bob(nz) Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Hi I have just added the orb link to my blocked 05 Run http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=233769&thumb=false - sorry but I didnt realise it was a top 20 run I also have another issue where someone has just deleted my AQ3 run (not blocked) and I got the following email.... An hwbot crew member, demiurg, has blocked one of your submitted scores. It has been marked as 'impossible score at given settings. might be a cheat.'. This was the reason the user gave: 4870X2 in Vista can not be faster GTX 295 in XP http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=859870 Well thats someones opinion - but I would have thought I would have the chance to defend myself before someone decided to just delete my entry. I have two runs here around that score using the setup that I quoted and I can assure that I am not cheating (just look at the scores I have been submitting over the past few weeks). Not sure what I have to do to "prove this" (if anything) but I would like to resubmit my fastest run without it being deleted again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demiurg Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Please explain how you manage to obtain 80k in GFX score. Best 4870X2 can not obtain even 70k http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=779668 with much higher frequencies. Furthermore Vista is much slower then XP for A3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob(nz) Posted June 22, 2009 Author Share Posted June 22, 2009 Please explain how you manage to obtain 80k in GFX score. Best 4870X2 can not obtain even 70k http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=779668 with much higher frequencies. Furthermore Vista is much slower then XP for A3. Dude - what do you want me to explain?? Look at the runs I have been doing over the past 48 hours - I have been running single and double 4870X2 runs at the same speeds I have run with other cards - and thats the freakin score I got!! I am not an expert so cant explain this technically - the only difference that I can see in the link that you have sent me is the NB speed between the 2 runs - where mine is over 4700 versus 4100 I attached the scores I got at 171 and 172 QPI so that you can see that I can replicate this - what else do you want?? I can run every speed between 165 - 170 if you want further proof?. I also resent the accusation of cheating (trying not to over react). I understand that you guys are there to moderate - but just deleting the score and accusing me of cheating in the email isnt the best way to get our discussion started :0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob(nz) Posted June 22, 2009 Author Share Posted June 22, 2009 I have just uploaded my dual card run - GFX score is 76k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickss69 Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 I wasnt even aware you could run A3 in Vista...heard of a patch but also heard it sucked big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxi Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 I also resent the accusation of cheating (trying not to over react). I understand that you guys are there to moderate - but just deleting the score and accusing me of cheating in the email isnt the best way to get our discussion started :0 You are not the first person to jump to this conclusion. If you read carefully, the text includes the word 'might'. When a result comes into the DB that looks out of place (like yours does) it's not that hard to see how this might happen. If the score is legit in your eyes, you have every opportunity to talk with the moderators about it, doing so in a civil manner will almost always help your cause. If there is a change that needs to be made in the status of a result, hwbot will make every effort to reach the correct decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob(nz) Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 You are not the first person to jump to this conclusion. If you read carefully, the text includes the word 'might'. When a result comes into the DB that looks out of place (like yours does) it's not that hard to see how this might happen. If the score is legit in your eyes, you have every opportunity to talk with the moderators about it, doing so in a civil manner will almost always help your cause. If there is a change that needs to be made in the status of a result, hwbot will make every effort to reach the correct decision. Great - thats all I am asking I did highlight that I undertood the role of the moderators, my only real issue was that my score was simply deleted no questions asked. If anyone wants to drop me an email / PM I would be happy to work through what I need to do. Thanks bob(nz) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaNNon Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 /begin rant "impossible score at given settings. might be a cheat" Would it be to much to ask if the mods could refrain from using the "cheat" word, maybe just use "possible bugged run"? I'm sure it would reduce some of the hostilities in the forum, I know there are cheaters out there and I have no objection to calling a cheat a cheat but the majority are playing by the rules and a little diplomacy can go a long way. /end rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dualist Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 /begin rant"impossible score at given settings. might be a cheat" Would it be to much to ask if the mods could refrain from using the "cheat" word, maybe just use "possible bugged run"? I'm sure it would reduce some of the hostilities in the forum, I know there are cheaters out there and I have no objection to calling a cheat a cheat but the majority are playing by the rules and a little diplomacy can go a long way. /end rant +1 To get an email calling you a cheat then expect you not to kick off on the forum does take the p*** a little bit to be honest.. So it does need re-wording a little bit guys I did kick off in the first few postings I did here because of this, I'm suprised it didn't get changed earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vasgto Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 +2 I also agree... IMO the only person allowed to delete or modify the result should be the one who submitted it. What's wrong with flagging it so that it doesn't get any points until the dispute is resolved. It also allows everyone to view the result and see what not to do LOL! Vas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxi Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I think the staff can talk about re-wording that particular report, you're not the first to react that way to it. I'd also like to remind everyone that english is a second language for the primary coder of hwbot, please remember that before getting too irritated about wording. What's wrong with flagging it so that it doesn't get any points until the dispute is resolved. That is exactly what happens in most cases (insufficient verification), the score is flagged and does not earn points until things are clarified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 +2 I also agree... IMO the only person allowed to delete or modify the result should be the one who submitted it. What's wrong with flagging it so that it doesn't get any points until the dispute is resolved. It also allows everyone to view the result and see what not to do LOL! Vas The you're not understanding the moderation system. Basicly, no points are removed untill a moderator takes the action of removing the points. Reporting a score has no other effect than to give the moderating team a heads up; definitly no points are removed if you report a score. Moderators at hwbot will always have the power to modify or block scores for the simple reason that we want to keep OUR database clean and manageable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demiurg Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 I blocked another bugged run from bob(nz), only this time it was not just my decision but it was common decision of board of moderators. I do not know how him manage to get so high score, but I can suppose it is smth like Win7 3DMark03 bug. Such scores can not be valid on hwbot.org. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob(nz) Posted June 25, 2009 Author Share Posted June 25, 2009 An hwbot crew member, demiurg, has blocked one of your submitted scores. It has been marked as 'impossible score at given settings. might be a cheat.'. This was the reason the user gave: It is impossible to get such score under Vista. Please do not submit bugged runs anymore. So this is the discussion we were going to have?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 (edited) This is very strange...but anyone would have to admit that there is consistency here The 03 bug strikes in strange places and spits scores out almost randomly. This is one big thing that people need to keep in mind when watching for bugs or cheats. The consistency. Cheaters usually aren't even consistent with themselves when it comes to efficiencies and subscores/game tests etc. Bugs affect tests and runs randomly. You rarely see a sensible scaling in CPU/GPU speeds versus scores when dealing with bugs. For the 03 black-screen bug, I've seen it hit any or all of the 4 game tests, and in any combination. I'll be the first to say that bob(nz)'s scores look impossible to me as well based on what I know, but right now I've got 3 runs of his available for me to see. Two being the ones he's posted in this thread and one on hwbot right now, an SLi 285 score. It's certainly way out of the norm for a single 4870X2 to outscore two 285's in Aquamark, but other than that, they are mostly consistent. The new Catalysts work wonders that are almost unbelievable in all the other benches. Conventionally, for example, a pair of 285's killed a pair of 4870's or a single 4870X2 in 05 canyon flight, but now, the latter appears to be superior. The AM3 subscores are wonky. With whatever ATi did starting with Catalyst 9.4 that gave ridiculous boosts in 03, 05, 06 and even 01 it wouldn't completely surprise me if it had a similar affect on the GPU subscore of AM3. Some recent testing I've been doing is forcing me to keep an open mind on the "validity" of these scores, especially about Vista. Has anyone else even tried Nehalem+Vista+4870X2 in AM3? Most of you, I'd imagine, would be rather surprised to know how much better Vista is than XP for Futuremark benches on Nehalem. (and yes, I mean all of them, not just PCMark) Very very few benchers have picked up on this, and it's hurting their scores something fierce. It's possible that Vista might be as strong in AM3 as well, and might just be an oversight on the part of hundreds of benchers. I can't ever say I tried. When I went to run AM3, I loaded up XP by default and ignored ATi altogether. But conventional wisdom has stopped holding true in plenty of things with Nehalem benching...so I wouldn't be quick to dismiss these scores either. Course there's a high likelihood I'm overthinking things and these scores are simply bugged. It's definitely given me something to test though... Edited June 25, 2009 by Gautam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vasgto Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Hey bob(nz)... although it may not be worth the effort, you might try video taping your run and then upload it to youtube. I would love to see the results. Hopefully this will resolve your dispute ??? Just a thought... and Maxi: "That is exactly what happens in most cases (insufficient verification), the score is flagged and does not earn points until things are clarified." I haven't had any luck with this. and Massman: "Basicly, no points are removed untill a moderator takes the action of removing the points. Reporting a score has no other effect than to give the moderating team a heads up; definitly no points are removed if you report a score." Moderators are HUMAN, and humans make more mistakes that computers. For instance, my score was blocked and thankfully it was eventually unblocked, but only after I made a post on this forum which makes me seem like a little whining baby. What's also frustrating is that when you block a score, it appears as it is deleted on our end. So now we could be searching for an hour through 200 submissions to figure out which one is missing... Just leads to more frustration... Right??? If a blocked result didn't look as if was deleted we can at least find the missing submission faster. Anyway, I just prefer to delete and modify my own results. Vas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinos22 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 I can vouch for bob(nz) not being a cheater thats 100%. If i had a slightest hint of doubt i would never accept peter to be part of Team.AU i would suggest as others that you do tape your runs Peter and put this matter to rest. If it is a bug of some sort it needs to be clarified as it should if it is legit. and also GHOST your HDD mate cause you might have hit OS jackpot lol i REALLY resent how agressive some of the moderators here can be. Using such language definitely insinuates that he's cheated regardless of how flowery you want to make the langauge. The language needs to be address and there's nothing wrong with working on that attitude a bit too Peter is in top20 ffs. At least give the guy an opportunity to provide you with information required to get to the bottom of it before relegating his runs as cheats or bugged runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demiurg Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Who was that aggressive moderator which called bob(nz) a cheator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinos22 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) what was wrong with say asking him to provide more evidence as results are say "out of" normal range rather than delete them and instruct him not to post more scores dont play dumb you know what i'm getting at [edit] my comments are not only related to this thread but previous experience when it comes to these things Edited June 27, 2009 by dinos22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demiurg Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Please provide to me a quotation there I called bob(nz) a cheater or I will reserve the right to call you a liar. All I did was blocking some "way out of normal" scores. The phrase "impossible score at given settings. might be a cheat" is one of standard reasons for blocking results. The key word is "might be". Do you realize how many scores moderators blocked every day? We do not have to asking to provide more verification in cases of obvious bugged runs. In this topic I asked bob(nz) to provide an explanation of such high scores, but he refused to do it. I am not an expert so cant explain this technically - the only difference that I can see in the link that you have sent me is the NB speed between the 2 runs - where mine is over 4700 versus 4100 That is why I blocked his second submitted score in A3 under Vista. Few screenshots, which he provided, means this bug is repeating. No one can rich 360k+ under Vista while he can get 390k+ easily. Once again I am sure this is impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Well...tried AM3 in Vista, and it does indeed suck. Over 33% worse as usual...unless there's some trick we missed. so...bob(nz) should clearly outline what he's doing so that it can be reproduced. At this point I also lean to 03-like bug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob(nz) Posted June 27, 2009 Author Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) All I did was blocking some "way out of normal" scores. No - you just deleted it In this topic I asked bob(nz) to provide an explanation of such high scores, but he refused to do it. FFS - are you on crack?? I didnt refuse - I said I couldnt explain it because I am not an expert (there is a difference in terminolgy here you know) Just like you you cant explain it either!! Please provide to me a quotation there I called bob(nz) a cheater or I will reserve the right to call you a liar. And this comment really helps the situation as you are now managing to offend multiple people - WELL DONE i REALLY resent how agressive some of the moderators here can be. Using such language definitely insinuates that he's cheated regardless of how flowery you want to make the langauge. The language needs to be address and there's nothing wrong with working on that attitude a bit too Have to agree. This is my "first experience" with having an issue, and it hasnt exactly left a positive impression. Guilty until found innocent and plenty of veiled insults in the process. Not sure if it is a "language" issue - but its pretty crap IMHO. Hey bob(nz)... although it may not be worth the effort, you might try video taping your run and then upload it to youtube. I would love to see the results. Hopefully this will resolve your dispute ??? Just a thought...Vas i would suggest as others that you do tape your runs Peter and put this matter to rest. If it is a bug of some sort it needs to be clarified as it should if it is legit. If I had a recorder I would definitely do this - might see if I can borrow one from somewhere Well...tried AM3 in Vista, and it does indeed suck. Over 33% worse as usual...unless there's some trick we missed. so...bob(nz) should clearly outline what he's doing so that it can be reproduced. At this point I also lean to 03-like bug. Hi Gautam - have you have run at exactly the same specs as me (CPU / RAM / NB / GPU)? Care to post up you results? Be interested to see what you managed to score. Thanks. Edited June 28, 2009 by bob(nz) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinos22 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 surely you have a digital photo camera that takes videos just set that up, record it and thats it vista does take a big hit in AM3 but you might be onto something or it could well be a bug i'm not going to waste by breath talking to dem... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxi Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) ****** EDITED per user request? *********? Care to post up you results? Be interested to see what you managed to score. Thanks. This looks like the answer to me, we will be testing this shortly. Everybody please relax, demi is a good guy...it's just easy to get a bad name doing this job sometimes. When you're moderating a bunch of stuff you do not have time to send a personal email to every user, trust me I know, its just the way it is. We are not here to offend people, our interest is to keep the DB clean...sometimes we do not always succeed in doing that but our mission is unchanged. Edited June 28, 2009 by Maxi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob(nz) Posted June 28, 2009 Author Share Posted June 28, 2009 Okay thanks Maxi - be interested to see how you go :thumbup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts