you are failing in your comprehension of a "net" effect
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
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
- Thread starter Nathan_P
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 6,105
Congratulations on making no sense whatsoever.
Your points are being proven wrong but you refuse to admit it.
I don't really feel like dancing today. Maybe tomorrow. Good day
I've made no assumptions.
Please, don't speak on my behalf. You have no idea what I joined [H] for. Good day
Yes, it is, because they're not working ANY 6701s, when they should, because that's what they're being assigned. It doesn't matter that they don't start the download, the fact is, the assignment server WANTS TO ASSIGN A 6701 to them, and they refuse it. That is a detriment to the 6701 and the project as a whole.
"Your points are being proven wrong but you refuse to admit it."
Coming from someone who argues "Duh". I am right, look up the rules.
EDIT: How to know when you winning a discussion: Your wrong because duh. Good day, I am done. Circles, bags, musings, failure to acknowledge the rules in print. And last, nothing intelligent to say other than "Duh". Wait, don't we see this on TV daily?
Coming from someone who argues "Duh". I am right, look up the rules.
EDIT: How to know when you winning a discussion: Your wrong because duh. Good day, I am done. Circles, bags, musings, failure to acknowledge the rules in print. And last, nothing intelligent to say other than "Duh". Wait, don't we see this on TV daily?
additionally, the PG leadership has mentioned several times that WU turn around time is critical to their research because the WUs at the end of a queue depend upon the WUs at the beginning of a queue, so they very enthusiastically encourage quick WU turn around time at the expense of maximizing PPD. I don't quite understand it, but they have the education and the intimate knowledge of the project that I do not have.
(Note the "you"'s below aren't directed at you jebo, just adding to your point
)That's another great reason for NOT cherry-picking: do YOU know what the 6701 actually does? What it's actually researching? If not, why would you skip that unit? For all you know, they're the more important units.
How many times does the same thing have to happen before a person finally comes to the conclusion that it's not the rest of the world that is wrong?
For myself, I think what they did was wrong. I believe in folding whatever you're queued up with. That's my (un)educated opinion.
This is NOT a regulatory issue. You are sticking to this argument and it has fallen flat several pages back.
No, they didn't say that, you are saying that...
I wasn't aware there was an ongoing competition here. Then, we will see who emerges victorious and my wager goes to the side in opposition to BWM, although not for the reasons you may believe...
For the umpteenth time, this is not a legal issue. It does not concern written rules of conduct; it concerns scientific research and its effectual progress. Different realms of activity, different set of standards.
What's wrong is the assumption that anything goes including derailing the project one decides to be a charitable participant therein, and proceed to justify those very actions by claiming PPD is sufficient cause; or condone it through the lack of explicit rules of engagement as justification for said actions in the face of educated, authoritative advisement.
What hurts the project are individuals who embark on a wild tangent by erecting obstacles for purely personal benefit, whilst the rest of us pick up the pieces and attempt to make amends. It is not right that that a few individuals are wreaking havoc upon the rest of the community. That reason alone should be cause for censure.
KWH, I think it's time to drop it. It's becoming more and more evident that you are debating for debating's sake, and nothing more meaningful. There have been countless sound and educated retorts to your position on various levels. What remains is the fallout from all of this.
In most societies yes.
But I certainly dont have a right to judge others that are doing it because I don't like it.
I would ask for the rules to change. Oh, and just because I ask for them to change does not make me "right".
/* edit as it is wrong */ But I do tell you one rule that a lot of you have broken:
But I do tell you one rule that some of you have broken:
In every society that does not have a law for killing, I would not join.
But let's say such a society exists, well, I would have no proplem "go off" the 1st dozen people that come and try to harm me, my family or others.
Would I rob a bank? If I was hungry and it was not illegal yes. Actually if it was not, I might just drop by a bank and get some money for a boxen. Well unless off course your other rule to be able to kill someone being legal is in effect. because chances are I would be killed right.
I need laws to protect myself and other from being unjustly targeted!Seriously? You need a law to tell you what not to do as opposed to having common sense and/or a lick of ethics?
For example, I am very happy that there is a law that stops you from calling me an asshole here at [H].
Last edited:
http://folding.stanford.edu/English/License
http://foldingforum.org/viewforum.php?f=24
Any other place besides those two that "clearly" state the rules?
http://foldingforum.org/viewforum.php?f=24
Any other place besides those two that "clearly" state the rules?
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2001
- Messages
- 15,828
weather its explicitly against the rules or not I think we (team 33) should have an explicitly defined rule against this
IMO cherry picking is NOT ok... if the points do not meet your wants/expectations, deal with it...
I think some people are forgetting that F@H is not an epenis competition but a SERIOUS project trying to create results for SERIOUS problems... if you cant see past the "But I wanted a bigadv! wahhh!!!" then I don't think you really fit in here...
thats just my opinion...
what do you guys think?
IMO cherry picking is NOT ok... if the points do not meet your wants/expectations, deal with it...
I think some people are forgetting that F@H is not an epenis competition but a SERIOUS project trying to create results for SERIOUS problems... if you cant see past the "But I wanted a bigadv! wahhh!!!" then I don't think you really fit in here...
thats just my opinion...
what do you guys think?
http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-Policies but it's largely the same as what you posted already
If you ask me, the team rule should be against contravening clearly stated policies of PG.
I'm not sure what having a team rule really accomplishes, but I suppose it's reasonable for the team as a whole to have a position on such things.
"KWH, I think it's time to drop it. It becoming more and more evident that you are debating for debating's sake"
Incorrect. Several including you refuse to see even an issue. That is the whole point.
You want to merrily go about your folding while claiming unproven cheater status to a few. You want to assign some higher ground to yourselves but you are very misguided. Your "points" are wasted space and mine are about the folding rules. We agree the rules are somewhat wrong but I want to change that, where you and a few others don't. Call my arguments what you will but a truly objective person would see the point in a few sentences, while others refuse.
Once more since a few of you have deliberately refused to actually read and only want to cherry pick like minded opinions, so I'll restate.
The rules are posted on the F@H home page, go read them. Playing within these rules is all fair and legal even if your misguided sense of "morality" refuses to see it. Statements, spirit of and the other BS is hogwash and irrelevant to the discussion. Rules trump all of these.
I would like to see changes that forbid cherry picking and WU deletions and hand out fitting punishment, obviously some of you don't. Calling my posts circles, debating just to debate is also hogwash and you know it. This is only an attempt to cover up either a blind following the herd mentality or you are incapable of seeing truth when it smacks your face. If the latter, that should keep you from any honest debate.
You only want to debate the spirit of the project when it isn't about the spirit. It's the rules!
As for nothing more meaningful, I am awaiting anything from your side meaningful aside form statements, spirits and musings. Let's talk about the rules, not fantasy beliefs in a perfect folding world. It doesn't exist.
If you don't want to debate the real issue, don't post. Simple as that.
Incorrect. Several including you refuse to see even an issue. That is the whole point.
You want to merrily go about your folding while claiming unproven cheater status to a few. You want to assign some higher ground to yourselves but you are very misguided. Your "points" are wasted space and mine are about the folding rules. We agree the rules are somewhat wrong but I want to change that, where you and a few others don't. Call my arguments what you will but a truly objective person would see the point in a few sentences, while others refuse.
Once more since a few of you have deliberately refused to actually read and only want to cherry pick like minded opinions, so I'll restate.
The rules are posted on the F@H home page, go read them. Playing within these rules is all fair and legal even if your misguided sense of "morality" refuses to see it. Statements, spirit of and the other BS is hogwash and irrelevant to the discussion. Rules trump all of these.
I would like to see changes that forbid cherry picking and WU deletions and hand out fitting punishment, obviously some of you don't. Calling my posts circles, debating just to debate is also hogwash and you know it. This is only an attempt to cover up either a blind following the herd mentality or you are incapable of seeing truth when it smacks your face. If the latter, that should keep you from any honest debate.
You only want to debate the spirit of the project when it isn't about the spirit. It's the rules!
As for nothing more meaningful, I am awaiting anything from your side meaningful aside form statements, spirits and musings. Let's talk about the rules, not fantasy beliefs in a perfect folding world. It doesn't exist.
If you don't want to debate the real issue, don't post. Simple as that.
- Joined
- May 30, 2001
- Messages
- 2,548
don't feed the trolls guys...
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2001
- Messages
- 15,828
it might not accomplish anything, but I think we have always tried to be the "model" team, and I think we should continue to do so
cherry picking is not in the best interests of the science... I think team 33 should care more about science than points...
but this is all IMO
I pretty much agree.
if you want to try to establish team rules, or maybe even "best practices", I would be on board.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2001
- Messages
- 15,828
how about some kind of team charter, or something... now that I think about it "rules" might sound like its associated with PG or coming from PG in some way
I agree with you. I am tired of feeding them.
We have to start somewhere. I know this won't change a thing outside of H but it's a start. When all is said and done, I want pretty much the same as the rest of you, fair rules for all.
For anyone that would like to contact PG for more discussion, I'm in.
Tobit, want to intercede for us?
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2004
- Messages
- 15,022
I took the initiative to reply to Vijay Pande with a proposal of a official "folding chart" outlining the good and bad pratices. I also asked him to recheck the 670x points value, which is the root of the whole problem.
I have attempted to clarify every position that was humanly possible to all my respondents and in all my replies, given the limited time at my disposal. I don't think I refused to see anyone's position.
Clarify this statement, what do you mean here?
The only assignment has been within the framework of the project founders and organizers. It is clear this is not enough for some people to conduct themselves thereby. If the very founders and organizers are not sufficient authorities, there must be a higher authority, correct? If there is not, then who is besieging the moral high ground, those who support the project establishment or those who seek to supplant it?
Really, KWH? Do you honestly believe the amount of posts I contributed to this thread since its very inception are only wasted space? Do you truly believe the people here are that imbecilic? I think there is some common sense in you and you are above petty insults.
Buddy, I'm all in agreement there needs to be a revision in the regulatory system governing F@H; you won't get opposition from me regarding this or an overhaul in the point system. Heck, I've been posting that very same rhetoric for years now, but that's isn't the topic being discussed. It is research obstacles.
I totally understand your POV even if I don't agree with it. The way I see things, possibly great harm can come of this script were it to be disseminated as easily as it can most definitely be. I cannot turn my eyes away from something this potentially devastating to the scientific research that I and vast number of other people have worked diligently on for many, many years. Do you at least see our dilemma?
The regulations don't state that participants can fashion any means at their disposal to uproot the project for their benefit or at their whim, do they? When project authorities unequivocally state that damage to the project will ensue from specific conduct, do we still pursue that course of action in full consciousness due harm will result despite a lack of legislation ruling against it?
It isn't hogwash when very informed responses against your position have been forwarded be several different individuals and have been supported by project authorities by actual statements. It becomes a tenuous position at best to maintain a stance that has clearly been overturned.
And you have essentially established that you are debating.
No, it's not concerning rules. Perhaps you are one of those who feel we need to have a law about every facet of human activity. There are people like this, or so I've heard. I hope that's not the case, because we cannot have a functioning society where everything is regulated by a piece of legislation. That's Orwellian.
The derailment of scientific research for the discovery of cures and treatments of diseases is not enough, eh?
Since you have graciously admitted that you are partaking in a debate, I am here to debate you if that's indeed what you want, time providing of course.
"Buddy, I'm all in agreement there needs to be a revision in the regulatory system governing F@H; you won't get opposition from regarding this or an overhaul of the point system. Heck, I've been posting that very same rhetoric for years now, but that's isn't the topic"
Actually it is part of it. Get onboard to effect a good discussion to effect change or stop jabbering. Some are willing to help you so take it. Most want the same thing and for the life of me I fail to see the opposition.
I want a serious debate from all sides, not name calling like a few seem to love to do. I take the time to read serious posts and go from there, troll calling and obscenities I usually disregard.
We may not be able to change one thing but we can try. IMHO, this will only strengthen the program.
I agree this probably needs its own thread, do you want to start one?
Actually it is part of it. Get onboard to effect a good discussion to effect change or stop jabbering. Some are willing to help you so take it. Most want the same thing and for the life of me I fail to see the opposition.
I want a serious debate from all sides, not name calling like a few seem to love to do. I take the time to read serious posts and go from there, troll calling and obscenities I usually disregard.
We may not be able to change one thing but we can try. IMHO, this will only strengthen the program.
I agree this probably needs its own thread, do you want to start one?
The spirit of the project is to work toward a cure, not to fight against your fellow folders by stealing as many of the "better" work units as you can.
LMAO What? If by my point is correct and an honest debate is in the best interest then yes. I want to try to update the rules that apply to all of us.
No cherry picking WU's
No flushing of WU's
Clear rules and appropriate punishment
If that is conceding then sure.
EDIT:
"not to fight against your fellow folders by stealing as many of the "better" work units as you can."
This line of thinking is wrong. It it were against the rules, I'm right there with you. But as it stands.....
No cherry picking WU's
No flushing of WU's
Clear rules and appropriate punishment
If that is conceding then sure.
EDIT:
"not to fight against your fellow folders by stealing as many of the "better" work units as you can."
This line of thinking is wrong. It it were against the rules, I'm right there with you. But as it stands.....
This is true but we can voice an opinion, even if it falls on deaf ears.
If they participated in NOTHING, NOTHING would be accomplished.
Participating for science DOES NOT REQUIRE joining a team. Helping forum members with client setup, machine configs, etc. DOES NOT REQUIRE joining a team. The only tangible reason for joining 33 (or any other) is for points. It does not improve your science contribution or help another member.
Please, don't speak on my behalf. You have no idea what I joined [H] for. Good day
LOL, no. If by "detriment to the project as whole" you mean "detriment to others' PPD," you might have a case.
The project as a whole still benefits, as available work is still being done. With NO contribution, NO work would be done anyway.
Follow your own advice, chief. Namecalling is trolling.
I don't see it as better or worse, maybe that's because I don't really care for points in the end, as long as science is being done. They aren't doing fraudulent work and worrying about "better WUs being stolen" is wasting energy.
Last edited:
I am in complete agreement.
Also, KWH, I DO understand your point. When I first read the OP, I agreed with you and their side. And then I stepped back and looked at the big picture. F@H is not about anyone's PPD or score or even how much they're willing to put into it. It's about finding a cure. Cherry-picking WUs hurts that. Period. That is undebatable fact. Argue the morality or "legality" of it all you want, but I won't do it, and neither should anyone who respects the science.
I fail to see your point. Points is NOT the only tangible reason, as myself and others have stated, but you ignore that in your quest to provoke us. That is trolling. Please stop.
If you read my post you would see I am AGAINST these things as well but they are NOT illegal to do.
This is what I would like to discuss, and how can we get PG to hear us.
"F@H is(to you, i inserted) not about anyone's PPD or score or even how much they're willing to put into it"
Take away the loopholes and they have to fall in line just like everyone else. Punish with removal of PPD then the PPD worshipers now take notice.
Fair enough, I think I owe you an apology. I was thinking you and rflcptr were both trolling, but looking back I can see your posts were reasoned and well thought-out. I was debating a troll and a well-reasoned man and thought both were trolls. I'm sorry.
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.
Thank you but no apology needed. I can take my licks like a man and fire back with my view.
I just can't figure out why it's taken 10 pages to get here.
I thought I was clear why I was sticking to this. I'm sorry if I wasn't.
Saying something is acting in an Orwellian way during a debate, is an old Orwellian technique.
Sorry I know is off topic, but could not resist
Let's follow your logic.
If BWM quits,
(backlogging 6701) + (backlogging Bigadv) = - 1 ?
Again, no contribution is worse than some contribution.
The best way to look at it (with the current F@H rules, etc) is that BWM has resources available to use.
It could theoretically go 50/50, 25/75, 100/0, 0/100, and so on. Asking them to quit only guarantees 0/0. That's bad, which is my point.
Until there's a more well-defined set of rules for participating, we should be (in the name of science) glad for whatever is contributed. Right?
I'm not trying to provoke anyone. What more of a reason do you have to place 33 into the client setup than for points, to measure your contribution? There's nothing wrong with it, but don't deny it's being considered, either.
Last edited:
- Status