Massman Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I think the ruling is fair and to go further I think that if you are in the same household then you should have a combined account. Let's add this line to the rules and this situation is solved . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxi Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 This goes back to the teaching/coaching thing I brought up. If she hasn't benched before and is getting started, from who do you think she is going to learn? Her father. Not remotely as some people, but right there, in person. He's going to instruct her in how to submit a screenshot, because a proper screenshot is going to be needed for a valid score. It stands to reason, then, that as he is used to doing it one way all the time to ensure he doesn't miss anything, that he would instruct her to do the same. Once that reasoning is cemented in her mind, likewise, she does it one way all the time as instructed when she was learning. So by your reasoning, if he had taught her how to submit screenshots with her CPUz / GPUz / results inverted to opposite sides of the screen, it would be legit and never have been questioned? If that's the tone you took in the PMs to which he's referring, I'd have gone the heck off myself. That does, in fact, sound like an accusation of cheating. You think it's normal to coach someone exactly where to position elements on the desktop rather than simply what needs to be present? I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxi Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Mark, please man, what rules did they break...where is the proof of hardware sharing, massman said numerous times they are NOT being accused of cheating? Seriously ... I cannot believe you cannot see this !! Result sharing. I'm not calling anyone a cheater btw, I think it was a simple mis-understanding of the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HousERaT Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Let's add this line to the rules and this situation is solved . Except in the case for everyone who will no longer say they're in the same household. This looks superficial at best. The two people who were honest from the gate and have showed and proved such are the ones being asked to sacrifice......... and that's fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Let's add this line to the rules and this situation is solved . Nice out. Inadvertently, you win again. Dejo - set up your daughters account through a proxy and tell them she moved out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0r7if3r Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Let's add this line to the rules and this situation is solved . Fine, that would be well and good, but be SPECIFIC. Lets say I want to get my roommate into things...do we have to share an account? What about my girlfriend? What about family I don't share residence with? What, SPECIFICALLY, is wrong...you have yet to give any indication of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokiealumnus Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 You think it's normal to coach someone exactly where to position elements on the desktop rather than simply what needs to be present? I don't. I'd have to defer to your experience I suppose. Never had the privilege of teaching my 2.5 year old yet. When I do, I would first ask that he watch how I do things, then mimic that behavior. As my benching (and reviewing) volume grows, my screenshots have become identical to one another, so I can easily combine them into a spreadsheet to tabulate scores. When the time comes that he learns from me, I will, in fact, teach him the same. So I guess I'll have to reverse my thinking, and my screenshots, when that time comes. Hopefully we'll be past this issue and hokiealumnus / hokie's son can coexist on the same team rather than being protected from potential, eventual accusations of cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CgS Drone Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Stop with the retarded accusations please. OK, so if we suck up and agree then we are OK, but if we question the actions then we are retards. Thanks for clearing that up. By the way my question of my using the same hardware as another member on my team was never clarified, I need to make sure my scores wont be called into question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Except in the case for everyone who will no longer say they're in the same household. This looks superficial at best. The two people who were honest from the gate and have showed and proved such are the ones being asked to sacrifice......... and that's fair? Being honest != actions are okay. I said from the beginning I very much appreciate Dejo's honesty! I actually wish more people would be this open and honest about their situation. Thanks to this honest, it would've been possible to forsee problems (= accusations) and address those issues instantly. Nice out. Inadvertently, you win again.Dejo - set up your daughters account through a proxy and tell them she moved out. Let's define 'household' as '1st and 2nd degree relative under 18 regardless of location'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xXSebaSXx Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 You think it's normal to coach someone exactly where to position elements on the desktop rather than simply what needs to be present? I don't. So you ARE saying they cheated... Because I seem to remember this issue was raised and solved already. I thought we had moved from "we suspect they were cheating" to "we don't want October's feelings to get hurt" Because if this whole thing is because you think they cheated; the solution is quite simple... Ask for proof... O wait; that has been done and proof was submitted; and it was concluded no cheating/rule breaking took place... Or did I miss something on this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miahallen Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Result sharing. I'm not calling anyone a cheater btw, I think it was a simple mis-understanding of the rules. Isn't "result sharing" an inherent violation of HW sharing? I'm confused by your statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Let's define 'household' as '1st and 2nd degree relative under 18 regardless of location'. Dejo - tell them she's a foster child. I can play games too man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Dejo - tell them she's a foster child. Then Dejo would be lying, which goes into him being up front and honest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earthdog Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Isn't "result sharing" an inherent violation of HW sharing? I'm confused by your statement A little hard to be results sharing with different results isnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxi Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Isn't "result sharing" an inherent violation of HW sharing? I'm confused by your statement No, result sharing is giving someone a result you made, i.e., a result file or screen shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 A little hard to be results sharing with different results isnt it? nc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) Then Dejo would be lying, which goes into him being up front and honest? Which you didn't believe, and got him nowhere anyway right? If you're gonna be convicted and penalized, you might as well do the crime and make it worth it. Edited February 10, 2011 by Mr.Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Which you didn't believe and got him nowhere anyway right? I do believe him. In fact, because I believed him, I spend time writing down suggestions to overcome others not believing him. I did the effort because I didn't want his name (and his daughter's name) to be dragged through the mud because of something as stupid as appearance. If nowhere equals 'not completely what he wants', you are right. It could've gone somewhere, though. Maybe not perfect, but hey ... what is perfect nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miahallen Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 No, result sharing is giving someone a result you made, i.e., a result file or screen shot. :duh: Sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattNo5ss Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Every day I have to face HWBOT/internet reality. Although I absolutely do not like myself asking for his daughter to not bench for points, something I think i've proven by given a dozen of alternative ways for Dejo and his daughter to bond over this hobby, I have to take into account that a large majority of the HWBOT community might not understand this particular situation. Not the daughter benching, but the team getting a boost in points by an account that can easily be perceived as 'double account to generate extra points'. Even if the majority of the HWBot community thought an account was a "double account to generate extra points" but that account wasn't a double account, then the "perceivers" should just have to deal with it because they are wrong... Actually, when Dejo ignored my PM and just created the account anyway, we closed our eyes for a while as the account was not really generating lots of points. When the first set of scores came in, we asked Dejo what's up, got a 'reasonable' explanation and, again, closed our eyes assuming this was just a one-time thing. Today, that account is generating 300+ points ... which is quite a lot. I don't know you or Dejo personally, so I don't know who's telling the truth about who wasn't responding to PMs in a timely manner. How many points an account has shouldn't make a difference, 0.1 or 1000 pts. If there are both 0.1 and 1000 point possible "double accounts", then both should be looked into and taken care of in the same way. It's about consistency in the actions taken. Like I said in my previous post, 300 points is nothing when using extreme cooling and can be had with a good CPU and some old "boint mine" GPUs. I might be out of line here, but I guess if the daughter's account would just have low-end hardware, none of which also in Dejo's account and reasonably low total score, it would've been under the radar for sure. Like I said, we closed eyes twice. Again, what hardware used and how many points an account has shouldn't make a difference. All questionable accounts should be looked at equally, and if they aren't, then the staff isn't doing their job correctly. Obviously, the daughter doesn't buy her own hardware, dejo buys it for her. Of course, he's going to get the best he can afford so she can get the best scores as possible. We undertook several more attempts to solve this matter quietly and another moderator than myself tried to explain the situation and give some suggestions to solve the issue. Not to 'be corrupt', but just so his daughter could enjoy all the benching and other community members would not be upset about this 'weird' account generating a significant amount of points for the team. We don't accuse anyone (if we did, the account would've been banned), we don't try to punish anyone, all we want to forsee problems in (hwbot's) reality and address them before they occur. Just because an account looks weird doesn't mean it's not legitimate. Every weird looking account needs to be looked into thoroughly so proof of its legitimacy or illegitimacy can be found. Then, action can be taken. It's easy to disallow an obviously "weird" account, but that doesn't mean it's what should be done and other not-as-obvious weird accounts should be ignored. I was staying out of this but I am a mod here, it's my job. 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. If you have two different people behind the keyboard, the chances of that happening are remote. There are several examples of this between the two accounts. It's true there is no rule preventing family members from creating accounts, friends & teams bench together sharing ideas and knowledge all the time ── hwbot is not against any of that, duh. But when you have results that look to be done on the same system by the same person (as the item placement pretty much confirms) there is a problem. It has been suggested that these two accounts be merged, I for one do not agree with that. Results in questions should be moderated and that is all. It could be argued that one of the accounts be banned for violating our result sharing rules, but hwbot chose to ask for an account merger instead. I agree the screens look very similar in the window placement. I don't like throwing "what-if's" out there, but what if dejo gave his daughter a sample screenie of his to use as a template when doing her benches? Even if dejo is taking the screenies himself, does that alone constitute him doing the benching? Does pressing the "run benchmark" button in 3DMark constitute doing the benching? Or, does raising the bclk from 133 to 207 constitute doing the benching? To get full proof of everything, the entire benching session would have to be filmed, so the above, and more, can be seen by everyone. This would have to be implemented for every account to ensure the legality of results, but of course, filming every single session to get every result on film in its entirety wouldn't be the best way to go about it. That's why HWBot uses screenshots for the scores, the rest is just based on trust. My point is that every little detail cannot be proven and trust needs to come into play at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejo1 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I notice that her boints are officially gone from the team. 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. And would the mods that be, prefer that I didnt have an account also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kow_ciller Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) So, being a law student and all, I thought I'd give you a little heads up massman Rule- a : a prescribed guide for conduct or action b : the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members c : an accepted procedure, custom, or habit d (1) : a usually written order or direction made by a court regulating court practice or the action of parties (2) : a legal precept or doctrine e : a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct As far as the hwbot rules, this is the closest thing that comes to what happened with them. Update 27th July 2009: Although this is pretty straightforward, we want to explicitly mention that you can only submit scores that YOU obtained. It is disallowed to have your hardware benched by someone else and submit the score to your account. In fact, the hwbot rules explicitly state that what they have done is in fact legal, provided they give proof that they are indeed not benching the same hardware. While the rules are quite simple and straightforward, enforcing them isn’t. If you are having a joint benchmark session, provide as much proof and information as possible when you submit a new HWBot score, which shows you were using your own hardware for the benchmark in question, a photo with a paper showing your nickname and the product serial number is good way to do this. According to that statute of the hwbot rules, if Dejo provides pictures that the submissions are in fact not using the same hardware, and proof that his daughter is indeed the one who is benching. The argument of it being against the rules is completely null and void. Given the argument of it being "perception" perhaps you should take a look at the rankings of the i7 950. Is it any coincidence that most of the top people on the ranking for the chip all have identical clocks and spi32m times? Edited February 10, 2011 by kow_ciller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxi Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Some people have a real reading comprehension problem, you keep throwing the cheat word around when we have never accused anyone of that. My point is that every little detail cannot be proven and trust needs to come into play at some point. You're right, everything here is based on trust for the most part. When it comes to moderation we can only go on what we have in front of us and looking at those results, it looks like a rule violation. If that had been considered before those results were posted, if it was made it clear why the community and hwbot likes to see different accounts actually look like it is a unique person submitting results, we wouldn't be here now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0r7if3r 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...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)? EDIT: Also, Maxi, if you look at the scores in question, the icon layouts are completely different (sans the windows placed ones). If you look through dejo's old submissions for 03 you can see he developed a style of placing these that (imo) his daughter picked up, whether it was taught directly to her or not. Edited February 10, 2011 by m0r7if3r Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 When it comes to moderation we can only go on what we have in front of us and looking at those results, it looks like a rule violation. See post 106 then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts