BWM and Cherry picking

[[H]ecklerKoc[H]]

In the en the OP is still contributing cycles and electricity. Better to have that contribution than none at all. More's they better if the contribution is for Team 33

As for my machines, they simply chew on what is fed to them And this last week as been a lot bowls of 6xxx kibble for the SR-2 and others to eat.

 

[sirmonkey1985]

In the en the OP is still contributing cycles and electricity. Better to have that contribution than none at all. More's they better if the contribution is for Team 33

As for my machines, they simply chew on what is fed to them And this last week as been a lot bowls of 6xxx kibble for the SR-2 and others to eat.

true but for every 1 project they are actually contributing theres 10-15 maybe even 20 that arent being run because they decided to run a script where the AS server is sending out WU's and has no idea if that persons receiving them. thats 10-15 even 20 WU's others could of been running but now they cant since the server now has to wait for those WU's to reach their max deadline before they can be sent back out to other people. that means we have to continue running these crappy WU's because some one else doesnt want to. it harms us, it harm's the science and just plain makes people look bad.

While (downloading(userID,password))
{
...
WUsDownloaded[user]++;
....
}
Points := Credit / WUsDowloaded[userID];


sirmonkey1985, it looks like they DO realize how it works better than you do, and that is how they manage to get the WUs they wanted without being penalized.

Do I think this is correct? No, unless PG finds it OK to leave it that. Then, well fair game.

Geez, comeone guys. We are talking about the University of Standford. I am sure they can get someone that knows enough about programming to implement the rules they want into code.

And to use the rules to promote the behaviour they want. No need to screw anyone.

While some of you feel you have higher moral standards than others, well thats nice, but this is a game. A points game.

The science is real, true, but the points system is a game, nothing more, nothing less. Let's play by the rules. Dont get pissy because someone found a way to make more points within the rules, but outside your moral specifications.

Tall players have better chances at being good in Basketball, is that fair? does not matter, there are no rules against it. So too bad for me, no chance really.

Heavy boxers have bettter chances of creaming a lite weight dude. Well they have different weight classes. Well I still cant box, but that is besides the point.

My point is that if I dont like the rules of the NBA a can start my own league of short people basketball.

OK, I am done, but please no name calling... I think that is againts the rules of the forum



There is a diff between cheating and finding loopholes around the rules. The Australians won the Americas Cup by comming up with creative designs within the rules. If the organizers dont like it well change them going formward. But you cant disqualify them once the race started and they are within the rules.

Same thing with the Katamaran the NZ used. single haul after that... but not halfway throught the race.

very true. its a game PG started. and if i have to play this stupid game the right way then god damnit everyone else has to as well. trust me i know i found a lot of the loop holes in the point scheme. but theres a big difference between what i did and what they are doing.. PG already said they dont want people cherry picking. they have actually put in measures to stop cherry picking and what these people did was find a loop hole around the measures PG put in to stop cherry picking. but like tobit said further up on page 1 PG wont do a damn thing about it.

 

[KWH]

true but for every 1 project they are actually contributing theres 10-15 maybe even 20 that arent being run because they decided to run a script where the AS server is sending out WU's and has no idea if that persons receiving them. thats 10-15 even 20 WU's others could of been running but now they cant since the server now has to wait for those WU's to reach their max deadline before they can be sent back out to other people. that means we have to continue running these crappy WU's because some one else doesnt want to. it harms us, it harm's the science and just plain makes people look bad.

And yet, it's not illegal. No matter how fast your folding moral compass spins, you are wrong as it now stands. Moaning about getting crappy WU's is getting old. You preach to fold what you get but moan because you don't get what you want. This looks to invalidate your arguments and only makes you look jealous and petty. I don't think this is the case but it sure looks that way.
I agree with you on many thing but this isn't one of them.
I am all for rules changes as long as it's for everyone.

 

[W.Feather]

Honestly i think it is wrong that they specifically block teh PG IP's that assign work units that they are "not optimized for" (bull shit, if your optimized for big adv you sure as hell are optimized to do SMP better than 90+% of the donors).......however it is not techincally wrong.....

all the bitching should stop, i bitch about 6701's to be an ass in IRC, i honestly care less i still pull good points, it gets needed work done, and you know what in the end it may help your ass to do it rather than bitch and moan about it.

 

[KWH]

Honestly i think it is wrong that they specifically block teh PG IP's that assign work units that they are "not optimized for" (bull shit, if your optimized for big adv you sure as hell are optimized to do SMP better than 90+% of the donors).......however it is not techincally wrong.....

all the bitching should stop, i bitch about 6701's to be an ass in IRC, i honestly care less i still pull good points, it gets needed work done, and you know what in the end it may help your ass to do it rather than bitch and moan about it.

Nail, meet hammer. Until we get ruling from PG, just fold what ya got.

 

[APOLLO]

Sorry, my feeling is that if the PG allows this to happen, then good for them for cherry picking.

Bad for the rest of us and the project if it slows it down.

If the PG did not want this, well then penalize them. Use a ID password, whatever. each unfinished WU reduces your points or something like that. It does not matter.

Everything matters. Why PG has or has not done about the matter is up for speculation. They may not know about it if it was recently revealed, or those who matter in the project may not be aware. We just don't know at this point.

My preference would be to have results based rules, like you get bonus points if you finish in 4 days or less.

I agree and that's essentially what we had earlier but you add a static bonus on top of that, correct?

If they dont like cherry picking well, then set up the rules and the systems to penalize it.

It's not as simple as that. They may be aware of the possibility but not acceptant of the reality that it will likely manifest. Like a sort of denial if you will. They know it can happen, but probably saw it in the remote unlikelihood of probabilities, and in that sense they were right - until now.

Geez, comeone guys. We are talking about the University of Standford. I am sure they can get someone that knows enough about programming to implement the rules they want into code. And to use the rules to promote the behaviour they want. No need to screw anyone.

Agreed, it's high time something is done about ossifying the structure of the project on the client's end, and by client I mean participant.

While some of you feel you have higher moral standards than others, well thats nice, but this is a game. A points game.

The science is real, true, but the points system is a game, nothing more, nothing less. Let's play by the rules. Dont get pissy because someone found a way to make more points within the rules, but outside your moral specifications.

That's where your argument lands on shaky ground. Again, I will sate that what BWM has done is not determined to be benign for the project nor has it been determined it is under regulations. Again, I await a comment by the project PTB before I lay calim to such an assertion.

Tall players have better chances at being good in Basketball, is that fair? does not matter, there are no rules against it. So too bad for me, no chance really.

Heavy boxers have bettter chances of creaming a lite weight dude. Well they have different weight classes. Well I still cant box, but that is besides the point.

My point is that if I dont like the rules of the NBA a can start my own league of short people basketball.

I love sports analogies, don't you? They make for such colorful and larger-than-life archetypes few cannot feel compelled but to identify with on some basic level. For one thing, this isn't a sport in the traditional sense of the word. Although there is a competition of sorts and occasional contest/challenges, it is primarily an endeavor of scientific research that has a large competitive dynamic for incentives to further the research. Because someone put the blinders on the referee doesn't mean a foul was not committed...

I will admit the points system has gone haywire and this is causing greater and greater problems that one day need to be addressed, hopefully sooner than later. That does not mean that there is a carte blanche policy for everyone to do as they please. Having the ingenuity to circumvent the system does not condone it.

There is a diff between cheating and finding loopholes around the rules.

Yes there is, but both are not good for the project if for different reasons. Then there is the issue of what type of loopholes we are dealing with. Loopholes that do not cause a problem either for the continuity of an endeavor or generate antipathy against those who practice them, I can see no problem with. There are loopholes in the rules of some games or other participatory events that do not cause issues, I believe this is not the same kind of situation. Assuming that no direct harm is being dealt to the project, WUs are still being selected against, therefore being delayed, therefore the project is being delayed, therefore the project is being impacted *somehow* negatively. IOW, some kind of systemic delay is being introduced in the assignment sever end of things where none had prior existed even if it's currently restricted to a single team (AFAWK), surely you must see that??

The Australians won the Americas Cup by comming up with creative designs within the rules. If the organizers dont like it well change them going formward. But you cant disqualify them once the race started and they are within the rules.

Same thing can be stated about F1 and the countless regulation revisions over the years, banning, turbos, active suspensions, limiting aerodynamic surfaces, reducing tire contact area, ad infinitum... I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but one thing I do realize is when one team or athlete in sports gains an unfair advantage over other teams/athletes, notably through technological means, it's no longer a level playing field and this is partly what I mean regarding ethical conduct. I don't think a sports analogy is apt for F@H, but I will use it if need be.

Same thing with the Katamaran the NZ used. single haul after that... but not halfway throught the race.

This isn't a race because no time limit or goal other than finding cures and treatments to diseases has been established by the project organizers. Races like the CC, TZC or the race to 4B are not sponsored by PG but by team participants, and thus subordinate in their rules of engagement to the project's overall integrity.

 

[sirmonkey1985]

And yet, it's not illegal. No matter how fast your folding moral compass spins, you are wrong as it now stands. Moaning about getting crappy WU's is getting old. You preach to fold what you get but moan because you don't get what you want. This looks to invalidate your arguments and only makes you look jealous and petty. I don't think this is the case but it sure looks that way.
I agree with you on many thing but this isn't one of them.
I am all for rules changes as long as it's for everyone.

bitching about it and still doing it is a whole lot different then bitching about it and finding work arounds and loop holes so you dont have to do the projects are a totally different thing. theres nothing wrong with bitching about the performance of the WU. still doesnt mean i wont do them. im not going to delete a WU just because i dont like it but im sure as hell going to bitch about it because WU's like the 6701's suck in performance/points because the WU's were never ment to be run on the a3 core. they are converted a2 WU's to work on the a3 core and most likely were tested on old hardware back during the A2 days and never retested on the a3 core which is why they suck. still hate em but im still going to run them.

 

[SpeedyVV]

Bad for the rest of us and the project if it slows it down.

Everything matters. Why PG has or has not done about the matter is up for speculation. They may not know about it if it was recently revealed, or those who matter in the project may not be aware. We just don't know at this point.

I agree and that's essentially what we had earlier but you add a static bonus on top of that, correct?

It's not as simple as that. They may be aware of the possibility but nor acceptant of the reality that it will manifest. Like a sort of denial if you will. They know it can happen, but probably saw it in the remote unlikelihood of probabilities, and in that sense they were right - until now.

Agreed, it's high time something is done about ossifying the structure of the project on the client's end, and by client I mean participant.

That's where your argument lands on shaky ground. Again, I will sate that what BWM has done is not determined to be benign for the project nor has it been determined it is under regulations. Again, I await a comment by the project PTB before I lay calim to such an assertion.

No shaky ground at all. You just restated my argument. Await a comment by the project PTB before I lay claim to such an assertion. That is my point. If the PTB finds they broke rule x and the penalty is y. then turf their ass... but stop pretending that you or me can are the PTB. I have no issue someone saying, hey you are breaking rule X please stop.

I love sports analogies, don't you? They make for such colorful and larger-than-life archetypes few cannot feel compelled but to identify with on some basic level. For one thing, this isn't a sport in the traditional sense of the word. Although there is a competition of sorts and occasional contest/challenges, it is primarily an endeavor of scientific research that has a large competitive dynamic for incentives to further the research. Because someone put the blinders on the referee doesn't mean a foul was not committed...

But if the NBA puts referees with blinders, well, thanks you just made my point yet again.

Same thing can be stated about F1 and the countless regulation revisions over the years, banning, turbos, active suspensions, limiting aerodynamic surfaces, reducing tire contact area, ad infinitum... I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but one thing I do concede that when one team in sports gains an unfair advantage over other teams, notably through technological means, it's no longer a level playing field and this is partly what I mean regarding ethical conduct. I don't think a sports analogy is apt for F@H, but I will use it if need be.

This is where your arguments makes no sense. F1 IS won by technological means. Better tires (within rules), better engines (within rules), better aerodynamics (within rules), better powerplants (within rules), better suspension (within rules), better fuels (within rules). It is a car race. Not a drivers race. They do change the rules according to theirs desires, cost of racing, safety, etc... And guess what. the governing body checks the rules. And there are consequences for breaking them.

This isn't a race because no time limit or goal other than finding cures and treatments to diseases has been established by the project organizers. Races like the CC, TZC or the race to 4B are not sponsored by PG but by team participants, and thus subordinate in their rules of engagement to the project's overall integrity.

This is a race. The race to do find a cure to the various problems caused by the science of folding.

They want us to race... hence the points. they want us to have more points per day, per watt, per whatever, and they will manage the points properly, or they should just stop.


One thing I want to be absolutely clear. I want the same thing as most of you. To help the science of folding. That is 1st and foremost.

Where we may disagree, is on the system in place to promote participation and contribution and the right of some to pass judgement of others.

And I also think it is good for our community to have this open discussion, with respect for each other.

 

[KWH]

bitching about it and still doing it is a whole lot different then bitching about it and finding work arounds and loop holes so you dont have to do the projects are a totally different thing. theres nothing wrong with bitching about the performance of the WU. still doesnt mean i wont do them. im not going to delete a WU just because i dont like it but im sure as hell going to bitch about it because WU's like the 6701's suck in performance/points because the WU's were never ment to be run on the a3 core. they are converted a2 WU's to work on the a3 core and most likely were tested on old hardware back during the A2 days and never retested on the a3 core which is why they suck. still hate em but im still going to run them.

This still changes nothing. So far, you've not shown it to be illegal but keep that moral folding compass spinning. Bitching about others taking advantages within the rules is sour grapes. Most don't seem to like it but it is fair game.
As far as I can tell, no one here advocates deleting WU's, I sure don't. This script of cherry picking seems in the grey area and Tobit has kind of cleared some things up as to why you wouldn't want to do it but I want to see PG rule on it.

 

[rflcptr]

go run boinc if you want to choose the WU's you run. you dont belong in F@H.

You mean projects and sub-projects. Many BOINC participants don't selectively run WUs, either.

Further, it sounds like they [BWM, or whoever] want the most production possible given their uptime. Problem?

 

[SpeedyVV]

KHW, you can make an argument more concisely than me...lol I go on and on... sorry folks

But this is what makes the US the great country that is it (well Canada too). There is a clear constitution, and a system that is in place to enforce it. It creates a level playing field that is the envy of the world. Justice is balanced but it also a "sword".

PG please, make your rules clear, and create a system of points thats enforceble. Enforce them.

Peace.

 

[KWH]

KHW, you can make an argument more concisely than me...lol I go on and on... sorry folks

But this is what makes the US the great country that is it (well Canada too). There is a clear constitution, and a system that is in place to enforce it. It creates a level playing field that is the envy of the world. Justice is balanced but it also a "sword".

PG please, make your rules clear, and create a system of points thats enforceble. Enforce them.

Peace.

I thought you did well enough as I tend to get ahead of myself.

"PG please, make your rules clear, and create a system of points thats enforceble. Enforce them."

^^^This is all I want.^^^ It shouldn't be so hard to make some changes, just one step at a time.

 

[sirmonkey1985]

KHW, you can make an argument more concisely than me...lol I go on and on... sorry folks

But this is what makes the US the great country that is it (well Canada too). There is a clear constitution, and a system that is in place to enforce it. It creates a level playing field that is the envy of the world. Justice is balanced but it also a "sword".

PG please, make your rules clear, and create a system of points thats enforceble. Enforce them.

Peace.

yeah i wish PG would actually list the rules and crap but they wont because they like the ability to create rules on the fly and hold them against people. found that out when i found the loop hole with the fermi WU's and non fermi cards. one of the people from PG kept threatening me about resetting my points after tobit decided to make a post with my comment word for word so the admins could find it here on the forum and try to use what i said here against me. there was no rule then about it and there still isn't any rule against it now.

 

[KWH]

yeah i wish PG would actually list the rules and crap but they wont because they like the ability to create rules on the fly and hold them against people. found that out when i found the loop hole with the fermi WU's and non fermi cards. one of the people from PG kept threatening me about resetting my points after tobit decided to make a post with my comment word for word so the admins could find it here on the forum and try to use what i said here against me. there was no rule then about it and there still isn't any rule against it now.

When I got in that hornets nest, I had NO clue it was heavily frowned upon, only to take some verbal (typing?) abuse for it. It was only after the fact I found out. So, I yanked all my farms,scoured the rules and found NO illegalities. All I want is equal rules for everyone, why should that be so hard?

 

[SpeedyVV]

yeah i wish PG would actually list the rules and crap but they wont because they like the ability to create rules on the fly and hold them against people. found that out when i found the loop hole with the fermi WU's and non fermi cards. one of the people from PG kept threatening me about resetting my points after tobit decided to make a post with my comment word for word so the admins could find it here on the forum and try to use what i said here against me. there was no rule then about it and there still isn't any rule against it now.

That is unacceptable. If they keep that up, then people will find other causes. Which is a shame.

I am surprised they get away with it. Hell, being that the US is also the land of litigation, they might get into trouble one day. I mean some folks are investing serious $ in the cause and deserve the respect of a fair system.

 

[sirmonkey1985]

That is unacceptable. If they keep that up, then people will find other causes. Which is a shame.

I am surprised they get away with it. Hell, being that the US is also the land of litigation, they might get into trouble one day. I mean some folks are investing serious $ in the cause and deserve the respect of a fair system.

they get away with it because people like us are the minority of the project. the majority probably never even check their stats more then once a month. they probably go to the F@H site only when their clients stop working. most of them dont even want to know what goes on in the background. they just run the projects because they thought the project sounded cool.

 

[APOLLO]

No shaky ground at all. You just restated my argument. Await a comment by the project PTB before I lay claim to such an assertion. That is my point. If the PTB finds they broke rule x and the penalty is y. then turf their ass...

Then don't appear like you're defending the other parties because PG cannot provide against every possible contingency. I want to put out a reminder to everyone that BWM unequivocally admitted to DELETING WUs on the EVGA forum when this controversy broke out, not using a script to circumvent the servers which is what they claim NOW. Why they changed their story is anyone's guess, but let none of us forget what they admitted to.

but stop pretending that you or me can are the PTB.

I don't pretend to be anyone other than who I am, and what I post is exactly who I am. It is your decision to read or comment what I post as you wish, but I will not stay my opinion. Not least of which concerns this topic.

But if the NBA puts referees with blinders, well, thanks you just made my point yet again.

The particpants placed the blinders on the referees by introducing THEIR blinders into the game - not the league. Subtle but all important difference. Who did what is crucial here.

This is where your arguments makes no sense. F1 IS won by technological means. Better tires (within rules), better engines (within rules), better aerodynamics (within rules), better powerplants (within rules), better suspension (within rules), better fuels (within rules). It is a car race. Not a drivers race. They do change the rules according to theirs desires, cost of racing, safety, etc... And guess what. the governing body checks the rules. And there are consequences for breaking them.

I wasn't using F1 to advocate my position, but to point out that sports by and large are not applicable to describe this situation. You raised the sports analogy. This isn't a sporting event no matter what sports we choose as an analogy.

This is a race. The race to do find a cure to the various problems caused by the science of folding.

This is not about a race because we are not racing against anything unless you want the competitor to be Time, but that is being arbitrary. Only in that sense it is a race.

They want us to race... hence the points. they want us to have more points per day, per watt, per whatever, and they will manage the points properly, or they should just stop.

What you're complaining about does not really concern this thread, which deals with a group of individuals who created a tool to selectively receive the WUs they want to fold on their hardware. It is loosely related but not the topic here.

One thing I want to be absolutely clear. I want the same thing as most of you. To help the science of folding. That is 1st and foremost.

Then don't defend those who have done nothing but insult others on numerous occasions both on and off of their team, have torn apart the science and created additonal tools to further their personal agendas. This is the naked truth and I cannot see anyone sensibly justifying their actions.

 

[KWH]

Then don't appear like you're defending the other parties because PG cannot provide against every possible contingency. I want to put out a reminder to everyone that BWM unequivocally admitted to DELETING WUs on the EVGA forum when this controversy broke out, not using a script to circumvent the servers which is what they claim NOW. Why they changed their story is anyone's guess, but let none of us forget what they admitted to.

I don't pretend to be anyone other than who I am, and what I post is exactly who I am. It is your decision to read or comment what I post as you wish, but I will not stay my opinion. Not least of which concerns this topic.

The particpants placed the blinders on the referees by introducing THEIR blinders into the game - not the league. Subtle but all important difference. Who did what is crucial here.

I wasn't using F1 to advocate my position, but to point out that sports by and large are not applicable to describe this situation. You raised the sports analogy. This isn't a sporting event no matter what sports we choose as an analogy.

This is not about a race because we are not racing against anything unless you want the competitor to be Time, but that is being arbitrary. Only in that sense it is a race.

What you're complaining about does not really concern this thread, which deals with a group of individuals who created a tool to selectively receive the WUs they want to fold on their hardware. It is loosely related but not the topic here.

Then don't defend those who have done nothing but insult others on numerous occasions both on and off of their team, have torn apart the science and created additonal tools to further their personal agendas. This is the naked truth and I cannot see anyone sensibly justifying their actions.

First of all, they can be the biggest arses in the world but if they have broken no rules, they are in the right. I do not know the whole story because I don't go between forums looking but if rules h ave been broken, why is nothing being done? If they deleted WU's then some punishment should be handed out if it's a violation. Their actions, attitudes and agendas have little to do with what several of us are posting about. Your sensibilities should point you to agree with that.
Rules that are broken must be met with punishment, it's that way in any society I know of. Creation of software to pick selected WU's but not changing the client is a violation of the rules? If the rules already in place are not enforced, are there really any rules or just selective enforcement? That in itself is wrong.

EDIT: "because PG cannot provide against every possible contingency" This isn't about providing against every contingency but to correct KNOWN mistakes in the system.

 

[APOLLO]

First of all, they can be the biggest arses in the world but if they have broken no rules, they are in the right. I do not know the whole story because I don't go between forums looking but if rules h ave been broken, why is nothing being done?

Give it time, the story about this script was revealed only earlier today.

If they deleted WU's then some punishment should be handed out if it's a violation. Their actions, attitudes and agendas have little to do with what several of us are posting about. Your sensibilities should point you to agree with that.
Rules that are broken must be met with punishment, it's that way in any society I know of. Creation of software to pick selected WU's but not changing the client is a violation of the rules? If the rules already in place are not enforced, are there really any rules or just selective enforcement? That in itself is wrong.

I completely agree with you. Individuals who have behaved in such manner that broke ethical boundaries were dealt with commensurately in the past, and I posted two examples earlier in the thread. BTW, in both those cases it took a lot of time before action against the erring individuals finally occurred. I think patience is in order here if those earlier precedents are indicative.

EDIT: "because PG cannot provide against every possible contingency" This isn't about providing against every contingency but to correct KNOWN mistakes in the system.

Yes, providing PG was aware that this could be accomplished with a certain level of knowledge. There is so much we don't know yet. What exactly is in this script, how easily it was created, was it distributed and most importantly, what PG knows or does not know. I expect them to have gotten info on this by now; we just need to wait for a response and this can take a lot of time if PG's history is of any relevance. I am certain of one thing: they will not like it...

 

[KWH]

"I am certain of one thing: they will not like it..."

Then we wait and see what happens, all any of us can do at this point.

 

[SpeedyVV]

Then don't defend those who have done nothing but insult others on numerous occasions both on and off of their team, have torn apart the science and created additonal tools to further their personal agendas. This is the naked truth and I cannot see anyone sensibly justifying their actions.

Sorry, it is my obligation to defend those that are being attacked even thought they have not been convicted of braking any rules of whatever community or group that I belong to.

I might not agree with them, but it does not matter. You are obviously consider yourself the maker of the rules, you have passed judgement, and sentenced them already. At least it comes across like it.

And then they came for me and it was too late, because there was no one left to fight for me.

 

[nwrtarget]

PG has said that running -bigadv on suboptimum equipment (meaning single 4 core i7 with HT) hurts -bigadv progress. They are fixing that issue by adding actual hardware detection in to the client (when I don't know but I have read it). That means that all of us running a single i7 will find ourselves no longer running -bigadv? The good things that come of that is the SR2's that are dedicated will get MUCH more -bigadv as they will be filling their own pipeline that much faster.

In my opinion with solid hardware detection and couple in percentages of F@H utilization and give -bigadv to the fastest machines that have a very high F@H utilization. Everyone else gets SMP.

So if they do that then -bigadv gets done they way they actually want and the people doing them will get some massive points but to achieve that they have to have the machines dedicated (while running units) and have to have crazy high end hardware. I think F@H is going that way but like all things they take time.

The only people who get shorted in that scenario are those that are running -bigadv on equipment the project doesn't want it run on but at that point I think we can take a hint and get past that.

Could people still cheat under that scenario, yes of course, but since the awarding of -bigadv would be based on past performance (by machine) then that would limit the cheating.

What I see that leading to is PG hands out units to a machine with effectively a machine specific expectation. So when they send it to my desktop they know it has 60% utilization and what its performance is so it should be back at this time. If I hit that time consistently then they can plan to utilize my machine with a schedule to get the final project complete on the day and time they want it done by. This would allow them to plan their projects a little bit better and utilize the resources available to them much more effectively. Also they could more easily pick out the abusers because they would be routinely missing the expected time. (Someone could grab a WU and run it on a slower box then send it back in from the faster box however the utilization vs. performance vs. wall clock time wouldn't match up with the machine that was supposed to be doing the work.)



Now from a points standpoint I certainly don't have a problem with the people who have the highest utilization on the fastest hardware getting the biggest points. And in my book it should be just that. If I have an awesome Linux client running SMP (due to their technical restrictions) and it is dedicated 100% they could route work to it that is holding up the program knowing that it will be done quickly. Again that should be rewarded. I don't care what units they run. If they want to load it up with 16 threads of Uniprocessor work because it HAS to be done then I am not bothered as the points should be the same for me as it is someone running an A3 or whatever. Right now they are allowing (more or less) the end user to select their work units which may result in an unfavorable mix for the project as a whole. I can currently select to run many many uniprocessor instances on my machine (never happen due to the points + complexity issues) BUT if they had the ability to do that as required it would make sense. This would allow them to fast track promising research and slow down less promising research at will. It would also allow them to make sure that all of the projects were moving with maximum speed available using the best clients for mainline work. Letting us decide how to use our cycles is really silly when you get down to the reality of it. Some of the most important work may be uni and as such wouldn't it be awesome if they could repurpose us as needed to accomplish those tasks quicker and solve those big questions sooner? If the points paid the same no one would have incentive to screw with the system in any way.

Oh crap I just started a points debate.....

OK my goal is not to start a points debate. My point is if they used a combination of hardware detection and past performance then they could make the projects run more on schedule which is very good for science!

Those folks that abuse the system or have long lead times could be used to do science but they would be used for parallel path or verification work. Even those that abuse the system could still have points awarded (based on real performance) and do real work just on the timeline that is correct for the project.

So -bigadv are sequential and to my understanding A3 and others are less so? (more parallel)

Will all of this happen? Probably not due to the database and tracking system that would have to be put in place to make it work, however, hardware detection will cut down on some of these issues. For example if Connie's machines were deemed unworthy of bigadv she would only get SMP. If someone faked the hardware detection then it is really hurting the project and breaking the rules. Unfortunately without tracking lots of details about the client abilities you lose the ability to automatically punish an abuser for their deeds.



Again not trying to start a points debate but just trying to show that they are working down a good path with the hardware detection and if they take it to its logical conclusion then it could sort out many of the issues we see.

 

[SpeedyVV]

Oh crap I just started a points debate....

No worries, we are all just debating.

You actually made good points I thought.

Would you have an issue if it was more results based? I mean they want fast results for certain, units, ok. you get the unit, you have 1 day to do them. Finish in less than 24 hours (or whatever) you get a nice big bonus. The earlier the more bonus. For every WUs assigned that is not returned within 24, you get 10,000 points removed from your total, up to a maximum of 24hours late and you loose 240,000 points.

Dont need any fancy code and it is easy to enforce. Do they care if it is 100cores, or 6 cores, or a bunch of cheap labour in India doing manual calculations? NO.

Do you see any issues with this approach?

 

[nwrtarget]

I don't see issue with that but that makes it hard to plan and get work done on time. If I am planning out a project I will utilize resources that deliver when I expect them to.

(I used to do project management as a day job.)

So basically they would plan to have some failures as planning for 100% success is stupid but they could keep the mainline work on reliable clients and put work that isn't critical path on clients that get the work done whenever they get it done.

In that way they could relax their deadlines and more people could participate in bigger work units on longer time lines due to their utilization. They also wouldn't have to penalize you at all so long as you deliver about the time they think you should deliver. Just realize that the unit won't be worth as much because you aren't on the critical path.

This system is supposed to be fire and forget for us. We monitor the heck out of our machines but as a whole it needs to be designed so that PG can utilize the machines in the way that makes the most benefit for science with the resources available which means us giving up some control.

 

[SpeedyVV]

I don't see issue with that but that makes it hard to plan and get work done on time. If I am planning out a project I will utilize resources that deliver when I expect them to.

(I used to do project management as a day job.)

So basically they would plan to have some failures as planning for 100% success is stupid but they could keep the mainline work on reliable clients and put work that isn't critical path on clients that get the work done whenever they get it done.

In that way they could relax their deadlines and more people could participate in bigger work units on longer time lines due to their utilization. They also wouldn't have to penalize you at all so long as you deliver about the time they think you should deliver. Just realize that the unit won't be worth as much because you aren't on the critical path.

This system is supposed to be fire and forget for us. We monitor the heck out of our machines but as a whole it needs to be designed so that PG can utilize the machines in the way that makes the most benefit for science with the resources available which means us giving up some control.

I see... so something like 24hours (assuming that is their expectect performance), but for up to 36 hours you get a lower score. After that, penalties of whatever magnitude to stop people like me from using below par hardware to get bigadvs.

The reason I say penalize is important, is to take care of those instances where you ask for a bigadv but do not get what you want and dump it. This would at least make it clear that it is not acceptable.

 

[APOLLO]

Sorry, it is my obligation to defend those that are being attacked even thought they have not broken any rules of whatever community or group that I belong to.

You made it clear you were unaware of the situation as it stood before this current dispute. There is an ongoing controversy with these people that far transcends and precedes what we are discussing here. That is the main reason I have not railed against your posts further than I have. If you indeed do not know the full history, then please ask around for an account because I won't retell it here. There's more to this story than the damned script.

I might not agree with them, but it does not matter. You are obviously consider yourself the maker of the rules, you have passed judgement, and sentenced them already. At least it comes across like it.

I don't intend to appear as if I cast judgment upon those unable to defend themselves. They certainly don't deserve that kind of treatment. Poor victims, LOL. Like I said there is a TON more involved with these individuals than all that has been stated in this thread alone can possibly reveal. Don't decide I am so great an evil doer here until you become better acquainted with their history.

And then they came for me and it was too late, because there was no one left to fight for me.

Point?

 

[SpeedyVV]

You made it clear you were unaware of the situation as it stood before this current dispute. There is an ongoing controversy with these people that far transcends and precedes what we are discussing here. That is the main reason I have not railed against your posts further than I have. If you indeed do not know the full history, then please ask around for an account because I won't retell it here. There's more to this story than the damned script.

I don't intend to appear as if I cast judgment upon those unable to defend themselves. They certainly don't deserve that kind of treatment. Poor victims, LOL. Like I said there is a TON more involved with these individuals than all that has been stated in this thread alone can possibly reveal. Don't decide I am so great an evil doer here until you become better acquainted with their history.

Point?

Point? ask sirmonkey... he got accused of something he was not aware was against the rules. just because they did not agree with what he was doing. that is BS. Clarify the rules to stop that behaviour than sure.

I am more than happy to get a reference to where PG said BWM, you broke the rules, we zero out your points or whatever. Do you know of such a reference?

BTW, I dont like what bwn is doing, but I dislike what you are doing even more. if you are have all the background, send an email to PG saying BWM broke whatever rule and let them decide on it. If they say, nah, it is fine... well for all I care bwm broke no rules.

 

[APOLLO]

Point? ask sirmonkey... he got accused of something he was not aware was against the rules. just because they did not agree with what he was doing. that is BS. Clarify the rules to stop that behaviour than sure.

I agree with what transpired regarding the GPU3 debacle was something that should not have occurred, and yes PG was mostly to blame. I believe I have stated as much then. I was involved initially but stopped immediately after Vijay officially commented on the subject. I did not chose to continue afterwards because my main concern is always for the integrity of the project.

I am more than happy to get a reference to where PG said BWM, you broke the rules, we zero out your points or whatever. Do you know of such a reference?

Offhand, no, but they claimed to have deleted WUs en masse, that is sufficient for me. PG have stated in the past deleting WUs is not good for the project; actually, in some cases it is very harmful. They don't need to directly reprimand BWM about their behavior to prove they don't support it because they already made a general comment about this sort of action. BWM automated what people were doing manually before. That is much worse.

BTW, I dont like what bwn is doing, but I dislike what you are doing even more. if you are have all the background, send an email to PG saying BWM broke whatever rule and let them decide on it. If they say, nah, it is fine... well for all I care bwm broke no rules.

I'm glad you hold fast to your ground. I like that because it is in my blood as well, literally. Now to the business of disliking what I am doing more than BWM. If you are aware of their history, and I take that is a negative, you will understand why I am so incensed by them. To make me out to be worse than they...is extremely insulting, knowing what kind of people they are and I have a screen shot to prove it, but will grant the benefit of the doubt in this case.

 

[SpeedyVV]

Out of curiosity here is what I found at Stanford's site:
1 bwm 19,517,614 25253 734
2 bwm 12,258,383 10423 111065
3 bwm 8,123,220 6561 194339
4 bwm 7,607,099 8306 50625
5 bwm 2,588,643 3705 54196
6 bwm 368,457 561 0
7 bwm 287,548 540 94545

Man that sure is a lot of folding they have done.

So if PG found them guilty of breaking the rules, why have they not done anything? Of have they?
You are right APOLLO maybe they have and i dont know about it. Fell free to let me know.

 

[W.Feather]

thats for each team they have left from under harsh circumstances........


btw Speedy, if your not goign to sleep you can stay awake with us insomniacs still you know.

 

[EngrChris]

What Brad and Connie fail to understand is you are actually assigned the WU before it is downloaded. The very first server the client connects to is the ASSIGNMENT server. It then sends you off to the work server for the download. So they are essentially dumping the WU even if they don't download it.

I will try to guess how the script might work.

I think their little program runs the client and delete the config files when...

1. The client sends out a packet to an IP addresses, the program reads the address or connection from the OS, kills the client quickly, and then performs the clean up work.

2. Or, the host OS is blocking a list of IP addresses, and the little program detects in the client logs when it can't connect to a work unit server, then it terminates the client and performs the clean up work.

Rinse and repeat till a bigadv work unit server IP is sent.

 

[zero2dash]

More's they better if the contribution is for Team 33

Sorry bro, I don't want either of these two....insert your own word here....folding under our team. No way no how do I want these two respresenting the [H]orde I know and love. They go against everything that we stand for, which is not cheating. They cheat, we don't. I've gained respect for EVGA members shouting them out the door, TBH with you. They could just deal with it and take the points, but they stood up for what's right and for that I cheer Team Green.

We understand the problem and do not condone it ourselves either.

Then don't do it. A murderer can't murder someone and then say "I don't condone it" and get off at their murder trial. You don't want to use the term "murderer", fine. Insert any other crime, it doesn't matter. You're breaking the rules and you two should get banned or zeroed for it. Unfortunately that's only "in a perfect world" stuff because PG likes the points and the contribution so they'd probably rather act like they're looking the other way than do what's right and shut you the fk out. Maybe eventually you'll overload Stanford's servers and cause a massive outage and they'll (in the least) shut you out, if not take your asses to court. Oh I'd love to see that.

We do chose what work units we will run, and we do it for the reasons which were explained in some detail, although I suspect those among other posts have been deleted.

So you're breaking the rules and the TOS of running the applications because you like to point whore. Got it. Where in the app or any official info does it say it's ok to block specific WU's? Oh that's right, it doesn't. Clearly you didn't ask if this was allowed beforehand, because, like Team Green, you'd get booed out of the fkng building. So you just did it anyway, even though you know it's wrong and you "don't condone it".

"I'm sorry your honor, I didn't really mean to kill the guy, I only wanted to hurt him real bad. I guess I should have only stabbed him 32 times, it was the 33rd one that did it."

No, seriously.......if these two ever get the nerve to add 33 as their team, I will shit a brick and go start my own team. As far as I'm concerned, they are not welcome here.

 

[amdgamer]

gee thanks for letting me fold the WU's you don't want. Assholes.

Whether or not they broke rules or not, this is more or less how I feel about it.

 

[TYoda]

gee thanks for letting me fold the WU's you don't want. Assholes.

Here! Here!

Ethics aside, this totally rubs me the wrong way.

 

[nwrtarget]

I see... so something like 24hours (assuming that is their expectect performance), but for up to 36 hours you get a lower score. After that, penalties of whatever magnitude to stop people like me from using below par hardware to get bigadvs.

The reason I say penalize is important, is to take care of those instances where you ask for a bigadv but do not get what you want and dump it. This would at least make it clear that it is not acceptable.

A single proc machine would probably never have the option of running -bigadv. If you pulled that script thing under this scenario your client would be idle forever as all those SR2's would be getting the bigadv goodies.

The real important bit here is that they should just control what you run. You don't ask for anything. You tell them what resources you have to use and they run those resources and gather reliability, and performance data. (sorta like the 10 wu on your key thing now) Once they have the data they decide what you run. They could decide that Uni and your GPU give them what they need right then and then they stop the gpu and fold -bigadv for a couple of days then gpu and smp the next week. If they choose to run uni stuff that is their choice. (most likely they will run what we run now for the most part but nothing says they can't do something else)

All the same once they control what you fold then the better it is for the project as the needed work is done and the fastest machines get wu's best suited to them delivering the most science.

 

[lehmann]

While i for the most part dont condon what they do nor would i do this. another part of me doesnt blam them one bit. PG as put the screws to its user's with there points system time and time again. x hardware should make x ppd period. wether its 6 hours or 6 days. my fasted i7 gets a low of 14,000 and a hi of 36,000. in the end ill still blam PG for this.

 

[lehmann]

A single proc machine would probably never have the option of running -bigadv. If you pulled that script thing under this scenario your client would be idle forever as all those SR2's would be getting the bigadv goodies.

The real important bit here is that they should just control what you run. You don't ask for anything. You tell them what resources you have to use and they run those resources and gather reliability, and performance data. (sorta like the 10 wu on your key thing now) Once they have the data they decide what you run. They could decide that Uni and your GPU give them what they need right then and then they stop the gpu and fold -bigadv for a couple of days then gpu and smp the next week. If they choose to run uni stuff that is their choice. (most likely they will run what we run now for the most part but nothing says they can't do something else)

All the same once they control what you fold then the better it is for the project as the needed work is done and the fastest machines get wu's best suited to them delivering the most science.

If stanford ever has that much control over my machine ill be done for good.

 

[Void]

gee thanks for letting me fold the WU's you don't want. Assholes.

Thats how I also feel about it.
I've been stuck doing 67xx WU's for days now and would love to get a bigadv or 2, but I refuse to delete the WU's till I get one. I run whats given to me and thats how everyone should be. In the end IT"S FOR THE SCIENCE, NOT THE POINTS.

Sorry bro, I don't want either of these two....insert your own word here....folding under our team. No way no how do I want these two respresenting the [H]orde I know and love. They go against everything that we stand for, which is not cheating. They cheat, we don't. I've gained respect for EVGA members shouting them out the door, TBH with you. They could just deal with it and take the points, but they stood up for what's right and for that I cheer Team Green.

Here Here!!

If they was to come to this team I would have to leave. I know my points aren't much but I could not be on a team that had members like them. I love this team and Fold for 33 because of it's member base and what we stand for.

 

[Xilikon]

Well, here's my view on the whole issue :

I'm not sure the PG is really aware of this situation as they have too much on their hands. With this being said, I wrote a email to Vijay Pande with a link to this thread asking him to do something, even as simple as making a statement to confirm the official PG position.

IMHO, it's a bad behavior to mess with the assignments of workunits. It's like allowing someone to cut off the long waiting line to get the goodies at release day. I'm sure that if they do that in real life, they would get beaten pretty badly by the angry mob. However, I also think they could avoid the issue in the first place by doing a better hardware check and AS logic, assigning the best units to the best computers in a orderly manner.

But let's not jump the gun and think PG is not doing anything. If any, I believe the v7 client and the new servers code is geared toward a better AS logic, points distribution and hardware optimisations (along with ease of use).

 

[redoulent]

They could just have the WU returned with the TPF and assign a key file to the client based on the performance of that system. Then your client could only download WU's you are actually qualified for.