Folding Forum

can you back fix my points (username daxchaos), had one of my machines with an incorrect team number extra 0 on end which has cost a chunk of points.

1 daxchaos 489327197 15875 35947
2 daxchaos 15237557 2700 0
3 daxchaos 6678095 194 359470

User 3 is the problem which has cost me a placing in my team, very petty I know but I enjoy the fight

thanks

dave

Welcome to the folding support forum.

PG has a policy that points once earned are not reassigned to another username or team. So unfortunately we can not help in this situation.

it is the same user and the team number does not exist, it just had an extra 0 at the end of it.
play fair...
I contribute a fair amount and am not asking for much

Points are not moved, ever. I'v been folding for years and this is one of the rules. Points earned by a particular member on a particular team belong to that person/team

No probs will do the 500,000,000 for my team and call it a day.

rules is rules and fair is fair

The Admins and Moderators here at the folding forum are just volunteers. We do not set or change policies, we can only tell you what current policies are. PG members do post here, mostly in connection with announcing new projects and beta tests, but rarely about discussions of policy. Your best chance at contacting them for changes in policy is on the official reddit.

daxchaos wrote:No probs will do the 500,000,000 for my team and call it a day.

rules is rules and fair is fair

I have always disagreed with this policy, but after they explained it, I can see where there are not any better options, so no way to improve the policy.

1. The researchers would spend a good amount of time correcting all of these "donor mistakes" instead working on finding cures for diseases. In the end, I would rather suffer a few points lost than suffer one more person dying from cancer.

2. There is no way for you to prove you are actually "daxchaos" with the current points system. User IDs are not unique. There might be 2 "daxchaos" contributing to FAH. How do the researchers know which points from which donor should go to which other account.

Yes, your example seems rather obvious, but not all of they are obvious, and so better to do no fixes than some, and have some others claim favoritism. Unfortunate, but this is the best fairness they can offer. No edits, period. We are all victims of a legacy points system designed 15+ years ago.

Then, too:
3) Updates to the stats database are automated and the code doesn't make mistakes.** The minute you allow manual updates, you inject a human issue into the process and the likelihood of something getting screwed up increases, no matter how careful everybody is. Everybody's points are in one huge database so it's better to avoid as many risks as possible.

** Sometimes when there's a problem on a Work Server, the data from that work server fails to reach the code that updates the global stats. Adding the missing data is manually initiated, but it's a straightforward application of the same software that should have dispatched that missing data.