rexrzer wrote:If somebody steps in here and gives me the "Forum Shove" because I am not
getting proper WU's for my 6-Core all week, and continuing presently, then
please don't answer, I'd also appreciate that because I used to be in the
top 20 folders at EVGA with about a 160K PPD average, and now it's down to
less than 120K PPD, sometimes as little as 80K PPD, and that's just not right.
Please do not start throwing around your rank. The forums, and the people in charge, strive to deal with all questions and complaints in a rank-neutral manner. You will not get better treatment just because you contribute X amount.
Second, no one has an inalienable right to X number of PPD or a certain class of work. One of the rules of bigadv is that there may be shortages and that you'll get regular SMP in the meantime. I believe Stanford said from the beginning that they reserved the right to end bigadv at any time without warning. I don't think they'll actually do that since it's been successful from all accounts, but the high PPD that comes from it is much more of a privilege than a right.
And what exactly is the Forum Shove?
It's exactly what you just wrote, that is what I mean! First, you have no business telling me that I shouldn't mention my PPD average in this Forum here because my man, I've grown quite used to it (more than 8 months of that sort of an average before this conundrum of the last week), and I earned it every day, every week, every month by folding all the BigAdv WU's that got thrown my way, generously of course by Stanford it goes without saying. I am not throwing around my rank, that is stupid to assume. I only mentioned my averages so people could see that only a week of this stuff has cut my average PPD literally in half, and that is just not fair at all.
So why is this happening? That is the bottom line, and none of the sweet answers give credence to why we aren't getting the BigAdv WU's in any quantity with any machine, not just my 6-Core/12 thread i7 970-based PC server with 24GB of RAM and all the bells and whistles a good server deserves to have...hardware RAID by Areca 1680IX-8 with 8TB of storage, twin GTX 560 Ti SC's by EVGA for GPU folding and my graphics work to boot, a bunch of high end equipment that I paid for, built the thing itself, tuned and broke it in and got it humming at about 4.3Ghz presently. It is almost 3 years old now, perhaps getting dated by the new CPU's to come out of Intel's coffers soon enough, but for now it suffices nicely.
I see no reason to not be getting at least *some* BigAdv WU's in a week period, but for something being up at Stanford about this topic, and I don't see any of you forum whips volunteering any answers to that effect, did you, any of you? No, you and others chose to reiterate Stanford comments about ending the program without notice, and other negatives that are not worth mentioning again really, and there was nothing original about any of the comments at all, nothing whatsoever.
I've read the invectives of the forum regulars here a lot, and I don't participate in this forum very much precisely because it's really filled with cliques and hangers-on kissing the Stanford rear end with great regularity. You folks never ask a thing about why things are happening that cause great dismay and dislike of the policies at Stanford--including Folding@Home participants having a difficult time justifying their participation in Folding@Home for one reason or another. There are other things to do with high-powered machines and their abilities, this is certain, but I am really not going to get into that topic because it's all speculation and a can of worms to debate openly with forum regulars, this is patently certain.
Why don't any of you ask the questions I asked? Why is that? Why do you have to use syntax and pick-apart arguments of posters and answer nothing at all... and talk about what then? Stanford policies that you have a grasp of only for debating purposes? Things you have read here or posted about here in the past, precursor arguments so to speak, where the thing is laid out only one way and you can simply post another pro-Stanford comment like you did here today? That is retarded! You and the others here never ask the questions do you? Why? How? When? Where? For what purpose? THAT is what I wrote about in my initial post, and I told you that I didn't want a bunch of forum fan boys reacting to my post, but you did it anyway, didn't all of you?
Why don't you direct your precious writing skills and energy to something significant instead of being a fan boy here? Ask why Stanford has all of a sudden shorted all of us on the BigAdv WU's this week, and maybe it is more than a pattern here? Maybe it is new policy that Stanford is implementing without any counsel here, the place where they by all means *should* post about things so important as this. I don't want to get into anyone's head about this, I simply said "Why" and nobody has even begun to touch on this new phenomenon, which may be a *permanent situation* that somebody at Stanford Admin. needs to disclose and at least issue a statement about. That is my feeling about this thing happening right now, and I for one would like to know the truth, not a bunch of rhetoric and single-repeater testimony to the Stanford Forum Gods, whomever they are I don't know anyway! Nor do I care to know either.
Don't tell me that I should be passive and sit back and watch my PPD dropping by 50% or more as of today and say nothing, and do nothing about it! I am going to ask the questions, that is sure, and if you don't like it well tough bananas because your fan boy post made no difference here but to give the aura of "me too" rather than "Why us"? Why now? And maybe the best question of all, Who/what is causing this new action of very few BigAdv WU's being available to the general population of folding participants? This phenomenon is not a good thing to me, and you may feel differently about it even happening at all for all I know, but I frankly don't like it happening without some decisive and appropriate announcement from Stanford itself about it happening, and why wouldn't be too bad to answer either.
It may well be that Stanford is phasing out the BigAdv WU's for some reason or other, who knows? But I'd like someone FROM Stanford or directly associated with such things to answer the questions about it that I already alluded to, end of discussion. So if you don't know the answers to my questions then why try to pick apart my posts as you and others constantly do as a defense mechanism apparently, for this forum and all the members here, which is a waste of time and good energy. Why don't you and others here direct some of your creative energies and interests toward trying to find out the "Why" of this thing instead of being the forum fan boys and post attackers? Can you do that for a change? It would be greatly appreciated if you would at least try to contribute to the cause in that manner rather than accusing people of "throwing around your rank", whatever that means, because that is the farthest thing in my head right now. I gave those stats because my average PPD has dropped so dramatically in just one week of this new activity by Stanford, and that is the only reason I posted anything about my PPD and my numbers.
For that matter, I see no reason why we shouldn't discuss our PPD once in a while if the occasion is right for it, and see absolutely no harm in doing it at all...and it's not to be conjured up as "throwing around your rank" or anything like that statement. Are you/others jealous of my PPD or something? I hope not, because I earned every point of my 56 Million+ points total for this cause, and I am plenty proud of doing it, attitudes be canned!