Brian y. Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 I guess I really never noticed it as I never really read up on the rules of hardware sharing as it was something I never really thought about as I assumed it meant pretty much if it's not your hw then you can't post/submit results with it on the bot. Recently, there was a submission that was done with hw that got my attention and forced me to really read the rules and I was enlightened on the fact specifically that someone can use another person's CPU for 3D benchmarks. I am asking that at least some discussion be brought up in regards to this matter for future submissions as I can see this potentially becoming an issue....raw power of a CPU is the heaviest factor in 3D benches when it comes to the top scores in hwbot IMO. Imagine if I sent my CPU to all of my teammates one at a time.......everybody on the team would be at the very least in the top 30 on hwbot when it was all said and done. Imagine if somebody like Andre started doing this..... I honestly would not send my CPU to my teammates for this even though it is legal to do as I just can't but help feel that it is somehow unethical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crustytheclown Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Oh I'm with you buddy on this one... Everyone can find 4x4890 but not a 5.5G 3d i7... I hope more people will say their opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richba5tard Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 There rule is old but it's strength lies in it's simplicity. No videocard sharing for 3D benches, no processor sharing for 2D benches. I realize that in older 3D benches the cpu is more and more important, but as long as there is no frequent 'abuse' of this rule I'd rather keep it simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 When people actually realize that this is allowed, they will definately pass these around, at least a little bit. The German scores were a result of that, which is fair enough - rules apply to everyone, and they didn't do anything wrong. Then, if this becomes the norm of every team, send the best CPU of the team to the guys with 4 HD4890's so they can take a record or two, will it still be OK? The problem is that "abuse" is hard to determine. Is it if it's shared between 3 or 4 members - or does it take like 15? Perhaps it's hard to create a rule without making moderating a PITA, but some guidelines about what's fair and what's not wouldn't be so bad If nothing is written down on the subject, any user will have one opinion about what's unfair and what's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 If something IS written down, any user will be aware, any user will also know the loopholes are enormeous and will abuse it. Don't underestimate the willingness of people to exploit loopholes to get benefit. As I also said on the secure forums: - We shouldn't be making rules for things that are out of our control. If we publically announce: no CPU sharing, people will report cpu sharing and we will have no solid ground to say whether or not a cpu was or was not shared. It'll angry both users, something we want to avoid - That the benchmarks of today are a bit CPU limited may just be temporary. I don't know if it'll be the same with next-gen gpu's. - Also, sharing a CPU was initially allowed for the benefit of those who cannot spend a gazillion dollar on hardware; if they know someone with an i7, they can use that platform to show their skills with a certain graphics card. I do not want to create an environment where every day I get a dozen reports of people who -think- others are sharing CPU's. We have simply no tools available to even check if the story checks out, so any claim will be followed by "we don't know, so we can't do". This will angry the one who reported as there's no solution AND will annoy the one who got reported as there might be nothing going on. We have already enough problems applying the basic hardware sharing rules, let's not make it an impossible job to apply more complex rules. I prefer to rely on, how naïve it may sound, people's honesty and integrity rather than forcing them to walk in between two unclear lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunslinger Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 There seems to be the idea that by changing the rule to "you cannot share CPU's or GPU's in 3D" is somehow complex ??? How is it any more complex than the current rule "you cannot share GPU's in 3D" ??? Proving that someone is sharing GPU's is next to impossible, yet it is still the rule. In either the current rule situation or by changing the rule to "no sharing of CPU's or GPU's for 3D" you are relying upon the conscience or eithics of the person submitting the bench. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anvil Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Hi guys, I have to say that I am happy to see this subject appearing again on Hwbot forums. It is now about one year that I fight sometimes to have the rules updated. There is a simple way to know if users are sharing golden-CPUs for 3D benchmarks. Just have a look in the 2D benchmarks of the user, and see if there is no submission with greater frequency than the one of the 3D benchmark. I really doubt that people benching 3D would forget to bench 2D which are much more fast to execute (at least for Super Pi 1M, PiFast and Wprime 32M). I have to say that I agree every rule you (the crew) create and that you're doing a fantastic job here. But ignoring that the CPUs have a huge influence in some 3D benchmark is really a pity... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hondacity Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 benching sessions are fun.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 There seems to be the idea that by changing the rule to "you cannot share CPU's or GPU's in 3D" is somehow complex ??? How is it any more complex than the current rule "you cannot share GPU's in 3D" ??? Proving that someone is sharing GPU's is next to impossible, yet it is still the rule. In either the current rule situation or by changing the rule to "no sharing of CPU's or GPU's for 3D" you are relying upon the conscience or eithics of the person submitting the bench. So what you're saying here is: "There are already a couple of rules that are quite hard to moderate, so why not make more rules that can't be moderated"? It's more complex as in more complex to moderate. There's no way that the Hwbot moderating team will spend more time chasing down sharing issues and less time actually moving results to the right categories. Also, we will not create a new way for people to start witchhunts. By the way, I do know what scores have caused this thread and I will have you know that within the crew there was a general consensus that it was upto the user to decide whether or not to submit the scores for points. I personally have had contact with the user and have stated that there IS an option to submit the scores without hwboints and have explicitly stated that there might be some issues if the score was used to gain points. That the user has submit the scores with points enabled, that's his choice. According to the rules it's no problem and, quite frankly, I'm not intended to make this bigger than it really is. Can I ask, really, why all the big problems about the rules? Maybe you should talk to the user himself if you think something doesn't quite add up. I have to say that I agree every rule you (the crew) create and that you're doing a fantastic job here. But ignoring that the CPUs have a huge influence in some 3D benchmark is really a pity... I fully acknowledge the fact that CPU frequency has been playing a bigger and bigger role in benching; I do not ignore it. But, we need to find a balance between the need of a rule and how we can force people to stick to that rule. In this case, it's nearly impossible ... and that's an understatement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 We shouldn't talk to a user who follows the rules, asking him to not enable points for a perfectly legal score is... wrong. This is not a loophole either, unless my definition of that word is wrong. I think of a loophole as an unintentional "workaround", which is not the case here as we are aware of the situation and can't do anything about it (apparently). I just hope the community itself will set a standard of what's acceptable and what's not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 We shouldn't talk to a user who follows the rules, asking him to not enable points for a perfectly legal score is... wrong. Huh? So, we don't have to talk to the user, but change the rules so that the user will lose his points any way? That's a bit underhand, don't you think. Well, it depends on how you think about rules and their purpose. I strongly believe that no one should be hiding behind the rules even if what they do isn't completely right ... you know how much I hate that as there's a certain thread on the forums in which I explained some stuff that happened with someone else who said "not in the rules, so it's okay". The score is okay according to the rules, I think it's a bit ambiguous and apparently other people do too. For me, it's the same situation as with the handpicked ES samples: as long as we have no control over the situation the decision is up to the user. If he or she believes it's no problem, then there's no problem. This is not a loophole either, unless my definition of that word is wrong. I think of a loophole as an unintentional "workaround", which is not the case here as we are aware of the situation and can't do anything about it (apparently). The loophole is the fact that it (= sharing cpu) would be an uncontrolable misdeed. Abusing a loophole is a common issue of every place where rules are applied; human nature, I believe. I'm absolutely positively certain that IF this rule was set in place, we'd be looking at tons of people who do share, but just lie about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hondacity Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 I just hope the community itself will set a standard of what's acceptable and what's not +1 r-e-s-p-e-c-t Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Huh? So, we don't have to talk to the user, but change the rules so that the user will lose his points any way? That's a bit underhand, don't you think. Well, it depends on how you think about rules and their purpose. I strongly believe that no one should be hiding behind the rules even if what they do isn't completely right ... you know how much I hate that as there's a certain thread on the forums in which I explained some stuff that happened with someone else who said "not in the rules, so it's okay". The score is okay according to the rules, I think it's a bit ambiguous and apparently other people do too. For me, it's the same situation as with the handpicked ES samples: as long as we have no control over the situation the decision is up to the user. If he or she believes it's no problem, then there's no problem. The loophole is the fact that it (= sharing cpu) would be an uncontrolable misdeed. Abusing a loophole is a common issue of every place where rules are applied; human nature, I believe. I'm absolutely positively certain that IF this rule was set in place, we'd be looking at tons of people who do share, but just lie about it. I agree with alot of what you say, but at some point a statement must be made I think. Perhaps not now, but I believe alot of benchers will react at some point in the future if this type of sessions become more popular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Then I hope I can write a similar newspost like this: http://hwbot.org/hwbot.post.do?postId=1113 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Then I hope I can write a similar newspost like this: http://hwbot.org/hwbot.post.do?postId=1113 Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. When the time is ready Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian y. Posted September 18, 2009 Author Share Posted September 18, 2009 If something IS written down, any user will be aware, any user will also know the loopholes are enormeous and will abuse it. Don't underestimate the willingness of people to exploit loopholes to get benefit. As I also said on the secure forums: - We shouldn't be making rules for things that are out of our control. If we publically announce: no CPU sharing, people will report cpu sharing and we will have no solid ground to say whether or not a cpu was or was not shared. It'll angry both users, something we want to avoid - That the benchmarks of today are a bit CPU limited may just be temporary. I don't know if it'll be the same with next-gen gpu's. - Also, sharing a CPU was initially allowed for the benefit of those who cannot spend a gazillion dollar on hardware; if they know someone with an i7, they can use that platform to show their skills with a certain graphics card. I do not want to create an environment where every day I get a dozen reports of people who -think- others are sharing CPU's. We have simply no tools available to even check if the story checks out, so any claim will be followed by "we don't know, so we can't do". This will angry the one who reported as there's no solution AND will annoy the one who got reported as there might be nothing going on. We have already enough problems applying the basic hardware sharing rules, let's not make it an impossible job to apply more complex rules. I prefer to rely on, how naïve it may sound, people's honesty and integrity rather than forcing them to walk in between two unclear lines. I see your point and understand where you are coming from, it's just when WR's at hwbot are involved it seems to really rear it's ugly head of what can happen when a golden CPU is entered into the equation. Your, right though as the only way to really moderate this would to be to depend on people's honesty and integrity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKarmakazi Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Lets have a bench session brian... MUAHAHAHA j/k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George_o/c Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Lets have a bench session brian... MUAHAHAHA j/k Can I join ya Jamie ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.