***Imcorrect offline username assigned!***

Started by xiando

xiando Lv 1

I have found that if I do not login, my puzzle becomes the "property" of a non-player.

When playing offline, the puzzle that is automatically loaded is assigned to user - "—".

Further, if my memory serves me correctly, (I am not going to try it!) loading a puzzle previously created will result in the puzzle automatically becoming a "group" puzzle.

That is, if I play offline, my puzzle does not belong to me, and therefore is no longer a solo effort.

I am hoping that you will repair the defect or provide an offline login process to allow the user to assign his/her offline work to his/her username, instead of misappropriating it to "no-one".

Logging into the program need not be a server based procedure. Sufficient security can be provided thru normal programming means.

This problem has been evident since June.

xiando Lv 1

I now understand the thinking of the developers wrt to the issue.

My understanding regarding the offline mode issue and user assignment is that if a user plays "offline" then their interim steps are unrecorded by the research team due to an inability to upload those value. Because the undo buffer (the number of locally stored interim states) is finite, one cannot hope to store the hundreds or thousands (literally) of interim moves for later upload to the server…

For this reason, I understand *why allowing offline play in competitive mode using one's screename is an issue for the devs…

"Cheat" security, as was brought up by admin during a chat session, is another valid issue that might require a significant amount of work to overcome, perhaps moreso than the benefit to being able to play offline in competitive mode…

I would be glad to consider this issue closed for now although I would hope that it is not forgotten ;)
( I do have ideas on how to remedy both issues to allow such offline play)

admin Staff Lv 1

You are quite mistaken as to the reason. We do not record all these interim steps that you mention. The sole reason is quite simply to prevent cheating: in offline mode, solutions could be traded between teams, or used to circumvent the soloist/evolver barrier.

xiando Lv 1

I consider my post closed.

I attempted to address this matter and it was dismissed by you, although you have proclaimed that you are not responsible for programming of the application, only the network activities (ie, you have no authority on software development efforts, only the responsibility to maintain the data) and yet you *act as though you've been lying about what your role actually is.

Competition puzzles are, according to information you've provided, already secure when one logs into the game. And secure offline login is a programming "no-brainer", but the truth is, I'm tired of trying to argue for something you don't seem to comprehend or are purposefully resistant to enacting. At this point I would rather address the underlying issues that cause this situation.

You are playing word games Janos. If you had a reason then you failed to officially state it…we work in the dark due to your personal paradigm of "blinders are good for the horse". And once again you address only half of a post. choosing to concentrate on scolding me for making an assumption (based on the purposeful ignorance you inject by lacking to provide clear details) instead of addressing the comments in full.

Further, if you don't record interim steps, then how do you do your research, and how do you create the videos? BUNK. I watch the net traffic and foldit periodically uploads a data packet to the server that is clearly used for those very purposes. not just a single score value. If not, then why are you interacting with my computer in that way? For pretend? lol I doubt it. Sounds to me like you're attempting to play the mercenary game. Perhaps Aot wasn't so off the track after all…

Regarding the origins of my apparent mis-informed status, much discussion in chat goes unnoticed here, as for many of the posted suggestions that had their origins in comments made during chatting and subsequent chatroom discussions. As is the quip you popped in to make in passing after the question was posed time and time again without answer in this issue regarding security. And actually, although I did not copy the salient comments on the subject for later quote on that topic, you or some other official representative of Baker Labs did make leading comments to that effect (data stream issues) in chat along the way prior to your comment about security.

Much of the misinformation comes from your managerial attitude of "any info is too much information", and I quote

"admin> why overwhelm everyone with the technicalities?"
"admin> after all, it's meant to be a game"

Your condescending arrogance is glaringly obvious when you use the word "overwhelm"

A lion's share of your participants are more than qualified to ingest information more complex than what you will grudgingly proffer, and your attitude on that subject imo hampers the development of play amongst those who have chosen to batter their way thru the clutter and lack of information and dissuades many from continuing with the game virtual moments after they download it. You may own the game Janos, (or more acurately, UW and the United Sates citizenry that funds the university) but since it is a beta effort, so do, to some degree, the other participants.

nor do I think it is just a game…if so, then make sure to tell all the people who've been mislead by Baker Lab's opening statements about why one should play and subsequent and continual information blackout into believing that this is more than a game.

Anyone reading this realize that this is just a game>? That your efforts are a joke if you believe there is substantive science being done with the data garnered..um I mean being thrown away?…a simple fallacy forwarded to make believe that something scientific is happening here when in fact it's not? that the data is just a conceptual construct to make you think you're helping science when that's just a game construct, a "plot thickener"?

Finally…whose game Janos? yours? And i don't mean foldit. We already know that. I'm talking about this obfuscation and lack of definition, which necessarily leads to misunderstanding and unnecessary guesstimation. Your method just wastes time and enthusiasm.

It was almost the first form post… give us more information. Don't leave us continually guessing. duh..how can that be any more clear?

And it leads to my attitude with respect (and with regards to respect) to the intentions of it's primary participants. You made the bed. lie in it.

As I said in my last reply, I consider this suggestion closed regardless of the truth behind it's purpose, whether that function is a result of incompetence or strategy. I outlined in detail a method that could be used to allow offline play and it was ignored or more likely dismissed by the gateway personnel(sona) and so never even presented to the programming team.

So close it..that's what you want anyway isn't it?

admin Staff Lv 1

Quite right, I didn't address the content because that's a suggestion that's noted. Offline login has been proposed before. Contrary to you, we don't consider it a "no-brainer" because of all the questions it entails. Were it, we would have implemented it before.

It is little concern of yours to shoehorn us into tightly-defined roles, or to think my only job is managing Foldit data as a sort of secretary. If you must know precisely, I built our servers and participated in the design of the game, although only very little in its development. On that note, please be so kind as to separate your idea of the project from me. I am in no way a spokesman, support person, director, owner, or secretary. All of us interact with the community to varying degrees without proscribed roles.

Your accusations of lying, word games, backroom meetings, intentional obfuscations, mercenary intentions, misinformation, etc. are unfounded and tiresome, with only the virtue of predictability.

We don't record interim steps. If you are a high-ranking player, we periodically record improved structures; we must, for otherwise we would have no idea what the actual solutions we are looking for are. This does not mean we record what tools you used, all the interim structures you went through, etc. Other period traffic includes score updates, buddy-related updates, etc.

When I said that we don't wish to overwhelm everyone with technicalities, I meant just that. The traditional approach to structure prediction is some technical computer tools and algorithms and a training in biochemistry. Our innovation is the alternative approach of making a fun game; giving you an equivalent of RasMol and a biochemistry textbook would be counter-productive to it. This is not to say that we don't try to answer specific biochemical questions. But we don't have the time to answer a deluge of questions; we prefer to select and state the information we think is most productive for you to know, guided partly by your feedback.

You may consider the suggestion closed, but I think offline play a valid idea, one that's been around a long time, and one that has a valid place in the feedback tracker (this sidetrack notwithstanding) as an idea we will eventually get to. (Incidentally, I repeat that we have no "gateway personnel", "support staff", or other such roles.) Until then, it would be kind of you to make complaints such as the above in a new feedback tracker case, where they belong.

xiando Lv 1

This situation is a direct result of your attitude regarding dissemination of information. Plain and simple, whether you attempt to paint it as my own personal problem or not.

A set of definitions has been lacking since day one, and it is probably the most often heard complaint. In fact, it's the one I've heard most before new signups walk out of the chat room for the last time.

In the absence of information, people have to, and I stress have to, come up with their own conclusions based on what little input they get. This is simple logic and psychology. One does with what one has.

In an age when so many are using others for their own purposes without thought to the global ramifications of their actions, where they routinely use the same tactics that you MAY or MAY NOT have intentionally forwarded to this GAME but have implemented, it is a very small leap to considering you as intersecting that subgroup.

You don't like it? change your internal paradigm about dissemination of information. Otherwise one cannot help but conclude that subterfuge and all the other suspicions are accurate and simply being denied, as one would also expect from those who engage in that behavior. Your method leads inevitably to a climate of suspicion.

I have watched hundreds if not thousands sign up and walk away due to your arrogant information paradigm. Sorry. there it is. Your method is simply w.r.o.n.g.

And…you can play the denial card all you want. Fact is, actions speak much much louder than words. Your team is very very late to addressing the concerns. The original requests for information that came from the player community would have saved you (and the players) enormous amounts of time, had you had the insight and fore sight to consider the outcomes of your game of information firewalling. The effort required to to providing a definition of an ingame term is trite.

Defend it all you want…it changes nothing…You are still wrong, and between the fundamental flaws in the game paradigm and scoring, combined with your attitude concerning information dissemination, it will do little more than make this effort weak and make people walk away from the game.

admin Staff Lv 1

I must ask you to stop making irrelevant posts in this thread. If you have comments or complaints not related to offline play, you can post them in another tracker issue or the forums, and indeed you have already done so.

You have been understanding about the fact that our resources are limited when Brick or DisposableHeart have complained about our practices. I am surprised that you are not now.

Finally, instead of making general complaints and vague assumptions about our motivations, it would be much more helpful if you made specific requests for information (typically filed under 'Biochem').