Dpc Responds

[[XC] Duc]

I've explained to DPC what the negative points in buffering the way they do it (with renaming result.dat files) are and asked them why they don't use the non-cheating method (buffer on an anonimous node until you want the points to show up... a much safer, better and non-suspicious way)

The answer: because our method works fine...

I also asked them why they are so reluctant to tell us what and how many machines they do the crunching on (since our biggest cruncher DDTUNG has openly declared on what rigs he crunches)... it's not like worldpeace would become impossible if they told us.

The answer: in some cases people would lose jobs...


Strange, very strange indeed...

[DDTUNG]

I've explained to DPC what the negative points in buffering the way they do it (with renaming result.dat files) are and asked them why they don't use the non-cheating method (buffer on an anonimous node until you want the points to show up... a much safer, better and non-suspicious way)

The answer: because our method works fine...

I also asked them why they are so reluctant to tell us what and how many machines they do the crunching on (since our biggest cruncher DDTUNG has openly declared on what rigs he crunches)... it's not like worldpeace would become impossible if they told us.

The answer: in some cases people would lose jobs...


Strange, very strange indeed...

We just want a list of all machines they use, no names required at this point.
If they can't do that, they've got something to hide.

DDTUNG

[DPC-CowArt]

It is nice that a couple of people volunteered to translate the postings in our Dutch forum, but translators are supposed to be neutral. Please translate what our member say, and don't mix your personal comments into the translation.

I've explained to DPC what the negative points in buffering the way they do it (with renaming result.dat files) are and asked them why they don't use the non-cheating method (buffer on an anonimous node until you want the points to show up... a much safer, better and non-suspicious way)

The answer: because our method works fine...

The actual answer by ParaNoiMia was:
"I'm not saying that it is the preffered method (of MegaFlushing) for DPC, just that one of our members used it. Besides, it's a methode that works, so whether you think it is the right method or not doesn't really matter. Somebody deciding to use this method it doesn't automatically make them cheaters, even if other methods exist to achieve the same results."

I also asked them why they are so reluctant to tell us what and how many machines they do the crunching on (since our biggest cruncher DDTUNG has openly declared on what rigs he crunches)... it's not like worldpeace would become impossible if they told us.

The answer: in some cases people would lose jobs...

Strange, very strange indeed...

Indeed, Witlof said something like that. Is it strange that people are reluctanty to give details about the computers at work they use for D2OL?
Sure we can ask ICA_Cows to produce a list of computers they use. I can already tell what the answer of some people to that list will be: "You might just have well made it up. Post some pics...". That's what Witlof ment: people don't loose their job for using work-computers for D2OL, but they will get in trouble for posting detailed information about these computers and plastering pictures all over the internet.

We just want a list of all machines they use, no names required at this point.
If they can't do that, they've got something to hide.

DDTUNG

See above...

I've got an explanation for that one:

Let's see what an instance of d2ol produces in a day:
ddtung's dual xeon (4 instances): 80cands/day.instance
lostprophet's amd64 (single core): 140/day.instance

See why you can't compare average docking time?
I'm not defending DPC but this is not a way to see if anyone is cheating.

Totally agree! DDTUNG thinks ICA_Cows are cheating because their docktime is 12:03 minutes? I have two computers with docktimes under 10 minutes, and I'm quite sure they are for real.

[[XC] Duc]

The actual answer by ParaNoiMia was:
"I'm not saying that it is the preffered method (of MegaFlushing) for DPC, just that one of our members used it. Besides, it's a methode that works, so whether you think it is the right method or not doesn't really matter. Somebody deciding to use this method it doesn't automatically make them cheaters, even if other methods exist to achieve the same results."

You should also post my answer to that... TWO of the top 3 producing DPC subteams on D²OL use a very questionable (not to use the word shady) method, so you can call that method "prefered by DPC" in my believes. And if you could obtain the same result with a method that will not be questioned, why not use that one and be free of accusations instead of stating "It works for us..."?

Indeed, Witlof said something like that. Is it strange that people are reluctanty to give details about the computers at work they use for D2OL?
Sure we can ask ICA_Cows to produce a list of computers they use. I can already tell what the answer of some people to that list will be: "You might just have well made it up. Post some pics...". That's what Witlof ment: people don't loose their job for using work-computers for D2OL, but they will get in trouble for posting detailed information about these computers and plastering pictures all over the internet.

Yes, it is strange people refuse to tell us what rigs they use to get results... get over it. I can provide you with details on EVERY rig I use, even the one @ work my boss doesn't know I'm using... want pics? I'll get them as soon as possible... I'll do anything to show the world my work is legit... you guys on the other hand


About the average docking time: I agree on that one... I don't think you can assume someone is cheating by looking at his docking time.