Brolloks Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Ok...if no one's being accused of cheating, why is October not on our team anymore? What EXACTLY is the violation here? The REASON behind this. You've said it's for the good of the community, and I can understand that desire, but on what precedent? What portion of the rules states it's not allowed? And I don't even need to quote you to saying that dejo was score sharing...that sounds like a cheating accusation to me. What about pulling results? Is that something you do to results that you think are legitimate (not cheating)? Exactly, sharing results or hardware = cheating or how else is it classified. Dejo's Daughter cannot join OCF because of perceived hardware sharing = perceived cheating...or tell me where we have a reading comprehension problem here?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sno Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) Fine - thread's open again. Better to have a single 'discussion' here than scattered all over the interweb. Anyway, just found out even more family joined the team: - "Massman's grand-mother" - "Massman's nephew" - "Massman's long lost evil twin brother" - "Massman's adopted brother" - "Massman's sugerdaddy" - "Massman's uncle" - "Massman's secret girlfriend #3" You have a sugar daddy? Haha I caught myself at the last minute before I put "sugar daddy" in google image search on my work computer to get a picture to go with this post. Edited February 10, 2011 by sno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Exactly, sharing results or hardware = cheating or how else is it classified. Dejo's Daughter cannot join OCF because of perceived hardware sharing = perceived cheating...or tell me where we have a reading comprehension problem here?? Moved to no-team until we've reached a compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CgS Drone Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) Some people have a real reading comprehension problem, you keep throwing the cheat word around when we have never accused anyone of that. OK, there are reasons to be concerned about the submissions and result sharing (not hardware sharing) namely the screens shots with items placed in basically the exact same positions. You said it yourself in the first statement, then follow it up with double talk. In one you say you question the validity of the submission then later say you aren’t accusing someone of cheating. It’s one or the other there isn’t a middle ground on this and apparently it is felt that it is cheating since the scores have been removed and her account blocked from allowing the points to stand. Pick one or the other and make a stand, either it is considered a cheat and make that statement or say you where wrong and admit it. Edited February 10, 2011 by CgS Drone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brolloks Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Moved to no-team until we've reached a compromise. Does that mean you are considering our plea here to allow her back in our team?...I sincerely hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Does that mean you are considering our plea here to allow her back in our team?...I sincerely hope so. Does this mean you are considering to take the staff and other members into consideration, and find a solution where "dejo" and "dejo's daughter" are not both generating points for the same team? We never said she couldn't be on your team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kow_ciller Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 How about, she generates points for the team but they dont submit the same hardware? Eg: he submits a 920 score, she submits scores for a 950 or 960 instead? On a side note, Maybe you should edit the rules and not make things up as you go along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxi Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Exactly, sharing results or hardware = cheating or how else is it classified. Dejo's Daughter cannot join OCF because of perceived hardware sharing = perceived cheating...or tell me where we have a reading comprehension problem here?? Of all the people... Cheating implies knowledge, and that someone knowingly is side-stepping the rules, in this case like I said earlier, it looks more like a simple misunderstanding of our rules. So once again for all the slow people, hwbot never accused anyone of cheating. The results that are in violation of our rules (because we have no indication they are not) will be blocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miahallen Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Of all the people... Cheating implies knowledge, and that someone knowingly is side-stepping the rules, in this case like I said earlier, it looks more like a simple misunderstanding of our rules. So once again for all the slow people, hwbot never accused anyone of cheating. The results that are in violation of our rules (because we have no indication they are not) will be blocked. 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. Edited February 11, 2011 by miahallen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0r7if3r Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Of all the people... Cheating implies knowledge, and that someone knowingly is side-stepping the rules, in this case like I said earlier, it looks more like a simple misunderstanding of our rules. So once again for all the slow people, hwbot never accused anyone of cheating. The results that are in violation of our rules (because we have no indication they are not) will be blocked. Can you extend this policy to all scores? I believe the way these things are usually handled is that the burden of proof lies with the accuser (in this case the accuser is also the judge...nother topic entirely). I haven't seen anything that proves dejo was cheating. Now, even if we work backwards, assume every score is cheated until proved otherwise, that means ANY score without a video now has to be removed from the bot. I'm not trying to be rude or argumentative, I just think that a CLEAR reason needs to be presented that applies, not only to this situation, but to the entirity of the bot. Given, this is a rather specific case, but what if it arises again, you need a precedent to fall back onto. Even if you are using this as your precedent to establish some sort of fallback, you have not provided justification for WHY you believe either the spirit of the bot or the rules themselves support your decision. Again...I know I sound like an asshole, but you guys say you want to steer clear of trouble, this is the way to do it. I suppose the issue is overarching. Submissions at the bot take a sort of purgatorious nature upon submission. They become more valid over time as more people see (and check out) the results, but are (with exceptions...top 20 namely) not verified upon submission. This lack of verification and lack of denial puts the admin in a rather powerful (and admittedly difficult...I wouldn't wanna be in you guys' shoes on this at all, trust me) situation. You have the ability to say "because of lack of proof, this submission is ___________" and fill in the blank with either valid OR invalid...maybe this is something to be addressed in rev 4, requiring a score to go through some sort of anonymous validation process, forcing users to validate a score or 2 before they can submit...idk, just something to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxi Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Can you extend this policy to all scores? I believe the way these things are usually handled is that the burden of proof lies with the accuser (in this case the accuser is also the judge...nother topic entirely). I haven't seen anything that proves dejo was cheating. Now, even if we work backwards, assume every score is cheated until proved otherwise, that means ANY score without a video now has to be removed from the bot. I'm not trying to be rude or argumentative, I just think that a CLEAR reason needs to be presented that applies, not only to this situation, but to the entirity of the bot. Given, this is a rather specific case, but what if it arises again, you need a precedent to fall back onto. Even if you are using this as your precedent to establish some sort of fallback, you have not provided justification for WHY you believe either the spirit of the bot or the rules themselves support your decision. Again...I know I sound like an asshole, but you guys say you want to steer clear of trouble, this is the way to do it. Yet again another instance of the word cheat As far as proof goes it's exactly the opposite of what you stated. The burden is on the person claiming the result. Benchmarks are done by individuals, those individuals 'prove' their results via verification, e.g., screen shot, ORB link. It is 100% the benchers responsibility to satisfy the judging body (hwbot) and we can moderate as we see fit. I suppose the issue is overarching. Submissions at the bot take a sort of purgatorious nature upon submission. They become more valid over time as more people see (and check out) the results, but are (with exceptions...top 20 namely) not verified upon submission. This lack of verification and lack of denial puts the admin in a rather powerful (and admittedly difficult...I wouldn't wanna be in you guys' shoes on this at all, trust me) situation. You have the ability to say "because of lack of proof, this submission is ___________" and fill in the blank with either valid OR invalid...maybe this is something to be addressed in rev 4, requiring a score to go through some sort of anonymous validation process, forcing users to validate a score or 2 before they can submit...idk, just something to think about. Some good thoughts, results do go through that process. The community views them and has the option to report anything that looks off. And again we are going off what has been the norm online for a very long time. People don't realize how the screen shot itself has evolved since hwbot came around, it's amazing how good everyone is at them now. New accounts are subject to the same scrutiny by the community so I'm not sure pre-validating accounts would help. If we could validate each account to a person that would be helpful, but then you'd need to verify hardware ownership and a myriad of other details to be 100% sure. There are changes hwbot can and will be making, and it's important for the community to be involved so keep the ideas coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I suggest that someone makes a new account, "xxxx's grandma", posts some nice 3D benches with HW he's already used for some submissions, and then posts a picture of his 90 year old grandma sitting on a chair in a nursing home, with a 980x on a plate, next to a cookie. The way alot of people think of this situation, we can't touch that person who stands behind those two accounts. "No proof". Gah. Not saying that Dejo's daughter doesn't exist, but we have to draw the line somewhere. If we had perfect tools to discover result/HW sharing, then this thread wouldn't have existed in the first place - but we don't. We just have to draw the line at some point ("suspicious enough"). By looking at those screenshots posted earlier it's not hard to imagine some flashing, red lights in the mod section, no? We can always move the line a bit, so that it's MUCH easier to set up multiple accounts and get away with it - which will also make life easier for Dejo and his daughter. I don't know what you guys prefer, some LIGHT restrictions one ONE account, or a gigantic loophole where teams can get flooded by "relatives". That's why massman did a very nice job by suggesting other solutions, so we wouldn't have this ridiculous discussion at all. It seems as people don't realize that you can't have a perfect solution to all problems, most of the times we have to find the better one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0r7if3r Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Some good thoughts, results do go through that process. The community views them and has the option to report anything that looks off. And again we are going off what has been the norm online for a very long time. People don't realize how the screen shot itself has evolved since hwbot came around, it's amazing how good everyone is at them now. New accounts are subject to the same scrutiny by the community so I'm not sure pre-validating accounts would help. If we could validate each account to a person that would be helpful, but then you'd need to verify hardware ownership and a myriad of other details to be 100% sure. There are changes hwbot can and will be making, and it's important for the community to be involved so keep the ideas coming. You misread it. Read it again. Verify each SUBMISSION. As in, have someone look at the submission before they are allowed to submit their OWN results. Maybe if you want 3 checks per submission you show 3 screenshots per screenshot submitted...idk, it's just an idea. It's easy enough to implement (specially in PHP, you just shift that shit out to the submissions sql database(s) and add a row)...but it's really rough. Submissions have to be completely anonymous, so you have to encrypt(ish...) any info about it and extreme submissions would have to be handled differently so morons don't thumbs down it just cause it's a wr score or somethin. IDK, you guys work it out, you're the ones making ad revenue (or you can give me a cut and i'll work it out ) This is getting OT though...if you want to discuss it further take it to OCF or PM me here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejo1 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I suggest that someone makes a new account, "xxxx's grandma", posts some nice 3D benches with HW he's already used for some submissions, and then posts a picture of his 90 year old grandma sitting on a chair in a nursing home, with a 980x on a plate, next to a cookie. The way alot of people think of this situation, we can't touch that person who stands behind those two accounts. "No proof". Gah. Not saying that Dejo's daughter doesn't exist, but we have to draw the line somewhere. If we had perfect tools to discover result/HW sharing, then this thread wouldn't have existed in the first place - but we don't. We just have to draw the line at some point ("suspicious enough"). By looking at those screenshots posted earlier it's not hard to imagine some flashing, red lights in the mod section, no? We can always move the line a bit, so that it's MUCH easier to set up multiple accounts and get away with it - which will also make life easier for Dejo and his daughter. I don't know what you guys prefer, some LIGHT restrictions one ONE account, or a gigantic loophole where teams can get flooded by "relatives". That's why massman did a very nice job by suggesting other solutions, so we wouldn't have this ridiculous discussion at all. It seems as people don't realize that you can't have a perfect solution to all problems, most of the times we have to find the better one. personally, I feel that the better solution would have been to pm me stating that there was a morality issue that might be too fine a line to walk. rather than (1)accuse her of using my original 920 for her 2d boints, not correct (2)accuse us of having a single 480 and submitting to 2 accounts, not true and (3)basically tell me that because we are obviously cheating, that we need to kill one of the accounts-you choose or we will. That was how it was put to me. All the while me asking to be pm'ed and any suspected cheats and give me a change to prove ourselves from this side. the accusations first, are what got me on the aggressive side. I do see Massmans dillema. But why are we the only ones getting the mod-mob kicking us in the balls. Then saying that I didnt respond to their pm's, that is an outright fabrication. I did not see Massmans original reply to my pm, as that took 3 weeks for him to reply. but I did respond the next day. Other than that I have been overly prompt with replies. Only to be left hanging, without any reasoning as to why we were being singled out, other than obvious cheats. For anyone that is really interested in our submissions. Look at all both of our more recent aquamark submissions. they all look similar, that is called structure. It most assuredly isnt cheating. I currently have 2 480's, 2 4870's and 2 5770's with one of each set being her benching hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxi Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Can I get one of the mods to step up and add what is unique from her submission my submissions and to my totals? As there was some hardware that I removed scores from for her to bench and recieve those boints legally also, and now have nothing to show for efforts. Would be fine just to add her highest submissions to my hardware scores. That would again be a violation of hwbot rules if she ran the benches, did she? If so, you seem to have difficulty understanding the no sharing concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splave Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 dejo, just have her read this thread and she will never want to bench again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 How about, she generates points for the team but they dont submit the same hardware? Eg: he submits a 920 score, she submits scores for a 950 or 960 instead That's an excellent suggestion. Both keep generating points and it doesn't look like hw/score sharing of any kind. Is Dejo up for this? //edit: this might actually be good for the team as well, especially in Rev4. Instead of (for instance) buying 2x GTX480, you could then go for 1x GTX480 and 1x GTX470. That means two hw categories to beat records instead of one. Rev4 is good for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 To avoid this kind of massive attacks in the future, I'd like to see Team Captains take responsibility and ease down the crowd so the staff and the involved team members could come to an agreement. A Team Captain calling upon the support of all members to riot against HWBOT, like here ... Calling on all forum members to support us !! ~ http://www.overclockers.com/forums//showpost.php?p=6766088&postcount=40 ... makes it all the more difficult to find a solution as the key messages get lost in the flood of hate-messages. It's already quite difficult to communicate on the internet, having a discussion about a delicate subject with a couple of dozen angry forum members just makes things even more difficult. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Gappo Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 dejo, just have her read this thread and she will never want to bench again... hehe so true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejo1 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 That would again be a violation of hwbot rules if she ran the benches, did she? If so, you seem to have difficulty understanding the no sharing concept. so why then was there an offer from mods here to combine our accounts? Are yall baiting me again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Reposting this reply to make sure it doesn't get un-noticed: How about, she generates points for the team but they dont submit the same hardware? Eg: he submits a 920 score, she submits scores for a 950 or 960 instead That's an excellent suggestion. Both keep generating points and it doesn't look like hw/score sharing of any kind. Is Dejo up for this? //edit: this might actually be good for the team as well, especially in Rev4. Instead of (for instance) buying 2x GTX480, you could then go for 1x GTX480 and 1x GTX470. That means two hw categories to beat records instead of one. Rev4 is good for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejo1 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 that brings the question of what happens to the runs she has already made? the solution sounds great, but I am not currently working and dont have cash to go buy new hardware for each of our systems, as many do. Not working and going to school eat up a ton of cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) To avoid this kind of massive attacks in the future, I'd like to see Team Captains take responsibility and ease down the crowd so the staff and the involved team members could come to an agreement. A Team Captain calling upon the support of all members to riot against HWBOT, like here ... ... makes it all the more difficult to find a solution as the key messages get lost in the flood of hate-messages. It's already quite difficult to communicate on the internet, having a discussion about a delicate subject with a couple of dozen angry forum members just makes things even more difficult. Thanks! You might be able to control content here, but you have a snowballs chance in hell of controlling content on somebody else's site. I dig my new user title BTW. It's much classier than just calling me some profanic name. Edited February 11, 2011 by Mr.Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 that brings the question of what happens to the runs she has already made? the solution sounds great, but I am not currently working and dont have cash to go buy new hardware for each of our systems, as many do. Not working and going to school eat up a ton of cash. Those can remain in the profile, but set to 'no points'? Just throwing ideas here: maybe it's possible to sell/trade the one GTX480 for another card? You might be able to control content here, but you have a snowballs chance in hell of controlling content on somebody else's site. I don't really mind the content, but the effect of that content. As you know, I'm not really a defender of controlling content here either ... everyone knows the louder you shout, the less chance you'll get a serious response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sno Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Mark, no one is sharing hardware. That would again be a violation of hwbot rules if she ran the benches, did she? If so, you seem to have difficulty understanding the no sharing concept. No way dude. He's saying he doesn't want to sort though the scores to take out the stuff that uses the same hardware. This is hardware un-sharing. Dejo is talking about Massman's proposed solutions to merge the two accounts. To do this, scores on the same hardware TYPE would have to be removed. So: Dejo would merge the two accounts. But: Would have to sort through and remove the scores with similar hardware. And: Understandably doesn't want to do this by hand. If you guys (hwbot) do an account merge on your end, then only the best scores will be counted anyway right? Dejo: am I missing something? so why then was there an offer from mods here to combine our accounts? Are yall baiting me again? I think Maxi just misunderstood your post. Edited February 11, 2011 by sno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts