Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Mr.Scott

  1. Most of you know that I'm pretty capable of dealing with a lot of things: jokes, pranks, personal slander, etc ... in most cases I just smile and either congratulate you on the joke (if it was a good one) or give a snappy reply. This avatar, however ... made me a bit uncomfortable.


    Not sure whether it's okay for me to feel slightly offended by this avatar. Maybe I should just take this as a joke too? Your feedback, please :).



    I'm thinking you have bigger fish to fry than censoring avvys.;)


    Christian Ney: I am against too, even if some people hates rev4 changes it s not the right way to kill hwbot puppy. ( I was afraid seeing the pic).

    Anyway, if you look at my posts/reply I am always joking on massman, because I love massman(professional relationship). I love his videos, comments an his high capacity to underclock.


    But, man how did you kill the puppy, that's very sad

    You have some more brown stuff on your nose dude.:P

  2. http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/1019106_mr.scott_wprime_32m_athlon_64_4000_san_diego_50sec_265ms&popup=true

    This submission was blocked because the SS was destroyed by the server crash. You can plainly see that the whole image is distorted including the desktop, not just the applications running on it. I don't think that's very fair. I can report missing/bad shot's too. As a matter of fact I have, and they we're let go.

  3. The problem is it's more than one team........me personally I only have proof of one team.


    Sure hwbot has proof of many enough for them to want to employ such a drastic change.



    TBH the teams doing it must think people are naieve. The only people they are really fooling are themselves.

    If the proof is there, why not lay it on the line? Who is being protected that this hasn't been done already?

    Wait, lemme guess, some of the heavy hitters that HWBot is planning on using to suck in the manufacturers.

  4. Otherwise it kinda feels like a dictatorship

    It IS a dictatorship, all sites are. The site owner has final say over everything that goes on his/her site. No owner in their right mind would let the population tell him/her how to run or what goes on his/her site. However, a conscientious owner would take the populations opinion into account before he/she made radical decisions that may affect the wellbeing of the population and of one's own site.

  5. Again, don't understand your logic.

    If you want to solve that issue AND keep the manufacturers happy - create the UFL. Why does it have to come bundled with lots of other features that are not really necessary ?

    Because it's part of the deal that the manufacturers got sold for their support.

  6. You're not giving me an alternative here: you're simply stating that if I don't say what you insinuate, I'm not clean. And if I am clean, I'd say what you insinuate.


    The alternative is to simply tell us the truth.;)


    I guess it's always easy to see the dark side of things and don't look at the bright side. People will always have something to complain about ... but if you would look closely at the Rev4, you might actually notice that we're doing A LOT to keep the small time overclockers happy. If you don't want to see it, you will not see it, however.


    I'm sorry, but it's not like the little guys have had a bright spot to look for after the last revision, or what you tell us of this one. And you're right, people will always complain about something, it's human nature, but if you took the time to notice, myself nor my team is on the upper list of chronic complainers. We're actually pretty quiet........unless it's warranted. I'll see how the revision goes, mostly because I like to bench....and you've got the only game in town...........for now.

  7. "Are we bad guys for asking money from MFCs? The alternative is that we're charging the overclocking community for keeping this site running ... is that the best alternative then?"



    So this means if we (the dirty masses) contribute enough to keep the site solvent then the majority vote gets enacted?

    We'll give you what you want......if you pay us. It doesn't get any plainer than that man.;)

  8. -sigh-


    Why are you and your team mates always trying to make everything look so controversial? Every single opinion that does not line up with your thoughts are seen as "idiotic", "corporate machine" or "just to piss us off".


    I'm really not grasping the importance of you using the words "corporate puppet". It's as simple as: either we can do this full-time and give you something, or we can't and can give you nothing ... I'm not sure how it works in your neighbourhood, but I just can't buy bread with fictional air-money. The amount of request for the actual development on HWBOT has reached a stage where it's impossible for Frederik to do even 10% of it in his free time (or night time), so it's an absolute necessity to find resources to keep this site running.


    Are we bad guys for asking money from MFCs? The alternative is that we're charging the overclocking community for keeping this site running ... is that the best alternative then?


    You always make it look as if the ONLY alternative is that no one should be paid and all features must be added within a short time-frame. That's just not possible ...

    My team mates have nothing to do with my post at all. Don't read into what isn't there. I understand that it costs money to keep a site like this running, and I can appreciate what you're trying to do to get that. But let's call a spade a spade here. Instead of saying you're doing what you're doing to control the amount of cheats and sharing on the site, why don't you just come clean and say that the small time OC'ers don't fit your long term corporate sponsored goals anymore, instead of just quietly instituting change after change to alienate them, and stringing them along.

    BTW, by reading the above posts, I would say that it's not just myself and my team mates that are in disagreement with the proposed revision. I see quite a few big teams and heavy hitters responding quite similiarly.

  9. Obviously this is a tricky point. Three things:


    1) Online competitions will not have a huge effect on the ranking. live competitions (eg: moa/gooc) will have a slightly bigger effect, but obviously not so big that winning the worldwide final will give you a certain top-5 spot.


    2) We've suggest a three-stage online competition concept for the next year for supporting manufacturers, that (hopefully) will improve the online competitions a lot more.


    - stage 1: marketing overclocking -> some guys (UFL) get pre-binned cards to show off the overclocking capabilities of X hardware (no prizes)

    - stage 2: extreme overclocking -> low-cost hardware will be needed to win a high-end product (eg: GTS450 for GTX480+XPower/UD9)

    - stage 3: ambient overclocking -> random hardware for mainstream product


    The idea is that people who will compete for the big(ger) prize in stage 2 will have to mod the crap out of a low-cost product to gain a component that was shown off in stage 1. This instead of the current "you need high-end to win high-end" concepts.


    3) We obviously need an incentive for MFCs to support the development of HWBOT. I know you all think we're making shitloads of money here, but in fact it's as simple as just making break even at the end of each month. And that's without having a dedicated software coder to deal with all the bugs and feature requests. If we want to keep HWBOT running in the future and make sure features are added regularly, we need MFCs (like MSI, GIGABYTE and ADATA do now) to actually start to support us financially ... as we never want the community to pay for this site. If you can make other companies out there (which whom we've had contact already) to support our development without anything in return, please feel free to do so :)

    I see.

    The future end result here is to be a corporate sponsored "puppet" overclocking competition site, plainly stated in #3 of your post above.

    The little guys stand no chance here and never will, if that's truly your goal.

    Way to go. You sold out.

  10. I'd love to know whether we'll get HWBot points from Asus or other non-sponsor competitions.

    I like the idea of getting points from them, if it's all major competitions, and not just ones thrown by sponsors.

    I would hate to see HWBot commercialized to the point where if you don't use a sponsor's board you're out of luck.

    That will be rev. 5. ;)

  11. 1 Refrain from derogatory personal comments.


    2 Hardware sharing is not nearly as big a problem as some would like you to believe. The life expectancy of most of these components under extreme voltage and cold is hours at best. Most of the extreme guys will tell you they have killed multiple chips/cards. Everybody wants you to buy more product at retail, not at a wholesale rate from your friends and teammates.


    3 Separating manufacturer/pro/novice makes perfect sense. Separating the best submission from the rest of the team's work is ludicrous.


    4 Competition points? Only from sanctioned comps by manufacturers who support hwbot, right?


    5 The more you try to "level" the playing field under the guise of "fairness", the more we see its only about increasing the suffering population and income of this site. This is supposed to be about improving the quality of overclocks, no?


    All of these changes will ultimately work against your goals of improving hwbot. Once you have alienated the best and hardest working overclockers and their teams, you will have no one left to regulate. History has shown socialism does not work.

    :D There is nothing left to say after this. It's perfect.

  12. +1


    i like hwbot the way it is now.

    we need only a more efficient staff that can take decisions about cheating/sharing etc etc in a few days, not months like it is now.

    It's not fair to gun down the staff. They're only responding to what people complain about most, although I think the method they choose is a little radical most of the time. You can't please everyone all of the time, that's a given, but there has to be a better way.

  13. If you really think hardware sharing is not going on, well you need to open your eyes ;)


    One sign will be team's upset over this, however now that I just explained that no one will be quite so quick to condemn at least that part of the revision for fear of looking guilty.

    This is about the most bullshit statement I think I've ever seen.

    Now we can accuse anyone that complains about the change of sharing HW. You're a peach dude.:rolleyes:

  14. The difference is that with the proposed Rev4, people will contribute NOTHING to their team no matter how hard they try and what kind of motivation is that? At the moment, water, phase in a popular category will get a user a ranking and some points and will make them feel good. It will drive them on.


    If this change goes ahead, what exactly is the point of anyone new joining HWB? They cant help a team. "Do what you can with what you have" becomes pretty much a kick in the face



    A zillion GTX480 cards make no difference. Global scores are e-peen. Hardware scores are what get teams ranked well.


    We arent going to avoid hardware sharing with this rule. I dont think people share GPUs/ CPUs FOR THE TEAM. Benching is a personal thing, they share for their own total.

    I have to agree with you on this. I feel dirty now, but you're correct.:D

  15. No link. ( if I wanted to add the link, I would have had it to the thread ).

    No need to get snarky dude. It's just without a link, it makes you less believeable.

    WOW I did not know we could submit a result without completing all the tests required for the benchmark.

    Can somebody from the staff please confirm that you can enter a valid submission without actually running the entire benchmark please? This could open a lot of doors. tia

  • Create New...