# Issues with BLD events, OH and credibility of whole databse [DISCUSSION]



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Jan 7, 2019)

I read WCA regulations over and over again and this is something I need to speak about. There are so many issues with all BLD events and OH that we should do something about this.

So, as you know the regulations doesn not always make sense. For example in the past literally nobody would think that introducing 3BLD means is a good idea. People were confident with just single being recognized, so they can push their attempts as fast as possible to get a golden medal or to set a new record. At the time they made the thing official, people argued that the same thing should be done with 4BLD and 5BLD. Why this took 6 years, I don't know? It's unfair to every world class big blinders with a good effectiveness. They could have go for WR mean but didn't do because there was no point in doing that. Retroactive WRs just doesn't give so much satisfation and I feel they are sometimes even random as people simply don't care enough. Also it is 7th January already and I don't see the means on WCA website. It should be done a week ago, come on it's probably a few minutes of work.

I won't be surprised if they make a MBLD mean in the future. Obviously current MBDLers and organisers will be affected if that will be introduced and announced just a few weeks before like it was done with Big Blinds.

Cheaters:
BLD events has a highest percentage of people cheating on world class level. It all started with Matyas Kuti and you thought a piece of paper will solve the problem.
Matyas. Maskow. Zalewski. Hessler. Fabio de Rose. Haiyan Zhuang. And possibly many more we don't know about.

My suggestion: delegate has to be present and oversee the solves of all blders. Harmonica holders are mandatory for everyone - judges tend to hold the paper too low or too high so competitor can sometimes peek under the blindfold. That could solve some of the problems.

Cameras:
WCA grows exponentially. There are more and more competitors and competitions every year. For the same reason there are more and more incidents which not always can be honestly handled - not always you have witnesses and not always you have proof of cheating on camera.
Speedstacks timer costs ~30$. Tournament display can cost around ~200$ and the mat with cables ~15$. That's almost 250$ per one station. Sooo...
Is it really so hard to equip every station with some cheap cameras you can find on aliexpress? You can buy them for as little as 20-30$ and the quality is just right. That's 10% of costs of the whole station and if mandatory on every competition on earth, this will basically solve every single problem with cheaters and incidents. Of course you will need some kind of database to keep them for I don't know, 1-2 years?

OH:
Please ban heavy table abuse. Rouxers will dominate that event and it will basically become as retarded as 2x2x2 single solve. You should use one hand to hold the cube. Currently rouxers use one hand but they replace the other one with the table which holds the cube for them. It just doesn't feel right. Of course CFOPers also abuse the table, but the cube has contact with its surface for a fraction of a second. They use it continuously. Rouxers can have 6 seconds average for TH and 7 seconds average for OH. 

That's all for now, I will update when I have more time.


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 7, 2019)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> OH:
> Please ban heavy table abuse. Rouxers will dominate that event and it will basically become as retarded as 2x2x2 single solve. You should use one hand to hold the cube. Currently rouxers use one hand but they replace the other one with the table which holds the cube for them. It just doesn't feel right. Of course CFOPers also abuse the table, but the cube has contact with its surface for a fraction of a second. They use it continuously. Rouxers can have 6 seconds average for TH and 7 seconds average for OH.


I don't have too much of an opinion on the rest of your post, but lol @ this.

It has been in the regulations for years that table abuse (or rather, table _use_) is allowed. What do you want to do, retroactively invalidate every solve where the cube came in contact with the surface? Also, have you seen Max Park's _CFOP_ solves???? The cube is touching the table _over 20% of the time_.



Spoiler: if you don't believe me, because wow that surprised me too



So, I grabbed the video linked above of one of Max's ao5 along with this 10.62 official average by Kian to compare them. I specifically didn't want to choose their WR averages because those are inherently distorted towards lucky solves and I wanted something a bit more representative. Also, no unofficial solves because those are _extremely_ distorted. Just before you scroll down any further, make a rough guess of the proportions of the solves where Max and Kian had the cube touching the table.

Methodology notes: Max's video is of really poor quality and he had his GoPro in the way for like 4/5 solves (this is a really frequently recurring problem, so Max, if you're reading this, PLEASE UPLOAD BETTER VIDEOS), so I had to guess a lot. I mostly tried to be conservative in my determination of whether the cube was touching the table (for both Max's and Kian's videos). The start of the solve is when the hand first touches the cube (_not_ when the timer is started), and similarly, the end of the solve is when the cube is solved and the hand last touches the cube. The first few and last few frames of the solve are counted only if the table is used to help make the moves.



Spoiler: Max's 10.40 ao5



frame rate: 30000/1001
solve 1:
start of solve: frame 345
end of solve: frame 629
total frames: 285
cube touches surface:
[345 347] [357 360] [365 376] [382 384] [391 409] [431 439] [485 493] [529 551] [561 566] [582 592]
99 frames

solve 2:
start of solve: frame 1047
end of solve: frame 1373
total frames: 327
cube touches surface:
[1047 1050] [1056 1065] [1067 1081] [1092 1129] [1160 1174] [1241 1241] [1289 1289] [1294 1304] [1319 1325] [1335 1354] [1372 1372]
123 frames

solve 3:
start of solve: frame 1907
end of solve: frame 2207
total frames: 301
cube touches surface:
[1907 1910] [1933 1946] [1950 1953] [1959 1988] [1999 2006] [2034 2042] [2045 2048] [2071 2079] [2104 2111] [2116 2126] [2149 2156] [2160 2176] [2182 2192]
137 frames

solve 4:
start of solve: frame 2649
end of solve: frame 2967
total frames: 319
cube touches surface:
[2649 2650] [2653 2660] [2692 2704] [2721 2726] [2751 2759] [2798 2804] [2836 2846] [2877 2879] [2891 2894] [2923 2931]
72 frames

solve 5:
start of solve: frame 3418
end of solve: frame 3710
total frames: 293
cube touches surface:
[3418 3418] [3427 3456] [3461 3469] [3478 3488] [3502 3507] [3522 3527] [3541 3548] [3559 3569] [3633 3640] [3652 3663] [3695 3696] [3699 3710]
116 frames

total frames of all solves: 1525
total frames of all solves with cube touching surface: 547
percentage: 547/1525 ~ 36%





Spoiler: Kian's 10.62 ao5



frame rate: 30000/1001
solve 1:
start of solve: frame 27
end of solve: frame 389
total frames: 363
cube touches surface:
[27 30] [37 47] [56 66] [173 178] [205 216] [235 240] [305 389]
135 frames

solve 2:
start of solve: frame 525
end of solve: frame 832
total frames: 308
cube touches surface:
[525 527] [549 551] [623 635] [649 658] [743 832]
119 frames

solve 3:
start of solve: frame 966
end of solve: frame 1271
total frames: 306
cube touches surface:
[1142 1152] [1158 1271]
125 frames

solve 4:
start of solve: frame 1430
end of solve: frame 1722
total frames: 293
cube touches surface:
[1474 1482] [1529 1534] [1575 1579] [1587 1590] [1600 1601] [1638 1722]
111 frames

solve 5:
start of solve: frame 1867
end of solve: frame 2181
total frames: 315
cube touches surface:
[1867 1868] [1954 1964] [1984 1990] [2005 2009] [2117 2181]
90 frames

total frames of all solves: 1585
total frames of all solves with cube touching surface: 580
percentage: 580/1585 ~ 37%



Guess what, the difference in proportion is _less than one percentage point_. They're both around 36% (with sufficiently large error bars that the difference isn't statistically significant).


----------



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Jan 7, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> I don't have too much of an opinion on the rest of your post, but lol @ this.
> 
> It has been in the regulations for years that table abuse (or rather, table _use_) is allowed. What do you want to do, retroactively invalidate every solve where the cube came in contact with the surface? Also, have you seen Max Park's _CFOP_ solves???? The cube is touching the table _over 20% of the time_.
> 
> ...



well I don't find this convincing at all because

It has been in the regulations for years that feet, magic and master magic are recognised. What do you want to do, retroactively dnf every solve?

Also Max uses table to align the cube or change the grip. Kian uses table as his second hand


----------



## h2f (Jan 7, 2019)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> Maskow



He never cheated.


----------



## Julio974 (Jan 7, 2019)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> Also it is 7th January already and I don't see the means on WCA website. It should be done a week ago, come on it's probably a few minutes of work.


That change wasn't totally approved


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 7, 2019)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> well I don't find this convincing at all because
> 
> It has been in the regulations for years that feet, magic and master magic are recognised. What do you want to do, retroactively dnf every solve?


_You_ think table abuse makes solves illegitimate. The vast majority of people don't think WF results are illegitimate; it's just an unpopular event. I have no comment about Magic and Master Magic because those are from before my time.

If the regulations are to be changed to reflect that (but they won't, so this is a silly hypothetical), it would make sense to go one step further to invalidate older solves that are now considered illegitimate as well, considering how heavily populated the top of the current rankings are with table-abuse-heavy solvers.



Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> Also Max uses table to align the cube or change the grip. Kian uses table as his second hand


There is zero principled reason to draw the line _there_. Aligning the cube and changing grip are also things you'd normally use your second hand to help with.

(My personal stance on table abuse is that it looks ugly, and if it were up to me, I'd ban it _uniformly_. Not "ban it for Roux users because they're getting too good at exploiting table abuse". If you do have a principled reason for wanting to draw the line where you want to draw it, you have yet to state it convincingly.)


----------



## Underwatercuber (Jan 7, 2019)

h2f said:


> He never cheated.


He started the stop watch himself on his 41/41 and also for like 5 attempts which can be found all his cubes were given to him in his preferred orientation, first time it could slide since it wasn’t his fault but he continued to let it happen which is against the spirit of the regs for sure.


----------



## DGCubes (Jan 7, 2019)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> well I don't find this convincing at all because
> 
> It has been in the regulations for years that feet, magic and master magic are recognised. What do you want to do, retroactively dnf every solve?
> 
> Also Max uses table to align the cube or change the grip. Kian uses table as his second hand



We can NOT ban table abuse in some cases and not in others. Sure, maybe you can tell when it's being used as a second hand (which is entirely subjective regardless), but we can't realistically expect all judges to have the same discretion. Either keep table abuse legal or disallow it entirely; there can't be any in-between.

Personally, I'm very much for keeping table abuse legal for the following reasons:
- It's too hard to specify what's table abuse and what's not. (i.e. The cube must start and end on the Stackmat; how long would you be allowed to keep it touching the mat? Is it legal to drop the cube accidentally? How about on purpose? Assuming dropping the cube is legal, how do you define dropping so a judge could determine its legality without video evidence?)
- It changes the nature of the event. People have been practicing OH this way for years to the point where it would require very different skills to become world class. Would we then need to entirely reset the rankings and invalidate the efforts of those who have been practicing according to the regulations?

I'm not saying major changes like this should never be made; rather they should only be made if their pros greatly outweigh their cons. In this case, the only pro I see is that some (?) of the community would be more satisfied with this change. Based on the backlash from this post and the general acceptance of the OH regulations however, I can confidently say that this pro hardly exists regardless.


----------



## h2f (Jan 7, 2019)

Underwatercuber said:


> He started the stop watch himself on his 41/41 and also for like 5 attempts which can be found all his cubes were given to him in his preferred orientation, first time it could slide since it wasn’t his fault but he continued to let it happen which is against the spirit of the regs for sure.


It wasnt proved it was cheat. He didnt get a ban etc.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Jan 7, 2019)

h2f said:


> It wasnt proved it was cheat. He didnt get a ban etc.


I would say he was cheating by doing so. Also cheating =/= punishment (extreme example is vladislav Ushakov). I don’t think they were big things that need punishment but I would definitely consider it to be cheating. WCA deemed it not worthy of punishment and discussed it here
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/archive/forum_topics/1162


----------



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Jan 7, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> _You_ think table abuse makes solves illegitimate. The vast majority of people don't think WF results are illegitimate; it's just an unpopular event. I have no comment about Magic and Master Magic because those are from before my time.
> 
> If the regulations are to be changed to reflect that (but they won't, so this is a silly hypothetical), it would make sense to go one step further to invalidate older solves that are now considered illegitimate as well, considering how heavily populated the top of the current rankings are with table-abuse-heavy solvers.



Do you know that once cubes with logos were allowed in 3BLD event?

I could apply your argument towards every solve where cube with logo was used. And according to you we should retroactively DNF all such results. Your original argument just doesn't work here and changing it over and over again won't make you appear smarter.



h2f said:


> It wasnt proved it was cheat. He didnt get a ban etc.



What do you mean by "It wasnt proved it was cheat". He and the judge (which *accidentally *appears to be his *wife*) broke whole amount of regulations. It should have been DNFed, but that's just my personal opinion.


----------



## h2f (Jan 7, 2019)

Underwatercuber said:


> I would say he was cheating by doing so. Also cheating =/= punishment (extreme example is vladislav Ushakov). I don’t think they were big things that need punishment but I would definitely consider it to be cheating. WCA deemed it not worthy of punishment and discussed it here
> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/archive/forum_topics/1162






> Instead, he continued to exploit the procedural errors to his advantage, be it big or small. We find this against the spirit of the WCA and formally reprimand the competitor for this unsportsmanlike behaviour. (...) The WCA Board believes that the occurence of all those incidents was accomodated by the fact that the Multiple Blindfolded event has been held in parallel to other events at the affected competitions, leaving it free to the competitors to start their attempts at any time. We take this opportunity to recommend that delegates and organisers be careful in the planning of competitions in the sense of ensuring that the number and nature of events held allow for good control and supervision for adherence to WCA regulations and standards. We thank Mr. Kowalczyk and the WCA Disciplinary Committee for their cooperation with this investigation. -Natán Riggenbach WCA Board Member



I think this finish it. It doesnt matter what you or me think about it. There's no real advantage of custom orientation in mbld. Ask any top mblder about it. I know that in these times many top mblders got cubes in his/her orientation. It stopped after the case.


----------



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Jan 7, 2019)

h2f said:


> There's no real advantage of custom orientation in mbld



Well I don't agree, I don't have to ask anybody else either, will just use common sense. Orienting the cube can take up to 1-2 second and if you multiply that by 41 you will get over *1 minute of advantage*. MBLD takes into consideration score and *time*


----------



## weatherman223 (Jan 7, 2019)

I disagree with some of your points.



Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> Cheaters:
> BLD events has a highest percentage of people cheating on world class level. It all started with Matyas Kuti and you thought a piece of paper will solve the problem.
> Matyas. Maskow. Zalewski. Hessler. Fabio de Rose. Haiyan Zhuang. And possibly many more we don't know about.
> 
> My suggestion: delegate has to be present and oversee the solves of all blders. Harmonica holders are mandatory for everyone - judges tend to hold the paper too low or too high so competitor can sometimes peek under the blindfold. That could solve some of the problems.



Maskow didn’t cheat. Fabio probably didn’t cheat. And I’ve never heard of Rowe Hessler cheating.

If you’re trying to convince me that cheating happens lots of the time in 3bld, then you are doing an awful job.



> Please ban heavy table abuse. Rouxers will dominate that event and it will basically become as retarded as 2x2x2 single solve. You should use one hand to hold the cube. Currently rouxers use one hand but they replace the other one with the table which holds the cube for them. It just doesn't feel right. Of course CFOPers also abuse the table, but the cube has contact with its surface for a fraction of a second. They use it continuously. Rouxers can have 6 seconds average for TH and 7 seconds average for OH.





Like others have said above, this would destroy the event and cause every solve to be invalidated. Table abuse has been legal and has been used since 2008, which is a long time. And your point with Roux is completely irrelevant due to people like Feliks and Max and other fast OH solvers that use CFOP. They push the limits too. Don’t just say it’s Kian and other roux solvers.

Next thing you know people will argue we shouldn’t table abuse in Megaminx.

Edit: 2008, not the start.


----------



## h2f (Jan 7, 2019)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> Well I don't agree, I don't have to ask anybody else either, will just use common sense.



Nope. Taking cube you rotate it to your orientation. It doesnt matter. Just do some attempts of mbld. Rotating cube you memo previous cube etc. It's a part of memo process and you cant cut it out as a "waste of time".


----------



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Jan 7, 2019)

h2f said:


> Nope. Taking cube you rotate it to your orientation.



That still takes time.



weatherman223 said:


> Maskow didn’t cheat. Fabio probably didn’t cheat. And I’ve never heard of Rowe Hessler cheating.



Regarding Maskow, read above.
Regarding Fabio - he was banned. Do I need to say more?
Regarding Rowe Hessler - https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/rowe-hessler-52-27-bld-former-wr-disqualified.39436/


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 7, 2019)

weatherman223 said:


> Next thing you know people will argue we shouldn’t table abuse in Megaminx.


I _would_ argue for this, fwiw.  Feliks seems to only sometimes use the table for megaminx, which is in stark contrast to most other top megaminxers. He probably could be about as fast as he is now, even without any table abuse.

(Now, some would even go further and argue that "floor abuse" shouldn't be allowed in WF…)



weatherman223 said:


> And I’ve never heard of Rowe Hessler cheating.


There was that one time he got a repeat scramble, got a WR (?) single on it, and only confessed to it years later. Or something like that.


----------



## pglewis (Jan 7, 2019)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> Cameras: ...



I don't agree with much else in the OP but I fully agree on cameras. It will bring additional procedural issues and add workload but I seriously believe it's something that should be phasing in now so the kinks and issues can be identified and worked out as much as possible.


----------



## Gomorrite (Jan 7, 2019)

Well, also Haiyan Zhuang did not cheat, right? He was banned for his mafia-like bevavior in competitions, not for cheating. That is why his results were not DNFed.


----------



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Jan 7, 2019)

Gomorrite said:


> Well, also Haiyan Zhuang did not cheat, right? He was banned for his mafia-like bevavior in competitions, not for cheating. That is why his results were not DNFed.



Yes, that's true. He also created his own WCA after he was banned, I was just curious how many of you know the details


----------



## Thom S. (Jan 7, 2019)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> He and the judge (which *accidentally *appears to be his *wife*)



But did Tonia actually lie? From what I know they always admidded that she prepared his stacks to be in the right orientation and in 2x8 blocks. There was a Post by the WCA that it is unfortunate that this happened and they won't allow it in future attempts. What you are missing about Marcin is: He was able to do these Results. People like Matyas were not. The Delegates had enough chances to tell him that there were several broken rules.




Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> Please ban heavy table abuse. Rouxers will dominate that event and it will basically become as retarded as 2x2x2 single solve.



Where do you draw the Line between Table abuse and heavy table abuse? Such vague rules are even more unfair. Would you ban all fast Methods as well so TICT users have a chance of getting the World Record.
I never lift the cube from the table in my solves(using VH) so basically my 1 Minute+ solves give me an unfair advantage over others, right(bad comparisson, but functions as an example of why such vague rules won't function)


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Jan 7, 2019)

weatherman223 said:


> Table abuse has been legal and has been used since the start of WCA.


Not true. Quote from the 2008 regs:

C1b1) If the competitor drops or puts down the puzzle during a solve, then the competitor must not do moves or align sides until the puzzle has no contact with the surface anymore. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
2007 regs:

C1b) During the solve no other body part or the table or any other available object must touch the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.


https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/history/files/regulations2008.html#onehandedsolving
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/history/files/regulations2007.html#onehandedsolving


----------



## DGCubes (Jan 7, 2019)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> Do you know that once cubes with logos were allowed in 3BLD event?
> 
> I could apply your argument towards every solve where cube with logo was used. And according to you we should retroactively DNF all such results. Your original argument just doesn't work here and changing it over and over again won't make you appear smarter.



The difference between table abuse in OH and logos in BLD is that disallowing table abuse changes the very nature of OH; logos change nothing about the event unless you were using them to cheat in the first place.

What exactly do you want to change? Do you want table abuse to be illegal entirely, or only in some situations? (Because either one of these is way harder to regulate than what we currently do; see my previous post for reasons.)

In response to the 2007/2008 regs: just because table abuse was illegal back then doesn't mean it should still be. It was changed for a reason.


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Jan 7, 2019)

DGCubes said:


> In response to the 2007/2008 regs: just because table abuse was illegal back then doesn't mean it should still be. It was changed for a reason.


Just to clarify, I wasn't saying they should be changed back. I was correcting a false statement.


----------



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Jan 7, 2019)

DGCubes said:


> The difference between table abuse in OH and logos in BLD is that disallowing table abuse changes the very nature of OH; logos change nothing about the event unless you were using them to cheat in the first place.



Why do you even bring this out, I was simply responding to the original argument of @xyzzy which he later decided to modify to still have a point. When you make a change like removing and event, dissallowing certain type of cubes or disallowing an action (like abusing the table for example) you don't care if the regulations in the past were different and you don't need to wonder what to do with old results.



DGCubes said:


> What exactly do you want to change?



To be honest this would be so hard to implement that at this point I think we should simply remove 3x3 OH event


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Jan 7, 2019)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> To be honest this would be so hard to implement that at this point I think we should simply remove 3x3 OH event


So, because you don't like table use (which I personally don't like either, but I understand that it's better to have than not have) you just want to remove the event entirely because what you want wouldn't work?


----------



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Jan 7, 2019)

WombatWarrior17 said:


> So, because you don't like table use (which I personally don't like either, but I understand that it's better to have than not have) you just want to remove the event entirely because what you want wouldn't work?



I'm just thinking ahead. One day _all of top100 averages_ in 3x3 one-handed will be done using Roux method which unfortunately shares little differences with two-handed variation (see my original post) and the rankings will be really similar to eachother. Obviously we want to keep the events as diverse as possible. I don't want to argue about this aspect anymore now, but I am 100% sure this issue will be brought up in the future again and will be considered more seriously


----------



## weatherman223 (Jan 7, 2019)

WombatWarrior17 said:


> Not true. Quote from the 2008 regs:
> 
> C1b1) If the competitor drops or puts down the puzzle during a solve, then the competitor must not do moves or align sides until the puzzle has no contact with the surface anymore. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
> 2007 regs:
> ...




Apologies, I will edit my post soon. Thank you for pointing this out.

As well, I feel that Fabio is irrelevant in the current discussion right now, so I will not respond to the point that the OP made


----------



## CraZZ CFOP (Jan 7, 2019)

Solution 2 for OH: seperate OH into two events: OH with table and OH without table


----------



## Underwatercuber (Jan 7, 2019)

CraZZ CFOP said:


> Solution 2 for OH: seperate OH into two events: OH with table and OH without table


Anytime people suggest a variation of a current event it’s dumb imo. Its even worse than having both 6 & 7 as events, rankings will look the exact same and all it does is waste more comp time.

Edit: not saying we should remove 6 or 7, I’m jusy saying that’s probably borderline for too similar and stuff like OH with and without table crosses that line I’m my opinion.


----------



## Thom S. (Jan 7, 2019)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> I'm just thinking ahead. One day _all of top100 averages_ in 3x3 one-handed will be done using Roux method which unfortunately shares little differences with two-handed variation (see my original post) and the rankings will be really similar to eachother. Obviously we want to keep the events as diverse as pposieren. I don't want to argue about this aspect öAnmerkung now, but I am 100% sure this issue will be brought up in the future again and will be considered more seriously



There is some truth behind this argument, I give you that but you word it in a way that makes me believe you have this concern out of personal fear. If Roux can be proven to be faster at OH, what is holding anybody back learning it. Preferences exist(which is an opinion I'm defending strongly) and not everybody is equally able to wrap their mind around Blockbuilding.

When given the same amount of time, otherwise I believe Roux is not a viable argument against something most competitors do


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 7, 2019)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> I'm just thinking ahead. One day _all of top100 averages_ in 3x3 one-handed will be done using Roux method which unfortunately shares little differences with two-handed variation (see my original post) and the rankings will be really similar to eachother. Obviously we want to keep the events as diverse as possible. I don't want to argue about this aspect anymore now, but I am 100% sure this issue will be brought up in the future again and will be considered more seriously


This doesn't make any sense at all to me. If it really were true that all of the top 100 averages in 3x3x3 OH were done using Roux, I think it's probably pretty safe to say it will be a long time (if it even ever happens) before even most of the top 100 averages in 3x3x3 are done using Roux. Regular 3x3x3 will probably always be dominated by CFOP, unless something new and really special comes along. So actually, if the current 3x3x3 OH rules favor Roux, by your argument that events should be as diverse as possible, this makes OH with table abuse a BETTER event, since it favors using a different method and is therefore significantly different from regular 3x3x3. And the people who dominate 3x3x3 OH will be very different people from those who dominate regular 3x3x3.

Although I still am not so sure that more than a few Roux solvers in the world will ever be as fast with Roux OH as Max is with CFOP OH.


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 7, 2019)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> I was simply responding to the original argument of @xyzzy which he later decided to modify to still have a point.


I don't spell out everything explicitly every time because I don't want to spend ten hours writing each post. Sometimes I miss the mark, and assume the wrong amount of background knowledge. (This is a legitimate flaw I recognise in my communication skills.)

If you think table abuse is illegitimate (as your opening post seems to imply), then _to me_ it makes sense to retroactively remove illegitimate solves. _Many_ people would be affected by a move to ban table abuse, not just Roux users, yet you focus the brunt on Roux solvers. I drew the comparison between Max's and Kian's OH solves because, while I was expecting the Roux solves to have much more table time, my expectations turned out to be wrong. The difference, if any, was too tiny to pick up in my small sample. If your objection was in how much the table was being used (as I had assumed, perhaps wrongly), Max's results would be as illegitimate as you think typical Roux solves are.

You countered this by reiterating that Roux users were using the table as a second hand. I countered your counter by using your own words against you. Your objection amounted to nothing more than "I don't like Roux", which you later changed to "I want to see variation". (See what I did there?) Why don't you say this about big cubes, where most people use reduction into CFOP?

Like I said, not principled. Isolated demands for rigour.



Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> I could apply your argument towards every solve where cube with logo was used. And according to you we should retroactively DNF all such results.


A fundamental difference is that logos distinguishable by touch were _never_ allowed, so there wouldn't have been any advantage even if the competitor used a legal cube with a logo. The change to banning logos came because of discrepancies in how delegates and competitors decided which logos were distinguishable by touch (e.g. Qiyi's printed logos); this was a change to the regulations primarily to make judging easier, not to eliminate cheating.


----------



## CraZZ CFOP (Jan 7, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> This doesn't make any sense at all to me. If it really were true that all of the top 100 averages in 3x3x3 OH were done using Roux, I think it's probably pretty safe to say it will be a long time (if it even ever happens) before even most of the top 100 averages in 3x3x3 are done using Roux. Regular 3x3x3 will probably always be dominated by CFOP, unless something new and really special comes along. So actually, if the current 3x3x3 OH rules favor Roux, by your argument that events should be as diverse as possible, this makes OH with table abuse a BETTER event, since it favors using a different method and is therefore significantly different from regular 3x3x3. And the people who dominate 3x3x3 OH will be very different people from those who dominate regular 3x3x3.
> 
> Although I still am not so sure that more than a few Roux solvers in the world will ever be as fast with Roux OH as Max is with CFOP OH.



Disallowing table abuse *might* end up increasing the amount of ZZers in OH.

But CFOP might still be the most used method in OH


----------



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Jan 7, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> A fundamental difference is that logos distinguishable by touch were _never_ allowed



Nice try, but my post you are referring to doesn't contain the *distinguishable *word.


----------



## Tabe (Jan 7, 2019)

To add my two cents:

1) I definitely agree that we should start requiring cameras. I also understand that this will be an issue in a lot of places. Perhaps set a goal of 5 years or something to give people time to acquire gear.

2) I would have no problem with banning table abuse entirely in OH. To me, using the table violates my perception of what OH should be - an unassisted solve using just one hand. I would be OK with going back to the old reg where you just had to pick it back up after dropping the cube but couldn't turn it while it was touching. Or, if you want to completely eliminate gray areas, make it a DNF for any drops (though that seems pretty harsh). I don't do OH enough to care all that much, so would never push for a change but it seems *to me* that table abuse should be illegal.


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 7, 2019)

Tabe said:


> To add my two cents:
> 
> 1) I definitely agree that we should start requiring cameras. I also understand that this will be an issue in a lot of places. Perhaps set a goal of 5 years or something to give people time to acquire gear.



I agree, although 5 years seems a little long. I would go with 2, personally. Recommend starting in 2020, require starting in 2021. 

Regarding table abuse and roux in OH, I have argued that OH adds relatively little to the 3x3 event relative to what WF adds. After reading the arguments here I would like to retract that argument. I believe that WF adds a lot, but I withdraw my argument that OH does not add to the event, if it encourages the development and practice of different methods.


----------



## Tabe (Jan 7, 2019)

One Wheel said:


> I agree, although 5 years seems a little long. I would go with 2, personally. Recommend starting in 2020, require starting in 2021.


That works, too. I basically just threw a number out there.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 7, 2019)

I have very few opinions on this, apart from table abuse: I’m all for keeping it, because what about the floor in feet? If you can’t use the table in oh, you have to do feet off the floor. But I’d also be very happy to see it be stopped, as it makes ZZ undoubtedly the best OH method (out of the big 4), but I know that’s selfish. Although I wouldn’t mind if it was banned.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 7, 2019)

Whether or not table abuse should be allowed or not has absolutely nothing to do with Roux. Ideally, it should be be based on people's thoughts on what OH really means. Obviously, it means solving with one of your hands and that being the only body part to touch it, but that doesn't say anything about whether other things should be able to touch it. I would say (perhaps from a biased viewpoint, being a Roux solver my self) that since the table is a static, unchanging factor in the solve, it should not be banned from use. I feel like cubing is an activity that rewards ingenuity, and using the table in such an unintuitive manner falls under that category. Table abuse is difficult; it doesn't magically make you immediately faster, but requires practice, like anything else that is a part of cubing. From a realistic viewpoint, I think that it shouldn't be changed simply because of the sheer number of people who would be crushed by the ban. It would definitely make a lot of people mad, and I feel like that is against the spirit of the cubing community.


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Jan 8, 2019)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> Haiyan Zhuang


Legit question, when did Haiyan ever cheat? As far as I could recall he just pissed off the WCA for demanding more BLD rounds and calling organizers personal phones... Resulting in a ban from the WCA and him starting the CCA.


----------

