Hardware sharing- by people who should know better

[Kal-EL]

I asked for clarification on this in February and both you and Frederick said it was not allowed, period. In fact, you told me how would I feel if I had a 7ghz chip and passed it to another team member.

 

RB clarified the rules as:

" For the crew, we would not see a difference between selling/sharing or lending hardware between team members. So if you sell or rent hardware, it better be to people not belonging to your own team...

 

Sorry about the harsh rule.

"

I took this information back to my Team and told them it was strictly forbiden to sell hardware to another Team Mate.

 

Now you tell me its never changed and always been like this. Salty. A little more consistency with the rules would be much appreciated.

[knopflerbruce]

IMO if you buy a GPU one week, bench, and pass it on next week it's more for the boints sake, and not the GPU. Keep it for maybe 2-3 months before selling and it'll be better. Not sure where to draw the line there, but at least in terms of globals you can't do alot of sharing if you have a 3 month "sale suspension" for that part.

 

Tbh, in this case common sense should be enough...

[Jor3llBR/Elano]

Selling within the team is allowed. Abuse of this rule (meaning selling to all you team members to improve the ranking) will not be tolerated and will result in a ban for all involving members and, since he's in charge of the team, the team captain.

 

I guess you missed the entire thread yesterday, Hiwa's cpu was never sold to Pippo369. How did he sell a CPU on April and then got the same CPU back for benching on May? There is only one name for that: Hardware Sharing...

[BenchZowner]

He had a buy-back clause Elano

[Splave]

this is getting to be too much, elano I have dibs on your gold wprime i670 than I will sell it to kal and he can pass it to the next guy.

now there is a dont sell for 3 months clause? wtf If you cant enforce regular blatant sharing how are you going to police a 3 month policy?

 

I dont like the tone of some being mad at hwbot and the crew in this thread. They gain very little for the pleasure they provide you by keeping this site up for your participation. Be nice

[Massman]

I asked for clarification on this in February and both you and Frederick said it was not allowed, period. Now you tell me its never changed and always been like this. Salty. A little more consistency with the rules would be much appreciated.

 

Quote me where I did. Seriously ... I don't know when I said that.

 

What I don't understand is how people could sell good samples to team mates WITHOUT having 'more points' as motivation. Any good hardware I get at my place, I hold onto so closely so that I'm sure it won't get killed.

 

The other alternative is making team point attributions so tight that it's just one score that contributes to the team's total. One guy has a 6.5G 980X, no other person will be able to contribute to the team's total. I'm sure this is what no one wants.

 

Any other suggestion is welcome. Do note ... we will certainly not require anyone to make photo/video verification. The idea behind hwbot is to make overclocking enjoyable, which means more focus on clocking, less focus on ruling.

[BenchZowner]

TBH a sharing/selling hardware rule is not really enforceable right now, unless the manufacturers ( and the bench developers act accordingly ) start "hardcoding" serial numbers and an "owner information" system on the HW ( far fetched huh ? )

[Massman]

Serial numbers is possible (eg: SSD and harddrives). It's not possible on VGAs and CPUs for some strange reason.

[K404]

I'm sure that a one-write IC/EEPROM etc can be added in for minimal cost. Write serial number to chip, write process blows internal fuses, no re-write can occur. Chip can be read or GPU-Z etc purposes, cannot be re-flashed like the BIOS can to make one card look like many

 

 

OR: re-write process kills card.

[BenchZowner]

It can be done, but the "gains" for the manufacturers simply aren't there, and there's no reasoning for them to do it, especially in a good, secure way.

[K404]

It would help the RMA process I think

 

It would help stop the scummy people who troll the RMA process. "Dead board-> Buy another-> "this board is DOA"-> send 1st board back

 

No-one here does that, right?

[Massman]

I've actually suggested this to some MFCs and as far as I know ... it's in the process of being added. The question then, of course, is whether this information will be accessible or not.

[Antinomy]

The main question is whether it'll be s/w accessible

[TaPaKaH]

I think hwbot must not care about sharing of hardware between team members as long as each individual posts results obtained by himself (otherwise - score sharing -> 1 year ban)

After all, if a big manufacturer can sponsor* an person - why can't his teammate act as a sponsor* as well ?

 

*sponsoring defined as giving free hardware and expecting something (PR or hwboints) in return

[Kal-EL]

Quote me where I did. Seriously ... I don't know when I said that.

 

What I don't understand is how people could sell good samples to team mates WITHOUT having 'more points' as motivation. Any good hardware I get at my place, I hold onto so closely so that I'm sure it won't get killed.

 

The other alternative is making team point attributions so tight that it's just one score that contributes to the team's total. One guy has a 6.5G 980X, no other person will be able to contribute to the team's total. I'm sure this is what no one wants.

 

Any other suggestion is welcome. Do note ... we will certainly not require anyone to make photo/video verification. The idea behind hwbot is to make overclocking enjoyable, which means more focus on clocking, less focus on ruling.

Hey, obviously, its gonna be an ongoing evolution.

 

Our conversation was via pm but it really doesn't matter now does it? The magic marker rule book is ever revolving. Since you don't remember:

Of course that would be illegal under the hardware sharing rules. The whole point of the hardware sharing rules is that people within one team do not use the same hardware to get more points.

 

If I have a golden 7.4GHz Clarkdale at my home, how would you feel when I lend it to my team mates? Top-20 in hands of Madshrimps ...

 

BR,

 

Pieter.

And here is Fredericks PM response:

Hi kal el,

 

that's not permitted. For the crew, we would not see a difference between selling/sharing or lending hardware between team members. So if you sell or rent hardware, it better be to people not belonging to your own team...

 

Sorry about the harsh rule.

 

Frederik

 

Fred

 

This was on February 14. 2010.

 

Moving on. Now that I've pee'd in the fan, I'd like to make a suggestion about how we deal with the rules. Since we're in an Internet environment unlike pro sports on t.v. or on the futball field where they can be enforced based on factual evidence, how about we take a more subjective stance on the rules. Instead of hard facts or straight confessions, we use a preponderance of evidence to make determinations of innocence or guilt. To make it even handed, since we're uniquely on the internet, the consequences should be very progressive in cases based on a preponderance of evidence and severe in cases of blatant violations disovered by infallable evidence.

 

Chuchnit suggested formulating a governing body that would oversea rule enforcement and applications. They would evaluate high profile cases or contreversial cases and come to an agreement. This body could be made up of a bunch of Team Captains. They could discuss and represent their teams interests in regards to rule changes and evolution of this sport.

 

Fricken HOliday Inn Action.

[knopflerbruce]

Isn't it really like this:

 

"It's up to whoever uploads the scores to prove they do not violate the rules", so if things look fishy in terms of HW sharing, then we can block whatever score we want if we're not happy with the explanations/proof we're handed over.

 

It may not be the easiest rule to moderate, but those who abuse the system are in a risk of getting caught, as always.

[Massman]

Hm. Okay. I think I was talking about the situation where you'd be lending hardware. Anyways, selling is allowed; selling to screw over your fellow overclockers in the hwbot ranking is not allowed.

 

Or: be responsible.

 

Moving on. Now that I've pee'd in the fan, I'd like to make a suggestion about how we deal with the rules. Since we're in an Internet environment unlike pro sports on t.v. or on the futball field where they can be enforced based on factual evidence, how about we take a more subjective stance on the rules. Instead of hard facts or straight confessions, we use a preponderance of evidence to make determinations of innocence or guilt. To make it even handed, since we're uniquely on the internet, the consequences should be very progressive in cases based on a preponderance of evidence and severe in cases of blatant violations disovered by infallable evidence.

 

Chuchnit suggested formulating a governing body that would oversea rule enforcement and applications. They would evaluate high profile cases or contreversial cases and come to an agreement. This body could be made up of a bunch of Team Captains. They could discuss and represent their teams interests in regards to rule changes and evolution of this sport.

 

The governing body that overseas rule enforcement and applications = HWBOT moderating staff .

 

I'm not totally against the idea of having team moderators involved in the ruling process, but I not confident that this will actually lead to a better overclocking environment.

 

First of all, we have a staff of moderators to ensure that whoever is moderating is not doing it because of personal/team objectives, but to keep HWBOT clean. In theory, having team moderators involved is cool, but it also opens a gate for teams to vote for removal of scores only for their own benefit.

 

Secondly, I'm strongly of the opinion that responsibility comes before rules. This meaning that the rules are there as guidelines, but in the end each individual has to stand up for his own behavior. If we change our policy from 'act responsible' to 'act within the rules', we could end up in situations where lawyers sue HWBOT for removing a result.

 

Thirdly, I would much more like to invest time in setting up a structure for live overclocking events rather than improving online rules and regulations. GIGABYTE and MSI are already at a stage where they organize live overclocking competitions to serve the community, but I would really love to see HQ push the local offices even more to organize smaller live overclocking competitions within the local community and give those comps a place on hwbot.

 

Can you please elaborate on how this governing body would make HWBOT better? And by better I mean: less cheaters, but also not making it extremely complex and slow. We want to remove cheaters, but not by making the validation process 10x longer.

[Antinomy]

First of all, we have a staff of moderators to ensure that whoever is moderating is not doing it because of personal/team objectives, but to keep HWBOT clean.

LOL on that

 

And by better I mean: less cheaters, but also not making it extremely complex and slow. We want to remove cheaters, but not by making the validation process 10x longer.

Agree on that. And there are such ways, you know. I've written you a number of times on this as I remember.

[Kal-EL]

Hm. Okay. I think I was talking about the situation where you'd be lending hardware. Anyways, selling is allowed; selling to screw over your fellow overclockers in the hwbot ranking is not allowed.

 

Or: be responsible.

 

 

 

The governing body that overseas rule enforcement and applications = HWBOT moderating staff .

 

I'm not totally against the idea of having team moderators involved in the ruling process, but I not confident that this will actually lead to a better overclocking environment.

 

First of all, we have a staff of moderators to ensure that whoever is moderating is not doing it because of personal/team objectives, but to keep HWBOT clean. In theory, having team moderators involved is cool, but it also opens a gate for teams to vote for removal of scores only for their own benefit.

 

Secondly, I'm strongly of the opinion that responsibility comes before rules. This meaning that the rules are there as guidelines, but in the end each individual has to stand up for his own behavior. If we change our policy from 'act responsible' to 'act within the rules', we could end up in situations where lawyers sue HWBOT for removing a result.

 

Thirdly, I would much more like to invest time in setting up a structure for live overclocking events rather than improving online rules and regulations. GIGABYTE and MSI are already at a stage where they organize live overclocking competitions to serve the community, but I would really love to see HQ push the local offices even more to organize smaller live overclocking competitions within the local community and give those comps a place on hwbot.

 

Can you please elaborate on how this governing body would make HWBOT better? And by better I mean: less cheaters, but also not making it extremely complex and slow. We want to remove cheaters, but not by making the validation process 10x longer.

 

How would a governing body create less cheaters without making it complex and slow in addtion to the extending the length of the validation process?

 

It was more focussed at confidence. Giving the members a proper channel with which they could be confident that their concerns and complaints were being properly heard, discussed, evaluated and weighted.

 

But in the scenario above where rule enforcement is based on a preponderance of evidence instead of infallable facts, hwbot moderators could take swifter action against suspected cheaters thereby becoming a deterrent to any future cheaters.

 

Instead of focussing in on the detection process, we decrease our normal requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt down into say Reasonable Suspicion or as low as just a preponderance of evidence.

 

Again, a ruling based on a mere preponderance of evidence would result in progressive punishment, e.g. warning w/removal, suspension w/removal, suspension +1 w/removal, suspension +2 w/removal, Total Ban.

 

In situations where the cheat is discovered by the uncovering of infallabe facts and evidence, punishment would be immediately harsher.

 

Basically its about perception and digestion.

 

Implementing this more stringent hardline approach to moderating members could be viewed as arbitrary and dictorial. But if in instances where controversy ensues and a team captain, after discussing the matter with his team, feels an injustice has occurred, he/she could bring the matter before this body. Sort of a structured appeal process whereby this body of team captains discuss the issue and formulate a final decision. Basically judged by a jury of his/her peers.

 

This is of course assuming that the Team Captains are reasonable people and could apply the question "Would a reasonable and experienced overclocker believe that based on the set of facts and circumstances that this member is cheating"

 

Basically, I was trying to accomplish a few things at once:

 

1- Find a balanced and reasonable approach to cheat deterrance.

2- Remove any perception that the membership is helpless to effect change.

3- Create more confidence that "Fair Play" exists in this online environment.

4- Create more "Buy In" from the teams and their captains. The more they feel a part of hwbot, the more likely they will endeavor to preserve the integrity of the bot.

 

Regarding the local offices and live events, when that comes to fruition it'll be great for the locals that have local offices. There are a few of us that don't have local offices.

 

I can see where empowering the people may prove a headache for business side of things but seeing as you sink or swim based on community involvement, it only makes sense to try and create that buy in and ensure confidence in it's Integrity.

[K404]

I think hwbot must not care about sharing of hardware between team members as long as each individual posts results obtained by himself (otherwise - score sharing -> 1 year ban)

After all, if a big manufacturer can sponsor* an person - why can't his teammate act as a sponsor* as well ?

 

*sponsoring defined as giving free hardware and expecting something (PR or hwboints) in return

 

 

At a group session, how can you tell the two apart? I disagree with your idea Sam, sorry. It would open the doors to hardware sharing and all it would take is a background switch between runs and its "all ok"

 

Whichever team has golden hardware XYZ and can get 10 guys in the same place at once will get an unfair advantage

[Leeghoofd]

So take a look at the ATI 4290 top 3 in 3Dmark 06, that's an incredible coincidence. All polish , all different teams, but same background & hardware being used, Take note on the time of two scores... not that much apart.

 

Define what's obtaining the score by yourself ? Pressing the start button for the benchmark on a preset setup ? That's an absolute no no to me...

 

It will have to be some sort of ID identification via the software so it's easier to analyse for the moderators... Pictures of the CPU batch and or GPU (serial nr etc) with an added note of the name of the bencher, bench date etc...

 

Darn this wil get complicated... I just want to beat Marc Beier's scores , that's all...

[TaPaKaH]

At a group session, how can you tell the two apart? I disagree with your idea Sam, sorry. It would open the doors to hardware sharing and all it would take is a background switch between runs and its "all ok"

in case of all other components being exactly the same the only way to prevent this from happening is to, as said, make SN software-visible (which, personally, I am against since I like to exploit RMA a lot)

 

but in case when other components are different - why not?

for example, if I sell/lend (you can't control the moneytransfers) a CPU to a teammember 1000km away, we both make scores on different rigs, we both submit to hwbot - it is ok.

if I sell/lend a CPU to my teammember during a groupsession (not that they happen very often in Latvia), we both make scores on different rigs, both submit to bot - this may cause us both to get banned.

where is the line?

 

that's why I suggest to allow sharing as long as the benching rigs are not exact identical

[Leeghoofd]

For 3D no GPU sharing, 2D no CPU sharing, think that's more than enough, otherwise with a golden CPU /GPU you will see your team in top 3 eg by just changing rams in the setup...or swapping a motherboard... Group benchsessions with the same hardware are really not a good idea for multiple submissions for the same hardware...

[TinTin@OCQQ]

Just want to share my opinion.

 

For Team benching session, practically, it is not easy or even impossible to distinguish any hardware sharing. They always own a lot of CPUs, GPUs...showing the receipt means nothing to us, invoice can be very easy to get if they are getting the hardwares from connected shops.

 

They tested and then use the self-binned CPU or GPU to play the game....how can we to prove there is any hardware sharing!?

 

I know, nothing is perfect! Just my little opinion!

[Antinomy]

You've just posted an obvious fact - where's the opinion? As to me an opinion is either a statement to be discussed or a suggestion on how to fix this. Don't see none of these. Or retelling the facts is it?

Don't judge this as offensive.