Massman

So ... having them on loan equals not having the right to submit. But having them for keeps, although ES, gives you that right? Independent moderation. So, people who have the possibility to block a score because it looks bugged have to refrain from any benching competition at hwbot? I was definitly not the first. http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=858147 http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=842295 http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=856985 http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=827079 http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=840847 http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=850897 http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=764440 There are more, those just have GOOC or AOCC in the description

Question: When I ask Gigabyte to keep the chip, is it okay for me to submit scores?

No ES hardware is owned by the person who benches it. ES hardware ALWAYS belongs to the manufacturer, even if you payed hard cash to get one. Most of the hardware for review purposes has to be sent back to the manfacturer, hence ... it's a loan. No problems with hardware sharing here since I'm the only one having this score submitted. It's not because I submit to Hwbot that I take full credit for this score; benching with Thomas in Eindhoven, Prague and Taiwan has been incredibly educative for me. If needed, I will delete this score from my account and let Pt1t submit it to his (although I believe he has a chip that will blow this score away). No ES hardware is owned by the person who benches it. ES hardware ALWAYS belongs to the manufacturer, even if you payed hard cash to get one. Most of the hardware for review purposes has to be sent back to the manfacturer, hence ... it's a loan.

Hardware provided by the manufacturer can be used for hwbot submissions. It's allowed to use, for instance, hardware sent for review at hwbot. This is a similar situation, although the hardware is not been used for review but for an overclocking event.

Okay guys, let's not get this thread completely derailed. Main objective of this thread was to have a better view on the scores of Nick, not to discuss if there are any photoshops or not. CBGPCS: I'd very much appreciate you posting your findings in a different (read: new) thread if it has nothing to do with either Nick or Andre. Furthermore, would it be okay to explain what exactly the purpose is of these few posts you've made here? I only see you calling people cheaters, not posting any information that explains these accusations, mentioning you never post to hwbot again, but still worry about your top-25 status and how that is translated into a custom forum title and explain how you not hesitating to call out on BS has been rewarded with bans on different forums (but don't want to be kicked out of this one). I simply have no idea how to categorize your posts.

Fixed

Are you sure about that ... I've heard different stories.

No, only have 4 posts in this forum

Sure, we'll be more happy: one user less to check scores from

Those pictures are ancient ... they've been released even before 4870X2

Should be fixed

Fixed

I just ran the 100m sprint in my backyard in 5 seconds and even have a stopwatch picture to prove it (since we only need the score). Is it a world record? How can you run a database of 17000 members, of 300k scores without having a few solid ground rules? It's a matter of making it easier for everyone: moderators, but more importantly the people who compete. Without information such as memory timings and NB/Uncore clock frequencies, it VERY difficult to see why a certain score is faster. Furthermore, you said it yourself: "IF the pic is valid, the score should be considered valid". Hwbot consideres a SPI picture valid, IF the memory tab is included. If NOT, it's NOT valid and should therefore not be considered valid either. Note that this is only in terms of Hwbot-validity, which is different from validity in general. What are we discussing here exactly? How moderation should work, if the memory tab is a necessity, how the rules of hwbot have been created or if your scores should be unblocked?

Not being validated on Hwbot is not per definition an invalid score. It just means the verification does not comply with the rules applied here on hwbot. Why this rule has been set in place doesn't matter in this case.

Because it can give valuable information when moderation doubtful results. In addition, the memory tab also gives information about the Uncore and NB frequency of i7 and Phenom.

Insufficient verification can always lead to blocking a score. We try to take into account more than just the sole error in verification to judge about whether or not a block is justified, for instance what is missing and how high the score is ranked within its category, but this sometimes less strict blocking policy can come across as unfair or not logical is some cases. For instance in this one. Know that we will stick this moderation policy: we do not intend to block pointlessly, so in some cases we allow minor mistakes. I'd say, make sure everything is in order in terms of verification to minimize the risk of getting a score blocked.

Nice. Say hi to Sergiy for me

Holy smokes ... this will be huge

As far as I know, there was not problem with the verification itself, but with the score. I had to add the extra 8 minutes No big deal, all should be okay now

Super! It's back up

Awesome!

No, but that does screw with the hardware masters and team rankings. The problem is, however, not so much the maximum points given to the best in it's category, but the number of people recieving points.

As far as I know, it's a very simple update to the current hwboints mechanism; we only need to change two values. //EDIT: well, the changes are simple, but the balancing between hardware and global isn't.

Surely, more than 20 people should deserve points

Haha ... wordplay so early in the morning