Re: Change in BA requirements
Posted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 2:34 pm
I don't buy that reducing the number of machines that do BA can possibly increase the amount of science being done. If that is true, hive BA off into a different stats system and watch what happens. It's always seemed an anomaly that a particular kind of work done on a particular kind of machine can earn exponentially ridiculous points compared to the guys chugging along a their home computer.
Secondly, the idea that Core17 is using the same points system as SMP seems equally nuts. Are the same units being given to both? Doesn't look like it from where I'm sitting but I'm ready to be corrected.
So from what I'm seeing we have a broken points system where donors are told not to buy specifically for Folding but are rewarded exponentially for having the latest gear. Rich (and not-so-rich) folders come in with Titans and BA machines and make in a day what others have spent a year achieving. Argunents occur every time changes are proposed. Either it's unfair to the power-folders or unfair to the long-standing folders of yesteryear.
Either we stop the QRB or apply it everywhere.
Either way, the change in points would be so fundamental as to invalidate the previous points. I doubt anyone would appreciate a giant re-valuation exercise where some would inevitably win and others lose. So I repeat my previous request.
Declare this round of FAH over. Stop the clock for a day. Re-calculate the points for all remaining new units so that either they all have QRB or none of them (preferably none IMO).
Finally, I ask this one question: while Stanford is busy "maximising the amount of science", how much science will be done if the donors move elsewhere?
Secondly, the idea that Core17 is using the same points system as SMP seems equally nuts. Are the same units being given to both? Doesn't look like it from where I'm sitting but I'm ready to be corrected.
So from what I'm seeing we have a broken points system where donors are told not to buy specifically for Folding but are rewarded exponentially for having the latest gear. Rich (and not-so-rich) folders come in with Titans and BA machines and make in a day what others have spent a year achieving. Argunents occur every time changes are proposed. Either it's unfair to the power-folders or unfair to the long-standing folders of yesteryear.
Either we stop the QRB or apply it everywhere.
Either way, the change in points would be so fundamental as to invalidate the previous points. I doubt anyone would appreciate a giant re-valuation exercise where some would inevitably win and others lose. So I repeat my previous request.
Declare this round of FAH over. Stop the clock for a day. Re-calculate the points for all remaining new units so that either they all have QRB or none of them (preferably none IMO).
Finally, I ask this one question: while Stanford is busy "maximising the amount of science", how much science will be done if the donors move elsewhere?