miahallen

No kidding, that was quick! Congrats

WOW, insane score dude, nicely done :-)

I too find it pretty suspicious Bob. Like one of them bought the CPU, and then "sold" it to the next, then the second guys benched it and "sold" it to the next....etc... This represents a huge loophole in the HW sharing rule, but it's difficult to avoid since we all buy HW from each other all the time. BUT!! - it appears (based on the screenshots) that these are not all the same CPU, since core voltage is not similar across all of them. All this goes back to the staff's point that appearances do matter, and even if there is something wrong with these scores, it'd be near impossible to prove since it has been done (hypothetically speaking) very stealthily. @ HWBOT staff, tsan doesn't have a screenshot, but back when he submitted the score, the screenshot was not mandatory, correct? If so, a note should be added to the rules page showing the date when that change took place for reference

Again, how many results are we talking about Mark? edit - otherwise this seems like a reasonable compromise IMO It addresses concerns on both sides....and will be simple to correct moving forward.

:duh: Sorry

Isn't "result sharing" an inherent violation of HW sharing? I'm confused by your statement

LOL

Roughly how many of the submissions would be moderated Mark?

If that's the case, I'd like to cause a stink about post #60

"Massman and pt1t's submissions don't look like obvious HW sharing, they must not be using the same CPU"....is that what you're saying K404? This only supports my previous comment:

THIS IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!!!!! Whew...you finally got it! [thumbsup]

Despite it being funny (which it was, thank you ) If we were to seriously complain about it, then it would be a total double standard!

Please refer to post #60 and set a good example...then we will happily follow suite

I do not have first hand knowledge...but for the record: dejo claims to have replied to all PMs within 24 hours.

If you want irony, check my post #60

Seriously.....well, whos CPU is this then Massman....yours or Thomas's?

So you are accusing them of cheating then....quite a 180 there [completely disgusted]

For me, it has nothing to do with the points, it's about 1 thing - October. This is what I hear for you: 1) If you would like to create a fake account to boost your team points, please do not make it obvious. 2) You you'd like to make two legitimate accounts like dejo & his daugher, you cannot, because we're worried about #1 -- HWBOT

Sarcasm isn't helpful or funny. I think you understand where I'm coming from? I'd like to see you at least acknowledge that I have a point. But, based on the lack of other comments, I guess I'm alone on this, so I will stop now. My guess is that if more people were made aware of this situation, then I'd have hundreds on my side of the argument, but as of right now this seems to be a one....err two (thanks themaddutchdude) man fight, and you're too stubborn for that to be effective

This is where I think the real disagreement lies. I believe the rules do provide the solution in this case, because it does have the exact answer: These rules have been followed completely and transparently! I do agree with you that some situations will be grey areas, and will require you to figure out what's best (i.e. when the parties in question can not provide proof of their honesty). But since this incident has been investigated, and the parties have been found innocent, the "figuring out what's best" part should have resulted in the investigation being dropped, and the paries' points left untouched. So, its back to my original argument, if your going to handle grey areas on a one on one basis, then you should punish those found guilty, and leave those alone who are found innocent. You may say that this reaction is "for the benefit of the community" or whatever, but I don't see how stifling someones honest enthusiasm will do anything beneficial for the community. dejo and his daughter are part of the community, and from my perspective this looks a lot like punishment!

I'm not questioning your intentions....this is the way I see it: - The results looked questionable. - You quered the parties in question and the story checks out. - The rules are not being broken. - The results should stand as they are/were. The whole point of having rules is to define how we do things, if you cannot stand behind the rules as HWBOT defines them...then what's the point?

I understand there are alternatives....but if it was competing with the team and generating points that started the "itch", it's doubtful the joy would be there when you take that incentive away. She was first spurred to interest after meeting a bunch of the OCF team members in person and seeing them bench live. You really think benching for another team is even worth her consideration?

Or there could be other reasons... I know dejo's daughter might have had a chance....too bad her hopes were dashed pre-maturely