Folding Forum

A 34-page thread doesn't seem yet to warrant a clear, precise statement from our good Doctors?

The change in points has taken the average points for a bigadv unit for me from 80K to 70K. No big deal but slightly irritating. It has not encouraged me to turn my two dual-core SMP clients back on so I'm not yet clear on what the points change was supposed to be achieving...

Wow, I asked a few simple questions and it was like world-war-Folding broke out or something. It amazes me how defensive people can get about questioning anything to do with the points system. You get everything from all out anger and being asked to leave Folding to people that want to make broad statements about Teams (or people within them) that are not worthy to Fold. For the record, I've not been aware of anyone on my Team (EVGA) that is trying to do anything other than Fold for a great cause.

Please, let's cease "demonizing" people for being motivated by the points as if they are somehow unworthy of being Folders. It is all too easy to judge people wrongly if they care about points, but if you think about it, that is the yardstick of progress for most Folders while they tirelessly give time and money to this project. And that tired saying about people on the EVGA Team "being paid to Fold" is such utter BS that only a person who doesn't know what they are talking about could utter it. Our Team is comprised of many honorable Folders who give more out of their own pockets to Folding than $5-10 in EVGA bucks could ever represent. Like many other Folders on other Teams, we invest hundreds (even thousands) in Folding machines and pay our electric bills? Does anyone actually believe that the small amount of EVGA bucks is enough to scratch the surface of those Folding costs? If EVGA Folding members are being "paid", then we certainly aren't making any money. Some people here should be more careful about broad-brushing Teams with accusations or low knowledge of how a given Team actually functions.

Bruce may be one of the best examples of a DAB member we have which is why I asked him my questions. I just didn't understand what Pande wants me to do with regard to Folding Bigadvs and guess what, I still don't know. People that want to speak for Pande that were not involved with their decisions should refrain from answering for them. I understand the desire to defend them, but they don't need defending, just some clarity in what they say.

I think Grandpa had the right idea the other day...back out of this and go fishing.

Jester wrote:I've restarted all my machines running Bigadv with the "oneunit" switch while I consider my position on these current changes,
once the amount of devaluation of my machines is worked out I may continue....

texinga, this was my "thread starter" of "Bigadv points changes" which was later merged with "points sytem is getting ridiculous",
Current hardware is still running, but any future changes or upgrades are on hold for the future until several things become clear,
but as you stated that hasn't happened so far....

@ texinga - There's always going to be a few posts that, even out of the individual's normal nature, contain a personal or team attack due to a peak of emotion. It's usually best to skip over it and not respond.

I've found your, Jester's and a certain 'gone fishing' person's (to name but a few) contributions to be calm, thoughtful and intelligent Don't let anybody grind you down mate.

texinga wrote:Wow, I asked a few simple questions and it was like world-war-Folding broke out or something. It amazes me how defensive people can get about questioning anything to do with the points system. You get everything from all out anger and being asked to leave Folding to people that want to make broad statements about Teams (or people within them) that are not worthy to Fold. For the record, I've not been aware of anyone on my Team (EVGA) that is trying to do anything other than Fold for a great cause.

Please, let's cease "demonizing" people for being motivated by the points as if they are somehow unworthy of being Folders. It is all too easy to judge people wrongly if they care about points, but if you think about it, that is the yardstick of progress for most Folders while they tirelessly give time and money to this project. And that tired saying about people on the EVGA Team "being paid to Fold" is such utter BS that only a person who doesn't know what they are talking about could utter it. Our Team is comprised of many honorable Folders who give more out of their own pockets to Folding than $5-10 in EVGA bucks could ever represent. Like many other Folders on other Teams, we invest hundreds (even thousands) in Folding machines and pay our electric bills? Does anyone actually believe that the small amount of EVGA bucks is enough to scratch the surface of those Folding costs? If EVGA Folding members are being "paid", then we certainly aren't making any money. Some people here should be more careful about broad-brushing Teams with accusations or low knowledge of how a given Team actually functions.

Bruce may be one of the best examples of a DAB member we have which is why I asked him my questions. I just didn't understand what Pande wants me to do with regard to Folding Bigadvs and guess what, I still don't know. People that want to speak for Pande that were not involved with their decisions should refrain from answering for them. I understand the desire to defend them, but they don't need defending, just some clarity in what they say.

I think Grandpa had the right idea the other day...back out of this and go fishing.

May I ask which broad statements you are referring to?

There was ONE post which mentioned 'manufacturer sponsored teams', yet you react like everyone agrees with him?

Your last paragraph is just as confusing. What exactly do you want people not to do? Speaking for them describes an action which I don't see reflected in this thread so maybe you could be a little bit more clear with what you mean to say?

edit: spelling

Also, I don't say I don't agree with your points but it reads really hostile. Reading back my reply made me realize I was guilty of the same so I've added this addendum. Maybe you are just as defensive as you accuse others of being, but towards another subject

MtM wrote: May I ask which broad statements you are referring to?

There have been several and if you can't find them, I'm not going to go to trouble of referencing them for you just to satisfy your need to argue. Won't play that game with you. If some of you really want to run off Folders, I'd say "mission accomplished" as that is just about all you are doing. But, I don't think that Pande would agree that they need less Folders. I'm out of this thread and don't really give a damn what the answers are (or might be if they ever come) anymore.

Nathan_P wrote:

7im wrote:How about following the Best Practices and project recommendations? When top teams openly flaunt written procedures how to trick the fah client in to downloading bigadv-12 work units on to systems with less than 12 cores, that's probably one part of what they speak. Or bigadv-8 WUs on to 6 or 4 core systems.

The Best Practices are pretty clear.

I frequent several of the top team forums and have never seen anyone doing this on any of the teams, perhaps some proof would be in order before you go throwing around accusations like this. I can however name several teams/individuals who have tricked clients/ dumped WU etc - most of who frequent this forum.

On the point of DAB and the points, 2 DAB reps have said that they never saw much in the way of discussion about the points change. One of them is even a beta tester and he didn't hear much about it either.

I NEVER make unsupported accusations. You should look a bit harder..

You also have a PM with a link to the proof, and I expect you to confirm this proof publicly in response.

"DAB reps never saw much" ? What exactly does that mean? Either they saw something or they did not? Which was it?

7im wrote:

Nathan_P wrote:

7im wrote:How about following the Best Practices and project recommendations? When top teams openly flaunt written procedures how to trick the fah client in to downloading bigadv-12 work units on to systems with less than 12 cores, that's probably one part of what they speak. Or bigadv-8 WUs on to 6 or 4 core systems.

The Best Practices are pretty clear.

I frequent several of the top team forums and have never seen anyone doing this on any of the teams, perhaps some proof would be in order before you go throwing around accusations like this. I can however name several teams/individuals who have tricked clients/ dumped WU etc - most of who frequent this forum.

On the point of DAB and the points, 2 DAB reps have said that they never saw much in the way of discussion about the points change. One of them is even a beta tester and he didn't hear much about it either.

I NEVER make unsupported accusations. You should look a bit harder..

You also have a PM with a link to the proof, and I expect you to confirm this proof publicly in response.

"DAB reps never saw much" ? What exactly does that mean? Either they saw something or they did not? Which was it?

It would seem that there is at least one team that is purposely enabling rigs with 2600k cpu's access to the 6903/6904 projects. Of course this does happen to be the one top forum that i don't browse. Many thanks to the 3 people (7im and 2 other who will remain anonymous) that have PM'ed me with the link to the team forum in question. I am not going to further add to the neferious goings on by linking it, however this does leave a bitter taste in my mouth and wonder why a top team would condone such a thing

For the record i'm a member of H and EVGA forums and also browse Custom PC, Max PC and overclockers.com forums every once in a while to see if there is anything new to be learn't

phoenicis. wrote:Whilst entirely agreeing with the need for greater accountability and home forum authority for a wider DAB, I don’t think we’re in a position to criticise the individuals following the core hacking practice. Although the guidelines seem perfectly clear, when you drill down to the source quotes, the practice is only discouraged and is declared not to be cheating.

Wait a minute. "not actively declaring it cheating" is NOT the same as what you said... "declared not to be cheating" Kasson did not actively declare it NOT cheating either. He strongly discouraged it, so he declared it everything BUT cheating. That is very much at the opposite end of the sprectrum from what you said.

I don't think they have to use the word "cheating" for this to be considered "wrong." A spade does not need to be called one to know it is a spade.

Yes, this is VERY clear. Don't do this by any means...

Best Practices FAQ wrote:4.Donors should not use any means to force the FAH Client to download a WU that is not natively designed for the hardware on which the client runs...

"Don't" is a direct statement. A specific instruction not to do this, yet they are.

I think we have the right to criticize people who blatantly go against the strong recommendations of the project.

Also note what Kasson said later in the post. Paraphrased... We would love to fix this problem, but our resources are better used doing other things at the moment.

And I read that to mean if this becomes a bigger issue, they WILL FIX IT. Follow the rules quietly now, or get shut down hard later.


P.S. Let's get off this "corporate sponsored" conspiracy crap. EVGA gets a few credits twards hardware they could buy on sale for about the same price. Big F'ing deal. HardOCP gives away free computers to promote their team. Maximum PC publishes articles in their magazines promoting FAH and folding for their team. Ars Technica has published folding articles on their corporate tech news web pages. Toms hardware? Anandtech? Tech Report? They all promote folding. This is just the short list of many more examples. I am not defending EVGA, but I am getting tired of EVGA getting singled out unfairly. Stop throwing rocks from glass houses.

7im, Just to clarify that the [H] giveaways are all funded by the team members themselves and not by [H]ardOCP.

It is a shame that the client can be fooled into downloading WU that it isn't designed for. Hopefully it can be made more robust down the road and stop this. But as we have seen before PG have come down hard on people that flount the rules, in the meantime personally I consider it cheating

ZZZZ

Back to blaming the victim I see.

People will always do that for which they receive rewards for doing!

How about maintaining a focus on making sure they are rewarded for doing the right thing?

7im wrote:

phoenicis. wrote:Whilst entirely agreeing with the need for greater accountability and home forum authority for a wider DAB, I don’t think we’re in a position to criticise the individuals following the core hacking practice. Although the guidelines seem perfectly clear, when you drill down to the source quotes, the practice is only discouraged and is declared not to be cheating.

Wait a minute. "not actively declaring it cheating" is NOT the same as what you said... "declared not to be cheating" Kasson did not actively declare it NOT cheating either. He strongly discouraged it, so he declared it everything BUT cheating. That is very much at the opposite end of the sprectrum from what you said.

I don't think they have to use the word "cheating" for this to be considered "wrong." A spade does not need to be called one to know it is a spade.

Yes, this is VERY clear. Don't do this by any means...

If the word cheating was going to be mentioned at all, are the words ‘not actively declaring it cheating’ absolutely clear or slightly ambiguous? Would the words ‘it is cheating’ have been a clearer choice if you wanted it to stop with no misunderstanding? There are a number of examples, even within this thread, where perfectly intelligent individuals have read exactly the same quotes and drawn vastly different conclusions. This is a fact of life and always has been.

Berating people and reading from the rulebook may eventually beat them into submission but will not win their hearts and minds. I’ve always thought the trick is to empathise with the opposing view to see what must be done, if possible, to bring people onboard willingly. I would hope that very few people will get out of bed in the morning thinking ‘I’m going to be a bad person today and carry out some core hacking.’

Whilst the existing source quotes may seem sufficiently clear to you and me, no action has been taken and the thread in question is still thriving even though the DAB member for the team concerned has mod privileges. My suggestion of a clarification came from me trying to put myself in that persons shoes and think what would make it easier for them to do the right thing. I believe that clearer source quote and then an email from PG to the DAB member saying something like 'could you please do all in your power to stop this' would reduce the problem significantly. It would take a few minutes and would stop us from having to spend any further time debating the subject.

Maybe the benchmark is - do you feel confident enough of the existing clarity to point it out to the team in question by posting on the thread. Grandpa_01 already tried and was shouted down but please give it another go if you think there’s enough already in place. I’d feel more confident if there was an absolutely unambiguous statement delivered through the DAB member.

I’m game for a different approach to bring this from us just talking about it to a final conclusion but can’t think of one. What would you suggest as the next actions to resolve the issue? Plus we need to identify who is going to take the action.

Finally, I find it disappointing that, despite us sharing the view that core hacking needs to stop, you feel the need to respond in first engagement with me in an aggressive style and using capitalisation (shouting) whether intended or not. I know we all feel passionately about the subjects contained within this thread but posts from several parties read as if their trying to bite off somebody’s head, again, even if not intended. Many of us get enough confrontation during our day job and then fold to do something good/relax. If we continue to drive that group away from the forum, it will continue to only speak for minority and will be the poorer for it.

I’d rather not go fishing just yet.

PS I must learn to be a lot more succinct in my posts. mdk777 seems to have summarised things with considerably less blather.

Then tell me 7im what did Dr. Kasson mean by >=8 cores?

smp 7? I think not

4 cores + HT? I think not

6 cores? I think not

I think he ment >=8 cores

phoenicis. wrote:...

Berating people and reading from the rulebook may eventually beat them into submission but will not win their hearts and minds. I’ve always thought the trick is to empathise with the opposing view to see what must be done, if possible, to bring people onboard willingly. I would hope that very few people will get out of bed in the morning thinking ‘I’m going to be a bad person today and carry out some core hacking.’

We agree about not berating people in general. That's why the best practices faq uses language like "recommendation" instead of "don't cheat you dirty hacker"

But that leaves me confused by your conflicting statements. You want a clearer statement about not cheating, but then you don't want to berate them by calling them a cheater. I'm open to any suggestions about how to do that.

How about maintaining a focus on making sure they are rewarded for doing the right thing?

Sounds like that's part of what PG did. They lessened the incentive to run -bigadv work units on non-bidadv hardware.

PG also said more changes should be expected. PG has always used the carrot method (instead of stick) where possible. You attract more bees with honey than vinegar. Like making recommendations in an FAQ instead of calling people cheaters.