Folding Forum

7im wrote:

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.

No that is not what they did. They can still run them and make more PPD using the hack than running standard smp or standard bigadv Stanford is still dangling the CARROT FOR THE HACK it is obvious that at this point in time they are not that concerned about it. I have posted in forums that people should not be doing it because they are slowing down the project and doing just the opposite of what Stanford has stated they want. I have pointed to the best practices thread and tried reasoning with people. I have been called allot of different names ridiculed told to go away etc. ect. etc. They always say if Stanford wanted it to stop they would stop it, and they know we are doing it but Stanford has not stopped it, so it is OK.

And frankly I tend to agree with them although I do not promote or condone it if it slows the project down. If Stanford wanted it to stop it would stop and it could be done just as quick as the points for the bigadv were dropped. A 2600K at 4.4Ghz takes 53 min. to do a frame of a 6903 guess what allot of the 2P 12 core server boards will not do that and if the drop the deadline which is the simple fix they are gong to have some 12 core machines incapable of folding them that are going to be assigned them. And by the way I have not see any of you on the other forums telling them what they are doing is wrong. Why Not You have no problem doing it here. I say put your money where your mouth is.

Grandpa_01 wrote:
No that is not what they did. They can still run them and make more PPD using the hack than running standard smp or standard bigadv Stanford is still dangling the CARROT FOR THE HACK it is obvious that at this point in time they are not that concerned about it.

That's one opinion. But PG did say that additional changes should be expected, so I don't equate that to a lack of concern. Probably just the opposite.

As kasson said, the fix was not technically easy. Clearly you can't just count "cores" any more. And the fah assignment servers don't have very many other options on which to filter clients appropriately for -bigadv. So if you try to rush the next fix by continually venting your frustration, the next change might cut like a broad sword instead of a scalpel.


As to your money challenge, I don't go to other forums to preach fah policy. I may occasionally remind people about the best practices, but there's no converting of hooligans. It's a waste of time. I help answer questions where the help is appreciated.

"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.

Re: Bigadv points change

Post by orion » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:22 pm

Well, you could start by calling them donors instead of cheating hacker hooligans.

That would always be a good start.

Amazing. I hate to see how you treat people who aren't giving something away for free.

mdk777 wrote:

"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.

Re: Bigadv points change

Post by orion » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:22 pm

Well, you could start by calling them donors instead of cheating hacker hooligans.

That would always be a good start.

Amazing. I hate to see how you treat people who aren't giving something away for free.

If it isn't stated as forbidden or prohibited in the best practices guidelines, then it's not cheating, not against any rules, if it's regarded as "not in the spirit of the project' or "not in the best interests of the science" then what does it achieve, a higher score on a team or individual user leaderboard, and then does that higher score reflect what most use the points system for, a rough guide to work done for the project, or does it just gain some "perceived advantage" over other teams or their own team members, The vast majority of donors would pride themselves on "doing the right thing" for the project, after all that's why most start Folding in the first place, those that want to "points race" are encouraged to do so, but as in many other forms of competition, "bending the rules" in the form of sledging, unsporting behaviour or conduct detrimental to the game is slowly being frowned upon.

mdk777 wrote:

"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.

Re: Bigadv points change

Post by orion » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:22 pm

Well, you could start by calling them donors instead of cheating hacker hooligans.

That would always be a good start.

Nice try on taking something out of context and wrongly spinning something I said.

I was NOT the one who suggested the Best Practices FAQ should starting calling people cheaters. And I did NOT call them cheaters. I used those words to ask phoenicis. an either/or question. If you use the word cheater in the Best Practices FAQ, then those that break it are then automatically considered Cheaters. I was asking if he really wanted to start calling people "cheaters"? I was not the one calling them cheaters.


BTW, what is your motive for trying to dogpile me on made up charges? Looks more like a poorly veiled personal attack to me...

I am very consistent in this thread.

The point system should serve the donors.

Any post that turns this discussion around to blaming users is absurd.

Users, donors, enthusiasts, are all terms that denote respect for those who make this entire project possible.

I do not attack any person. I do object to anyone name calling donors.

They are not hackers, they are not cheating hooligans.

Such language is totally inappropriate and should not be tolerated on the forum.

7im wrote: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.

Talking about wrongly spinning, I didn't suggest that we call anybody cheaters. Because the word cheating was already used in the source quote, I said if the word cheating was going to be mentioned at all, then there was a less ambiguous way of using it. I really don't think the word is appropriate for donors although I did take 'don't cheat you dirty hackers' in the spirit of which I think it was intended, a joke, and I confess it caused a giggle.

My suggestion, for what it's worth, is that if the practice is damaging the science then that is exactly what is said together with a synopsis of the reasons why and perhaps the word prohibited for good measure. If that is actually what PG wants, then I'm sure we/they could come up with a form of words that would be directive without being offensive.

Thanks phoenicis., I appreciate you answering my either/or question. I'm glad you see that it takes some word-smithing skills to write a Best Practices FAQ, to lay down some strong recommendations, and without offending anyone's sensibilities. It's not easy to say, "Don't cheat!" without using the word "cheat." Any suggestions in that regard is very welcomed, and we can update that FAQ as needed.

Your posts continue in the usual vain: nothing needs to be fixed, it is operator error.

This is of course not the case. The user, the operator, the donor, is using the system exactly as it was designed.

If there needs to be adjustments to the system, place responsibility where it belongs: on those that design the system, and not on those that use it.

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.

This is your first post since returning to this thread.

In it you certainly accuse donors of "tricking".......... AKA cheating.

You blame the donors for not following the best practices, rather than just doing what the point system rewards...... AKA blaming the user.

mdk777 wrote:
In it you certainly accuse donors of "tricking".......... AKA cheating.

I have to say that's quite a stretch.

I also believe it is time to close this thread nothing of any value has been added in the last several (many?) pages.

Edited by Leonardo:
My previous text is now is now obsolete.

Keep smiling everyone, our enterprise is very complex. I am confident that all will come out in the wash.

Read it again. I said the procedures include instructions how to trick the fah servers, and those instructions go against Best Practices.

Even taken out of context like that, and extended to that logically extreme fallacy, I still, at most, offended a written document. "donor" does not appear anywhere in that post. You really are reaching on that one.

Leo has some good advise for you...

"donor" does not appear anywhere in that post

Correct, the only appellation you have used is hooligan.

Donor is my term. I don't think I have ever seen you use it.

Read it again.

Subject of the sentence = top teams = donors.

However, I'm sure I will be told this is a stretch.

I seem to be the only one that objects to the denigration of the very people who contribute.

It doesn't seem like a stretch to me. It seems very obvious. Fix the system and don't attack the user.

Seems like just basic survival for a volunteer project. But then, I could just be crazy.

mdk777 wrote:

"donor" does not appear anywhere in that post

Donor is my term. I don't think I have ever seen you use it.

Read it again.

Subject of the sentence = top teams = donors.

I use donor quite frequently.

And I never said "top teams" actually followed the documents. I only said they flaunted them.

You, however, assumed they did follow the document so that a "top team would equal donors", so you're more guilty than I am.