carl.h, may I direct you to this post http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/...=9549&offset=20#75943 by a WCG staff member explaining how inflated claims gain extra points despite the quorum system.

As you can see, and as you freely admit, you have gained an unfair advantage over other members during the time you have been using an optimised client.

The reduced credit for over-claims is not designed to punish you for this (although there were extremists who suggested past over-claims should be reduced after the event - fortunately a more sensible approach prevailed). Instead, the reduced credit prevents anyone from profiting further, and also brings the problem instantly to the attention of anyone using an optimised client - far more effective than sending an email and waiting for people to do something about it. Self-interest is a powerful motivator.

As I previously stated that is fine but there was no FAIR warning, one minute it was o.k. the next I am penalised.



Didactylos.....That is untrue, a total fabrication.....where did I state that ?



No it`s pi$$ed me off, as one minute I`m within the rules the next I`m not by means of a very vague statement.

David I know what the opti clients do but they were o.k. one minute and not the next with no definative ruling.

My client was o.k. for all the work it produced previously then suddenly not and I receive a penalty in my absence.



Absolute tosh !! It was at least a week until I realised something was wrong.

If someone had posted even here that crunch3rs client was being outlawed and penalised word would have spread quickly instead some vaguery about SUBSTANTIALLY HIGH CLAIMS was posted.

If the new system overcame the opti`s WHY the need for penalties ???? Unthinking, callous power ?



This again is tosh !! It made me want to chuck in DC or find a way to cheat for definate. But I`ll probably stay around to annoy gloaters like Didactylos who most on one side know is gloating and trolling !

Giving someone 1/2 credit for equal work is obviously punitive.

And using the mean instead of the median does not help those with low claims, it's hurts them more than anyone.

I see a lot more quorums that are something like 45,45,32 as opposed to 45,32,32, leading me to believe the 32 is the low claim. Now, not all of my quorums have a low claim. So I am only penalised by averaging in the low claim some of the time. But the machine with the low claim is now penalized by averaging in that low claim 100% of the time, whereas before he would get the median.

The population in the quorum is 3 and it is rarely normally distributed. Plus, if its identical, why change from median to mean.

The only explanation given is that it is to help those poor soles that bench below their crunching capability and thus claim low. But it doesn't. It hurts everyone a little and them most.

My Core 2 duo E6600 @ 3300Mhz does a faah in approx 3.3 Hours

Claiming now between 40-45

My Amd 3800+ X2`s taking 6.6-7 hours per faah

Claim 65-75

The claiming appears to be more time based NOW this is not how it should be !

FUBAR

Someone else please bear me out on this or not ?