Hardware sharing- by people who should know better

[BenchZowner]

Since a processor affects the 3D benchmarks and not just the 2D benchmarks, I'd recommend to disallow hardware sharing totally.

[Antinomy]

Even fans and thermal grease? Total prohibition is unwise - ridiculous situations like PSU and other stuff. You want to change the disallowed list - make an opinion. But don't suggest to disallow just everything.

[BenchZowner]

CPU & VGA is what I meant.

[TaPaKaH]

situation1 - I've binned 100 cpus, found the best 10, kept one for myself, remaining nine were sold/gifted (as good sample) to my teammembers, they produce scores for the team on their own rig.

what then?

 

situation2 - I've binned 100 cpus, found the best one, benched it myself, when done, sold it to my teammember, he benches on his own rig, sells further etc...

what then?

 

of hardware sharing prohibition only applies for group benchsessions?

[knopflerbruce]

situation1 - I've binned 100 cpus, found the best 10, kept one for myself, remaining nine were sold/gifted (as good sample) to my teammembers, they produce scores for the team on their own rig.

what then?

 

situation2 - I've binned 100 cpus, found the best one, benched it myself, when done, sold it to my teammember, he benches on his own rig, sells further etc...

what then?

 

of hardware sharing prohibition only applies for group benchsessions?

 

The first case is obviously OK, as there are a total of 10 DIFFERENT CPUs.

 

2nd one... well, I posted earlier that I think there should be a time limit before a resale, 3 months... but that's not covered in the rules atm, that's strictly my opinion. If a dude benches it and seels it the next day and so on, then it's sharing even if there was money involved, as the whole process is about gaining as much team boints as possible out of that particular chip and not as much about selling it to get $$$ to buy other stuff, pay bills or whatever.

[TinTin@OCQQ]

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.

 

Sorry for my poor English.....I just want to say there is no clue.

[MaJ0r]

I agree with Sam OCX. Very slippery situation.

[Massman]

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.

 

I thought about this long and hard and ran it past Big Boss RB and I'm convinced it's time for a change in the way things are dealt with.

 

I'll send you a PM soon with some other questions.

[Kal-EL]

I thought about this long and hard and ran it past Big Boss RB and I'm convinced it's time for a change in the way things are dealt with.

 

I'll send you a PM soon with some other questions.

 

I'll book a restful stay at The Holiday Inn for some decent replies

[Massman]

Ok, not then

[xoqolatl]

So take a look at the ATI 4290 top 3 in 3Dmark 06, that's an incredible coincidence. All polish (..)

Indonesian, not Polish. The flags are similar, I know

[Kal-EL]

Ok, not then

 

I kid sometimes man so as to not seem like an uptight wench :celebration: