Anchoret

I tried to argue my position with the facts... But now I understand my mistake. Thank you, Leeghoofd, for explaining to me. I had incorrectly read HWBOT General Rules from the beginning: Of course, the problem is in my too weak knowledge of English. Thanks to your help and assistance from other non-indifferent HWBOT participants. Now I understand the meaning of the prescribed Rules: Ok. I got it! No more issues, absolutely.

You think when you have more money, you are always right? And who has less - always is wrong? That's, if you just have nitrogen (no more needs to be done to win), does it mean that you always have to be the first to compete with someone who has air and does something to improve his result? So let's take screenshots of the bank account for the competition to replace the desktop screenshots? Who has more money, he has won. How do you like the idea? You just take into account the situation, when conditional Mark Zuckerberg will come to the competition and you'll always be the last one, because Mark obviously has much more money... In your opinion, those people who have air are not that kind of people as those who have nitrogen? Are they worse? You know very well that it's much more difficult to achieve a good result in the air than on nitrogen. So why do you support removal my legally made result? You cannot win without it or why? Why did you write it? 2ObscureParadox The result could be checked in the topic, the link to which I gave above. But I write a direct link here: R7 250 and R9 290. However, the result of the R7 250 cannot get HW because of the high rank (Verification link - Verification link required for Global Top 20). But it cannot prevent the subs from participating in Challenger 2018 Div V Round 2 - 3Dmark11: With Key: Benchmark window 2Leeghoofd Injustice and inequality leads to the debates. Why did you write only the one observation on the official background on May 9th? Why did you silent knowing for 3 months about an incorrectly submitted submission (although you've full checked my submission for violations)? And I can tell you why: because that rule (A verification link is required) was not there, and the only rebuke you could make about official background. And this confirms your comment on my submission page and a letter on a single rebuke: The detected violation looks like that: proof, proof. The administration leaves in the ranking the subs of those who unfairly competed and won because of it the prize-winning places. And I don't pretend high places, but my sub, executed according to the Rules at the beginning of the comp, is deleted. I'm surprised by the selective justice on HWBOT!

Round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows... ... someone, most likely, feels omnipotence, feeling like Christ himself... So, Mr.Scott, tell me, please: do you like seeing someone cheating? Do you think HWBOT is exactly place where someone can cheat people with impunity and infinitely? As for me, I hate when someone directly lie to me! Did I probably not read carefully 1070Ti in the Rules too? Or has someone else not written? And I don't see the verification link requirement in Challenger 2018 Div VI Round 2 - 3Dmark11. I am again reading badly? If you often make mistakes in writing rules, it doesn't mean that other people are also often mistaken in reading. IF nothing written THEN nothing to read END IF. It's simple! I always read the Rules carefully at each stage before the start of the competition. The only thing I missed was that I didn't make a screenshot of the DivV Round_2 Rules. Because I didn't expect fraud with the Rules. FM verification link was not from the beginning of the competition in the Rules. Absolutely! Challenger 2018 Div V Round 2 started on May 4th. 09 May I published my GPU submisission (R7 250). Without FM verification link. In the same day I had to create a topic about the fact that the points for submission were not credited. The topic has a link to my submisission that can be verified. Below is a comment by leeghoofd about a single rebuke regarding the official background. Therefore, the administration didn't reveal any other violations. And this is a fact. And I'm sure that my submission was well explored by the entire administration because it has been actively taking part in discussing of the official background in another topic that I created on May 23 in response to the leeghoofd's rebuke. And again, the administration didn't reveal any other violations to my GPU submisission. At the beginning of summer (a month after the start of the competition) there were no FM verification link requirement in the Rules. That's why my second submission (R9 290) was made in accordance with the Rules that operated most of the competition duration from their beginning. leeghoofd wrote in the 1070Ti topic: It's on the basis of all of the above that I demand you return my illegally deleted R9_290 submission!

This rule was not from the beginning of the competition. Did you change the rules during the competition? It's not fair! This is a manipulation of results! I had 2 submissions (with 2 gpu) there. The first was submitted at the beginning of the competition (in May) and nobody removed it (not taking into account the situation with the official background). My submission was in the rating for 3 months and everything was fine because any rules at that time I didn't violate. And after the end of the competition it turned out that I had violated the rules during all 3 months?! I demand you return my illegally deleted result!

Dear Administration, please, explain to me.

Ok. I got it! As I have repeatedly drawn your attention to: And U said: Then I understand that Official background are no longer a mandatory requirement for participation in future competitions. Thanks! It's a good news.

That is, your mistake, but 13 of the 16 participants who followed the rules, logic and spirit of the competition will be punished for it? They are in an uneven position with two who used a more powerful video card. Is this justice and equity for you, dear Leeghoofd? If you want, I can tell you a good way out of a similar situation: the results of the 1070Ti should be deleted, and instead, these two participants will be given an additional week/month to submit a legal result. Because, otherwise, this is a selective judging! Many with their results were removed from the Div V Round 2, the same unityofsaints's gpu submissions were deleted, with which he would have taken a much higher place. But the submissions of violators of the rules remain in the Div V Round 2, such as paulolustosaha (no official background), Samsarulz and Johan45 (1070Ti's cheats). Is this a selective judging? Or what? P.S. Why do U mention NoMS in this topic? He used the legal hardware: he doesn't relate to the 1070Ti's cheats.

But to comply with the equality in the competition, 1070Ti's results should be removed. Because the people who had 980Ti could not compete, and the 1070Ti's owners are laughing at them. To left in the Div V results of the 2 participants will be unfair in relation to the remaining 14.

I'm still game. Got it! Thank you, Leeghoofd, for clarifying.

And how could I know that those were the wrong background? I don't make decisions related to the choice of the divisions background. I participate in only V Division. I made the results specifically for this competition. Used the background that you put in the links to all the V Division stages. What might be the violation of the competition rules from my side, if the background used by me are placed in the official competition rules to this day (20 days from the start of the competition)? The results I was preparing for the 2nd round of V Division, I did in early May. Now I cannot repeat them. Because, again, I use air cooling. The ambient temperature has increased by more than 20°C for 20 days from the start of the competition. The summer begins in 6 days in Ukraine - it's off-season for air-overclocking.

Dear administration, May 21, 2018 all 5 of my results in the Challenger 2018 Div V Round 2 were deleted from competition. I received a letter from the hwbot.org team: But it's not possible to open a link from the letter because another domain and forum revision are currently in use. From May 01, 2018 (or May 04, 2018) to today (May 23, 2018) the following background were officially declared for participation in the Challenger 2018 Div V Round 2: I used official background in my all submissions for the competition. Therefore, I don't understand the claim in the letter of the administration regarding the background I used. I turned all my results back to the competition because of the absence of violation of the competition rules on my part stated in the letter. If you want to deny me the opportunity to take part in the Challenger 2018 Div V Round 2, then you should change the official background during this competition. Because, unlike extreme users, I make all my results with air cooling and therefore my results depend on weather conditions and seasons. Since almost summer I will not recycle my results for new background.

2samual The administration no longer adds new devices to the HWBOT Prime benchmark database. Look at this.

I repeatedly submitted the result and deleted it, because the HWBOT didn't score points for the result. Motivates its decision by the fact that But I have never chosen to disable all rankings for my submissions. Why doesn't the HWBOT count me points for my R7 250 submission? Why doesn't the HWBOT ranking me in 3DMark11 - Performance 1xGPU Ranking with a Radeon R7 250?

Thank you, Your Majesty. ? Everything is working. Almost... P.S. In ordinary validation you can click on the verification pic to watch the result details for form filling. The verification pic isn't active in the Div validation. For example, I don't remember processor frequency to accurately specify in the form. And I cannot view the screenshot. Look:

Validation is broken at the GPUPI v3.3 for CPU - 100M Stage. Validation of the ordinary submission normally takes the result. In the Div validation, it makes a mistake:

Can I submit the result when all the benchmarks have been successfully completed, but the overall result has not appeared in the window? I made several attempts on the netbook, but everything was unchanged.

Hi. There was an error on the HWBOT Rev7(.1). The validation file of the GPUPI (v3.3, v3.3.1, v3.3.2 - x86/x64) are not accepted. The validation file is read and parsed. But in submission the result refuses. Whats wrong? What shall I do?

Dear Strunkenbold, tell me, please, who should I write to add the devices to the HWBOT databases? Or maybe HWBOT Prime benchmark is dead? And therefore the new devices will no longer be added to the databases? Thanks.

Please, add the devices to your databases: ThL V9 (CPU-Z Validation), Jiayu G4S (CPU-Z Validation) and ODROID C1+ (CPU-Z Validation). Without that I can't tested the devices in HWBOT Prime benchmark. Thanks for your attention.

Please, add ARM Allwinner H3 1.296GHz or correct a default clock of the existing ARM Allwinner H3, as I wrote earlier. Thanks in advance.

Please, add this one: Amlogic ARM® Cortex®-A5(ARMv7) on ODROID-C1+ board. Thanks!

So I'm ranked again. Question is solved. Dear Leeghoofd, I want to thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

Yes, I'm watching this chaos. I just don't know if the administration know exactly my case? This is the only way that I know to tell them about it.

Why is my submission not ranked in CPU Frequency? I have done many times recalculation, but during 3 days nothing has changed.

Dear yosarianilives, where and when did I write that I hate HWBOT? Why do you respond so painfully that someone noticed a violation of HWBOT rules from one of the participants? When someone writes that the results of some participants are removed because of the violating HWBOT rules, while the special ones are allowed to violate the rules, then the only thing that you can answer is to ban him or offer to go away? You have a strange feedback... A sufficient number of legendary old-timers have already gone, did you see that? And I know for sure that others are going to go away because of the chaos that happens on the resource. Do you want that from the participants? Do you want them to go away? Do you really want to reform HWBOT into a closed community for multiple members? I hope that no.