I won't disagree with your view on taking away points. I can see merit to your view. I think perhaps there may be a presumption that if your points claimed is so "out of the ordinary" that you are either doing something "uncommon" to cause that or that something is wrong with your machine and that is the cause. If that "uncommon" something is an attempt to exploit the "system" as it normally operates, some would argue that you're doing nothing wrong as you're not doing anything against the rules. Others view that as outright cheating. I doubt you'll get any agreement overall on just what to call that. If there is something wrong or highly unusual with your machine, can we count on that not affecting the science of the results you return? Losing points would seem to be one effective way to bring to your attention that there's something odd about your machine. However, referring to those lost points as punishment could well have unwarranted implications in that situation. However, Keven didn't refer to those lost points as punishment. It was those that followed his initial announcement that did. From reading what Kevin had to say, I believe the intent was not "punishment" but to provide a means of trying to being a speicifc situation to a curncher's attention. We are at fault for labelling it punishment.

Well, maybe Kevin can offer their reasoning for the switch. Looking at it from a statistical view, it's the difference between a median and a mean. A mean score would be more likely to reflect the "typical" score for those averaged together. With just three scores, that's not likely to "smooth" things out as much as if you were averaging hundreds of them. With scores of 50, 60 and 100, you get 60 as the median and the 100 "loses" 40 points while the 50 "gains" 10 points. With the mean score, you get 70 so the 100 "loses" 30 and the 50 "gains" 20. That would seem to equalize the impact on the outlying scores. I wouldn't expect the impact to be all that significant. Even more so, with the way the HPF2 WU's will be scored, it sounds like there will be a "quorum of 1" so what you claim will be what you get (see http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread?thread=9587 ).

Please help me understand the problem here.

Optimized clients required for other projects? Which clients and projects would that be? I'm totally naive on that one.

The remainder of the arguments offered by the optimized client users seem to revolve around the concept that written law or rules is a substitute for moral obligation to the community of which one is a part.

Sorry no sympathy from this quarter.

There are many unacceptable behaviours which are not specifically forbidden by law or rule and one needs to examine oneself on these issues.

Freedom of choice requires that the individual take personal responsibility for their choice. The alternative is a totalitarian state. Your choice. Grow up!

ozylynx

Feel free to educate yourself. Google is your friend.

Optimised clients were used legitimately for a long time in other projects and were not forbidden in this. A lot of Boincers were/are cross project so if any skewing did take place it happened a long time ago. This project had a quorum of 3 to take into account any such opti`s.

Ozylynx if you just wish to start an argument and cast aspersions, I`m your man and whilst you`re paying my dues come and pay for my electricity and my upgrades done specifically for the project.


--
This post has been edited for inappropriate language - nelsoc