I.M.O.G. Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) It has come to my attention that there has been some disagreement amongst hwbot staff over these accounts. As the operator of Overclockers.com, and having met Dejo once in person, I am interested in resolving any uncertainties. My understanding is that similar submissions, and the timeframe on submissions, has aroused uncertainty regarding if both accounts are legit. Is that what the problem is perceived to be from hwbot staff? If so, please inform me of any materials you require. Proof of purchase for separate GPU for 3D and separate CPU for 2D can be provided. Dejo's real name is Jonnie, and his daughter is October. He volunteered to host the Overclockers.com LN2 Benchmarking party last year. He is an asset to the benchmarking community, and an avid HWBot overclocker. October became interested after hanging out at the party with us. Jonnie then took the appropriate steps to do everything the right way... 1. He asked Massman about using his old 920 for her 2. Massman took a while to reply, Jonnie bought a new 920 for her in the meantime 3. Jonnie is teaching her the structure of benchmarking and overclocking, and their submissions look similar 4. He has 2 GPUs, but has only used one for her and one for him. 2x GPU submissions have been made only under one account. Cards are labeled so they know who's is whose. All screenshots are stored in separate folders on a USB stick Basically, I only met Jonnie once, but thats all it takes to know he's a straight shooter. He's trustworthy, honest, and he doesn't like bullshit - he'd be the last person to try and skirt the rules. His daughter's account was clearly named so it didn't look like they are trying to get away with anything, transparency. So maybe it doesn't count for much, but as the operator of Overclockers.com, I have no reservations about personally vouching for the legitimacy of all their submissions and him following the letter of the hwbot law - I'd put my own name and reputation on the line. October has used her own GPU for 3D, and her own CPU for 2D. That is what the rules state. Please let me know what materials are required in order to demonstrate these are 2 separate accounts and legitimate people. Here is a picture of Dejo and Mrs. Dejo: Here is a picture of Dejo's Daughter, October, sitting in the middle of the table with a blue bracelet. This was taken at our family dinner on the last night of the benchmarking party: Just tell us what we need to do, and we can clear up any misunderstanding. I can be reached at 440.499.4221 or matt at overclockers.com. We'll provide any proof or materials requested. Dejo is a good dude, and its a cool thing to spend time with a kid, so I just want to help straighten this out. Edited January 26, 2011 by I.M.O.G.
Massman Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 The key issue here is contributing positively to the community by understanding that having a separate account for your daughter might make other people suspicious. It might also make other people consider the option of have a virtual aunt/uncle/nephew/son/mother/grand-mother/... to join their team and generate more points. In other words, it's not so much a problem of trust or legitimacy, but rather the hope that someone takes other people's wishes into consideration as well. I actually formulated multiple scenarios which would allow Dejo and his daughter to bond over Overclocking without it having the perception of someone just adding multiple accounts to generate more points. I really hope this is not going to turn out to be a big deal. All we asked for is not to use two separate accounts that both generate points for a single team in order to not cause other people (who might not know the background story) to think something wrong is happening.
dejo1 Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 Massman, your response to this makes sense to me. I wish that this would have been stated in PM, as that would have killed alot of hard feelings and effort on my part trying to make it seen that we werent cheating. I just felt like we were outright being accused of cheating, which is not the case. She does have her own hardware, she also does her own benching. I do give her some coaching, but know that many get that. If it takes me combining our accounts to make the staff here happy, I will do that. But before I do I would like you and IMOG to confer and make sure that this is the action that needs to be taken. I would like to publically apologize to Maxi for my aggression during our PM's, but I felt that I was defending our interests and reputation. Please keep me informed on what needs to take place here.
miahallen Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) The key issue here is contributing positively to the community by understanding that having a separate account for your daughter might make other people suspicious. It might also make other people consider the option of have a virtual aunt/uncle/nephew/son/mother/grand-mother/... to join their team and generate more points. This is the worst logic I've ever hear out of you Punish the honest to discourage the dishonest? Seriously? Do you really think that people who would consider being dishonest would wait to see results like these? That reasoning is absurd! I really hope this is not going to turn out to be a big deal. All we asked for is not to use two separate accounts that both generate points for a single team in order to not cause other people (who might not know the background story) to think something wrong is happening. Just have dejo & his daughter post a link to this thread in the comments section of his/her submissions in case anyone is questioning their results? Then, in the future, when you find someone doing what you're worried about...ban them and be done with it! Edited February 9, 2011 by miahallen
Guest TheMadDutchDude Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 I must say I find this stupid. What happens if I got my brother interested in benching? (It won't happen but I'm giving an example). Why should we have to combine accounts when we are two separate people both contributing to our team with our own hardware. I think it just discourages people considering that they're doing it because they love benching.
Christian Ney Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 The fact is they were using same kind of hardware(for exemple: 2 different i7 920, but still a 920(maybe same Stepping too I don't know)) and were in the same team, that's all nc
miahallen Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 The fact is they were using same kind of hardware(for exemple: 2 different i7 920, but still a 920(maybe same Stepping too I don't know)) and were in the same team, that's allnc What's your point?....there is nothing in the rules preventing two members from the same team using the same kind of hardware...it happens on nearly every team all the time.
Christian Ney Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) Yeah, but remember here they are in the same family, that means it can be some confusion regarding other non-team members to this team(as there are benching same hardware, maybe having close results(Even if now we know that there are two different rig/hardware), and not far away as they are daughter and father) I thought the issue was closed Edited February 9, 2011 by Christian Ney
miahallen Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Just have dejo & his daughter post a link to this thread in the comments section of his/her submissions in case anyone is questioning their results?
kow_ciller Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) You want to see confusion and suspicious scores huh? How about this? http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_950?tab=2drankings#/manufacturer.rankings.do?applicationId=7&manufacturer=intel&hardwareTypeId=CPU_1875&hardwareType=CPU&tabid=cpubenchmarks If that isn't suspicious, I sure as hell dont know what is. As to Dejo and his Daughter, I know it looks suspicious but these two have separate hardware. Perhaps they need to post pictures of the hardware right next to eachother for every submission to show they aren't the same person. To make this issue less of an issue, it might be wise for each of them to bench separate hardware. IE: if Dejo has a gtx480, his daughter benches a 470, etc. Edited February 9, 2011 by kow_ciller
Massman Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 You shouldn't be looking at this as being a punishment, but rather as giving up something for the better cause of the community. We all know the anonymity of the internet brought along a bunch of trust issues. This meaning, it's not unlikely that actions of complete strangers can come across as hostile; where hostile in this case stands for 'cheating'. In the years I've been on the admin side of the bot, more than once I met people who accuse others of cheating/foul play/wrong even if there's no evidence or even counter-evidence. Not always online, but sometimes just in conversations when meeting in real-life. In this particular case, Dejo had the opportunity to contribute to a more pleasant community by choosing to not have two separate accounts, both generating points and both for the same team. There are a couple of other possible ways to go, any of which would prevent others (perhaps non-English speakers) for even considering foul play. Being in two different teams would be one option, not enabling points on one of the accounts is one, having a joined account is another one, etc. In other words, this situation gives Dejo the opportunity to say: "Oh, I see this might be causing grief to people who are not entirely up-to-date on my situation. So, to save others that grief, I'll adjust my own situation a bit". As a side-note: this situation is actually a side-effect of the inevitable hardware sharing rules (oh no, not again). If team points would not be based on the sum of all member points, but on a system like the one suggested in the original Rev4 thread, I don't think this would have even brought up.
miahallen Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 I assume/know there are some women out there who are well-capable of fitting in with the sub-top of the extreme overclockers. That we hardly see women compete for the victory, meaning: not just accompanying their male friend, makes sense mathematically, I guess, but might as well have an underlying cause. I think it's possible this cause might be due to the environment (overclocking scene is very male-dominated) or due to slim odds of qualifying (why bother showing up as the chances for qualifying are not great). Or there could be other reasons... I know dejo's daughter might have had a chance....too bad her hopes were dashed pre-maturely
Massman Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Like I said, there were alternative paths. The daughter not generating points for the OCForums team does not mean that she was forced to stop overclocking. Surely there's a middle ground in between "not overclocking" and "generating points for the same team".
miahallen Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) 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? Edited February 9, 2011 by miahallen
Christian Ney Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Or as you said, trust and link to thread
Massman Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 I didn't say any of those alternatives was the perfect solution. Just saying there's a difference between 'punishment' and 'act that benefits the community'. It's not like we said she couldn't overclock or disallow her to bond with her father over overclocking . I really hope this doesn't come across as 'HWBOT is being retarded again' as this is with all the best intentions.
miahallen Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) 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? Edited February 9, 2011 by miahallen
Christian Ney Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 I didn't say any of those alternatives was the perfect solution. Just saying there's a difference between 'punishment' and 'act that benefits the community'. It's not like we said she couldn't overclock or disallow her to bond with her father over overclocking . I really hope this doesn't come across as 'HWBOT is being retarded again' as this is with all the best intentions. np
Massman Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 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 don't understand the last part. This thread is now an example of how we do not stand behind our rules? Is it either 'stick to the rules and deal with it' or 'no need for rules if you do not stick to them'. The issue with written rules is that they never cover the entire package. Once in a while you come across a situation where the rulebook doesn't give you an exact answer on what to do. In that case, you just have to figure out what's best. This situation is a good example: it's not prohibited to have a father and daughter account. Some solutions feature maximum gain in terms of points, other solutions bring something more positive towards the community. For a number of reasons, I'm convinced the negative of going for the maximum points gain does not outweight the positive of taking both the other members of the community and the staff into consideration. It's just a matter of realising "hey, this might upset/annoy others, so I'll do something else". Nothing more, nothing less.
miahallen Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Once in a while you come across a situation where the rulebook doesn't give you an exact answer on what to do. In that case, you just have to figure out what's best. 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: Bench session with more than 1 person:- post result to account of owner of the hardware (3d: vga, 2d: cpu) - when sli bench with two owners (each one card) post result to one account (you can chose which account) - FORBIDDEN: post multiple results of the same session spread over different accounts - FORBIDDEN: share cpu on 2D and/or gpu on 3D benches with team members to gain more points. 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!
Massman Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Don't you understand that this is NOT about: - rules - guilt - innocence - punishment - investigation What 'investigation' was there? What proof? What anything??? (fyi: no proof was asked and no proof was provided. I don't understand what you are trying to discuss at all) but it is about: - taking others into consideration Is it so hard to sacrifice a bit of your own others to have a easier life? Why does it absolutely HAVE to be 'points added to team total'?
Massman Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 So, everything is fine if the rule "father and daughter can only bench under one account" would be added? Would that avoid continuing this discussion?
miahallen Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 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
knopflerbruce Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 it may not be against the rules, but the loophole is gigantic - as said before. We can't ban an account if "both users" say they're living under the same roof, and therefore share alot of HW and OS installs - there's no way we can prove that this other person is not real, or using the same CPUs/GPUs => multiple accounts/HW sharing FTW.
Massman Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 I'm not trying to be sarcastic or funny. I'm just amazed that the different in this thread is apparently a single line in the rules defining this specific situation. As you say: if it would be explicitly disallowed in the rules, you'd have no issue with this at all. And, yes, you have a valid point of critic. It's also a bit unfair to classify my posts as proof that I'm just too stubborn. I'm just mindblown by the way you look at this discussion as I never considered this to be something about innocence/guilt. This is just a difficult situation that is not defined in the rules (unless you think everything is allowed unless it's disallowed). The outcome of this discussion is about this: 300 team points. It's not about the daughter being allowed to bench, or her being allowed to have an account, or her being allowed to join a team. It's about one very specific combination: daughter + account + points + ocforums team. Any of the other combinations (eg: no points, a separate team, a joined account, ...) are not a problem. You really don't understand why we ask to consider the other community members as well as the staff?
Recommended Posts