Currently, XtremeSystems as a team has contributed 8.8% of the offical credits...

Of course Team Canada is producing now more than XtremeSystems. What is left of the XS Rosetta Teams is but a shadow of what we had before. One of our participants had more credits than many teams combined and he is not crunching for all practical purposes Rosetta. Ditto for Free-Dc many of its members left Rosetta. Only one of the top 3 teams at the moment of the turbulence added more power and machines to their team : The DPCs who probably are in stampede mode.

Many of our team members use Linux in their top crunchers.

I do not dispute the fact that when you combine the individuals non affiliated participants they will have more credits produced than all the teams combined. If memory doesnt fail me the ratio of non team members to team members s 4 to 1

But given what I know know: I will take with a grain of salt the assertion by many that their teams did not used optimized clients.


And Again I will repeat: Optimized clients were used because they were allowed. What I object and will object vehemently to is the insinuation that my team or any other broke rules , cheated or whatever new form of slander in the rewriting of history that is still being attempted is used.

Opimized clients were used because they were legal to use. The use of something legal is not cheating.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

Second: XS had so many credits because following the rules , crunching 24/7 , using Rosetta-dedicated high end computers we crunched more credits: no ifs or buts.

Any attempt at rewriting history (Specially now after the revelation that many of the ones that slandered/libeled XS used optis, invited others to use optis and had the opti files linked to in their team MBs) cannot change that.

hi Jose,

I think it's fair to say this: you, and anyone else before the credit system change, got their credits legally. What was requested was that these be aligned with work done, which they weren't.

I was all for a fair credit system, which we've now got. I was also for backdating the credits, not because of team XS (I really don't care about team XS any more or less than any other crunchers out there) but because I think that would give the credits much more meaning. It wouldn't be re-writing history, it would be getting an accurate account of it. I don't see why you think it would negatively affect XS in particular though.

Matt - BOINCStats says 19% of members are in teams. I think this might be active and non-active though, and I'd expect that there are more non-active members that aren't in teams. As 41% of members are active, there must be less than 1/2 of members in teams (19/41=46% max).

---

If you will stop your trolling, I think we can get along quite well, but your screaming just doesn't fit in my definition of netiquette.

Your over use of the word troll doesnt make you endearing either.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

Jose,
will you agree with me, that something is not simply fair just because it's not illegal?

Fairness is imho a far stricter concept then just legality. The use of steroids in professional baseball may have been legal, but it never was and never will be fair.

Will you agree, that the "opt." clients gave more credit per science than the normal one?

The "opt." clients were used by an informed minority, the normal one by the masses. This informed minority got more credits per science than the masses. I don't care what team they were on, I know there were probably some in all bigger teams. But the stats don't have any value until the new credit system took place.

It wouldn't be re-writing history, it would be getting an accurate account of it.

How , pray tell can you do the backdating when the developers tell you and the others the data needed is no longer available? Or do you intend to revisit every work unit crunched to see with what type of client it was crunched or better still revisit every computer to see if their benchmarks at the moment they crunched a particular work unit were legit. Anything else would be estimating and introducing a high percent of error.

Something that is not addressed here, non opti clients could be used in cheating by the alteration of benchmarks. Several computers and a a team got zeroed out because of this.



Danny: How the whole issue affected my team: easy most of the requests for backdating , specially some form Europe and from two or three specific teams were accompanied with the slanderous/libelous statements that my team cheated . That by itself affected us.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

But the stats don't have any value until the new credit system took place.

Do you really believe this? Then you have problem that goes past one of the use of semantics

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

But the stats don't have any value until the new credit system took place.

Do you really believe this? Then you have problem that goes past one of the use of semantics

Yes, I do believe this.
Credits granted had only a connection to work done for stock windows crunchers, stock Linux got a bit too little, stock Mac got too much, "opt." got far too much, and some even exceeded those claims, those are the ones were we agree of the describtion cheaters.

Teams with lot's of "opt." users in their ranks have thus far too much credits in comparsion to work done. You always claimed that XS only used this client, so it's you that says they all have too much credits compared to work done. I don't think so, I think there are a lot of normal crunchers as well in XS.

And I never claimed that other teams are free of those users, it's something you made a condition for others to make you even listen to them. Either all teammates are with "no faults" or all anybody says is just rubbish, that's your argumantation. Please stop this, it's imho either stupid or aggressive.

It wouldn't be re-writing history, it would be getting an accurate account of it.

How , pray tell can you do the backdating when the developers tell you and the others the data needed is no longer available? Or do you intend to revisit every work unit crunched to see with what type of client it was crunched or better still revisit every computer to see if their benchmarks at the moment they crunched a particular work unit were legit. Anything else would be estimating and introducing a high percent of error.

Something that is not addressed here, non opti clients could be used in cheating by the alteration of benchmarks. Several computers and a a team got zeroed out because of this.

As i've posted a few times, including the discussion we had in this thread here the only data we'd need would be an xml computer ID, WU ID, No of decoys, and the time taken. I'd be very suprised if any of that data was no longer available! As we've discussed a number of times, we wouldn't need to know the computer specs, or what client it was using- it's irrelevant. It could be done just as accurately as the current credit system is.

'Anything else would be estimating and introducing a high percent of error.'

It wouldn't be estimating - I (and others, including David Kim who started looking into it initially) have posted a few times on how it can be done accurately - much more accurate than the credits as they stand prior to the new system. However, it's a laboured point and I'm bored of it!

I'm gonna stick my neck out: the whole benchmark system and optimised clients were flawed because they didn't align to work done. The clients got higher benchmarks by using extensions such as SSE1-4 which Rosetta doesn't use. If someone had released a client that also ran the benchmark on the graphics card's GPU and got a score 20x higher than any other, would that be fair? It's still an optimised client so it's still legal. Is it fair? It's certainly not aligned to work done.

Some might argue that using the GPU is irrelevant because Rosetta doesn't use the GPU, but then it doesn't use SSE1-4 either so why is the GPU any different? I'm taking it to a logical extreme, but as an example it shows the grey area that, not just the optimised clients, but the whole benchmark system leads to.

It was a system that was good enough to get the project going when there were other priorities, and then when they were able to return to it, there was an opportunity to make the credits aligned to work done, rather than the fairly arbirary benchmark scores given.

Danny: How the whole issue affected my team: easy most of the requests for backdating , specially some form Europe and from two or three specific teams were accompanied with the slanderous/libelous statements that my team cheated . That by itself affected us.

Fair enough, but why all the challenges of XS vs the world in every thread? You keep bringing the stats into it but then you say they're two seperate issues. I'm not having a go at you - I just don't see the relevance.

The new credit system, backdating, or any other credit changes or improvements have no more relevance to XS than to any other team or any other member, so I don't see any need to discuss any particular teams in discussions of credit!

But the stats don't have any value until the new credit system took place.

Do you really believe this? Then you have problem that goes past one of the use of semantics

I guess it depends on what you consider value, but for me it has to be work done, and for that we know they are probably accurate only to within 4x or so. It didn't have to be so but it is. I don't mind that - I'd have prefered it to be accurate, but I'll not loose sleep over it!

---

I will address other points when I have time. But I would just like clarification on some things from Jose first...

Under the old credit system, would it have been unethical to change the XML files to claim more credit?

Would that have been considered cheating?

Was it always correct to grant what was claimed, or was there times when it crossed some sort of line and became cheating? If so, what was that line?

---

Please Sir, please, please.....I know this one please can I answer ?


Boinc ...Said Zeberdee.......Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Off Topic, carl.h.....You will be moderated, delete, delete, delete said the Cybermen !

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

During September XS called for opti`s to be taken off all members machines, how many of you teams did similar ? Biggles you posted a bloomin link to 5.5 in September. I know what you posted but it`s like saying I don`t think alcohol is good but there`s free beer round the corner!

What would the point be? I could claim hundreds of times what I should and it'd make no difference. I could underclaim by orders of magnitude as well. After the new credit system was introduced in AUGUST it didn't matter what client you ran anymore. So in September it made no difference what client I linked to.

It's really like saying I don't think alcohol's good (I feel dirty just saying that!) but here's free alcoholic beer - no matter how much you drink/claim, it has no influence!

---

Self edit: accidental double Post

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

I will address other points when I have time. But I would just like clarification on some things from Jose first...

Under the old credit system, would it have been unethical to change the XML files to claim more credit?

Would that have been considered cheating?

Was it always correct to grant what was claimed, or was there times when it crossed some sort of line and became cheating? If so, what was that line?

As you well know there were cases during the old system where the Benchmarks claimed for the set up and the credits claimed were so out of kilt they required the attention of the developers and that there were cases including that of a whole team that were zeroed out.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

Biggles said something here but...., bloomin alzheimers starting early I guess

Ahhh but it does look around see how many cross project participants there are Biggles.

I am an alcoholic.....I haven`t drank (to any degree) in 20 years.

Of course it mattered you linked to the client, advertising it is giving your stamp of approval, imho.

If I say you really shouldn`t do this, OTHER PEOPLE (if you`re found out) will call you a cheat and then link to it....it`s a nudge nudge kinda thing !

C`mon Biggles I give you more credit than that. It was a stupid thing to do, the battle of optimised doesn`t just start and end here it`s going on in other projects too....All under the Boinc flag.

The new credit system started in August, 306 days ago you were calling cheat and running 5.5 at least have some spunk man !

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

As you well know there were cases during the old system where the Benchmarks claimed for the set up and the credits claimed were so out of kilt they required the attention of the developers and that there were cases including that of a whole team that were zeroed out.

You have again avoided an answer: Where is the line to be crossed?

double as normal? triple? 10 times? 100 times?

Either even 1000 times is "legal" as you prefer to say as well, or the 5.5 is claiming too much. Nothing was explicitly verboten, so following your legalistic argumentation it's allowed or even encouraged. Why do you consider this ones as something else?

I still know the answer.....Please Sir ;-)

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

I'm gonna stick my neck out: the whole benchmark system and optimised clients were flawed because they didn't align to work done. The clients got higher benchmarks by using extensions such as SSE1-4 which Rosetta doesn't use. If someone had released a client that also ran the benchmark on the graphics card's GPU and got a score 20x higher than any other, would that be fair? It's still an optimised client so it's still legal. Is it fair? It's certainly not aligned to work done.

Some might argue that using the GPU is irrelevant because Rosetta doesn't use the GPU, but then it doesn't use SSE1-4 either so why is the GPU any different? I'm taking it to a logical extreme, but as an example it shows the grey area that, not just the optimised clients, but the whole benchmark system leads to.

It was a system that was good enough to get the project going when there were other priorities, and then when they were able to return to it, there was an opportunity to make the credits aligned to work done, rather than the fairly arbirary benchmark scores given.

Then the obvious first step is eliminate the benchmarks from the credit granting process used in BOINC.

And yes the whole old system was flawed BUT it was the system under which people entered the project. There is an implied contract , changing the rules expost facto breaks that implied contract.

Fair enough, but why all the challenges of XS vs the world in every thread?
...The new credit system, backdating, or any other credit changes or improvements have no more relevance to XS than to any other team or any other member, so I don't see any need to discuss any particular teams in discussions of credit!

I have been forced by the others that keep reviving the issue using the slander ( in all the variations) against my team and others. When they stop, I will stop.

I guess it depends on what you consider value, but for me it has to be work done, and for that we know they are probably accurate only to within 4x or so. It didn't have to be so but it is. I don't mind that - I'd have prefered it to be accurate, but I'll not loose sleep over it!

Value for me lies in the ammount of time donated.


I do agree with the credit for work system . That is why I woould like a total and complete archiving of the old stats, zeroing out anbd let the new credits per work granted. And then lets see who has the machines to produce the work. That is fair to me

But I am considered too radical even for those who beat their chest in the name of fair credits.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

O.k. my turn... to play...

You have again avoided an answer: Where is the line to be crossed?

double as normal? triple? 10 times? 100 times?

Either even 1000 times is "legal" as you prefer to say as well, or the 5.5 is claiming too much. Nothing was explicitly verboten, so following your legalistic argumentation it's allowed or even encouraged. Why do you consider this ones as something else?

The answer is.....

It wasn`t for you or I to say ! We were not the judges although some thought they had the right to judge !

You had the right to report to the devs that which you thought unfair, they decided not you !
Jose did and I know others did too, but then it seemed you all wanted to be Ronaldo ....... and shout at the ref to book him and send him off !

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

As I remember it when I first entered the discussion on credits there was this strange bloke calling for an end to all cheating by coming away from Boinc altogether, starting afresh. I thought him a little over the top but he got me to look at the whole system and I saw all the flaws that were within Boinc and it`s accreditation system.....

That strange bloke was Jose and he put a lot of effort into sorting out the inflamed scoring !

Now all some of you have done is continuously knock him and his team to the point all reasoning was lost.

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

I will address other points when I have time. But I would just like clarification on some things from Jose first...

Under the old credit system, would it have been unethical to change the XML files to claim more credit?

Would that have been considered cheating?

Was it always correct to grant what was claimed, or was there times when it crossed some sort of line and became cheating? If so, what was that line?

Well Saenger is altering his XML files. He said so only a few days ago on another forum.

BTW, team "SETI.Germany top scorer, position number 1." Oh look, he is using 5.5. Did'nt bother looking at the rest.

---