• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

BWM and Cherry picking

Status
Not open for further replies.
"I still think the points are nothing personally, so I wouldn't care if PPD went out the window, and if it helps the science, so be it."
Many feel the same way and I honestly believe you. It's the others that bend current rules and skate by with it that irks us. Why not try to talk to PG about it?
 
rflcptr said:
Let's follow your logic.

If BWM quits,

(backlogging 6701) + (backlogging Bigadv) = - 1 ?

Again, no contribution is worse than some contribution.
Click to expand...
you would be correct, except there is a shortage of bigadv work, but an (apparent) abundance of 6701 work
 
jebo_4jc said:
It's true that PG deserves a lot of blame for a lot of the problems with FAH. I almost wonder if the project has become bigger than they can handle with their given resources. That would appear to be the case, judging by many of the server outages and WU shortages.
Click to expand...

Seemingly so.

I think they have done fine considering their tiny budget, but will have problems in the future as the project grows and their team does not.

osrk said:
gee thanks for letting me fold the WU's you don't want. Assholes.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^Wholeheartedly agree, even if I'm a bit late ;)

jebo_4jc said:
rflcptr,

-1 + 1 = zero

(backlogging 6701 units) + (completing bigadv units) = zero

BWM might as well quit. seriously.
Click to expand...

Many of us have FAR more capable BigAdv hardware than they do, so who are they to dictate what units we get in a backhanded way? What gets my goat the most, is the arrogance they have displayed as donors.

"We'll fold what WE want to fold, not what the project dictates. Everyone else can have our table scraps because WE can fold 300K PPD"

Whatever. BWM > Burn WUs per Minute
 
jebo_4jc said:
you would be correct, except there is a shortage of bigadv work, but an (apparent) abundance of 6701 work
Click to expand...
If BWM is purely interested in points (which I think is the consensus :p), then they'll shift accordingly.

I agree that discussion with PG is what needs to happen, to fix this issue.

But then again, if PG is receiving nothing less than legitimate results, it may not be high on their priorities.

Telling users to stop contributing is NOT right. That's in direct opposition to the science.
 
rflcptr said:
If BWM is purely interested in points (which I think is the consensus :p), then they'll shift accordingly.

I agree that discussion with PG is what needs to happen, to fix this issue. Telling users to stop contributing is NOT right.
Click to expand...
they stated their position that they would rather have their machines wait at idle than run the low point smp units.
 
Tobit said:
99.9% sure they are running the Windows client via WINE. I'd like to know their kernel tweaks as well but none if it is as rocket science as they let on to be.
Click to expand...

yeah I doubt the kernel params are really all that earth shattering, but again the geek in me just can't sit here and not know... it's killin me!!!!

I figured Wine is prob how they're doing it, but man, talk about curiosity getting the better of me
 
rflcptr said:
In that case, it's their machine, as sad as that sounds.
Click to expand...
but their actions result in a detriment to each individual member who has to fold the lower point WUs instead of getting a bigadv. not to mention, more importantly, the scientific progress of the project as a whole
 
jebo_4jc said:
but their actions result in a detriment to each individual member who has to fold the lower point WUs instead of getting a bigadv. not to mention, more importantly, the scientific progress of the project as a whole
Click to expand...
I'm also wondering if PG will rule it illicit on grounds that the script is interfering with the assignment severs and possibly cause bottlenecks or other problems to the project if this thing spreads to other teams, basically what Zero pointed out at the beginning of the thread? It is a tool of interposition, almost like a hack. That alone is severe enough, let alone retardation in research progression.
 
jebo_4jc said:
but their actions result in a detriment to each individual member who has to fold the lower point WUs instead of getting a bigadv.
Click to expand...
I can see where this is going, and I think it's legit if you want your contribution more known. That's fine. Maybe where we disagree, is here. Under BOINC, I just basically work WCG, and some GPU work where I find it. The PPD translation from WCG to BOINC stats isn't so hot, and some users like the PPD Collatz gives them, even if it's not-so-human oriented. It does paint the overall picture of them having done more work vs WCG, but to me, that's not what really matters. I'm happy seeing my machines contributing as much as they can.
not to mention, more importantly, the scientific progress of the project as a whole
Click to expand...
With volunteered distributed computing, PG has to take whatever they can get. Scientific progress will move forward, even if BWM and the like are being exclusive to some particular type of WU. Work is being done, and again, that's what matters.
 
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree
 
I suppose, but I'm happy to do what I can to help. I volunteer for every sub-project offered by WCG, but if someone wants to eat up the more PPD-friendly FightAids WUs (not necessarily true, just an example), I'm not losing sleep over it.

If it satisfies you, BWM's measure of contribution will suffer from their exclusivity if (and when) Bigadv dries up.
 
I love it, I love it, I LOVE IT!! Some controversy for once. It had gotten quiet and booring around here since that other team took over the top spot.

I'm not taking sides, but remember guys, it's not smart to argue with a fool, cause it's hard for us bystanders to know which is the fool.
 
man all this bitching, I remember when WU's had 18 day time limits and were worth 57 points! :p
 
WTF happened to this thread - I stay away for 24 hours and all this happened. I like a good debate but please - all stay off the name calling.

/Goes hunting for a case of beer.....
 
So after spending the better part of my workday reading the past 11 pages (between client meetings and doing actual work), I've noticed that the real problem lies not with BWM, or with the ethics behind folding, but rather with PG's inability to nip problems at the bud.

PG needs to be able to react fast enough on topics like this, even if they don't update their TOS or rules or whatever. They need to be able to make a statement (which I believe they have), and then enforce their point of view.

This then brings about a whole 'nother problem though.

As far as the cherry picking goes, I personally don't know enough about the F@H system, so I'm going to make some assumptions and conjectures. I don't know if WUs are a zero-sum game, meaning, if BWM takes a good WU, will someone else get another WU of the same project? I know the answer is yes, but more to the fact of, what are the chances? If they keep blocking the 6701 server (or whatever Project it is), do those WUs just build up and then no one else gets the "better" WUs? If that's the case, then it's definitely not making the playing field level (if you care about the points). If you don't, then technically, it shouldn't really matter, per say. The problem comes about in that PG needs to now spend time/energy responding to this issues because they HAVE a point structure. Now that's hurting science because throw the points away and they don't have to deal with it.

By the way, it's been brought up a number of times "if you don't care about points, why join [H]?" My simple answer is knowledge. If you cared about science, and you wanted to maximize your production, you come to [H] and learn how to OC your system. You learn about PPD/watt to maximize your efficiency, because while the PPD doesn't matter, saving energy does. Essentially, even if there were no points, we'd all be here showing off our D (and e-peens), trying to one up each other and getting the lowest TPF or largest farm, etc, etc.

I believe it's called camaraderie.
 
I don't believe there should be any argument about "Getting mad points" vs "Doing science."

Both are equal with Folding, its not like we're talking about truly cheating by submitting false results or unethical installing on non-personal systems. The more people push for PPD, the more science gets done.

The only argument should be is PG properly/fairly valuing work units.
 
crazjayz said:
I don't know if WUs are a zero-sum game, meaning, if BWM takes a good WU, will someone else get another WU of the same project?
Click to expand...
A fixed number of copies of each work unit is distributed. Once they're gone, they're gone. There is something of a shortage of -bigadv units at the moment, which is why many people with -bigadv-capable machines are getting standard SMP units in the first place.
 
Brak710 said:
I don't believe there should be any argument about "Getting mad points" vs "Doing science."

Both are equal with Folding, its not like we're talking about truly cheating by submitting false results or unethical installing on non-personal systems. The more people push for PPD, the more science gets done.

The only argument should be is PG properly/fairly valuing work units.
Click to expand...

"getting mad points" is not mutually exclusive with "doing science". Doing science gets you points, getting mad points doesn't really mean you're doing science if you're messing it up for other people, or the project itself. Things like deleting WUs, or in this case cherry picking means that you're putting a ranking on what science to do. And while it's voluntary, it's not anyone's place to make that call except PG.
 
I don't see what the problem is. How is cherry-picking hurting the project? If they didn't do the work, someone else will. Not everyone has a -bigadv, SMP or GPUx machine that's capable doing doing everything for every project. With as many people out there doing this, it's going to get done regardless. Even if the script they use go viral it's an easy fix.. rebalance the points system to make the script worthless. They are in 100% control of what donors are deeming "good" units or "meh" units (there's not a bad one).


The point is the work they do get done, get's done. They just got it first by forcing their machines to be idle, and if the work isn't there to be done, then they lose out because their machines sit idle while others are doing what they won't.


From a pure points perspective, yeah I suppose it's not fair, but PG wouldn't be putting the work up to get done if they didn't want it done. I'm not going to bitch about what work unit I get regardless of how many points it's worth, or how long it takes to crunch. I'm in it for the cause first.. and as far as I can tell what BWM and co are doing isn't hurting me or anyone else, it just makes them look like assholes... but there's a lot those in this world. I'm not going to get butt-hurt over two more.

Now if there's an actual detriment to the project (i.e. units are being assigned and not getting done because they refused to download them and the AS thinks they're being worked on) that's a different matter that needs to be handled internally. For example, they could have the client report that it's started work on a unit and noting that unit as underway in their database rather than blindly assuming that it is because it was assigned.
 
I see both side have good arguments but the root problem is that for some people, the lack of a written folding guideline and rules is a good reason to do what they believe is the right thing. I have talked to Vijay and he suggested that for now, it's a good idea to work the EULA to add the guidelines of what is not accepted as actions, with links to the official stances on each issue. I might be the one writing that part.

I will make a new thread tomorrow to ask everyone what is the behaviors which is not acceptable from the science view then I'll submit that to Vijay. He agreed that it should be written somewhere to help and said that punitive measures will be for a bit later since it's a bit of a grey area due to the lack of written rules.
 
Xilikon said:
I see both side have good arguments but the root problem is that for some people, the lack of a written folding guideline and rules is a good reason to do what they believe is the right thing. I have talked to Vijay and he suggested that for now, it's a good idea to work the EULA to add the guidelines of what is not accepted as actions, with links to the official stances on each issue. I might be the one writing that part.

I will make a new thread tomorrow to ask everyone what is the behaviors which is not acceptable from the science view then I'll submit that to Vijay. He agreed that it should be written somewhere to help and said that punitive measures will be for a bit later since it's a bit of a grey area due to the lack of written rules.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a great start to me and fair. Once posted, this should clear up many issues in this thread, at the very least it is on record for all to see that cherry picking and trashing WU's against the rules and will be dealt with.
Thank you for your efforts and all who constructively participated.
Things CAN get accomplished if you persevere.
 
I guess I have to wait a wile for the lulz that will come from this....

Will be so worth it

/popcorn

:eek: It's stale
 
Xilikon said:
I see both side have good arguments but the root problem is that for some people, the lack of a written folding guideline and rules is a good reason to do what they believe is the right thing. I have talked to Vijay and he suggested that for now, it's a good idea to work the EULA to add the guidelines of what is not accepted as actions, with links to the official stances on each issue. I might be the one writing that part.

I will make a new thread tomorrow to ask everyone what is the behaviors which is not acceptable from the science view then I'll submit that to Vijay. He agreed that it should be written somewhere to help and said that punitive measures will be for a bit later since it's a bit of a grey area due to the lack of written rules.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me...

I think anything that can be considered as "negative for science" should be against the rules... like dumping WU's or blocking WU's, saving WU's to dump all at once etc...

basically manipulating the system for points gain probably hurts science
 
jebo_4jc said:
lol get out of here old timer
Click to expand...
Careful, or he'll tell us all to get off his lawn! :D

Just to stoke the fire a bit more - While I understand the point some have made about how it's bad to tell someone that their folding isn't wanted, as something is better than nothing, what about the other side? If a few people get pissed off enough to decide to move their equipment over to WCG or Seti or something (I know, that's NEVER happened before, lol), F@H still loses, and the root of the problem is still there to piss more people off. Now multiply that by the number of teams these two seem to have gone through, and I'd say it's better in the long run to be rid of the problem. Would I prefer it to be by PG addressing it in the rules? Yeah, but I'd like to win the Lotto and buy us all SR-2 rigs, too - and I'd guess we'll all be folding dual hex cores before getting regular attention by PG :cool:
 
Jathanis said:
Careful, or he'll tell us all to get off his lawn! :D

Just to stoke the fire a bit more - While I understand the point some have made about how it's bad to tell someone that their folding isn't wanted, as something is better than nothing, what about the other side? If a few people get pissed off enough to decide to move their equipment over to WCG or Seti or something (I know, that's NEVER happened before, lol), F@H still loses, and the root of the problem is still there to piss more people off. Now multiply that by the number of teams these two seem to have gone through, and I'd say it's better in the long run to be rid of the problem. Would I prefer it to be by PG addressing it in the rules? Yeah, but I'd like to win the Lotto and buy us all SR-2 rigs, too - and I'd guess we'll all be folding dual hex cores before getting regular attention by PG :cool:
Click to expand...

*get off my lawn you damn kids!!*

*puts on a 45 record*

ah this brought back memories

let me sum it up for you how VJ's answer would go...

"dont like it? gtfo"
 
FLECOM said:
basically manipulating the system for points gain probably hurts science
Click to expand...
How about manipulating the system at all? As far as I'm concerned, interfering with the normal functionality of the F@H clients in any way should not be permitted, unless you have no choice (i.e., deleting a corrupted unit or something along those lines).
 
I agree Zero. The trick is all in the wording. Would playing with the WU size (small, medium, big) or switching from regular to -advmethods in the middle of a WU be "interfering"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top