Why i not benching for hwbot?

[Massman]

In case you guys are wondering, we're currently going over the actual facts in the staff forum as well as asking Mad/JL for feedback. But one thing that continues to bother me is that, when I re-read this thread, it seems that a lot of people have jumped on the "they are frauds"-bandwagon without real evidence and just relying on very basic information. People seem to find it normal to use the word cheater at random and even dismiss actual evidence as not valid because "i don't believe".

 

In any case, could someone who has the ability to make a post without using the words "cheater", "fucker" or any other aggressive language please provide any other seemingly incriminating evidence of false play? From this thread, so far I've seen

 

- superPI 32M sharing

- "impossible" memory frequency

- "never seen" SuperPI bug

- similar 1M and wprimes

 

Just one more thing. Unlike some of the folks I've seen posting in this thread, the staff evaluates facts and not just opinion. Anyone who just enjoys to speak their mind and figures it's okay to just throw out just anything that comes up can pretty much go do their thing elsewhere. There's a fine but clear line between raising questions and public slander.

 

I'll move this topic to the HWBOT OC-Crime Center as that subforum was meant for stuff like this.

[K404]

You are asking for things that cannot be enforced. Prove they were in the same room etc

 

There are problems with benching that cannot be overcome until/unless there are "black boxes" and mandatory online submissions (like FM & .3dr files) where extra info can be seen that can take further steps to prove/disprove sharing.

 

IMO, the biggest problem in group sessions (be it two people or 15) is the use of common OS + settings AND THE SAME PERSON USING THE KEYBOARD + MOUSE. It makes results look more suspicious than they would otherwise.

[just_nuke_em]

So far, the 'best' system I've seen that removes the benefits of hw/result sharing are all the team-based competitions (like Country Cup, Team Cup, ...) we've organised here at HWBOT.

That's debatable. Remember Greece's entry? same ram in each score. Stelaras even admits it. Yet it's tolerated

[slamms]

In case you guys are wondering, we're currently going over the actual facts in the staff forum as well as asking Mad/JL for feedback. But one thing that continues to bother me is that, when I re-read this thread, it seems that a lot of people have jumped on the "they are frauds"-bandwagon without real evidence and just relying on very basic information. People seem to find it normal to use the word cheater at random and even dismiss actual evidence as not valid because "i don't believe".

 

In any case, could someone who has the ability to make a post without using the words "cheater", "bunnyer" or any other aggressive language please provide any other seemingly incriminating evidence of false play? From this thread, so far I've seen

 

- superPI 32M sharing

- "impossible" memory frequency

- "never seen" SuperPI bug

- similar 1M and wprimes

 

Just one more thing. Unlike some of the folks I've seen posting in this thread, the staff evaluates facts and not just opinion. Anyone who just enjoys to speak their mind and figures it's okay to just throw out just anything that comes up can pretty much go do their thing elsewhere. There's a fine but clear line between raising questions and public slander.

 

I'll move this topic to the HWBOT OC-Crime Center as that subforum was meant for stuff like this.

 

More exactly:

 

- Super Pi 32M sharing

- wPrime 32M sharing

- wPrime 1024M sharing

- Super Pi 1M sharing

 

And for each result i explained how it was. When I started this thread i was polite and did not blamed in sharing. I explained how it seems from my side. But HKEPC showed me pics hardware and gave understand that is OK for this guys. When i started check another scores i found more info about simular scores and now i sure that it was sharing. And i know that many overclockers, which i know personally and which i never seen agree with me. Community has already made it choice. Next step... hwbot`s choice.

[K404]

But in this certain case - John Lam only has good scores during group sessions???

 

Let him make a video alone like me in my bench-room lately...oh does he have any on its own?

 

Remember bro, some people are not like us, some people only bench when they have company

 

Not defending, but we have to remember, that between all of us, there is EVERY possible method and approach to benching

[Massman]

Community has already made it choice. Next step... hwbot`s choice.

 

Ah, so no need for the staff to actually dig deeper then, right? In any case where enough "community members" make a choice, we can just issue a ban "by popular demand" now .

 

Makes things pretty easy for us actually .

 

But in this certain case - John Lam only has good scores during group sessions???

 

Let him make a video alone like me in my bench-room lately...oh does he have any on its own?

 

Almost all of my recent scores are group sessions too. I just enjoy benching with fellow enthusiasts more than on my own.

 

Well, guess I'm just a shit overclocker too then .

 

That's debatable. Remember Greece's entry? same ram in each score. Stelaras even admits it. Yet it's tolerated

 

That's why I specifically wrote "best I've seen" and not "perfection all around". We know why things went wrong in that stage too; we learned.

[Mafio]

this is getting ridiculous.

if those two guys will not get banned for sharing, in the future, every time one of my friends will bench something I'll ask him to get me a screenshot of every bench he did with just a score a bit lower than what he will post.

I bet my points will double in a bunch of months without doing nothing but uploading scores that someone else did for me.

then when someone will question my scores I'll post pictures of hardware (nowadays everyone have a 3770K and a Z77 board).

 

I can understand they have more than one 7 GHz chip, what I still don't get is why they used the same motherboard, the same OS, the same RAM, exactly the same CPU frequency, exactly the same RAM frequency, exactly the same VCORE etc etc.

the things are two:

1- they shared the same CPU

2- mad222 or john lam tested all the stuff, wrote down the BIOS settings and benched his stuff, then the other guy swapped the CPU and re-benched everything using exactly the same settings.

 

IMHO in both case they should be banned because they are too retarded to be allowed to post their crap here.

 

edit: with greece is quite common to find this kind of results, have a look at the i7-950 category: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_1875#start=0#interval=20 lol

Edited August 28, 2012 by Mafio

[Massman]

What if there's factual proof there no sharing of results?

[I.M.O.G.]

This problem with mad222 and john lam is harder to fix. I think one part of fixing it has already been done - the pro league... I like that I'm not competing against guys who bench in a room full of parts where there is no concept of who owns what. That concept is core to the no hardware sharing rule. If they don't have bins or labels on their chips and GPUs, they are not doing enough to ensure they aren't sharing results on the same hardware. If you have 10-20 7970's, its really easy for 2 or more people to use the best 4 each time they go for records. If you have 5 or more 7GHz Ivy's, its really easy for 2 or more people to use the best of those chips when going for 2d records.

 

Another solution which helps address the problem was suggested in a discussion relating to CPU frequency scores. If possibly questionable/bugged CPU frequency results are made in the top 20, there should be a natural sense of speculation and a requirement for further substantiating evidence before the result is accepted by hwbot.

 

For example, when I submitted this 8GHz result (http://www.hwbot.org/submission/222583) I had already produced a bunch of 7GHz+ results. I also did the highest frequency sp32m run ever at 7.74GHz. There is little reason to doubt my validated 8.23GHz result in light of the history of scores I had already produced, and other benchmarks ran at especially high frequency on that same hardware.

 

Bringing this back to the john lam situation... Part of that problem is that he came out of nowhere. Other than exceptional world record caliber scores, he doesn't have any other history to speak of to demonstrate he can run a benchmark rig on his own at a world class level. He doesn't have any "good scores". He has average scores and world class scores - nothing in between. That makes it easy to get suspicious. This is why everyone was able to so quickly jump on the bandwagon that something fishy is going on - he doesn't have any excellent scores in any category that mad222 doesn't already have an excellent score in. Out of his top 5 global scores, 3 have mad222 with equal scores. The other 2 global scores where mad222 does not have an equal score are vantage and 3d11 - mad222's scores on the same model hardware are just a few places lower in those.

 

Not everyone is caught in this problem. Not everyone does group sessions almost exclusively. Not everyone only submits world record scores or average scores, with nothing in between.

 

Where there's smoke, there's fire - many people ascribe to that belief. Maybe there is nothing fishy going on, but if hwbot had required or requested further proof earlier on if it noticed johnlam's submissions come out of nowhere, it could have prevented the public lynching thing that sort of developed a bit in this thread.

 

I don't know if anything wrong was done, and I'm not going to pretend it is certain. I am sure that more should have been done by the benchers involved to prevent this situation, and it wasn't. Maybe they didn't see that it would raise suspicion, and just didn't know hwbot well enough.

 

That's debatable. Remember Greece's entry? same ram in each score. Stelaras even admits it. Yet it's tolerated

 

There are no rules for memory clock. While most may interpret that reasonably you can't reuse the same ram sticks for multiple members to gain rankings, those who exploit it aren't breaking rules if they don't exist:

http://hwbot.org/benchmarks/memory

 

That is a problem that actually needs fixed, isn't hard to fix, and its being worked on.

Edited August 28, 2012 by I.M.O.G.

[rbuass]

I believe the HWBOT has increasingly improved way to verify the results.

I know it's impossible to have rules that will be fair 100% to everyone, but something must be done to respect that.

Any guy knows that it is very easy to get the results from another...is just to change important things like BCLK, Ratio, timings, background and so on.

It is impossible to prove whether a processor is borrowed, or was used the same hardware.

You can create a rule only to inhibit, but not for ensure.

If I borrow a gold processor for a friend, it is impossible to be discovered ... and this applies to the rules of 2D.

Tell me ... if I lend a processor for a friend ... a 6900 MHz chip;;;, and my friend get 6950 MHz;;, he does not deserve the credit??....and if he get 6850 Mhz... he does not deserve the credit?

Does the problem is the hardware sharing or screenshot sharing?

Why some people can not afford, or can not binned, or can not find a gold CPU or VGA, mean he did not deserve to be on the top....even if is a great overclock with a great knowledge?

It is really very difficult and almost impossible to prove ... but evidence of Slamms are actually very strong.

ATM to be in the top, did not mean that is a top overclocker...but for sure to have the best PC parts.

Only my 2 cents...

[xxbassplayerxx]

edit: with greece is quite common to find this kind of results, have a look at the i7-950 category: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_1875#start=0#interval=20 lol

 

lol all on the same board too

[I.M.O.G.]

lol all on the same board too

 

But all used different versions of CPUz though! Doubt it was sharing.

[K404]

Tell me ... if I lend a processor for a friend ... a 6900 MHz chip;;;, and my friend get 6950 MHz;;, he does not deserve the credit??....and if he get 6850 Mhz... he does not deserve the credit?

Does the problem is the hardware sharing or screenshot sharing?

Why some people can not afford, or can not binned, or can not find a gold CPU or VGA, mean he did not deserve to be on the top....even if is a great overclock with a great knowledge?

 

These statements worry me because they sound as though they suggest hardware sharing is ok.

 

Do you think hardware sharing should be accepted?

 

 

 

Why should people accept lower rankings (which automatically are associated with less skill or worse hardware) because they are being beaten by the same CPU or VGA again and again and again?

Edited August 28, 2012 by K404

[knopflerbruce]

Only if you're poor

[K404]

"If you can't pay, you can't play"

 

Why should someone with no money pick an expensive hobby? That's just dumb

[der8auer]

The witch-hunt in this topic is getting realy immature now...

 

We investigated this case in the best way possible. We're checking in a neutral way what actually happened here. So let's start with some facts:

 

- The results looks similar but we have absolutely 0 proof that sharing happened here! There is only a bunch of people here in this topic who obviously dislike John Lam and therefor want to see him getting banned.

- Two CPUs with same frequency and voltage is possible! I have two CPUs with same batch and both do exactly 6,64 GHz Superpi32m stable at 1,84V. So it's surely possible to get two CPUs which would do 6,8 GHz.

- HKPC showed on a livestream that they have several 7 GHz CPUs

- They have almost unlimited access to several mainboards

- They announced this goup benching days before and also which hardware/CPUs they will use

 

Now look at these facts and use your brains. Surely it's possible that they shared hardware. Same like I could just give any of my 3770Ks to one of my team members. It's always possible. But if you expect us to do something we need solid proof and not just suspicious thinking!. We won't start baning people just because some of you dislike them.

 

It's always good to keep your eyes open - don't get me wrong. But you guys should stay more neutral and rely to facts - not just guessing.

 

In Germany we say: benefit of the doubt. And that's what we got here at the moment!

 

 

I don't care if they have 20 7 GHZ CPUs...the fact is nobody knows who acutally OWNS the CPUs...

 

I can show bills of 4000+€ about CPUs with my name on it to prove they are MINE alone...

 

They might be able to show hardware but who acutally owns it???

.

.

.

.

 

Even if their results are 100% clean I respect any little overclocker working hard for his results much more than John Lam.

.

.

.

 

To the first part:

That's why HWBot invented the Pro-OC league. ES CPUs are allowed there for example. Who owns them? Exactly: Intel

 

Second part:

We're here for proof and facts. We won't start banning people because some other members dislike them.

[rbuass]

HWBOT request to me and Gnidaol to prove our results???...and if we do not proved in Live Stream told us that it was be removed???

If we could not be able to do the scores again?

Don't you think you are using two different ways to solve the same case?

Massman told is 2 different sizes....and i strongly not agree...because our moral worth many more than a trip to Taiwan.

If we had not achieved the results, we would be considered cheaters, and our moral worth much more than the results, or a trip to Taiwan.

Se we were required to prove our results to MOA ... with much less evidences.

We had different SOs, different validation Key, different BIOS, different subtimings (with a same board), different SSDs, and even to prove was needed.

Sorry, but who was hurt, was me and Gnidaol ... nobody was under our skins, and only we know what we go through.

 

Now ... if you ask me if I think the I will reply:

No. .. since one can not prove ever, there is not a rule...the rule serves only to prevent but not to ban...

HWBOT can ask to be mandatory to prove the result in some way (videos, pics... I don't know) ...

Than worth a rule that you can not prove??

If Hardware Sharing can not be proved ever...is completelly an useless rule

 

IMHO - Hardware Sharing - useless - what is the difference in terms of knowledge and quality from an overclocker?

What is the difference if he bought, earned, borrowed or binned?

The way the rules are today much favor those who have more money and conditions to buy more pc parts.

The rule of Hardware Sharing only protects them ... because people who have few conditions often could break records if they could borrow parts from their friends.

 

One more time...I consider is not a Hwbot fault...but I think is almost impossible to manage and create rules to fix all issues, but I think is time to think about it.

Edited August 28, 2012 by rbuass

[Mafio]

I just wonder what would had happened if those two guys were two average joes and not the second and third of ranking...

probably they would have been banned 1 week ago...

 

hwbot is becoming more and more ridiculous.

[Massman]

Where there's smoke, there's fire - many people ascribe to that belief. Maybe there is nothing fishy going on, but if hwbot had required or requested further proof earlier on if it noticed johnlam's submissions come out of nowhere, it could have prevented the public lynching thing that sort of developed a bit in this thread.

 

Judging by the amount of reports we've received over the past couple of years, fire is everywhere and still spreading. But, judging by the stories we've heard from those who got accused, smoke doesn't even exist in real life. Just trying to say that smoke on the internet is a fairly vague concept and that it's better to just stick to real facts.

 

John Lam's results don't really come out of nowhere either. He did the Antec Computex gig which showed decent skill/creativity. We all know with the right CPU it's "easy" to set records and we also know you can find the right CPU by just testing as much as possible.

[knopflerbruce]

HWBOT request to me and Gnidaol to prove our results???...and if we do not proved in Live Stream told us that it was be removed???

If we could not be able to do the scores again?

Don't you think you are using two different ways to solve the same case?

Massman told is 2 different sizes....and i strongly not agree...because our moral worth many more than a trip to Taiwan.

If we had not achieved the results, we would be considered cheaters, and our moral worth much more than the results, or a trip to Taiwan.

Now ... if you ask me if I think the I will reply:

No. .. since one can not prove ever, there is not a rule...the rule serves only to prevent but not to ban...

HWBOT can ask to be mandatory to prove the result in some way (videos, pics... I don't know) ...

Than worth a rule that you can not prove??

We were required to prove our results to MOA ... with much less evidences.

We had different SOs, different validation Key, different BIOS, different subtimings (with a same board), different SSDs, and even to prove was needed.

Sorry, but who was hurt, was me and Gnidaol ... nobody was under our skins, and only we know what we go through.

We losed a holyday in Brazil...and when we must be celebrating, we were replying false accusations...

Same rules for everyone ... that's what I'm talking about.

If they have lots of CPUs...ok... do it alone in a Live Stream.

Sorry to tell Hwbot, but if Hardware Sharing can not be proved ever...is completelly fully useless rule

 

Even this way... can not prove 100% that was not hardware and/or screenshot sharing

 

You keep talking about livestream, what do you think a livestream session will prove? Nothing we know already - it's been CONFIRMED that they have the hardware needed to get those sets of results. In fact they proved that part before there even was a case. Can't remember if it was Christian Ney or Massman (or someone else) who confirmed, but since I THINK (I could be wrong here) that only massman watched your livestream session, the word from just one moderator should be enough in this case, too. Right?

 

Why "do it alone"? There's no rule against helping others if that's what happened. There's nothing strange in having two people running the same setup these days. Of course just one can post results from that particular setup (CPU/GPU to be precise), but that's it.

 

The accusations against you and Gnidarol were just as valid as these, whether you like it or not. It sucks about your holiday, but what can i say - I spend what could be the last summer days we have here helping you guys:o

[Massman]

HWBOT request to me and Gnidaol to prove our results???...and if we do not proved in Live Stream told us that it was be removed???

If we could not be able to do the scores again?

Don't you think you are using two different ways to solve the same case?

Massman told is 2 different sizes....and i strongly not agree...because our moral worth many more than a trip to Taiwan.

If we had not achieved the results, we would be considered cheaters, and our moral worth much more than the results, or a trip to Taiwan.

Now ... if you ask me if I think the I will reply:

No. .. since one can not prove ever, there is not a rule...the rule serves only to prevent but not to ban...

HWBOT can ask to be mandatory to prove the result in some way (videos, pics... I don't know) ...

Than worth a rule that you can not prove??

We were required to prove our results to MOA ... with much less evidences.

We had different SOs, different validation Key, different BIOS, different subtimings (with a same board), different SSDs, and even to prove was needed.

Sorry, but who was hurt, was me and Gnidaol ... nobody was under our skins, and only we know what we go through.

 

If Hardware Sharing can not be proved ever...is completelly fully useless rule

 

If anyone should be on HKEPC's side, it should be you. You've been wrongfuly accused before and were always incredibly angry about it. But now that it happens to someone else, for some reason you prefer to switch sides and jump on the "very strong evidence"-bandwagon.

 

We requested to show prove your similar results only once. That was for a big competition like MOA and after several complaints of other overclockers from the Americas. Those complaints were not sent directly to HWBOT, but were in fact addressed to the MSI USA office. Not sure if me trying to figure out a way to get the problem solved was good or bad now.

[Massman]

FYI, that 32M is actually confirmed (by Mad/JL) from the same system. I'll wrap up a nice text tomorrow

[Massman]

I just wonder what would had happened if those two guys were two average joes and not the second and third of ranking...

probably they would have been banned 1 week ago...

 

Same treatment. In fact, for all the previous 'cases' mentioned here we always backed up any decision with factual proof. That includes 12/diabolo, Andre's LOC and Zzolio/riska.

 

But we don't openly advertise who gets banned and for what.

[rbuass]

So let's start with some facts:

 

- The results looks similar but we have absolutely 0 proof that sharing happened here!

 

Ok friend...

But one more time...when this happens with us... we are forced to bench again in Live Stream with absolutely 0 proof ...

Can you tell me why?

[Massman]

Ok friend...

But one more time...when this happens with us... we are forced to bench again in Live Stream with absolutely 0 proof ...

Can you tell me why?

 

Yes. That one time you had to prove over livestream was because a third party, MSI, was involved too. Besides, HKEPC already showed over livestream that they have multiple 7G CPUs. The fact that they would run them simultaneously would not provide any more information other than how good my new internet connection is.