry. And I will attack back.

I'm all for free debate, but inserting comments into your opinion that belittle someone else only sparks more personal attacks.

Well what have Tony, Saenger, Matt Davis, John and the Boinc Synergy Crowd been doing lately : insult, attack? And how many times you have allowed ther attacks to stand while going ballistic (deleting within seconds) on those who have been forced to deffend ourselves from the cheat tag.

From Jose (he had copied a message I deleted):

Ethan IS moderating objectively.

The hell he is.

---

From Jose (he had copied a message I deleted):

The hell he is.

With that act alone you have become a participant , not an impartial moderator.
At least now it is clear what to expect from you.

From Jose (he had copied a message I deleted):

The hell he is.

With that act alone you have become a participant , not an impartial moderator.
At least now it is clear what to expect from you.

He deleted my post too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He's deleting ALL people that fight!!!!!!!!!

Ok. . thread's on notice (insert Colbert photo here).

The thread is off topic, I don't want to close it.

If you have the ability to lock posts in the same way David's log is locked, then perhaps David could make a statement about whether the project is backdating work credits or not (presumably not), and then lock everything down.

That'll answer the original poster's question.

(No need to keep this post intact of course since it's a metapost, so feel free to delete).

-- Edit:

No threads can be locked, you can reply to DB's Journal. . posts that aren't from him just get moved to the comment thread.

Ah OK, that explains how the log works, I'd wondered. I won't add any more to this thread, there's more than enough posts already! :-)

---

If you have the ability to lock posts in the same way David's log is locked, then perhaps David could make a statement about whether the project is backdating work credits or not (presumably not), and then lock everything down. That'll answer the original poster's question.

No threads can be locked, you can reply to DB's Journal. . posts that aren't from him just get moved to the comment thread.

As for my modding, that sounds like another thread :) This thread = backdating.

---

From Saenger:

If he's taken sides, he's taken it for the overclaimers.

---