After reading this entire thread, I'm all in favor of dumping points all together and just going off the results returned for a ranking of how well one is doing.
When It comes down to it...the points just don't matter.

Being as DC is the use of uneeded cycles and not as a full time occupation this MAY mean that people will not frequently come here unless there is a problem.

In my case my personal life has important issues at present, the only reason I was drawn was the sudden drop in points I was getting, leading me to believe there was a problem.......There was.....I had been penalised for something that as far as I am aware was NOT against any ruling.

I was not given fair chance to change anything before the penalty took place.

I am aggrieved and bitter at this present time and am VERY tempted to try to cheat the system as a way of getting my own back. I do not like being found guilty in my absence without even having the ability/knowledge to change. It sticks in my throat and is certainly the nearest I have come to chucking in DC after nearly 6 years.

At least someone should have had the decency and gall to tell me that THE PROJECT was now criminalising crunch3rs client which was not the previous position. A vague statement that high claims will be penalised is not a clear and concise effort on behalf of WCG. Exactly what is a high claim ? It should have been clearly stated by the PROJECT that opti`s ARE NOT ALLOWED , end of, but like many they have no stomach for rules and it ends a mess leaving someone feeling bad.

Clear concise communication is a must, one cannot criminalise without first communicating the rules very precisely.



Nowhere in this is a mention of optimised clients, "significantly higher" means what ? As crunch3rs clients has alway`s been known about and possibly used by 5% one would presume it didn`t mean that and being as these clients rarely affected the scoring because of the quorum I certainly would not have thought them a problem even having read the above.

The whole scenario has been handled badly and yet again I find the scientific world lacking in social understanding and graces. In fact I now wonder if we gave science some people who know exactly how to communicate whether we could progress at a far greater rate, as it`s obviously a problem judging by the projects I have participated in.

Unfortunately this wouldn't work, as different projects have different WU completion times - you can crunch around 3 HDC results in the time of 1 FAAH result, so those wishing to crunch FAAH only would be at a severe disadvantage.

What do you want me to say?

You really don't have a leg to stand on. Your continued insistance that WCG are somehow to blame for your misinterpretation of the rules merely makes you look silly.

No matter how long you continue, you will always get the same answer. WCG don't find it is productive to accuse anyone of cheating. Nevertheless, cheating is against the rules. The policy has not changed. The enforcement has.

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record.

Read my lips.

crunch3r's optimised files were not supported. They are not supported, they have never been supported, and they will not be supported.

Therefore, WCG had no need to include such things in any rule. Why should they? It's simply not supported.

When people asked for clarification, they were told WCG prefer that you do not use unsupported clients. What else should they say? How much more clear could they be?

I believe WCG have said officially everything they are going to say on the matter. As you know, CAs do not directly represent WCG. However, if we inadvertently make an error, then they are quick to correct us. As you can see, nobody has contradicted my statement of the WCG position on this.