![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
It is slowly being fixed. There are several issues ranging from work server bugs, not all work servers running the latest code, to client bugs on the Linux side that prevent partial work units from getting properly sent back to PG. It isn't something that is as easy as some would think that can be quickly fixed.
Maybe PG doesn't want to turn f@h into a dictatorship, but for the integrity of the project and the sanity of a lot of people who contribute to it ~ I think they should. Again though, clearly the name of the game is results. They want the end result, without a care on the when, where, and how. SMHThe problem is that it's difficult if not impossible to prove it when this sort of thing is done.
Please see Xilikon's original thread for background before condemning this. For PG to even think about adopting something like this, albeit with some PC-esque changes to limit the use of the "prohibited" phrase, is a major step forward.
That's like saying warning hackers that they'll get banned if they cheat in an online game isn't very helpful when trying to attract new players. The presence of hard rules isn't a deterrent to people who have no intention of breaking them. As for the people who are coming to the project to cheat and manipulate their way into getting more points, those aren't the kinds of people Pande Group wants in the first place, right?
Sensitive or not, the fact is that Pande Group is too afraid of losing donors to take a real stance against the kinds of behaviour that are detrimental to the project. In the long run, that will only hurt it.Actually, you'd be surprised at how "sensitive" some people are. People have complained about me being insensitive. No, really. I think I'd fit right in over here.
My preference is for "harder" language, but it didn't happen. Nothing said by PG will deter the attempts of the people who try to manipulate the points, so PG doesn't address those people (PG deals with them in other ways). PG does address the people that will listen, and PG's feels they don't need to use harsh language with those people. I can see their point.
Also, if it later becomes clear that "Please don't..." is causing more problems than fixing, we'll lobby to get a few "b*tchslaps" put in there.
I know some people around the project have advocated "harder" language, and I have to say that, while I appreciate the move by PG to codify some kind of "rules", I completely understand their soft stance. They really don't care about points, just the science, and if people are off-put or driven away by a more forceful stance, then the science just doesn't get finished. They understand that points are a big part of why people participate, and people won't tolerate too much abuse of the system, so they should have some kind of rule in place to justify their "b*tchslaps" if, and when, they come... I just don't see a reason to be too disappointed with this step by PG.Actually, you'd be surprised at how "sensitive" some people are. People have complained about me being insensitive. No, really. I think I'd fit right in over here.
My preference is for "harder" language, but it didn't happen. Nothing said by PG will deter the attempts of the people who try to manipulate the points, so PG doesn't address those people (PG deals with them in other ways). PG does address the people that will listen, and PG's feels they don't need to use harsh language with those people. I can see their point.
Also, if it later becomes clear that "Please don't..." is causing more problems than fixing, we'll lobby to get a few "b*tchslaps" put in there.
