Hardware sharing, nostra culpa?

  • News, Editorials
  • 38
  • HWBOT

Author: Pieter-Jan Plaisier

Hardware sharing, nostra culpa?

Within the realms of the overclocking community the topic of hardware sharing has been the cause of many discussions lately. Some people point fingers to this website, hwbot.org, as being the root of all problems, especially regarding hardware sharing. Other people blame the users who are actively sharing hardware. The question is, however, not so much “why to blame”, but “how to solve”.

In this small editorial, we will go a little bit deeper into the topic of hardware sharing, trying to pinpoint the exact root of the issue and try to explain why certain suggested solutions don’t work and certain might work.

The beginning …

In the beginning, there was nothing. Then there was HWBOT. Then there were the HWBOINTS. Then … it all started.

Yes, that’s correct. The hardware sharing story begins with the very first revision of the HWBOINTS design, which was launched almost 4 years ago way back in 2006. On that November 3rd, RichBa5tard and Mtzki, the spiritual father of the HWBOINTS, launched a first attempt at what would become the world’s only overall ranking for overclockers. And whether or not you believe it’s justified, it would become something people care about.

The original design was, in terms of complexity, relatively easy compared to what it has become today. Only global and hardware points existed; only one user ranking and one team ranking. No split up between multi-core processors or video cards, no difficult hardware point caps. Along the way, while HWBOT was getting more and more popular, both the point algorithm as the user ranking algorithm has undergone significant changes. This, in most cases, to address very specific issues as well as to stay close to what overclocking rankings should and should not be. A small example is to split up the multi-core benchmarks based on core count.

The community rankings have not seen any of those major changes. Yes, the point algorithm for benchmark rankings have been updated which affected the team standings, but the actual team ranking still is build on the same principles as the very first league created four years ago. Herein lays the root of the hardware sharing problem.


(the very first HWBOINT rankings – click to enlarge)

<< Page 2 – The root of the hardware sharing problem. >>


38

Russian Federation Antinomy says:

Nice article!
http://hwbot.org/article/news/hardware_sharing_nostra_culpa_part_4

Maybe you just happen to buy a sample that has always been registered on HWBOT
I think it's "already" not "always" :)
It would be no representation of the team quality, but team quantity.
So it's not like this now?
http://hwbot.org/rankings/country/ - look at the first three places and tell me it's not about quantity :D Team points are counted the same way.
During my quest for the roots of the hardware sharing issue I realized that the overclocking community, or at least the part of it at HWBOT, publically speaks against sharing of resources. The foundations of overclocking, however, are in the online forums where people are sharing their findings and experiences with hardware in order to achieve better overclocking results.
Not even close to a paradox - helping "others to get higher" and "going higher instead of them and claiming it was done the first way" are two big defferences. HW sharing is close to score sharing. Though, when we go to sharing I-rams, memory and other stuff it becomes more complicated as it is still hw sharing but you are helping someone to get higher with his hw that it ranked.

United States Mr.Scott says:

Another key point in this discussion is whether or not users want to supply the serial numbers to a database like HWBOT. From a legal point of view, overclocking still is considered a violation of the warranty terms, which means that if Intel would have access to a database of samples that have been overclocked a lot more RMA requests would be denied. Since several people already consider HWBOT to be a ‘corporate bitch’, I can imagine that this would make things a lot worse, even if we wouldn’t be sharing the information at all.
This should be a non-issue. If you cook hardware via overclocking, you should eat it, not RMA it, otherwise it is considered fraud. I know you wouldn't want to promote that now, would you? As it is now, most respectable forums consider any discussion of RMA fraud taboo and a ban-able offense.

United States Gautam says:

c'mon masbo, the term youre searching for is "mea culpa" and without any question mark. :p

Greece zoro says:

For me it is totally different to give a CPU,RAM,VGA to someone else to try to OC it by him/her self, and another thing to give to other people the scores by your effort in order to increase team's score! The first is good the second is bad, i imagine that you are referring to the second case. BTW, nice work!

United States DrNip says:

Your scenarios can happen whether sharing is allowed or not. The score sharing has already happened without hardware sharing being allowed so don't make it seem like it can only happen if hardware sharing is allowed. To me and others it doesn't seem like a big deal but to you and others it does. My main reason for wanting hardware sharing to be legal is to shut people the fook up. All these allegations get old quick and kill the spirit of overclocking. They will never stop accusing either no matter how many revisions, diagrams, threads or post you make about it. But do what you want to HWBot. In the end it is up to us whether we chose to participate or not. Just whatever you do hurry up because all this talk about the same subject got old months ago. :D

United States Chuchnit says:

Massman you are obviously a very bright young man. I just think you tend to over analyze things and make them more complicated than they are. This could be due to your very young age. At times I also feel that you think you and hwbot know better than the users. If only we would just listen damnit!! This is just the impression I get sometimes and it very well could be due to the poor medium in which we communicate. There has to be some middle ground here. Without us userbase, hwbot would be nothing more than an unknown website just sitting hopelessly out on the internet. Without hwbot, us users would have no place to currently rank ourselves amongst other people benching like hardware.

Sometimes I think the staff has an introverted attitude. This meaning only thought is given to hwbot. This train of thought suggest that the users will just have to deal with whatever changes are made. The whole rev4 discussion thread is great proof of this. In that thread you and staff do anything from downright insulting the ideas of the users to completely ignoring some, and in the beginning pretty much saying like it or leave it. This is very insulting to the users. Not to mention very unprofessional. I have seen where one prominent member left hwbot after stating that we are not customers because we don't pay. I suggest you look at the business models of many successful internet business's who offer free services to the end user.

Something that hwbot doesn't grasp is that when the users are unhappy, they will leave in the long run. I also feel that it's taken for granted the lack of competition currently. Right now I am not aware of another start up site. This could change over the short or long run. It would be smart to hold the attitude that there already is competition and make this the best competition out there. Within my small network of overclockers, I don't know any that describe themselves as happy about the hwbot staff's attitude towards users nor the changes in rev4. You must remember that we all started overclocking and sharing results on forums before hwbot came along. This isn't a country where people are unlikely to move when pissed at the governing body. We freely choose where to go and what to do on the internet.

Like you stated in your article, there is no easy fix nor perfect format for hwbot to pick up. One problem I have is all this hw sharing discussion. You say yourself that it is almost impossible to prove. Yet you speak as if you know for certain the size or scope of the problem. This surprises me since you are generally a fact based individual. My feelings towards the hw sharing is much of it is people bitching because their ego burst when they get their arses handed to them by someone else or team. I know that sharing takes place, but what I don't know is the scope. Even you can't tell us that.

Let's look at my team for just a minute since I believe it is a good example. My team (OCAlliance) is a very very small forum and team relative to some on hwbot. Basically we are a team of like minded extreme overclockers. Most of us have type A personalities and want to gun for the gold in the global arena. We also have plenty of members who are fortunate to have enough disposable income to compete globally. Naturally with the limited competition in the CPU/GPU world, all of these guys have to buy the same models of hardware to compete; 980X & GTX480. What people don't know is we have members on 5th, 6th, and even 7th 980X and I don't know how many 480's and 5870's, but it is a lot. So basically because our members have the means to bin CPU's and GPU's we hw share because these guys all found good hardware? That's pretty much what your article is suggesting. I can assure you that's not the case.

I'm not going to go into the team points discussion basically because of time and this post is too long. I will give my thoughts on hw sharing. hwbot has two very distinct paths to take here. First is to keep coming up with rule upon rule to fix this unprovable hw sharing problem. In turn with each and every new rule hwbot will take more and more fun out of it for the honest community members who follow the rules. Second is to take a supply side approach. Just let everyone do it. Take the fun and incentive away from the actual hw sharers out there. Basically for some you take the "thrill" away for doing something wrong. For others you take the incentive away since everyone else can do it. Sure at first it will most likely be a free for all with some teams. I think even in the short run this will fade. People don't want do let other people kill their shit. Golden or not. Of course as you said, they may just pull a Yang and hand over .3dr files, but you can't tell if and when it's being done right now. I think that is a moot point.

That's all I have for now :)

United States Chuchnit says:

Shit I don't know which thread to put this in now so how about both. Massman you are obviously a very bright young man. I just think you tend to over analyze things and make them more complicated than they are. This could be due to your very young age. At times I also feel that you think you and hwbot know better than the users. If only we would just listen damnit!! This is just the impression I get sometimes and it very well could be due to the poor medium in which we communicate. There has to be some middle ground here. Without us userbase, hwbot would be nothing more than an unknown website just sitting hopelessly out on the internet. Without hwbot, us users would have no place to currently rank ourselves amongst other people benching like hardware. Sometimes I think the staff has an introverted attitude. This meaning only thought is given to hwbot. This train of thought suggest that the users will just have to deal with whatever changes are made. The whole rev4 discussion thread is great proof of this. In that thread you and staff do anything from downright insulting the ideas of the users to completely ignoring some, and in the beginning pretty much saying like it or leave it. This is very insulting to the users. Not to mention very unprofessional. I have seen where one prominent member left hwbot after stating that we are not customers because we don't pay. I suggest you look at the business models of many successful internet business's who offer free services to the end user. Something that hwbot doesn't grasp is that when the users are unhappy, they will leave in the long run. I also feel that it's taken for granted the lack of competition currently. Right now I am not aware of another start up site. This could change over the short or long run. It would be smart to hold the attitude that there already is competition and make this the best competition out there. Within my small network of overclockers, I don't know any that describe themselves as happy about the hwbot staff's attitude towards users nor the changes in rev4. You must remember that we all started overclocking and sharing results on forums before hwbot came along. This isn't a country where people are unlikely to move when pissed at the governing body. We freely choose where to go and what to do on the internet. Like you stated in your article, there is no easy fix nor perfect format for hwbot to pick up. One problem I have is all this hw sharing discussion. You say yourself that it is almost impossible to prove. Yet you speak as if you know for certain the size or scope of the problem. This surprises me since you are generally a fact based individual. My feelings towards the hw sharing is much of it is people bitching because their ego burst when they get their arses handed to them by someone else or team. I know that sharing takes place, but what I don't know is the scope. Even you can't tell us that. Let's look at my team for just a minute since I believe it is a good example. My team (OCAlliance) is a very very small forum and team relative to some on hwbot. Basically we are a team of like minded extreme overclockers. Most of us have type A personalities and want to gun for the gold in the global arena. We also have plenty of members who are fortunate to have enough disposable income to compete globally. Naturally with the limited competition in the CPU/GPU world, all of these guys have to buy the same models of hardware to compete; 980X & GTX480. What people don't know is we have members on 5th, 6th, and even 7th 980X and I don't know how many 480's and 5870's, but it is a lot. So basically because our members have the means to bin CPU's and GPU's we hw share because these guys all found good hardware? That's pretty much what your article is suggesting. I can assure you that's not the case. I'm not going to go into the team points discussion basically because of time and this post is too long. I will give my thoughts on hw sharing. hwbot has two very distinct paths to take here. First is to keep coming up with rule upon rule to fix this unprovable hw sharing problem. In turn with each and every new rule hwbot will take more and more fun out of it for the honest community members who follow the rules. Second is to take a supply side approach. Just let everyone do it. Take the fun and incentive away from the actual hw sharers out there. Basically for some you take the "thrill" away for doing something wrong. For others you take the incentive away since everyone else can do it. Sure at first it will most likely be a free for all with some teams. I think even in the short run this will fade. People don't want do let other people kill their shit. Golden or not. Of course as you said, they may just pull a Yang and hand over .3dr files, but you can't tell if and when it's being done right now. I think that is a moot point. That's all I have for now :)

says:

Very interesting read chuchnit. To recap what you have said - scrap hardware sharing as being illegal. I am correct in thinking that is your position? That stance certainly has merit and must be taken on board as a viable option for the future.

K404 says:

ASUS brought following things for the Extreme-Overclockers of AwardFabrik: 6x Intel Core i7 980X 15x ASUS GTX480 6x ASUS GTX470 6x ASUS GTX460 10x ASUS Rampage III Extreme From a recent thread... this is one reason I am 100% against hardware sharing being made legal. Nothing against AF (other than mild envy! :D) but support like this would royally screw with the rankings if everyone could submit everything supplied for a meet.

United States Chuchnit says:

Yes that is my position. Every time new rules are suggested to combat sharing the people who are effected most are the honest teams/members. Just look at the de- valuing of individuals in rev4. At least that was the case last I looked. Does that really hurt hw sharers or the honest users most?

says:

chuchnit said: Yes that is my position. Every time new rules are suggested to combat sharing the people who are effected most are the honest teams/members.


Sadly that is the case for all of legislated society.

Have you fleshed out what the consequences would be if hardware sharing was removed from the prohibited rules list? I think many of us would be very interested in reading different scenarios that could or might come about if hardware sharing was acceptable.

United States Splave.ROM says:

The hard facts here is that there is no way to quash hardware sharing so you are trying to make it less valuable of a thing to do...Problem is without doing away with team points completely it always will be valuable. Taking the top 10 scores from a team, say 3dmarkvantage you will have 35k 35k 35k 35k 35k 34.9k 34.9k 34.8k etc. Take the top 2 scores and sharing is still valuable. I was thinking maybe have the software used modded in a way for better verification. Then you have to update a profile with the monitor/HDD's/Mouse/keyboard/IP that you use and results must reflect your peripherals but that is flawed. Say I send a jpeg of just the result for aq3 to my buddy and then he opens it and paint pops up a cpuz and gpuz and boom validated. The answer is there is no answer. Allowing sharing is like everyone pooling there hardware for the best pieces anyways much like the idea of using the top 2 scores and or an average. IMO the problem is not hardware sharing, if you have the skill to ramp a good chip up to insane speeds I dont care who's it is you deserve credit for it. Score sharing is the issue.

Norway knopflerbruce says:

chuchnit said: Shit I don't know which thread to put this in now so how about both.

Massman you are obviously a very bright young man. I just think you tend to over analyze things and make them more complicated than they are. This could be due to your very young age. At times I also feel that you think you and hwbot know better than the users. If only we would just listen damnit!! This is just the impression I get sometimes and it very well could be due to the poor medium in which we communicate. There has to be some middle ground here. Without us userbase, hwbot would be nothing more than an unknown website just sitting hopelessly out on the internet. Without hwbot, us users would have no place to currently rank ourselves amongst other people benching like hardware.

Sometimes I think the staff has an introverted attitude. This meaning only thought is given to hwbot. This train of thought suggest that the users will just have to deal with whatever changes are made. The whole rev4 discussion thread is great proof of this. In that thread you and staff do anything from downright insulting the ideas of the users to completely ignoring some, and in the beginning pretty much saying like it or leave it. This is very insulting to the users. Not to mention very unprofessional. I have seen where one prominent member left hwbot after stating that we are not customers because we don't pay. I suggest you look at the business models of many successful internet business's who offer free services to the end user.

Something that hwbot doesn't grasp is that when the users are unhappy, they will leave in the long run. I also feel that it's taken for granted the lack of competition currently. Right now I am not aware of another start up site. This could change over the short or long run. It would be smart to hold the attitude that there already is competition and make this the best competition out there. Within my small network of overclockers, I don't know any that describe themselves as happy about the hwbot staff's attitude towards users nor the changes in rev4. You must remember that we all started overclocking and sharing results on forums before hwbot came along. This isn't a country where people are unlikely to move when pissed at the governing body. We freely choose where to go and what to do on the internet.

Like you stated in your article, there is no easy fix nor perfect format for hwbot to pick up. One problem I have is all this hw sharing discussion. You say yourself that it is almost impossible to prove. Yet you speak as if you know for certain the size or scope of the problem. This surprises me since you are generally a fact based individual. My feelings towards the hw sharing is much of it is people bitching because their ego burst when they get their arses handed to them by someone else or team. I know that sharing takes place, but what I don't know is the scope. Even you can't tell us that.

Let's look at my team for just a minute since I believe it is a good example. My team (OCAlliance) is a very very small forum and team relative to some on hwbot. Basically we are a team of like minded extreme overclockers. Most of us have type A personalities and want to gun for the gold in the global arena. We also have plenty of members who are fortunate to have enough disposable income to compete globally. Naturally with the limited competition in the CPU/GPU world, all of these guys have to buy the same models of hardware to compete; 980X & GTX480. What people don't know is we have members on 5th, 6th, and even 7th 980X and I don't know how many 480's and 5870's, but it is a lot. So basically because our members have the means to bin CPU's and GPU's we hw share because these guys all found good hardware? That's pretty much what your article is suggesting. I can assure you that's not the case.

I'm not going to go into the team points discussion basically because of time and this post is too long. I will give my thoughts on hw sharing. hwbot has two very distinct paths to take here. First is to keep coming up with rule upon rule to fix this unprovable hw sharing problem. In turn with each and every new rule hwbot will take more and more fun out of it for the honest community members who follow the rules. Second is to take a supply side approach. Just let everyone do it. Take the fun and incentive away from the actual hw sharers out there. Basically for some you take the "thrill" away for doing something wrong. For others you take the incentive away since everyone else can do it. Sure at first it will most likely be a free for all with some teams. I think even in the short run this will fade. People don't want do let other people kill their shit. Golden or not. Of course as you said, they may just pull a Yang and hand over .3dr files, but you can't tell if and when it's being done right now. I think that is a moot point.

That's all I have for now :)


I don't think the honest guys hate every new rule we make, as long as it gets harder and harder to cheat it only helps the honest guys.

As for allowing sharing, that shouldn't be an option. I'm sure those who can't afford to bin a sick amount of CPUs/GPUs won't like it, but what if whole team PURE would use Andre's setup(s) to bench? Rankings would get screwed... :o One guy finds a golden chip/vga and all of a sudden 30 folks get roughly the same scores. IMO it's better to look for a solution that's as good as possible (don't think there exist a bullet proof one here...) to reduce the sharing problem to a minimum.

K404 says:

Oh... another point... taking pictures of cards/ serial numbers won't help. It just proves someone owns a piece of hardware. Buy the cheapest same-model on Ebay for serial purposes but share the cherry one. Takes all the effort out of finding the right PCB or RAM pick :)

I wish I did have the answer... do you guys n gals think more people are sharing hardware as time passes because they think they'll get away with it? Everyone screws up eventually... a few high-profile catch-and-bans should put the fear into people :) What if... if someone is caught and banned, they lose all their points and when they are allowed back on HWB, they are banned from participating in ANY of the hardware classes they had previously submitted to? Seeing as I suspect most hardware sharers will target the high-value categories first, it should make a big impact.

Belgium Massman says:

chuchnit said: At times I also feel that you think you and hwbot know better than the users.


The feeling is mutual: sometimes I get the feeling end-users think they know better than staff. I sometimes get the feeling that I'm arguing against people who just 'want to win' (or: 'want to see you get beaten') rather than listen to rational and logical argumentation.

A good example would be Rev3, where in the 48h after the launch people were overly negative ("all is bad"), but after a few months I actually got PMs of people stating that it actually a lot better than Rev2. It just took time to fully understand the system and to learn how it works. In the HWBOT staff, however, I think no one had (explicit) doubts about the quality of rev3.

chuchnit said: Like you stated in your article, there is no easy fix nor perfect format for hwbot to pick up. One problem I have is all this hw sharing discussion. You say yourself that it is almost impossible to prove. Yet you speak as if you know for certain the size or scope of the problem. This surprises me since you are generally a fact based individual. My feelings towards the hw sharing is much of it is people bitching because their ego burst when they get their arses handed to them by someone else or team. I know that sharing takes place, but what I don't know is the scope. Even you can't tell us that.


I think it's safe to say that we have more acces to information regarding hardware sharing than you. Therefore, we can estimate the size of the problem better.

The problem is not only the actual sharing. It's also the perception of hardware sharing: people think others have an unfair advantage. Regardless whether this is true, people are convinced others are breaking the rules.

What bummed me out is that it's already affecting group gatherings. I was at the ASUS tech meeting last weekend and ASUS was providing some overclocking gear. The main concern was not to prohibit hardware sharing (since none of the people there would do it), but rather how to make sure other people wouldn't start to accuse them. I think this perfectly displayed the problem.

chuchnit said: So basically because our members have the means to bin CPU's and GPU's we hw share because these guys all found good hardware? That's pretty much what your article is suggesting. I can assure you that's not the case.


My article doesn't suggest ANYTHING like that.

I wrote about hardware sharing, not about teams or members.

chuchnit said: I'm not going to go into the team points discussion basically because of time and this post is too long. I will give my thoughts on hw sharing. hwbot has two very distinct paths to take here. First is to keep coming up with rule upon rule to fix this unprovable hw sharing problem. In turn with each and every new rule hwbot will take more and more fun out of it for the honest community members who follow the rules. Second is to take a supply side approach. Just let everyone do it. Take the fun and incentive away from the actual hw sharers out there. Basically for some you take the "thrill" away for doing something wrong. For others you take the incentive away since everyone else can do it. Sure at first it will most likely be a free for all with some teams. I think even in the short run this will fade. People don't want do let other people kill their shit. Golden or not. Of course as you said, they may just pull a Yang and hand over .3dr files, but you can't tell if and when it's being done right now. I think that is a moot point.


It's not a moot point, it in fact perfectly suits my argument: we need to address the root of the problem, not the effects of it.

I thought I explained it well enough in the article. But I'll do it again in the thread here.

When you make hardware sharing legal and don't change the team points algorithm, you create a competition where two big loopholes/problems are present: team quantity and score sharing.

Team quantity: since hardware sharing is perfectly legal, every single person of the team is allowed to use a single piece of hardware to use for benchmark results. The bigger your team, the more you can share, the more points you have ... the higher you're ranked. This will lead to the merging of even more teams, where possibly a team of 10k members will be on top.

Are they on top because of the team quality? No. They are because they're the biggest team. Our idea of an overclocking competition is to rank overclockers and teams by skill (as much as possible). Having a league that rewards size mostly goes completely against that.

Score sharing/double accounts: in theory, when hardware sharing is made legal, every single member of the team is allowed to post benchmark results with a certain hardware sample. A problem one member might be facing is that his team mates want him to share his golden CPU to make a lot of points, but he wants to make sure it doesn't get killed in the process. This might lead to score sharing, where the owner of the golden sample makes X amount of scores and hands them out to his team mates. When being asked, he just claims he sent the sample to his team mates.

The double account is something that comes from the team quantity ruling over team quality. Since more members equals more points (even more than now), it will become very important for teams to get more members. The problem is, however, that the amount of members is limited. This could lead to the creation of 'extra' members: one person makes 10 accounts, adds them to the team and 'shares' his hardware with them. With a bit of technique, you could make this double account thing undetectable.

Now, to QUOTE you again:

[Quote]Of course as you said, they may just pull a Yang and hand over .3dr files, but you can't tell if and when it's being done right now. I think that is a moot point.[/QUOTE]

It's not a moot point, because your suggestion features similar problems as we have today. This is what I consider a band-aid fix: you fix one of the apparent symptoms without considering the side-effects. Your 'solution' has problems just like the one we currently have ... so please explain how this is a solution. In the end, your suggestion will also need fixing. Fixing of the root of all problems.

Fyi, by switching the team algorithm to a system where you actually take into account the team's performance in direct competition with other teams (eg: 'powerteam') and reduce the 1:1 user-to-team point scaling, you also reduce the effect of score sharing. This effectively means that whereas your suggestion introduces a new problem, ours addresses an existing and a potential problem.

Belgium Massman says:

Splave said: IMO the problem is not hardware sharing, if you have the skill to ramp a good chip up to insane speeds I dont care who's it is you deserve credit for it. Score sharing is the issue.


Consider the following situation:

- hardware sharing is allowed
- 10 members of the team have a group session

Person 1 is setting everything up and benches one setup for 10h straight and gets very good results. 9 people are drinking 10h straight and are totally wasted. The next day, 10 people are submitting top-20 results and claim they have just shared hardware.

If you lose 10 ranks because of this team, are you satisfied with the 'hey, hardware sharing is legal'-argument?

Or does this effectively mean we have to disallow team sessions?

United States Splave.ROM says:

It could happen now, better yet it could be one guy benching for the 10 guys getting drunk and not even being together or they could be submitting for a contest with a monster valued prize.

has this not already happened or could be construed as happening by the bitter?

"In cooperation with ASUS brand has the most award 10/30/2010 a selected group of our best Bencher of hwbot team invited more points for the team to collect."
http://www.awardfabrik.de/awardfabrik/asus-awardfabrik-overclocking-event-30.10.2010.html

No offense to anyone there but im just saying as being an outsider to this event could I not feel like wow thats bs they are benching for boints with ASUS' Stuff not theirs?

Belgium Massman says:

Then why are you against the idea of addressing the root of the problem (team algorithm) and reduce the effect of hardware/score sharing?

K404 says:

Massman said: Then why are you against the idea of addressing the root of the problem (team algorithm) and reduce the effect of hardware/score sharing?


(not answering for Splave, personal opinion)

...because the sacrifice in team spirit and contributions from not-extreme guys is too great. IMHO, the balance of loss and gain isn't right

United States Splave.ROM says:

because all those guys worked hard to get scores am I right? Idk I wasnt there. Do they all not deserve to get points? Just because im jealous they should not? The way things are now, all of the 3d benchmarks (Except 03) really require a great cpu to get anywhere which is legal to share. Why not buy and SR2 as a team and 2 xeons and everyone mounts pots on their own 480's and they have a session where everyone takes a turn slipping their card into the slot and pressing start? AQ3 and 05 you can leave a gtx-480 on stock cooling and break top 10 with a good cpu for petesake. All of this is currently legal and is happening right now

Norway knopflerbruce says:

Massman said: The problem is not only the actual sharing. It's also the perception of hardware sharing: people think others have an unfair advantage. Regardless whether this is true, people are convinced others are breaking the rules.

What bummed me out is that it's already affecting group gatherings. I was at the ASUS tech meeting last weekend and ASUS was providing some overclocking gear. The main concern was not to prohibit hardware sharing (since none of the people there would do it), but rather how to make sure other people wouldn't start to accuse them. I think this perfectly displayed the problem.

(...)

Are they on top because of the team quality? No. They are because they're the biggest team. Our idea of an overclocking competition is to rank overclockers and teams by skill (as much as possible). Having a league that rewards size mostly goes completely against that.


The fact that people think sharing is happening when it's not is very true. Not sure how to change that way of thinking straight away, though... (except by solving the HW sharing issue completely)

We had the same sort of discussions in Detroit as you had at the ASUS event, how to bench without getting accused of HW sharing - even though everyone there brought a shitload of gear. Kinda annoying when people jump to conclusions all the time...

IMO there should be some sort of balance between quantity and quality in the teams league - you don't want the team with the largest amount of members to dominate the rank just because they're a large group of people, but on the other hand you don't want the team with the most top 20 benchers to rule the ranks "by default" either. It's the different approaches that make the team league very interesting, you can win by doing it both ways:) That part of the team ranking is pretty well balanced atm I think, you need a bit of both to be able to compete.

Belgium Massman says:

K404 said: ...because the sacrifice in team spirit and contributions from not-extreme guys is too great. IMHO, the balance of loss and gain isn't right


There will be a different dimension of 'team spirit'. As mentioned -somewhere- before: benching 'for the team' would not only be 'i get points, so you do too', but also 'look, my score managed to get the team in a better position'.

Now:
- "Look, I improved my R5750 Vantage rank from 20 to 15, giving the team 10 extra points

Then:
- "Look, I improved my R5750 Vantage rank from 20 to 15, giving myself another 10 extra points (so the team 5 extra). Also, now the team improved from 7th to 5th in the R5750 Vantage ranking, giving the team 10 extra points"

This 'balance' you talk about is just perception, not fact. If we'd add 10 more benchmarks that all get points, you'll see that 'the normal guy' can grab points for the team as easy as now.

Splave said: Do they all not deserve to get points? Just because im jealous they should not?


We are talking about TEAM points, not PERSONAL points.

EVERYONE GETS POINTS. EVERYONE.

The way the team points are calculated is just a bit different.

says:

This issue of hardware sharing is a big problem and the average bencher should have more say in the matter. This discussion is such a platform for the average bencher to step up and give voice to what they think. For all we know the majority of members registered with HWBOT, all 27262 of them, might not give a hoot if people share hardware. Or they might care very much.

Further I think we need to take this kind of discussion back to our home forums and workshop the issue there at a regional or local level. What is needed is a model that will encourage the growth of our sport and also foster the fraternal benifits of being part of a team. We might find that the kind of competition between teams as it is now - a global ongoing league - needs to be rethought and reworked. Who can say for sure, until we ask or speak about things ... it might be that people are happy with things as they are. Personally I am not I agree fully that we are due a change.

There are lots of people out there in overclocking land who have ideas and we need to hear those ideas. But ideas are best served well thought out and fleshed out with the mechanics of how to achieve them. It is not enough just to say we want a team league that is cheat free. That is what all of us want I think. The how to achieve that goal is what is needed here I think.

Lofty ideals are all good and well and should not be discarded - but pragmatic applied thought of how to achieve those goals is what is needed here.

United States Splave.ROM says:

Massman said: There will be a different dimension of 'team spirit'. As mentioned -somewhere- before: benching 'for the team' would not only be 'i get points, so you do too', but also 'look, my score managed to get the team in a better position'.

Now:
- "Look, I improved my R5750 Vantage rank from 20 to 15, giving the team 10 extra points

Then:
- "Look, I improved my R5750 Vantage rank from 20 to 15, giving myself another 10 extra points (so the team 5 extra). Also, now the team improved from 7th to 5th in the R5750 Vantage ranking, giving the team 10 extra points"

This 'balance' you talk about is just perception, not fact. If we'd add 10 more benchmarks that all get points, you'll see that 'the normal guy' can grab points for the team as easy as now.



We are talking about TEAM points, not PERSONAL points.

EVERYONE GETS POINTS. EVERYONE.

The way the team points are calculated is just a bit different.

Personal points ARE team points but team points are not personal points.

Belgium Massman says:

Splave said: Personal points ARE team points but team points are not personal points.


In suggestion:

- personal points = personal points
- 'powerteam' points = team points

These are equivalent: they are the same concept but applied in two ways. The personal points are awarded based on hardware and benchmark rankings where results are grouped per user_id (= best of user gets points), the 'powerteam' points are awarded based on hardware and benchmark rankings where results are grouped per team_id (= best of team gets points).

In the most pure form:

- user rankings = SUM(personal points)
- team rankings = SUM('powerteam' points)

But we need to change form to make a more enjoyable/fair league:

- user rankings: global points, hardware points, caps, etc
- team rankings: add part with individual contribution

The user equivalent of the current teams league would be a system where EVERY single submission gets full points. Eg: I have Vantage WR + 100 backups -> I have 101 scores with global points. I hope you get that this is not 'okay'.

K404 says:

Massman said: There will be a different dimension of 'team spirit'. As mentioned -somewhere- before: benching 'for the team' would not only be 'i get points, so you do too', but also 'look, my score managed to get the team in a better position'.

Now:
- "Look, I improved my R5750 Vantage rank from 20 to 15, giving the team 10 extra points

Then:
- "Look, I improved my R5750 Vantage rank from 20 to 15, giving myself another 10 extra points (so the team 5 extra). Also, now the team improved from 7th to 5th in the R5750 Vantage ranking, giving the team 10 extra points"



How does that fit in with the "best score only" counts towards the team?


A bencher needs to beat the existing best (team) score for a category in order to help the team, don't they? For 90% of guys in a team, that probably wont happen...and they'll know that trying is a waste of time and cooling and a risk to the card. (or CPU)


This might be off-topic anyway... sorry for the diversion :)



If sharing hardware can still increase a users personal points total (hardware masters league or overclockers league,) then the plan for the team league will make pretty much 0 difference. HML and OC-L plays a massive part in sponsorship. Being part of a successful team doesn't have to mean anything. Having a good personal rank somewhere DOES.

Do you really think hardware sharers are so altruistic that they're risking everything just "for the team?" For most teams, hardware sharing would have to be on a massive scale to make a difference to team ranking.. and for all cases, I think that relative to the size of the team the effort will always be massive....

Hardware sharing is for the indivdual benefit first.

(e.g.... small team, no well-known LN2 benchers, sharing enough to make a big difference would be a big effort for them, because big points hauls aren't daily events for them

large team, well-known guys... changing the team ranking at the top would take a big effort because theres more points needed)

I am 100% certain that is fact.

United Kingdom El Gappo says:

Some of the most obvious hardware sharing I've seen going on is with members from different teams. Cheaters are generally selfish and are in it for their own gains, not to better the teams standing. Still think you are barking up the wrong tree. ________ What is iolite vaporizer

Belgium Massman says:

K404 said: How does that fit in with the "best score only" counts towards the team?


It fits in the most pure form of the powerteam concept. It doesn't in the new concept where team points are a combination of 'best scores' and 'all scores', where 'best scores' have more weight than 'all scores'.

K404 said: A bencher needs to beat the existing best (team) score for a category in order to help the team, don't they? For 90% of guys in a team, that probably wont happen...and they'll know that trying is a waste of time and cooling and a risk to the card. (or CPU)


No, you can help the team by submitting benchmark results. It's just that you will no longer be contributing 1:1 user-to-team points: the relative weight of 1 user point will be less in terms of team points.

Also, as mentioned before: there are over 20k benchmark rankings currently. With each new generation of hardware and each new benchmark, this expands even more. I find it hard to believe that 3 members of one team can provide the 'best score' in those 20k (in the future 100k+) rankings :rolleyes:

K404 says:

I think I just changed my opinion ***a little*** .....let the "smaller guys" work on the smaller categories until they're ready to take on bigger things? I suppose in some sense thats the way it "should be" but i'd still be much happier if they didn't feel cornered into doing that. :( The popular hardware will, in some ways, be out of bounds for them because they cant do anything with it. I'd never want to say to someone "no, you cant play with the 8800GT... have the 8600GT DDR2 instead" :p

United States Chuchnit says:

K404 said: ASUS brought following things for the Extreme-Overclockers of AwardFabrik:

6x Intel Core i7 980X
15x ASUS GTX480
6x ASUS GTX470
6x ASUS GTX460
10x ASUS Rampage III Extreme



From a recent thread... this is one reason I am 100% against hardware sharing being made legal. Nothing against AF (other than mild envy! :D) but support like this would royally

screw with the rankings if everyone could submit everything supplied for a meet.


Kenny I had a teammate ask me about this very event last week. Personally I don't have a problem with it. Yes there are reasons to be jealous and whatnot, but I see that event

as an attempt at growing this hobby. Anytime that happens I can't get upset. :)


1Day said: Sadly that is the case for all of legislated society.

Have you fleshed out what the consequences would be if hardware sharing was removed from the prohibited rules list? I think many of us would be very interested in reading

different scenarios that could or might come about if hardware sharing was acceptable.


That is true about legislated society, but this isn't a society like a country. In a nation if you don't like the governance you either deal with it or move. Moving isn't so easy because of cost, leaving all of your life behind and leaving family. This is the internet. All of us are just one click away from leaving if we as a community don't like the rules.

Well there would be a few consequences I can think of. I think it would hit in phases. At first, you will see massive amounts of sharing just because you can. It would definitely shake up the team rankings. Then I think it would taper off to a "normal" level. That normality is what I don't know. There is one more thing to this though. We all talk as if this will just be totally accepted. I think normal will be found when you throw respect into the mix. Respect is a very big thing in the community. This is where it gets complicated, but I think maintaining respect will keep hw sharing somewhat in check.


The other thing is not many teams have members who live close. Therefore sharing requires not only letting someone thrash your golden gear, but you also got to throw in shipping cost.


knopflerbruce said: I don't think the honest guys hate every new rule we make, as long as it gets harder and harder to cheat it only helps the honest guys.

As for allowing sharing, that shouldn't be an option. I'm sure those who can't afford to bin a sick amount of CPUs/GPUs won't like it, but what if whole team PURE would use

Andre's setup(s) to bench? Rankings would get screwed... :o One guy finds a golden chip/vga and all of a sudden 30 folks get roughly the same scores. IMO it's better to look for

a solution that's as good as possible (don't think there exist a bullet proof one here...) to reduce the sharing problem to a minimum.


Honest guys don't hate every rule hwbot throws out. Yes most of us are resistant to change. We also get way too hot headed about the issues at times. hwbot moderators really do take a beating verbally at times.

When there is an idea that limits the extent in which cheating takes place while NOT devaluing ANY teammates, I will support that rule 100%. The inherent problem exist in the fact that there is no such thing as absolute fairness in this game. Benching competitively, at the upper levels, take substantial monetary investment. Just as life isn't fair, we all have different income levels and expenses.


Just like with rev3, for the first bit, we took away the punch of multi-gpu setups. That was somewhat corrected with the WR bonus. The point is that is was deemed as a way to "level the playing field". That wasn't fair to all the guys who spent thousands on gear in rev2 on multi-gpu setups. Now I will say that I don't 100% dislike rev3 because I do like it for the most part. It made single card benching exciting and fun. I just don't like seeing people being punished because they have the financial ability to play with top end setups. Its all a bit to socaialistic for my taste. Pretty much the initial rev3 was like "since we all can't afford 4-way xfire/SLI rigs then we should just make that category obsolete." I know that is generalizing it a great deal but that describes it pretty well.


Massman said: The feeling is mutual: sometimes I get the feeling end-users think they know better than staff. I sometimes get the feeling that I'm arguing against people

who just 'want to win' (or: 'want to see you get beaten') rather than listen to rational and logical argumentation.

A good example would be Rev3, where in the 48h after the launch people were overly negative ("all is bad"), but after a few months I actually got PMs of people stating that it

actually a lot better than Rev2. It just took time to fully understand the system and to learn how it works. In the HWBOT staff, however, I think no one had (explicit) doubts

about the quality of rev3.


Massman let me start by saying I at times criticized you too much. Some of my teammates met you in person and vouched over and over that you are totally different than percieved at times on the internet. I think translation and the poor medium in which we communicate cause this.

You are correct. End users including myself feel we know more than you at times. Well I don't really think I know more than you, I just have very strong convictions about my ideas. Just as you do. ;) That being said, welcome to the wonderful world of leadership. The wonderful world where you have to listen to everybodies complaints and all of your ideas doesn't make sense. I know its hard trying to listen to everyone's opinion respectfully while giving yours. You got to wear many hats while thinking about the mood of the ommunity. Maybe a little more transpearancy would help? I mean we start getting in these long out conversations like every week it seems. My feelings is it would probably be best to hold out on announcements of new revisions until you can show us how it affects the database. I also realize with the resources hwbot has that it is almost impossible.



[QUOTE=Massman]I think it's safe to say that we have more acces to information regarding hardware sharing than you. Therefore, we can estimate the size of the problem better.

The problem is not only the actual sharing. It's also the perception of hardware sharing: people think others have an unfair advantage. Regardless whether this is true,

people are convinced others are breaking the rules.

What bummed me out is that it's already affecting group gatherings. I was at the ASUS tech meeting last weekend and ASUS was providing some overclocking gear. The main concern

was not to prohibit hardware sharing (since none of the people there would do it), but rather how to make sure other people wouldn't start to accuse them. I think this perfectly

displayed the problem.[/QUOTE]


I think it is safe to say that you do have more access to information than me. Plus the time to look at it. :) I for one made a little spreadsheet of a team's 32m submissions. When the data was in front of me sharing seemed quite obvious, but it could never be proven. Plus I am not one to go crying foul over stuff like that. hwbot is still very reluctant to hand out harsh punishments over hw sharing rules violations for the very reason of difficulty to provide solid proof. I feel that gives credibility to my arguement.

Let me say something to expand on this but understand I am not putting words in your mouth. If hwbot is reluctant to issue bans for sharing because of difficulty in providing concrete proof, doesn't that show that the size and scope in which hwbot staff percieves hw sharing taking place is nothing more than perception?

The perception is a big problem. Many guys on here tend to pump out a couple good scores and let their heads swell. Then when they are beaten by someone they cry foul because there is just no way they can be beaten. Teams get this attitude too. By eliminating the hw sharing rule what do they have to bitch about? I would say people need to quit crying, but that will never happen.



[QUOTE=Massman]My article doesn't suggest ANYTHING like that.

I wrote about hardware sharing, not about teams or members.[/QUOTE]

You are right. You didn't say anything like that and I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. What I was trying to say is that some people have accused our team of being cheaters by perception for the very reasons I described in that post.



[QUOTE=Massman]It's not a moot point, it in fact perfectly suits my argument: we need to address the root of the problem, not the effects of it.

I thought I explained it well enough in the article. But I'll do it again in the thread here.

When you make hardware sharing legal and don't change the team points algorithm, you create a competition where two big loopholes/problems are present: team quantity and score

sharing.

Team quantity: since hardware sharing is perfectly legal, every single person of the team is allowed to use a single piece of hardware to use for benchmark results. The

bigger your team, the more you can share, the more points you have ... the higher you're ranked. This will lead to the merging of even more teams, where possibly a team of 10k

members will be on top.

Are they on top because of the team quality? No. They are because they're the biggest team. Our idea of an overclocking competition is to rank overclockers and teams by skill

(as much as possible). Having a league that rewards size mostly goes completely against that.

Score sharing/double accounts: in theory, when hardware sharing is made legal, every single member of the team is allowed to post benchmark results with a certain

hardware sample. A problem one member might be facing is that his team mates want him to share his golden CPU to make a lot of points, but he wants to make sure it doesn't get

killed in the process. This might lead to score sharing, where the owner of the golden sample makes X amount of scores and hands them out to his team mates. When being asked, he

just claims he sent the sample to his team mates.

The double account is something that comes from the team quantity ruling over team quality. Since more members equals more points (even more than now), it will become very

important for teams to get more members. The problem is, however, that the amount of members is limited. This could lead to the creation of 'extra' members: one person makes 10

accounts, adds them to the team and 'shares' his hardware with them. With a bit of technique, you could make this double account thing undetectable.[/QUOTE]

First let me address your team arguement. You talk as if hwbot can regulate the "allowed size" of teams either directly or indirectly through algorythms. Like I said before I think hwbot as a company should operate as if there were already competition. Teams are like they are today for a mulititude of reasons. Some teams are the size they are only because it is a team of friends. Others are their size because people join due to forum loyalty. Others are huge due to strategic reasoning. All of these teams are like they are because of free choice. If you essentially take that choice away, do you think your customers (user base) will be happy with that? Plus the solution to this seems to indirectly limit the size of teams through the algorythm, making some members less important if important at all. I can assure you without any doubt that this move will severly cripple the amount of active users. Most hwbot participants are casual users. They enjoy benching from time to time and gaining a point here or there. Many of these guys/gals soley do it for the team aspect. Other just can't afford anything other than old hw that only nets hw boints.

So let me make this clear. I am open to any idea out there, but when one is implemented that tells any of my teammates that their hard work doesn't matter for the team, I will leave hwbot. I know I am not important here, but I will be one less participant here. I will simply go back to overclocking and posting on forums. When there is an idea that values ALL teammates, then I am open to almost anything.

Sorry Massman. I don't mean to sound arogant, but I think the double account thing is overblown. First, who on earth is going to have fun with that? Second, no one is going to respect that individual or team who plays those games. Peer pressure is a bitch and I just don't see that being a "big" problem. I am happy to listen to your opinion though. :)





[QUOTE=Massman]It's not a moot point, because your suggestion features similar problems as we have today. This is what I consider a band-aid fix: you fix one of the apparent symptoms without

considering the side-effects. Your 'solution' has problems just like the one we currently have ... so please explain how this is a solution. In the end, your suggestion will

also need fixing. Fixing of the root of all problems.

Fyi, by switching the team algorithm to a system where you actually take into account the team's performance in direct competition with other teams (eg: 'powerteam') and reduce

the 1:1 user-to-team point scaling, you also reduce the effect of score sharing. This effectively means that whereas your suggestion introduces a new problem, ours

addresses an existing and a potential problem.[/QUOTE]

One problem is hwbot is trying to regulate what you bench, how big the teams are, and making everything fair. People don't want this much reglation. Even you yourself said in some other thread (rev4 thread I think), that hwbot wants to basically "make" teams diversify what hardware you bench. I think your example was to buy 8600gt instead of 8800GTS. The means to accomplish this is the "highest ranking within the team" concept. Without getting overly political, this site is starting to look more and more like some of the socialistic countries in the world by regulating everything and making it "fair". Just remember the internet is still an unregulated society and people wnat their free choice. Listen to the users please!


In ending, I do not envy any of the staff's job. I do have tons of respect for you guys for soley the amount of shit you have to put up with like me. :p I am open minded though and enjoy a respectful debate. Hopefully I have done nothing more than spark some more discussion rather than anger.

Belgium HybridChiller says:

wow long text

Belgium Massman says:

chuchnit said: That is true about legislated society, but this isn't a society like a country. In a nation if you don't like the governance you either deal with it or move. Moving isn't so easy because of cost, leaving all of your life behind and leaving family. This is the internet. All of us are just one click away from leaving if we as a community don't like the rules.


I agree that the internet is different from real-life politics.

The way you describe it, however, comes across as if you see this (or anything on the internet for that matter) as a good opportunity to 'blackmail' HWBOT into making decisions they don't like. Since you are stating you're just one clock away from leaving, we (HWBOT) should make sure you (the community) likes everything we do. If not, we risk to lose it all.

The problem here is that we have no intention of bending over backwards to please everyone. First and foremost, because we simply can't please everyone. In second instance, because we also have our own vision of HWBOT and how it should function. It doesn't mean that we don't listen to opinions, it means that we will move forward in a direction that we believe is the right one. There's some room to wiggle, but not so much that we'd make a U-turn just to make (some) people happy.

As for me personally: I have no spend so much time on this project just so I can make people happy :). I have my own (strong) vision and my main goal is to achieve what I think HWBOT should evolve into on a long term. Again, this vision is not static and may change over time, depending on input from other people. Also, there are still other people around here that can kick my where it hurts if I'm going completely off track ... and believe me: that happens.

chuchnit said: Well there would be a few consequences I can think of. I think it would hit in phases. At first, you will see massive amounts of sharing just because you can. It would definitely shake up the team rankings. Then I think it would taper off to a "normal" level. That normality is what I don't know. There is one more thing to this though. We all talk as if this will just be totally accepted. I think normal will be found when you throw respect into the mix. Respect is a very big thing in the community. This is where it gets complicated, but I think maintaining respect will keep hw sharing somewhat in check.


If there's one thing I've learned in my X-years of HWBOT it's that people will go the extra mile to have a good rank. Be it spending another $100 on LN2 to test the CPU one more time, be it figuring out how to gain the most points using the least financial input. In most cases even 'cheating' starts off with the good intention to help the team, but can result breaking the rules and trying to debate having cheated 'till the last minute.

In practical terms, this means that I'm quite confident that score sharing or double accounts will appear once a system has settled down (which mostly happens at the end of a HW generation). Hardware sharing came up a few years ago, but it's only since a few months the complaints and accusations have gone up significantly.

Respect is a wonderful thing, but not useful as criterium on the internet. I see it as HWBOT's job to help people to show respect towards each other both directly as indirectly. Directly would, for instance, be by being the middle man in disputes, or openly congratulating an overclocker on an achievement. Indirectly would be by adjusting algorithms.

chuchnit said: The other thing is not many teams have members who live close. Therefore sharing requires not only letting someone thrash your golden gear, but you also got to throw in shipping cost.


That's more of an obstacle than a real showstopper. As mentioned before, there are ways around having to ship/share hardware and still make it look like you share. These ways are equivalent to the current ways to share hardware and make it look like you're benching two different samples.

chuchnit said: When there is an idea that limits the extent in which cheating takes place while NOT devaluing ANY teammates, I will support that rule 100%. The inherent problem exist in the fact that there is no such thing as absolute fairness in this game. Benching competitively, at the upper levels, take substantial monetary investment. Just as life isn't fair, we all have different income levels and expenses.

Just like with rev3, for the first bit, we took away the punch of multi-gpu setups. That was somewhat corrected with the WR bonus. The point is that is was deemed as a way to "level the playing field". That wasn't fair to all the guys who spent thousands on gear in rev2 on multi-gpu setups. Now I will say that I don't 100% dislike rev3 because I do like it for the most part. It made single card benching exciting and fun. I just don't like seeing people being punished because they have the financial ability to play with top end setups. Its all a bit to socaialistic for my taste. Pretty much the initial rev3 was like "since we all can't afford 4-way xfire/SLI rigs then we should just make that category obsolete." I know that is generalizing it a great deal but that describes it pretty well.


I have the feeling you're looking at this subject from a very 'western' point of view. Let's turn the situation upside down.

Since we can never achieve full fairness, why make a system that 'the rich' people benefit from? We might as well go for a system where the overclocker who can only purchase a Pentium 3 CPU and overclock only on air cooling can compete with an overclocker who buys 20 980X and spends a couple of thousands of dollars on liquid nitrogen. We should financial possibilities be the criterium to define level of fairness? You have to take into account that HWBOT is not just here for the 'rich' countries, but also for those where it's uncommon for people to buy multi-thousand dollar systems for daily usage or playing games. Although I can understand the logic behind disliking a 'socialistic' system where we try to get as much people to overclock, I don't fully understand why the logic is 'more' legit than not trying to favour the wealthy people.

Please don't see this as a personal attack. What I'm trying to explain is that there's more than just the extremely expensive stuff out there and also a community that only resorts to that kind of hardware. That's also a community we have to take into account.

chuchnit said: Massman let me start by saying I at times criticized you too much. Some of my teammates met you in person and vouched over and over that you are totally different than percieved at times on the internet. I think translation and the poor medium in which we communicate cause this.


As said before, the main reason why I'm on this project is because I have a vision for it. My main goal is not to get as much people as possible to like me. I'm actually aware that I come across as an ass on the internet sometimes ... not always intentionally, but in most cases I'm just trying to be as clear as possible about my point of view.

chuchnit said: Let me say something to expand on this but understand I am not putting words in your mouth. If hwbot is reluctant to issue bans for sharing because of difficulty in providing concrete proof, doesn't that show that the size and scope in which hwbot staff percieves hw sharing taking place is nothing more than perception?

The perception is a big problem. Many guys on here tend to pump out a couple good scores and let their heads swell. Then when they are beaten by someone they cry foul because there is just no way they can be beaten. Teams get this attitude too. By eliminating the hw sharing rule what do they have to bitch about? I would say people need to quit crying, but that will never happen.


The reason why we don't hand out harsh bans is quite simple: we can hardly ever prove whether it was intentional foul play or just by accident.

You are actually in quite a good situation to understand this problem. As you mentioned before, your team has been the target of accusations already. Assuming you indeed don't break any rules, it would be impossible for you to accept a team ban based on accusations. If we'd be very strict, we'd be 'unprofessional' for banning without solid proof.

The keyword is indeed perception and the problem is that perception of foul play is a very flexible given. For instance, when hardware sharing is legal, there will be the perception of double accounts. There will be the perception of score sharing. The only way to really address the perception is by making changes to the foundation to either make sure things are absolutely clear OR people worry less about specific rules.

Many of the accusations do not go further than PM or MSN conversations, by the way. I suspect that many of the accusations are not even talked about explicitly.

chuchnit said: So let me make this clear. I am open to any idea out there, but when one is implemented that tells any of my teammates that their hard work doesn't matter for the team, I will leave hwbot. I know I am not important here, but I will be one less participant here. I will simply go back to overclocking and posting on forums. When there is an idea that values ALL teammates, then I am open to almost anything.


Can I play the devil's advocate here?

In the above paragraph, you seem to say that you want a system that values every single member. However, a few paragraphs back, you already state that the current system is too socialistic for your taste, referring to our actions to make the system 'nicer' for everyone. It must be 'more fair' for your team members, but 'not as fair' for everyone else?

I know you accept the fact that a system will always be unfair. Do you also accept that a system might be unfair to you or your team? In other words: will you accept a change that benefits 90% of the other teams and disbenefits your team?

About the Rev4: the original suggestion was not good as it completely devaluated a lot of member input to 0. The alternative (in the team thread, alternative 3 I believe) suggested many times now is a combination of the two: the team's ranking will not only be determined by the input of all members, but also by how the team stands against other teams in HW/BM specific rankings.

Do note that this is more of a debate on absolute and relative values. Think about the following situation: a team has 20 points and two members with each 10 points. This means that the 'value' of each member is 50%. When another member joins and contributes 20 points to the team, the relative value of the former two members to the team decreases from 50% each to 25% each.

If you'd be one of those two members, would you see this as 'a decrease in value'?

Think about the following situation: the team mentioned above now has 40 points. HWBOT changes the team algoritm and divides the team point total by 10. In practical terms, this means that although the team point total is now 4, the team ranking is still the same (all teams lose the same amount). Also, it means that the two original members are still each contributing 25% of the team points.

Are these two members now 'less valuable' to the team? No, they are worth exactly the same as before. Will you perceive it as less valuable ... probably yes.

The two situations described above are just about juggling with numbers. If I would have been a real bastard, I would have introduced this system as one where 'powerteam' points are just added to the current team points and would not have spoken about the balance between powerteam and user points. I should probably regret trying to explain the fine details of this system and using the words 'reducing effect of' ... just trying to be up front about a new system that I, honestly, believe is the best possible solution currently on the table.

chuchnit said: One problem is hwbot is trying to regulate what you bench, how big the teams are, and making everything fair. People don't want this much reglation. Even you yourself said in some other thread (rev4 thread I think), that hwbot wants to basically "make" teams diversify what hardware you bench. I think your example was to buy 8600gt instead of 8800GTS. The means to accomplish this is the "highest ranking within the team" concept. Without getting overly political, this site is starting to look more and more like some of the socialistic countries in the world by regulating everything and making it "fair". Just remember the internet is still an unregulated society and people wnat their free choice. Listen to the users please!


Our main goal is not to regulate what you bench.

When designing new algoritms, we actually start the other way around. First thing we do is analyze the problems we're facing. Then, we write down the main principles we want our OC leagues to stand for (eg: must be ranking members/teams by skill as much as possible). Then, we try to align solutions for the existing problems along the axis that our principles form. In most cases, we come up with a number of solutions and then we look at the complexity (less = good) and technical difficulty. In the end, we have an algoritm that we believe is what competitive overclocking should be about. From that point, we can start to analyze the suggestion and start looking for loopholes than can be exploited. If we find a few, it's back to square one ('we have some problems'). The end result is compromise on a lot of levels.

Within a system, we don't really 'care' about what people bench specificly (8600GT, R9800 Pro or FX5700). One of the principles is, however, that a member or team should display its skill in more than just one ranking. To give an example, when discussing MOA and GOOC live finals, our input was mainly to spread the event over several days and make overclockers have to overclock not only X58, but also AMD, maybe also P55 etc. This, because it fits the idea of 'the more skilled an overclocker you are, but more platforms you can handle'. This concept actually comes forward from another problem: the so-called 'lucky' live competition winners, where someone with a good CPU or good VGA wins the competition 'only' because that good sample. The more variety of platforms you kick ass at, the more unlikely it is that you 'won' because of lucky hardware.

So, the end result of principles can be that we want to encourage people to overclock (= have fun with) more than just the 980X and GTX480 (or any high-end gear). A system that rewards people for playing with less high-end gear is, by effect, also beneficial for the less wealthy overclockers. Apparently it's also, by effect, socialistic.

Just a question: does 'listen to the users' mean 'take their opinion into account' or 'do whatever they ask for'? We certainly listen; we don't always just do whatever is asked for.

(the end - sorry for any spelling or grammar errors ... it's too late here)

United States Chuchnit says:

First let me say thank you very much for taking the time to respond to me in such detail both times. :)

I will concede that you do make some very good points. In some ways I think we are closer to each other in ideas than my words lead us to believe. Now let me address a couple of areas of your post.

1. I'm not saying the user's can blackmail you. I will say that you guys SHOULD have a vision and SHOULD listen to the community. I think you guys do a good job at that on many things, but us users only bitch about the stuff we don't like. The challenge for you guys is to find a balance between your ideals and what the users want. In the end you guys will make final decisions and the users will decide if they want to play. That's not blackmail; just free choice. So far in hwbot's history you have managed to find a pretty good balance.


2. Regarding fairness you make some very very good arguments. I don't want hwbot to punish or reward rich or poor. Maybe rev2 was a little too much for the rich people. Maybe rev3 takes too much of their importance away? WR bonus points almost fixed that problem though. Kudos for that. Personally I would LOVE to see a hybrid between rev2 and 3. I am from a wealthy country yet I am not a wealthy individual. I think you bring up a brilliant point about less fortunate countries because my view is only of my country. Nice global awareness. :)

3. Regarding where it looks like you say that I contradicted myself. No matter how objective I try to be, I will always look through the eyes of a team OCA member so that will inherently effect my view a little. To answer part of that, I hated rev3 when it came out. The funny thing is that it gave me way way way more points than rev2. I was pissed that I had passed guys in points that honestly put more money, time and effort into their profile than me. I was just lucky in the hw I happened to purchase and bench before rev3 came along. In the end I do want a system that is as fair as possible to the largest population of membership. That includes if it sets our team back in the rankings and we have to change strategy.

[QUOTE=Massman]Just a question: does 'listen to the users' mean 'take their opinion into account' or 'do whatever they ask for'? We certainly listen; we don't always just do whatever is asked for.[/QUOTE]

That means take their opinion into account. ;) Like I said to Steponz earlier, I do not want your job. Either way you go I don't think you win 100%. On top of that, there is no silver bullet to make a perfect system. You guys truly are dealing with a very difficult task here no matter the path you choose.


I want to thank you again for responding to me in such detail. I know that took a little while of your time. I am more than happy to respectfully agree to disagree. Even though I don't agree with all of hwbot's views, you have really thoroughly laid out your thoughts and I respect that. I think I have laid out all I have to say on the matter too. I am one man with my set of thoughts. That's all. Thanks again.

Greece zoro says:

Please, whatever you do at the end don't kill the fun! I see a lot of brain power been lost here due to some "bad" guys! I am soooooo tired :)

United States chew* says:

chuchnit said: My feelings towards the hw sharing is much of it is people bitching because their ego burst when they get their arses handed to them by someone else or team.

We also have plenty of members who are fortunate to have enough disposable income to compete globally.

What people don't know is we have members on 5th, 6th, and even 7th 980X and I don't know how many 480's and 5870's, but it is a lot.



Intersting post chuchnit.

I highlighted some things i found to have some IRONY.

I lack the ability to understand how that is handing people there asses if it takes as much hardware as you posted.

Seems to me the only people getting there asses handed to them is the people forking over the dough for some points that don't matter one bit in the "real world"

Intel and nvidia and ATI are the ones that seem to be rolling, owning and handing people there asses.

What ever happened to getting one or 2 cpu's and just making the best you can out of it by fine tuning the system?

United States DrNip says:

Stop the madness.

Australia fatguy1992 says:

I really don't understand the big deal about people sharing hardware, I really don't care as long as the people both only submit results that they have achieved by themselves. In the end this is only a hobby/pastime, don't take it so seriously. If like me you don't like it anymore, then find something else to do. Simple really.

Belgium Massman says:

Read the section "why is it a logical necessity".

Please log in or register to comment.