mariosalice

# of don't give points (added four numbers) (a+b+c+d=192) > # of give points (added three numbers) (e+f+g=169). All of your benches are optimized for Windows 2000-XP and anyone can cheat them. I believe this poll does not justify your decision to exclude Vista from benching. Actually I see it this way: You excluded one half of your community from benching Vista, since all forums ignore benchmarks without points. I would only exclude from points the Professional 3DMark Vantage, since it is much easier to cheat with saved results.

Your own forum probably has the same wrong attitude.All or most forums ignore those benchmarks that get no points. What's the point of posting any of my PCMark or 3DMark Vantage results here other than getting points? I have them up on ORB. I might post them here in case they get points. This is not the right place to keep a link to our ORB results. Even if I posted them to a forum, Hwbot does not collect those results.

Even though many ppl hate Vista (and you know that), you asked for our votes about 3DMark Vantage. You got the results and surprise, surprise! 253 said include 3DMark Vantage and 108 said don't. From those who said yes, you got 169 votes for hwbot points and 84 against points. Your final decision though, was according to your no payment rules, against points. Why did you ask for our votes then? The future is going to be about multi CPU/GPU systems. Can we ignore Futuremark? Don't take me wrong. I want the best for hwbot.

You excluded PCMark Vantage to stick with your "no payment" rules as you said. Remember? This poll is a joke. You should give access to all futuremark benchmarks with points and without restrictions. Otherwise stick with your "no payment" rules and good luck. Remember this.

I think that the wonership rule is a bit sly. How can you give hwboints to those who bench with hardware send by a manufacturer, a magazine or a store and restrict the rest from sharing their hardware? Nothing changes even if you sticked to your original rule. "post results with hardware you have for review, send by the manufacturer himself" Getting hwboints from hardware sent by the manyfacturer for reviewing is unacceptable anyway, with or without the ownership rule.

As I said not even your moderators know the ownership rules. And I think this time you changed them again. Though richba5tard (Administrator) said on post No 2 (not yet a rule thought, just a suggestion). Which is the same with the august 07 suggestion for joint sessions. No ownership rules applied in August 07 for benching alone though. This is new. (Remember how you defined subteams and joint sessions). The august 07 revision about joint sessions is this: You personaly and recently put new rules on post No 151 Though on your quoted post you changed them again. You suggest that not only the manufacturer but also a magazine can give a CPU for benching to more than one overclockers as long as they are on different teams. Compare this with this one So who is trying to bend the rules? We want to know the rules and play fair. You don't.

Well users do not know the rule about ownership. You don't know it either I think. I agree that Unseen's CPU scores shouldn't come down. Though according to those strange rules we see lately they are illegal since the "owner" was and still is Hipro5. Then as I said the owner actually is the one that holds the CPU-GPU the moment of the bench. It is an exchange. There are so many World records done with lended material that the ownership rule looks really strange. On the other hand Intel is not a hwbot member and doesn't cound as an owner. The last month lots of HOT members benched for many many hours. Our main effort the last month in one of our forums was to give a chance to all members to meet each other and to exchange ideas. We called it HOT brainstorming. This includes benching in places with extreme cooling facilities, which is our main goal. Of course, when you see lots of submitted scores it is apparent that some of them will look similar.

I agree with you about all this garbage.Anyone can say that he bought the hardware in sharing hardware cases. This true actually since sharing is some kind of an exchange. You get and you give. Then there is no reason to enforce ownership rules and you agree on that with me. Anyway the ownership rule as posted by the mods forbids any user from getting hwboints in case he is not the owner of the hardware. So since someone sells his hardware he should also delete his scores, according to the garbage logic.

He has no right to post the specific benches he aloud his friend to bench, unless the uploaded results are deleted. I gave a similar example about this. Remember "one result per CPUs (for 2D tests) or GPUs (for 3D tests)" And again So the new member has no right to bench the same benchmarks with his CPU.

My suggestion was to keep only the above two rules and trash the rest (I mean the rules on post 151). This way we may bench with a CPU we did not buy. After all you do not care who is rich or not but who benches a CPU or GPU. On the other hand we do not get multiple results and points from one CPU. It might be easy to add a tick about the owner.. Another Hwbot member owns the main CPU (or GPU) (0). [owner]

You forgot CF Some ppl own ES or regular hardware and are not members of hwbot or are not overclockers. Why not bench this hardware? Now things are a bit more clear. Although I do not agree with exchanging hardware restrictions, you might consider the following. The "one result per CPUs (for 2D tests) or GPUs (for 3D tests)" rule, I believe it might be better to restrict one result per CPUs or GPUs, no matter who gets the points. In case of benching with lended hardware from another hwbot member, we should define the owner of the CPUs for 2D tests or the GPUs for 3D tests. For example I allow someone else to run SPi 1m with my CPU and upload the score he/she got. In the above case, the owner can upload any other 2D tests, except SPi 1m. After the other guy deletes his score, SPi 1m is open again. In case of disagreement between the owner and the other person, both scores should go down. The "In multi settings, use different mobos and at least one different CPU (for 2D tests) or GPU (for 3D tests)" rule I propose the above "multi settings" rule. For example we may give three of our video cards to someone else to bench Quad SLI on their mobo and we may also bench our cards for tri-SLI on our own mobo. We both can upload results.

I think it is unfair to moderate benches based on non existing rules. Make your rules, put them on the first page and then start enforcing them. No need to be so strict at the moment. Remember that this is still all about having fun. I believe that no one understands the August guidelines. Not even your moderators. Just ask them to write their opinion about how they understand ownership. "For 3D benchmarks, you have to be the owner of the gpu." How about GPUs? One, two, three, four? I would like to hear your opinion on the following situation. Let's say I have three GPUs and bench on my system. Then a team mate brings his own two GPUs to bench on my system using my third GPU. Is this OK? Does it make any difference if he owns two or three GPUs? Then you take down his score. The next day my friend borrows another video card and this time I bench for him again. This time you get photos from all six video cards. Is this enough? How can you tell which video cards did we use and who was benching? You said you rely on our word. No you don't and our word is not enough. When I report a score as suspicious I need to have proofs, not someone's word. There is no "word" when dealing with rules. So, unless you find another way (other than our word) to enforce the ownership rule, this rule is greatly unfair and an excuse to delete any scores you don't like. I favor team benchmarking with combined hardware, but I hate giving away a second or third score to other members of a team. So please concentrate your efforts on this. I am glad that you read our forums yourself. We started the HOT brainstorming effort a month ago. Now I see that you want to stop our programs in many ways. Well, make your rules clear and then we have many other ways to continue our own efforts. It is great to bench with other H.O.T. members. PS How many other hidden rules do you have? Are you also going to make a rule about who is allowed to pure the LN? (you mentioned this) And do not forget those who help bringing coffee and snacks for the bencher. Since we bench 12 hours someone has to do this job.

Could you please give us a link with all the rules that apply? I suppose this "ownership" rule is included. We all have to respect your rules, as long as we can find them. I have seen different opinions about ownership and I am a bit confused. Can I buy a used CPU and upload my higher scores in case someone else did it before me? Do I really have to be the owner of the CPU - GPU, or is it OK to use any hardware I want as long as no one else got any points from this? I am also against bad moderation. For example you suspect a score was made with the same hardware someone else used to get hwboints. How can I prove that my hardware is not the same? Or you take it down anyway, just because this is the way you feel?

The idea of team benching is not a new one. I know many teams benching together for a long time ago. You feel that benching with the same golden hardware should not be approved. No problem. You can easily design a new rule, put it on the forum for discussion, improve it, modify the rules, and then enforce them from now on. What did you do? You said you "suspect" some results were made with the same golden hardware and at the same time you decided to block the results. Then you released new guidelines. Enforce them from now on if you please. Not on past scores. I feel you have no way to prove whether those rules are applied or not. You can only decide by yourself alone which scores you approve or not based on the moon phase. Is this the kind of hwbot that you want? The above guidelines have nothing to do with the golden CPU example you gave. I have nothing against team working and sharing or combining hardware. Today one team has the golden CPU, tomorrow another team gets it. Though in some cases it's not the golden CPU that makes the difference but the GOLDEN TEAM. I like team working and I like those golden teams that make regular CPUs look like golden. Don't you? It is not a matter of rich teams either. Rich teams do not straggle to find hardware. Sponsored and rich members of a team can afford to have their own hardware and bench. Your new guidelines do not affect those persons. On the contrary they only affect poor teams and the poor members of a team.

Very smart tip. Please do reset all LN2 results to team accounts since I know nobody benching alone, with LN2. There are videos out there from most known overclockers showing this. Or ask them the same way you asked Hipro5. I was there watching. Do I count also? :ws: