Assignment Problems

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Oh? Just what is in that "bit of a contract"? Is it written anywhere?

Cheesehead... I find your post rather insulting, and the premise of your position rather self-centric.

But, to be clear... No, this "bit of a contract" is not written anywhere, except that PrimeNet/George does warn that assignments may be time limited. Additionally, GIMPS is a communal effort; in any community unwritten rules exist. And it is well established in common law that a contract does not have to be written to exist.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Surely you'd agree that a PrimeNet user who has not been informed of the existence of a contract (much less given assent to it) has no obligation to conform to that contract.

By that same logic, no PrimeNet user has to abide by the guideline that one should not poach.

Let me please approach this from an reductio ad absurdum angle...

I (and many others) could, quite easily, reserve from PrimeNet every single candidate not already assigned for work below, say, 100M. I could then have my (relatively small) cluster of computers (18 cores) work on each one for a minute a day, and report the status back to PrimeNet.

Two questions I would like you answer based on this thought experiment:

1. By your thinking, since I was actually doing work on these and reporting to PrimeNet that I was doing so, should I be angry if someone "poached" one or more?

2. By your thinking, would this be "fair" to other GIMPS participants?

Please understand that I am as against duplication of effort as much as you.

But, at the same time, I am sure you must agree that there are some GIMPS participants who reserve far more candidates than they can ever hope to complete in a reasonably timely manner.

Hording vs. Poaching. Do two negatives make a positive (except in mathematics)?

[lycorn]

@chalsall:

This is a community effort. Hoarding is a selfish attitude.
I would love to see the Primenet rules for expiring actually implemented. That would be an effective and, even more important, "institutional" way of settling this matter once and for all.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Cheesehead... I find your post rather insulting,

Oh? Just what was the post's insult (an accurate description is not an insult)?

and the premise of your position rather self-centric.

My position is that your claim of a "bit of a contract" is a false front you have put up, in the context of terminating assignments for which a user has satisfied all the terms and conditions of which he has been made aware, instead of saying that such termination is something you (among others) advocate.

I consider honestly advocating such termination to be fair and honest, but the pretense that such termination is based on an existing contract is false. This false front is not a major transgression, despite the length of discussion we are devoting to it, nor is it unique to you, but I think it impedes straightforward discussion to pretend that such a contract exists.

How is that position's premise (which is what, exactly?), "self-centric"?

But, to be clear... No, this "bit of a contract" is not written anywhere, except that PrimeNet/George does warn that assignments may be time limited.

So, is that warning (that assignments may be time limited) what you meant by "contract"?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by chalsall

By that same logic, no PrimeNet user has to abide by the guideline that one should not poach.

You mean, by the logic of substituting a false front for a straightforward declaration of advocacy? (If you're referring to any other logic, then you're just dragging in a straw man.)

Let me please approach this from an reductio ad absurdum angle...

I think you've lost sight of the current topic, but go ahead ...

I (and many others) could, quite easily, reserve from PrimeNet every single candidate not already assigned for work below, say, 100M. I could then have my (relatively small) cluster of computers (18 cores) work on each one for a minute a day, and report the status back to PrimeNet.

Two questions I would like you answer based on this thought experiment:

1. By your thinking,

My thinking about substituting a false front for a straightforward declaration of advocacy, right? Since otherwise you're dragging in a straw man?

since I was actually doing work on these and reporting to PrimeNet that I was doing so, should I be angry if someone "poached" one or more?

This has nothing to do with my thinking about substituting a false front for a straightforward declaration of advocacy. It's just some straw man you've dragged in.

2. By your thinking, would this be "fair" to other GIMPS participants?

This has nothing to do with my thinking about substituting a false front for a straightforward declaration of advocacy. It's just some off-topic straw man.

Please understand that I am as against duplication of effort as much as you.

Okay, but how does that concern substituting a false front for a straightforward declaration of advocacy?

But, at the same time, I am sure you must agree that there are some GIMPS participants who reserve far more candidates than they can ever hope to complete in a reasonably timely manner.

Hording vs. Poaching. Do two negatives make a positive (except in mathematics)?

How does that concern substituting a false front for a straightforward declaration of advocacy?

[Dubslow]

Note: There is content about the original topic of the thread in this post.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

If you'll reread my post carefully, you may note that I asked whether an alternative wording might better express the poster's meaning.

Just because you technically phrased it as a question doesn't mean that makes it polite. The words in quotes were easily more than twice as long as the actual question itself. I quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Do you mean, perhaps, "However, I wish all PrimeNet users had the same attitude toward PrimeNet assignments as I do. I'll express this as asserting the supposed existence of 'a bit of a contract' in order to pretend that there is a justification for impositions on those users whose behavior doesn't conform with my desires." ?

You may as well have written 'You actually mean "..." ' or 'The only thing that (according to me) you could have possibly meant is "..."'. That certainly is putting words in his mouth, and whether or not you phrase it as a question, it means the same thing. And that's not even the quote itself:

"I wish all PrimeNet users had the same attitude toward PrimeNet assignments as I do. I'll express this as asserting ...[X] in order to pretend ...[Y] ..."

I find that at least as insulting as some of the things RDS (and others, to be fair) have said in the past.

Originally Posted by chalsall

Cheesehead... I find your post rather insulting, and the premise of your position rather self-centric.

But, to be clear... No, this "bit of a contract" is not written anywhere, except that PrimeNet/George does warn that assignments may be time limited. Additionally, GIMPS is a communal effort; in any community unwritten rules exist. And it is well established in common law that a contract does not have to be written to exist.

By that same logic, no PrimeNet user has to abide by the guideline that one should not poach.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

My position is that your claim of a "bit of a contract" is a false front you have put up, in the context of terminating assignments for which a user has satisfied all the terms and conditions of which he has been made aware, instead of saying that such termination is something you (among others) advocate.

He made it quite clear to me that Prime95/Net do warn that an exponent may be reassigned if it takes longer than a year, which certainly applies here.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

How is that position's premise (which is what, exactly?), "self-centric"?

I admit that I am a bit lost here, though of course, see the first paragraph of this post.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

So, is that warning (that assignments may be time limited) what you meant by "contract"?

That's what I take it to mean, except see his post about how a community functions.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

You mean, by the logic of substituting a false front for a straightforward declaration of advocacy? (If you're referring to any other logic, then you're just dragging in a straw man.)

I fail to see how this post has anything to do with the thread. You have not explained the difference between hoarding and poaching (if one exists). Neither is expressly forbidden, yet both are harmful to the project's stated goals. Can you please clarify?


Okay, more general commentary: Nobody minds that you pointed out that "a bit of a contract" is a "false front", what people are taking issue with is the assumptions about and insults to Chris that you made in your first post without giving the man a chance to respond to " 'a bit of a contract' isn't correct". You took the role of judge and jury and came to a verdict before the defendant even entered the courtroom. We're not arguing with the verdict, just your methods of getting there and presenting it.


On the actual topic, a few things are clear:
1) This is a community effort, and in any community, there are unspoken rules.
2) A warning is in fact given that 1 yr plus assignments may be reassigned.
3) Between the first opinion and the second fact, I say that hoarding is harmful, and that we should not fear to step in and fix the problem as necessary.
4) Thus, according to 3), in the case that we can't talk to the user and George agrees, we should do everything possible within the written rules to complete low-and-hoarded exponents as quickly as possible (milestones or not, they are still holding up the project). Chris found a way to do this, though of course he and George have decided when to do this in the future.
5) Because we can talk to the user in this case, going by 4) we should ask him (or her) if he is willing to pass out not-yet-started exponents to other workers to get quick completion. It can't hurt to ask.
6) If he says no, and George doesn't override that (I don't see why he would), then we should just leave it well enough alone.
7) George decides everything.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

Just because you technically phrased it as a question doesn't mean that makes it polite.

Asking a question invited chalsall to choose his own words to restate what he meant. Asking a question allowed chalsall to respond (if he chose), "No, that isn't what I meant."

You do neither of those in your next assertion.

You may as well have written 'You actually mean "..." ' or 'The only thing that (according to me) you could have possibly meant is "..."'.

Now that is a case of putting words in my mouth.

You assert alternatives without bothering to give me a chance to disagree. In my case, by asking the question I invited chalsall to make a restatement in his own words, an invitation you did not extend to me.

That certainly is putting words in his mouth,

No, it's not.; Unlike you, I did not insist that my suggested alternative was necessarily correct. You, on the other hand, simply assert something about my meaning, without acknowledging the possibility that I intended something different.

and whether or not you phrase it as a question, it means the same thing.

No, it doesn't, as I've explained above.

Asking a question does make a difference. It acknowledges that the questioner might not have perceived the intended meaning.

Your non-questioning assertion, on the other hand, declares that you state the correct interpretation of my words, without possibility that you are mistaken.

I find that at least as insulting as some of the things RDS (and others, to be fair) have said in the past.

Falsely asserting something demeaning about me, without inviting me to correct it or otherwise acknowledging that your assertion could be mistaken, is an insult.

He made it quite clear to me that Prime95/Net do warn that an exponent may be reassigned if it takes longer than a year, which certainly applies here.

That's the first thing you've written that might be substantive. (More, later.)

I fail to see how this post has anything to do with the thread. You have not explained the difference between hoarding and poaching (if one exists).

What does that have to do with substituting a false front for a straightforward declaration of advocacy?

Neither is expressly forbidden, yet both are harmful to the project's stated goals. Can you please clarify?

What does that have to do with substituting a false front for a straightforward declaration of advocacy?

Okay, more general commentary: Nobody minds that you pointed out that "a bit of a contract" is a "false front", what people are taking issue with is the assumptions about and insults to Chris that you made in your first post without giving the man a chance to respond to " 'a bit of a contract' isn't correct".

Actually, by asking a question I not only gave the man a chance to respond, I _invited_ him to respond.

It is you who are making an assertion without inviting response.

You took the role of judge and jury and came to a verdict before the defendant even entered the courtroom.

Your false pretense that asking a question is the same as not asking a question is annoying. It is you who have just rendered judgement on my post without allowing the possibility of mistake. I didn't do that. I invited chalsall to respond.

We're not arguing with the verdict, just your methods of getting there and presenting it.

You have that backwards.

I asked a question.

_You_ presented a verdict.

[Dubslow]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Asking a question invited chalsall to choose his own words to restate what he meant. Asking a question allowed chalsall to respond (if he chose), "No, that isn't what I meant."

You do neither of those in your next assertion.

Now that is a case of putting words in my mouth.

You assert alternatives without bothering to give me a chance to disagree. In my case, by asking the question I invited chalsall to make a restatement in his own words, an invitation you did not extend to me.

No, it's not.; Unlike you, I did not insist that my suggested alternative was necessarily correct. You, on the other hand, simply assert something about my meaning, without acknowledging the possibility that I intended something different.

No, it doesn't, as I've explained above.

Asking a question does make a difference. It acknowledges that the questioner might not have perceived the intended meaning.

Your non-questioning assertion, on the other hand, declares that you state the correct interpretation of my words, without possibility that you are mistaken.

Falsely asserting something demeaning about me, without inviting me to correct it or otherwise acknowledging that your assertion could be mistaken, is an insult.

That's the first thing you've written that might be substantive. (More, later.)

What does that have to do with substituting a false front for a straightforward declaration of advocacy?

What does that have to do with substituting a false front for a straightforward declaration of advocacy?

Actually, by asking a question I not only gave the man a chance to respond, I _invited_ him to respond.

It is you who are making an assertion without inviting response.

Your false pretense that asking a question is the same as not asking a question is annoying. It is you who have just rendered judgement on my post without allowing the possibility of mistake. I didn't do that. I invited chalsall to respond.

You have that backwards.

I asked a question.

_You_ presented a verdict.

I presented you with how I interpreted your post. I did not mean to put words in your mouth. You are right, I did not invite you to respond, I am telling you how your language came across (to me). Since the only point of language is to communicate, I figured I'd tell you what you appeared to be communicating to me. By others' reactions, I surmised that my interpretations are similar to theirs. And by the way, asking a rhetorical question and then providing the answer is not an invitation to respond. (Your verdict was that his statement was a "false front" (vocabulary I wouldn't normally use), and I agree with that verdict, rhetoric aside.)

And now I shall take garo's suggestion, at least regarding this particular discussion.

Shall I assume that my on-topic logic agrees with yours?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

I presented you with how I interpreted your post.

Had you posed your interpretation as a question, I'd have interpreted that as politer than the simple assertion.

Shall I assume that my on-topic logic agrees with yours?

Yeah.

[cheesehead]

chalsall,

I'm sorry I posted the insulting statements about you. I apologize for not having recognized right away what their impact was, or how mixed-up my thinking had been.

I'll have to consider more about what caused that. (It wasn't the low blood sugar or missed medication that led to some previous episodes in which I posted language I shouldn't have.)

Richard "cheesehead" Woods

- - -

moderators,

I suggest moving posts #17-23 and 25-30 (and this one) to a separate thread.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

I'm sorry I posted the insulting statements about you. I apologize for not having recognized right away what their impact was, or how mixed-up my thinking had been.

Appology accepted.

And don't worry too much about it -- I have very thick skin....