Mod.De said


There is indeed no point for a rational discussion. The new credit system is better than the old one, it is quite fair although perhaps not yet perfect.


Carl.h said : Is that not opinion ?



Yes it is, and it is my opinion as a Mod. The new credit system was scrutinized over many threads and nobody (and here I mean nobody) could disagree that the new system is at least "somewhat" fairer - at least nobody who was argumenting rationally.

This from a mod seem`s to state quite clearly that no rational discussion on the credit system is needed "it is my opinion as a Mod". "Somewhat fairer", yes. "Not perfect", yes but beyond discussion ?????? Ludicrous !

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

I deleted a couple of posts calling the mods fascist and some debating whether this is an insult or not. Calling the mods fascist or acting like fascist is an insult at least for me. So this will be deleted in future as well.

I am trying to be constructive and give you a positive recommendation. If this message is deleted, at least I am happy you read it. :)

The solution is simple don't want the adjective to be used then, don't give reasons for the adjective to be used . You many not be a fascist, (hey, as one of your favorite targets I may grant you that.) but, don't be disingenuous : you are acting like one.

Again, the issue is one of perception: given the environment under which you have been functioning, and sorry if you get offended, given the selectivity of many of your edits ( and yes you have been extremely selective) you have given the impression that you have taken sides.

DE : Please remember I am talking from experience: I have received many of your deleting messages and I even received a banning threat from you so, at least to me, you seem to be biased ( am going to be charitable) when you allow to stand or worst moderate in a way that allow nastiness against my team or me. You also seem to show bias in some of the comments you have made .

And given what has transpired here perception is stronger than reality

Yes it is, and it is my opinion as a Mod. The new credit system was scrutinized over many threads and nobody (and here I mean nobody) could disagree that the new system is at least "somewhat" fairer - at least nobody who was argumenting rationally.

This is an insult and flame-baiting without question : You are calling those who not agree with you non rational . So if the moderating here were consistent and applied uniformly , your flambeing should have been deleted and moderated out .

Worst, you are accepting bias. Those who not agree with you are non-rational. A moderator that has stated a bias MUST stop moderating and intervening as a moderator in the threads involved. A moderator cannot take sides and still believe his moderating power is going to be accepted without reservations by those he has taken a side against: a moderator, like a judge, has to recuse himself when he shows bias : real or potential

You want to give your opinion on a neuralgic subject : change to your member's id and do so. You are free to do so and your opinnion may not be shared but your right to state is and wil be protected .

And please : If you want to use the excuse that English is not your first language be ready to allow others to use it. I can think of one person you have deleted and threatened that is not a native speaker (me ;) ).

Deleting the facts does not make them any less the facts, infact in this case it proves them.

The discussion was not abusive, nor were it`s participants name calling, flaming or other.

We can play another game of copy and paste if you so wish !

You are being authorative, in a dictatorial manner which is fascistic behaviour whether you like it or not. It is a pertinent description that is acceptable the World over. It is a descriptive word not an insult!

Edit: I see you do want to play.

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

edit: Nah, I need to stop baiting Jose. As much fun as it is it would just get deleted :)

Yes it is, and it is my opinion as a Mod. The new credit system was scrutinized over many threads and nobody (and here I mean nobody) could disagree that the new system is at least "somewhat" fairer - at least nobody who was argumenting rationally.

This is an insult and flame-baiting without question : You are calling those who not agree with you non rational . So if the moderating here were consistent and applied uniformly , your flambeing should have been deleted and moderated out .

Worst, you are accepting bias. Those who not agree with you are non-rational. A moderator that has stated a bias MUST stop moderating and intervening as a moderator in the threads involved. A moderator cannot take sides and still believe his moderating power is going to be accepted without reservations by those he has taken a side against: a moderator, like a judge, has to recuse himself when he shows bias : real or potential

You want to give your opinion on a neuralgic subject : change to your member's id and do so. You are free to do so and your opinnion may not be shared but your right to state is and wil be protected .

And please : If you want to use the excuse that English is not your first language be ready to allow others to use it. I can think of one person you have deleted and threatened that is not a native speaker (me ;) ).

I'm not saying those who disagree with me are irrational. I just said that nobody who followed the rational discussion about the new credit system can deny that it is at least "somewhat" fairer than the old one was. That does not imply that people agree with me whether it was right or wrong to change the credit systen, whether it was done in the correct manner, whether...

You can try to explain yourself to you turn blue...but what what you stated was unambiguous...

"at least nobody who was augmenting rationally.

Sorry DE, what you stated was very clear, those who do not agree with your position are not arguing rationally , thus they are irrational.

Simple statement with a simple but damming meaning: you called us irrational, you ,the moderator used flaming language and you have not been moderated out by another moderator, nor have you have the courtesy to apologize...

My opinion still stand: you dont have the temperament to be an unbiased moderator. The least you can do is not interfere with the postings of those of us you have called irrational.

Yes it is, and it is my opinion as a Mod. The new credit system was scrutinized over many threads and nobody (and here I mean nobody) could disagree that the new system is at least "somewhat" fairer - at least nobody who was argumenting rationally.

This is an insult and flame-baiting without question : You are calling those who not agree with you non rational . So if the moderating here were consistent and applied uniformly , your flambeing should have been deleted and moderated out .

Worst, you are accepting bias. Those who not agree with you are non-rational. A moderator that has stated a bias MUST stop moderating and intervening as a moderator in the threads involved. A moderator cannot take sides and still believe his moderating power is going to be accepted without reservations by those he has taken a side against: a moderator, like a judge, has to recuse himself when he shows bias : real or potential

You want to give your opinion on a neuralgic subject : change to your member's id and do so. You are free to do so and your opinnion may not be shared but your right to state is and wil be protected .

And please : If you want to use the excuse that English is not your first language be ready to allow others to use it. I can think of one person you have deleted and threatened that is not a native speaker (me ;) ).

I'm not saying those who disagree with me are irrational. I just said that nobody who followed the rational discussion about the new credit system can deny that it is at least "somewhat" fairer than the old one was. That does not imply that people agree with me whether it was right or wrong to change the credit systen, whether it was done in the correct manner, whether...

You can try to explain yourself to you turn blue...but what what you stated was unambiguous...

"at least nobody who was augmenting rationally.

Sorry DE, what you stated was very clear, those who do not agree with your position are not arguing rationally , thus they are irrational.

Simple statement with a simple but damming meaning: you called us irrational, you ,the moderator used flaming language and you have not been moderated out by another moderator, nor have you have the courtesy to apologize...

My opinion still stand: you don't have the temperament to be an unbiased moderator. The least you can do is not interfere with the postings of those of us you have called irrational.

I have a bias for rationality. Do you still know people who think the old credit system was fairer than the new one?

DE: The issue in your case is not the new credit systems. It is simply your use of an insult and the fact that was not moderated out. Again , you restate that those that do not agree with you are not rational ( That is the logical consequence of your last statement.

Again you prove, you should not be moderating threads where an opinion different than yours is spouted or where people that have challenged you and that you have moderated out are participating.

And yes I know people that think the new system is not fair. DO I agree with them? In some cases I don't. But, I would never call the not rational. Much less insult them by tagging them in an open forum ;specially, if I were a moderator

To the moderators that told me DE was sorry, that it was a mistake because he did not intend to insult/flame and that he was to apologize.: not only did he did not apologize, he restated the basic claim of his insult ( those who don't agree with him are irrational) so the mistake argument is false: he clearly understood what he wanted to do and say ( Which it was to hurl the irrational insult.)

So when is DE going to be subject to the same moderating standard against insult and flames the rest of us , mere mortals are?

Mod De:
A simple question to ask you:
Before you became a moderator here, were you a poster on this forum?

---

Mod De:
A simple question to ask you:
Before you became a moderator here, were you a poster on this forum?

DAve, more important which participant and which team?

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.

Let me answer that for Jose.
The old system when using the stock boinc client was very unfair to anyone with an Intel cpu based machine.
IF the 5.5.0 fileset was used by everyone on Rosetta then you would have had parity within the project and since there is and never was a parity between all Boinc projects that wasn't a factor against it's use.

---

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! ;-)

Ahh, so you sort of jumped in feet 1st into the project?

---

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.

I am telling you point blank that as a moderator, protected as you are by anonymity and your fellow moderators ; having used if not abused your moderating powers ; having insulted participants that do not agree with you ( a clear violations of the of the rules) the first thing you have to do is apologize for the flaming you have done as a moderator and are still doing.

The second thing you have to do is read. I am repeating what I said and obviously you did not read.

And yes I know people that think the new system is not fair. DO I agree with them? In some cases I don't. But, I would never call the not rational. Much less insult them by tagging them in an open forum ;specially, if I were a moderator

That said: I wont enter in a discussion with you re the credits as long as you are hidding under the moderator tittle. That title gives you powers in this board I dont have and a protection from your fellow moderators.

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.

Sort of a simple thought process happened here:
Since the widespread use of 5.5.0 caused those that would not use it because of the cross project issue, the project had to make changes. That I fully understand and don't find issue with.Baker Labs had a hot potato in their hands and didn't want to offend the parties on either side of the issue.
Both sides had said at one point or another that they favored a work based credit system so thats what they set out to do.
The mistakes that were made were in many areas:
communication of when the change would take place was one that was seen as a major issue by some. Not even the Mods here knew what was going on.
A problem with some of the first WU's sent out under the new system caused additional tensions here. Personally I thought that a minor issue, as they say, crap happens.
The big issue with the new system seems to me to be the premature rollout of that new system itself. That combined with essentially kissing off the thousands of mac users with the reasoning of " Mac was going to Intel processors" was a major mistake. Can anyone imagine how many non Intel Mac users were on this project and they were essentially told that" Your not worth our time"..BTW: I am not a mac user at all.

GEE! Posted for 20 seconds and already a minus one on the counter.
That is another problem with this forum. This plus/minus voting system, allows a group to get together and effectively silence an opposing view.
So now I hit the plus, then ask my buddy Jose to also hit it and what do we have?
A waste of everyones time over a childish display of temper.
If you have an issue with what I say, post it, don't lurk in the shadows and play this silly game. Be a man for God's sake.
It's the lack of those qualities that caused this whole mess in the first place.

---

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.

It is obvious by your statement that you are not sorry for having posted the insult but only for having being taken to task for insulting under the disguise/protection of a moderator.

You have been one very happy to moderate out any hint no matter how slight of an insult. And yet when you insult , you were not moderated and still to this moment you are still arguing that calling a person irrational or hinting a person is irrational is not an insult.

The fact that you were not moderated out is a sign of a double standard . Specially since some of your fellow moderators (some of them as trigger happy as you are) did not moderated your post AND defended you.

See, since I don't know who you are: I cannot even pass judgement on your claim that everything was based on a faulty translation. I have to judge the posts where you have stated more than once that those who do not share your views are irrational or not capable of entering into a rational argument as they insults they are.

That said and since you used your mod handle and given your history of hypersensitive moderating acts I can also pass judgement about your work as a moderator: you have shown bias and thus cannot be trusted in moderating threads where you have become an active participant ( and worst an active flamer). The fact that you are a moderator and can use as you have the powers of a moderator to eliminate dissent and the fact that you because you are a moderator have been protected by other moderators make you a moderator whose actions cannot be trusted.

PS: There have been people that are arguing that the old system was better and fairer than this one.

Jose I disagree:

- I called no person being irrational or those who don't share my view being irrational
- I don't think my remark was an insult to anybody
- I don't moderate any hint of an insult but instead tolerate even mild insults
- I am from Germany so english isn't my native language and you don't need any proof to trust me on that
- I have no history of hypersensitive moderating
- I don't show bias

Your remark was an insult. It was received as an insult and this has been pointed out. If you don't want to believe me, I will gladly refer you to a post by a fellow moderator where he stated , your use of the word irrational was not appropriate (indeed it was an insult) and that he was sure you were going to apologize. (He was wrong on that one)

If you don't understand the connotation of the word irrational , then there are more problems than the language excuse. BTW I am not a native English speaker . If your excuse regarding language is accepted; then I should be given the same language excuse.

Sorry : You have decided to remain anonymous. I want proof of whom you are. Trust is regained by openness. Id yourself and show by your idying yourself , you have no hidden agendas.

As to the last two statements and another one ( the third one) : I wont touch them with a 10 foot pole. Reacting to them would get me in deep trouble.

As to the last two statements and another one ( the third one) : I wont touch them with a 10 foot pole. Reacting to them would get me in deep trouble.

You have my word on that. ;-)

I Know. :P

But, I think it is fair to say from whose PMs and thread actions I would have been quoting had I done it. :)



Latter Edit

BTW DE

In his Message 27229 - Posted 18 Sep 2006 1:01:20 UTC , Moderator Sense said:

"... 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. "

So I take it you don't agree with your fellow moderator on the issue you owe us an apology for the use of the irrational comment.

...Ahh, so you sort of jumped in feet 1st into the project?

I stay out of threads that don't interest me and now I'm accused of being a moderator? I wonder, is calling someone a "moderator" namecalling? :)

How is the new forum working out? Why has noone posted links and instructions on it's use?

---

Add this signature to your EMail:
Running Microsoft's "System Idle Process" will never help cure cancer, AIDS nor Alzheimer's. But running Rosetta@home just might!
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/

Has feet1st ever used 5.5.0? I doubt that very much - and no I'm not feet1st. ;-)

No I've not used it. I do not like installing software on my machines, always seems to lead to some other problem. So, BOINC and Rosetta was enough for me.

So my one point for those calling for EVERYONE to run the 5.5.0 client is simply that I've already installed a client that's working; it came from Berkeley, whom I trust; and that should suffice.

---

Add this signature to your EMail:
Running Microsoft's "System Idle Process" will never help cure cancer, AIDS nor Alzheimer's. But running Rosetta@home just might!
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/

I wonder, is calling someone a "moderator" namecalling? :)

Well it depends on the moderator :) :) :)

And Mod.De takes us back to the 5.5 issue....

Well done De.

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.