# My Apology



## rowehessler (Nov 29, 2012)

Dear cubing community,
At Westchester Fall 2008 I did in fact get the second scramble twice for BLD. My judge was inexperienced and did not write down DNF on the second solve, and I took advantage of this and got the same scramble twice. I am not sure how the 52 was in fact counted as the last solve, that part is a mystery to me. However, I did get the same scramble, rechecked my memo in 15 seconds, blindfolded myself, and solved the cube in 52.27 "WR". I have felt guilty about this for years, and I was scared about coming clean. I was only 17 at the time and i was young and irresponsible. I could have held this secret for my entire life and would have never gotten caught. No one had any suspicion, but I came clean on my own without anyone blaming, suspecting, or notifying the WCA board about me. I notified them myself, 4 years after the day it happened, and confessed and told them I would accept any punishment they give me. I love this community, and now that you all know this horrible truth I feel good about being honest with you all and I do not expect you to still respect me in anyway. Although the WCA has decided to give me no punishment, all the hatred and disrespect I will get for the next few years is punishment enough. I am deeply sorry, Ville Sepannen, who truly had the WR during those short two weeks. I apologize to the WCA board for disrespecting regulations and not being honest with them. I apologize to Dan Cohen, who did in fact really win BLD at Westchester Fall 2008. Lastly, I apologize to the entire cubing community for not being honest with them from the beginning, but I feel better now telling you this than keeping it a secret for the rest of my life. This is the biggest mistake I've ever made in my life, and I hope someday you can all look past this terrible decision and forgive me. Thank you.
-Rowe Hessler


----------



## A Leman (Nov 29, 2012)

If this is your biggest mistake, then you are quite lucky. With all of the fake video's I have seen on here, I would find it almost impossible for some people to fess up after being presented a WR. My opinion about your bld skills went down today, but I am glad you admitted what you did wrong because stuff like that belongs in the fresh air.


----------



## InfiniCuber (Nov 29, 2012)

Wow. Well, this is, to say the least shocking. But the thing is, you apologized and did what you could. Now you don't have to live with this anymore. And of course I (and hopefully others) will still respect you. Heck, you way better at cubing than me.  And like the old saying goes, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."


----------



## MirzaCubing (Nov 29, 2012)

This reminds me of Dimmesdale from The Scarlet Letter lol. 

Anyway, honesty is the best policy, so you still have my full respect


----------



## bluecloe45 (Nov 29, 2012)

Not as bad as pooping in a helmet.

<3 Rowe good for you for coming clean, its healthy.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Nov 29, 2012)

MirzaCubing said:


> Anyway, honesty is the best policy, so you still have my full respect



Thanks Rowe.


----------



## tim (Nov 29, 2012)

rowehessler said:


> I was only 17 at the time



That explains a lot. I usually don't want to have anything to do with myself at that age.



InfiniCuber said:


> Well frankly, I forgive you. And everyone else in the cubing community should. It is only right. Otherwise, those who don't, are just as bad as this act you did.



Wat?


----------



## IamWEB (Nov 29, 2012)

"We have to forgive each other, or everything we ever were will mean nothing."



Spoiler






MirzaCubing said:


> This reminds me of Dimmesdale from The Scarlet Letter lol.


This.



bluecloe45 said:


> Not as bad as pooping in a helmet.


Whoa that was a long time ago!



Thanks for finally admitting the truth, Rowe.


----------



## Noahaha (Nov 29, 2012)

TheNextFeliks said:


> P.S. Not to be a jerk but that 0.96 2x2 WR was legit right?



Are you serious?


----------



## rowehessler (Nov 29, 2012)

TheNextFeliks said:


> Thanks Rowe.
> 
> P.S. Not to be a jerk but that 0.96 2x2 WR was legit right?



Yeah of course, I just one looked the damn thing haha. I was one of the first to get that scramble.


----------



## MWilson (Nov 29, 2012)

I think most people can imagine their younger, not-so-wise-headed self doing stupid, irresponsible things in any aspect of life. What's _not_ easy to imagine ourselves doing, at any age, is coming forward in a situation where our reputation in a community we treasure could be tarnished. I think you have set a positive example, and I don't think you have anything to worry about. It must be a relief to get it off your back, well done.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Nov 29, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> Are you serious?



Sorry bad question but my trust did lower a little after this. Although you being 17 makes me understand.


----------



## mrpotatoman14 (Nov 29, 2012)

InfiniCuber said:


> And everyone else in the cubing community should. It is only right. Otherwise, those who don't, are just as bad as this act you did.


wtf

Rowe, I commend you for admitting what you did. However, I hope you realize how lucky you are as to not receive any other consequences.


----------



## fastcubesolver (Nov 29, 2012)

I’m shocked you have not been given any more consequences, cuz it’s not like cheating on a World Record is serious or anything. This brings my respect for you to an all-time low.


----------



## acohen527 (Nov 29, 2012)

People replying negatively to this: Imagine this. You are a WR record caliber blindsolver, and have gotten sub WR solves at home, but are yet to get a decent solve in competition. (BLD solvers know this frustration) You are at a competition, and you are ready for your first solve. You pull off the cover, and see that only 2 edges and 2 corners need to be solved. (Remember, this is hypothetical) You realize the scrambler must have messed up, and because your judge is a novice, (like Rowe's) he doesn't realize the simplicity of the scramble. You know if you do the solve, it is an instant WR, but it would be cheating. Would you take the WR?


----------



## fastcubesolver (Nov 29, 2012)

That's why they check the scrambles. If I got a repeat scramble, like I did at Harvard, I would tell them, like I did at Harvard. I wouldn't go on with the solve, it's cheating myself and everyone else.


----------



## rowehessler (Nov 29, 2012)

mrpotatoman14 said:


> wtf
> 
> Rowe, I commend you for admitting what you did. However, I hope you realize how lucky you are as to not receive any other consequences.



I am extremely lucky. I did this knowing me being banned was a possibility.


----------



## Edward (Nov 29, 2012)

You will burn!


----------



## rowehessler (Nov 29, 2012)

fastcubesolver said:


> I’m shocked you have not been given any more consequences, cuz it’s not like cheating on a World Record is serious or anything. This brings my respect for you to an all-time low.



I respect that


----------



## fastcubesolver (Nov 29, 2012)

If only. But who would ever ban the great Rowe Hessler?


----------



## cincyaviation (Nov 29, 2012)

Edward said:


> You will burn!






Is it weird that I found this thread through facebook?


----------



## tim (Nov 29, 2012)

acohen527 said:


> You pull off the cover, and see that only 2 edges and 2 corners need to be solved. (Remember, this is hypothetical) You realize the scrambler must have messed up



That doesn't make sense. An easy scramble will never tell you anything about the validity of it.


----------



## rowehessler (Nov 29, 2012)

fastcubesolver said:


> If only. Who would ever ban the great Rowe Hessler?


idk, why don't you just shoot them an email and complain.


----------



## acohen527 (Nov 29, 2012)

tim said:


> That doesn't make sense. An easy scramble will never tell you anything about the validity of it.



Sorry if I didn't make sense. I'm new to speedsolving, and just wanted to throw my opinion out there. But I'm saying if it was unusually lucky, or unheard of (like only 4 pieces unsolved in a scramble) there would be a pretty good chance that it was mis-scrambled, if that's a word. So would you afterwards check the scramble with the delegate or competition runner to make sure it was legitimate, or just take your solve.


----------



## A Leman (Nov 29, 2012)

What finally motivated you to announce this? Also, are you going to get back into Bld and bring down your pb?


----------



## Divineskulls (Nov 29, 2012)

While I am disappointed in you for doing what you did, I cannot help the fact that you confessing is very brave to me, regardless of the fact that you didn't end up getting punished for it. As you are a local cuber to me, and a very fast one at that (But more importantly, _a nice, intelligent person_), I do look up to you, and this doesn't change that. Thank you for confessing and apologizing, as I'm sure it will cause some people to rethink how they act in situations like this. You're still a cool dude in my eyes, Rowe.


----------



## rowehessler (Nov 29, 2012)

A Leman said:


> What finally motivated you to announce this? Also, are you going to get back into Bld and bring down your pb?


Its been killing me for a while and i just decided to tell them and come clean. Its been a major depressing thing for me and the worst part was not being able to talk about it with anyone. I just decided to tell Ron and hope for the best. It's another reason i stopped BLD, i was just ashamed of myself. I'm practicing now hopefully I'll break that 52 and actually deserve a good time.


----------



## rowehessler (Nov 29, 2012)

Divineskulls said:


> While I am disappointed in you for doing what you did, I cannot help the fact that you confessing is very brave to me, regardless of the fact that you didn't end up getting punished for it. As you are a local cuber to me, and a very fast one at that (But more importantly, _a nice, intelligent person_), I do look up to you, and this doesn't change that. Thank you for confessing and apologizing, as I'm sure it will cause some people to rethink how they act in situations like this. You're still a cool dude in my eyes, Rowe.



Thank you Nick


----------



## IamWEB (Nov 29, 2012)

Some people may be upset towards Rowe because they don't feel the consequences were tough enough.
Remember that the consequences weren't decided by Rowe. That part isn't his fault/responsibility.

If you want to take up this issue with Tyson, good luck - I'll feed bad, but I probably can't make it to your funeral.
... notserious


----------



## rubixwiz031 (Nov 29, 2012)

Well first of all, I think Rowe should be applauded for his honesty.

Second, I am not even that upset about this. After thinking about this, I am still unsure of how I would have reacted in the moment. And that's what Rowe did- reacted. It's not as if he sat in a chair and debated the pros and cons over this in his mind. He reacted.


rowehessler said:


> and I hope someday you can all look past this terrible decision and forgive me


----------



## gokkar (Nov 29, 2012)

Good for you for coming clean with this. Mad respect.


----------



## Kian (Nov 29, 2012)

I've already told Rowe personally, but I think it is worth noting how proud I am of him right now.

Rowe made a mistake, of course. He made a lie of omission. Once that moment passed it must have been incredibly difficult to come forward. It is OK for you to be shocked by this and even to be a little bit pissed about it, but that shouldn't carry over into a damnation of the man. It's easy to sit at home and say there's not anything you did in your lives that you're not proud of, but you all know it's not true. I am absolutely sure that there are people in our community who have done unsportsmanlike things that we will never know about. Maybe this will encourage others to come forward, maybe not. We need to be willing to accept an apology that is asked for in good faith. *I ask everyone to not judge a man by the mistakes he makes, but by how he rectifies them. All men do the former, far fewer do the latter.*

Rowe exhibited maturity in telling a truth he absolutely did not have to. It is important that we as a community embrace truth, however latent. I don't think many of the people on this forum understand how different a person Rowe is than he was when he set that record. He has truly become a better person over the last four years that I have known him and he is a deeply good man. Nobody here has the right to call him otherwise.

And so, in many ways, I have more respect for Rowe today than I did for him yesterday. I don't know that I would be strong enough to do the same thing myself.

-Kian Barry: competitor, friend, and WCA delegate


----------



## tim (Nov 29, 2012)

acohen527 said:


> But I'm saying if it was unusually lucky, or unheard of (like only 4 pieces unsolved in a scramble) there would be a pretty good chance that it was mis-scrambled, if that's a word. So would you afterwards check the scramble with the delegate or competition runner to make sure it was legitimate, or just take your solve.



What actually happens if the scrambler mis-scrambles the cube? He misses a move or executes D' as D or L' as R' or ... None of these scrambling errors improve the chance of an easy scramble noticeably. There's still the chance of the scrambler doing it on purpose (the 16 pieces solved thing), though. But the chances of this happening are extremely low since the scrambler will get in trouble if he does that. So the conclusion is: ALWAYS solve any scramble even if it looks ridiculously easy! You can always check the validity afterwards.
(Getting the same scramble a second time is a different issue, though.)



Kian said:


> Once that moment passed it must have been incredibly difficult to come forward.



Ah, that sounds much better than "It is very tough to say something, especially as time passes". I almost called you out on it. 



Kian said:


> Rowe exhibited maturity in telling a truth he absolutely did not have to.



Well, remorse probably played a big role here. So there was actually an advantage for him coming forward and telling the truth.


----------



## Mikel (Nov 29, 2012)

Kian said:


> I've already told Rowe personally, but I think it is worth noting how proud I am of him right now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I really like what you said here. I don't know him personally but I gained more respect for him too.


----------



## Kian (Nov 29, 2012)

tim said:


> Ah, that sounds much better than "It is very tough to say something, especially as time passes". I almost called you out on it.



Yes, you're right. This is far more accurate.


----------



## fastcubesolver (Nov 29, 2012)

That was well put, Kian.


----------



## MovingOnUp (Nov 29, 2012)

Personally, I feel that, if I put myself in the same position, the temptation may have been too great to not do the same thing. I believe in myself that I wouldn't do it, but that's not to say that I don't know for sure.

Having said that, waiting four years is a bit ridiculous. However, I don't think there is any dispute you are a really good cuber. 

Regardless, I'm happy with the position WCA took on it, because I don't want others to feel like they can't come forward because they will be banned, obviously every situation is different, but I can live with this judgement as long as Rowe wasn't hiding the mistake and got caught. Intention means a lot to me.

EDIT: 


Kian said:


> I've already told Rowe personally, but I think it is worth noting how proud I am of him right now.
> 
> Rowe made a mistake, of course. He made a lie of omission. Once that moment passed it must have been incredibly difficult to come forward. It is OK for you to be shocked by this and even to be a little bit pissed about it, but that shouldn't carry over into a damnation of the man. It's easy to sit at home and say there's not anything you did in your lives that you're not proud of, but you all know it's not true. I am absolutely sure that there are people in our community who have done unsportsmanlike things that we will never know about. Maybe this will encourage others to come forward, maybe not. We need to be willing to accept an apology that is asked for in good faith. *I ask everyone to not judge a man by the mistakes he makes, but by how he rectifies them. All men do the former, far fewer do the latter.*
> 
> ...



I read this after I posted, it is remarkably close to what I was trying to convey, +1


----------



## teller (Nov 29, 2012)

Growing up can be hard. I did some really stupid things when I was young and I didn't have to suffer the embarrassment of admitting them publicly like this. I forgive you, Rowe.


----------



## David Zemdegs (Nov 29, 2012)

As Dumbledore once said: " Soon you will have to make the choice between what is easy and what is right".


----------



## uniacto (Nov 29, 2012)

I can't say any good things or bad things about Rowe because I don't know his character or how he acts. But I will say this: confessing to something after 4 years takes alot of guts and I'm glad the truth was told. Lying and cheating is never worth it.


----------



## bgdgyfer (Nov 29, 2012)

Well, I don`t have much to say either. I don`t know Rowe, I just know he is fast. We forgive you..


----------



## rowehessler (Nov 29, 2012)

fazdad said:


> As Dumbledore once said: " Soon you will have to make the choice between what is easy and what is right".



I love harry potter


----------



## DavidWoner (Nov 29, 2012)

That was a very grown up and difficult thing to do, Rowe. Admirable, even. 

Cubers have done worse things when they were young and under pressure. The fact that you admitted it freely without accusation where others have continuously denied, even when presented with proof, is what sets this incident apart from others.

I am glad you came forward and hope we as a community, and especially you, can put this behind us.


----------



## Iggy (Nov 29, 2012)

I don't know you that well, but it was very brave for you to admit the truth. You're awesome and you have my full respect.


----------



## JasonK (Nov 29, 2012)

I honestly can't decide how I feel about the lack of consequences, however I definitely gained respect for Rowe. Would've been all too easy to just never say anything about it, but you chose to face the music anyway. Respect+


----------



## hcfong (Nov 29, 2012)

Well done Rowe, for reporting yourself. It shows you've matured and have grown as a person. Well done.



That70sShowDude said:


> I've been to less than 30 competitions and have gotten the same scramble twice in BLD easily over 5 times. The most common reason is that new judges tend to leave the spot blank and just take the card up. Some smaller competitions really need to take the time to teach their staff how to judge correctly.



I'm surprised that this happens so often. Yes, I can understand that an inexperienced judge might forget to write down a DNF, but what about the scrambers? Surely, a cube that's just been returned by the judge from a solve with a blank scoresheet should have been a reason for a scrambler (usually a more experienced person) to ask why it's still blank.


----------



## Cubenovice (Nov 29, 2012)

Props for Rowe for confessing.




sneaklyfox said:


> Hmm... I haven't actually been to any competition yet (but planning to). Is it more likely to get the same scramble twice in BLD than in sighted solves because the judge has to write down "DNF"? I mean, it's more natural to write down the time for a sighted solve but if you DNF a BLD, it's more likely the judge will leave the spot blank?



New judge forgetting to write DNF PLUS the competitor not signing the scoresheet...
Some competitor attention and maybe even *honesty* is in there too.

If this "not writing DNF" happens a lot the competitor could deliberately take advantage of it.


----------



## JasonK (Nov 29, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> New judge forgetting to write DNF PLUS the competitor not signing the scoresheet...
> Some competitor attention and maybe even *honesty* is in there too.
> 
> If this "not writing DNF" happens a lot the competitor could deliberately take advantage of it.


I can say from experience that the "Competitor must sign +2s and DNFs" regulation is not always followed.


----------



## Geert (Nov 29, 2012)

Mistakes happen, good thing you confessed your mistake, it shows great bravery to do this.



hcfong said:


> Surely, a cube that's just been returned by the judge from a solve with a blank scoresheet should have been a reason for a scrambler (usually a more experienced person) to ask why it's still blank.



I have scrambled numerous times, and to be honest, when I'm scrambling I'm not paying attention to the cubes that are coming back, I'm looking at the scrambles (because obviously I'm scrambling).
A cube that gets placed back with a blank scorecard (after a solve) can easily get lost between other cubes that are waiting to be scrambled...
After scrambling dozens of cubes, it's almost impossible to remember which cube/cuber already had a certain scramble.


----------



## Andreaillest (Nov 29, 2012)

I think I have more respect for you for confessing this years after it happened. Anyone would have kept this a secret and let it die, but deciding to fess up to it takes courage. We all do dumb things when we were younger and I'm sure the temptation at the time was very alluring. What matters is that you're rectifying what you've done on your own and I think most of us will forgive you because of this. 

I hope you found the peace you were looking for.


----------



## rwcinoto (Nov 29, 2012)

Congratulations for your courage. It is more important to the community than for you bringing it clear. It does not matter what other people think, the important thing is doing what you believe is right now, even though you have made a mistake in the past.


----------



## JianhanC (Nov 29, 2012)

rowehessler said:


> Its been killing me for a while and i just decided to tell them and come clean. Its been a major depressing thing for me and the worst part was not being able to talk about it with anyone. I just decided to tell Ron and hope for the best. It's another reason i stopped BLD, i was just ashamed of myself. I'm practicing now hopefully I'll break that 52 and actually deserve a good time.



Is that why you took up ciggys?  but really, major props for admitting it, well done. I remembered reading somewhere that you stopped BLD was because you thought you've hit your limit, now we know that's not entirely true haha. Really nice of you to come clean. Respect levelled up.


----------



## Goosly (Nov 29, 2012)

I would probably do the same thing 3 years ago, when I was 17 (hypothetically; I didn't know BLD back then), but at this time I really hope I would tell the judge I got the same scramble. I don't see the point of cheating in such a way, since it's just cheating yourself, but at that age everyone makes mistakes.


----------



## MarcelP (Nov 29, 2012)

It takes a lot of balls to admit such a thing in public. I think it is mighty big of you.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 29, 2012)

wow, I'm impressed that you'd admit to this. It's all fine in my books now.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 29, 2012)

Rowe:
You regretting and believably apologizing - nice move. But even though I don't worry too much about you, I care about the situation: Cheating in the first place - bad. Better confessing late than never? Sure, but having set several WRs (which naturally goes along with being a role model to other cubers) and still waiting for four years to eventually confess - ridiculous.

WCA:
Considering that Rowe cheated purposely (not just because he wasn't completely sure about the incident) and imposing no punishment [whyever] is ridiculous. If it was because he was confessing and because it's already that long ago, as opposed to getting caught in the act de facto doesn't make a difference, he still cheated. Considering it even was a new set WR back then (as opposed to e.g. a less relevant last place in competition) and still not imposing any punishment at all is even more ridiculous! Handling such a situation like that is basically saying 'When you cheat, simply confess some time later and you won't receive any punishments'.
Cheaters (no matter if competitor or judge) in official events always should receive a reasonable punishment - the worse the misdemeanor the worse the punishment. (And in my opinion - regarding WCA competitions - cheating for most probably setting a World Record is only topped by physically harming others.) So imposing no punishment for such a misbehaviour while appearing as the only "real", respectable (world) association is highly unprofessional and reduces the WCA's credibility massively.


----------



## Applecow (Nov 29, 2012)

Eric79 said:


> So since notes taken by judges on the cards obviously aren't reliable (because they are unexperienced, badly trained or for whatever other reasons), scramblers also should have tables to check who already got a specific scramble - this should always have been obligatory.



about that:
A7c) The competitor is responsible for checking the result on the sheet, immediately after the judge has written it down.


----------



## hcfong (Nov 29, 2012)

Eric79 said:


> Rowe:
> You regretting and believably apologizing - nice move. But even though I don't worry too much about you, I care about the situation: Cheating in the first place - bad. Better confessing late than never? Sure, but having set several WRs (which naturally goes along with being a role model to other cubers) and still waiting for four years to eventually confess - ridiculous.
> 
> WCA:
> ...



A few comments:

- Rowe was punished. His WR was scrapped and he forfeited his extra attempt.
- Confessing rather than being caught certainly does make a difference. People who admit they've done wrong are often treated more lenient than people who persevere in claiming their innocence in the midst of overwhelming evidence. 
- Cheating with a WR as a result is not worse than cheating with a random time as a result. Cheating is cheating, whatever the result is. It's still compromosing the integrity of the results. 
- In my opinion, the WCA responded adequately to the situation. They looked at the seriousness of the offence, took into account that Rowe admitted to it out of his own initiative, and made, in my opinion, the right decision. And this decision does in no way compromise the WCA's credibility.
- Competitions can only run smoothly when people are willing to help out with judging and scrambling. Saying that someone should never judge again and be punished for an honest mistake he made is just ridiculous. We should be happy with every person who is willing to help out and let him know when he's doing something wrong (or she of course).
- Have you ever been to a competition? If you have, you probably would have noticed that your suggestion of having tables to check who already got which scramble isn't possible. Scramblers have to rely on the judge writing the correct details down.

For all those who are disappointed by the actions taken by the WCA and believe Rowe should be punished more severely; are you completely blameless yourself? I don't think Rowe was the only who's made a mistake, who took advantage of the situation, knowing that no one would ever find out. He is however one of the very few who confessed. That is to be commended.


----------



## cubegenius (Nov 29, 2012)

I respect you for confessing. Hope you will keep cubing!


----------



## Ickathu (Nov 29, 2012)

You gained my respect, Rowe. I think that a punishment would have been perfectly acceptable, but I think that no punishment is fine too, since you did confess on your own.


----------



## fastcubesolver (Nov 29, 2012)

hcfong said:


> A few comments:
> 
> - Rowe was punished. His WR was scrapped and he forfeited his extra attempt.
> - Confessing rather than being caught certainly does make a difference. People who admit they've done wrong are often treated more lenient than people who persevere in claiming their innocence in the midst of overwhelming evidence.
> ...



A few responses:

- Of course his WR was scrapped, duh. He's been lying about this for 4 years, I think he should receive further punishment for that
- true
- I would say that cheating in a WR has a somewhat larger effect than a regular non-WR time, due to it's publicity and effect on more people's times and such.
- the WCA has shown that they may not be taken seriously, this in my opinion somewhat damages their credibility. 
- thinking that someone may not have another scramble due to getting a repeat scramble is far less than an honest mistake. 
- also true, judges need to be trusted. 

I love the World Cube Association. Cubing is my favorite passion. I do not mean to insult the WCA, this is just my view on the issue.


----------



## tim (Nov 29, 2012)

hcfong said:


> - Cheating with a WR as a result is not worse than cheating with a random time as a result. Cheating is cheating, whatever the result is. It's still compromosing the integrity of the results.



A WR has a direct effect on others, though. Fast cubers start/stop practicing or approach their solves differently and risk not winning the competition. In contrast, a random 3:21 BLD solve usually doesn't affect anyone.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 29, 2012)

fastcubesolver said:


> He's been lying about this for 4 years,


It's not like he's been constantly going around telling everyone about his 52.27 since then. There's a difference between lying and not telling someone stuff.



fastcubesolver said:


> the WCA has shown that they may not be taken seriously


What, because they were lenient? Think about it a little. If the WCA was more strict, and banned Rowe or something, future people in the same situation would never come forward about it - it would be much better to just keep it secret forever so you don't get punished. This gives people an incentive to be honest. The WCA's action shows that they care more about _preventing cheating and establishing trust in the results_ than _punishing people_. If you believe that punishing people is more important, you've got something wrong with you.


----------



## MalusDB (Nov 29, 2012)

qqwref said:


> The WCA's action shows that they care more about _preventing cheating and establishing trust in the results_ than _punishing people_. If you believe that punishing people is more important, you've got something wrong with you.



Well said. I gotta say though leniency is one thing but basically getting off the hook completely for this is probably not "just" either. He should have all his times revoked I think, and start from scratch. Sure you can say that since he was honest about this that he would be honest about the others, but maybe it is to divert attention from him? The issue with all this is that we don't actually know, so preventative measures should be undertaken to ensure the integrity of the sport and the WCA itself is protected. But what do I know?


----------



## fastcubesolver (Nov 29, 2012)

qqwref said:


> It's not like he's been constantly going around telling everyone about his 52.27 since then. There's a difference between lying and not telling someone stuff.
> 
> 
> What, because they were lenient? Think about it a little. If the WCA was more strict, and banned Rowe or something, future people in the same situation would never come forward about it - it would be much better to just keep it secret forever so you don't get punished. This gives people an incentive to be honest. The WCA's action shows that they care more about _preventing cheating and establishing trust in the results_ than _punishing people_. If you believe that punishing people is more important, you've got something wrong with you.



Lying by omission, then. So sorry. 

Maybe they wouldn't need to come forward because they would not do wrong due to fear of being punished. Punishing someone shows others what will happen if they break the rules, does it not?


----------



## Goosly (Nov 29, 2012)

fastcubesolver said:


> Maybe they wouldn't need to come forward because they would not do wrong due to fear of being punished. Punishing someone shows others what will happen if they break the rules, does it not?



But if such a situation occurs again, it's easy for the competitor to take the advantage, and no one will ever know. So punishing means no one will ever confess this sort of events. Encouraging the confession seems to me a correct decision, keeping in mind the spirit of the WCA:

_The spirit of the World Cube Association is that
people from all over the world have fun together in a friendly atmosphere, help each other and behave sportsmanlike._

I also believe that not being respected by people like yourself will be enough punishment for Rowe, as he stated in the first post.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 29, 2012)

qqwref said:


> [...] future people in the same situation would never come forward about it - it would be much better to just keep it secret forever so you don't get punished. [...]


You could also say future people in the same situation know they can [try to] cheat without the fear of being punished. Or, maybe future people would not get themselves into the same situation in the first place - if there were punishments? Of course, a "no punishments" statement like this might help some people to confess, but to others it might as well be like saying: "Whenever you get the chance to cheat, do it, cheat!".
In the real world punishments are not only to punish a misbehaviour that already has taken place but also to prevent future misdemeanor under penalty of those punishments. If you want serious events, there have to be strict rules that need to be followed - and if they aren't followed, if "mistakes" are made, there need to be just as strict consequences and punishments. Not having punishments and simply believe in peoples trustworthiness obviously does not work. It's plain naive as experience has taught. As said before, in my opinion the situation as is right now is quite ridiculous.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 29, 2012)

Way to step up, Rowe. That definitely took some maturity. I look forward to next year's rematch


----------



## Sebastien (Nov 29, 2012)

Very clever Eric to talk as if the WCA Board had never punished a cheater. 

@all: stop talking about the WCA if you actually mean the WCA Board. Everyone of you who has been to a competition is part of the WCA.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 29, 2012)

Sebastien said:


> @all: stop talking about the WCA if you actually mean the WCA Board.



Why? It's obvious who they mean.


----------



## MichaelErskine (Nov 29, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Why? It's obvious who they mean.



The World Cheerleading Association are confused by the peoples' confusion

EDIT: oh yeah, props to Rowe - good decision man


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 29, 2012)

Sebastien, I don't know where exactly you read that "the WCA Board had never punished a cheater". Can't be my post: Actually I know quite well about some previous occurrences that got punished. So you must be reading things that aren't written. But as you have kinda brought it up: Yes, in my opinion too few punishments are imposed for cheaters (judges as well as competitors) by the WCA Board - as I have partly indicated in my previous post already; which is part of what led me to my conclusion that things are ridiculous and WCAs(!) credibility is suffering.


----------



## rubixwiz031 (Nov 29, 2012)

Eric79 said:


> Sebastien, I don't know where exactly you read that "the WCA Board had never punished a cheater". Can't be my post: Actually I know quite well about some previous occurrences that got punished. So you must be reading things that aren't written. But as you have kinda brought it up: Yes, in my opinion too few punishments are imposed for cheaters (judges as well as competitors) by the WCA Board - as I have partly indicated in my previous post already; which is part of what led me to my conclusion that things are ridiculous and WCAs(!) credibility is suffering.


Hmm.... Can you please supply your source? I would be interested to read that.


----------



## Tyson (Nov 29, 2012)

Eric79 said:


> You could also say future people in the same situation know they can [try to] cheat without the fear of being punished. Or, maybe future people would not get themselves into the same situation in the first place - if there were punishments? Of course, a "no punishments" statement like this might help some people to confess, but to others it might as well be like saying: "Whenever you get the chance to cheat, do it, cheat!".
> In the real world punishments are not only to punish a misbehaviour that already has taken place but also to prevent future misdemeanor under penalty of those punishments. If you want serious events, there have to be strict rules that need to be followed - and if they aren't followed, if "mistakes" are made, there need to be just as strict consequences and punishments. Not having punishments and simply believe in peoples trustworthiness obviously does not work. It's plain naive as experience has taught. As said before, in my opinion the situation as is right now is quite ridiculous.



I just wanted to take a moment to point out that your argument here is fundamentally wrong. The idea that future people in the same situation can try to do the same thing without being punished? This is incorrect. The reason why Rowe's punishment is very lenient is because he's the one who came forward. So in order to have treatment similar to Rowe, the cheater would have to come forward. Which then makes no sense as to why you would cheat in the first place.

If someone cheated, and then was discovered by the WCA Board or another source, then it would be a different matter. Certainly some type of ban would be in place in that situation. But I still don't see how someone can look at Rowe's situation and Rowe's outcome, and benefit from it. If I'm wrong, let me know. But from my thinking, I feel that your argument is flawed.



Eric79 said:


> But as you have kinda brought it up: Yes, in my opinion too few punishments are imposed for cheaters (judges as well as competitors) by the WCA Board - as I have partly indicated in my previous post already; which is part of what led me to my conclusion that things are ridiculous and WCAs(!) credibility is suffering.



Can you give examples of cheating incidents where you feel that there needed to be more punishment?


----------



## mitch1234 (Nov 30, 2012)

Good apology.


----------



## Akiro (Nov 30, 2012)

It takes a lot of courage !

Respect :tu


----------



## masterofthebass (Nov 30, 2012)

rowehessler said:


> I apologize to Dan Cohen, who did in fact really win BLD at Westchester Fall 2008.



LOL


----------



## rowehessler (Nov 30, 2012)

masterofthebass said:


> LOL


lol i thought you'd like that


----------



## qqwref (Nov 30, 2012)

MalusDB said:


> He should have all his times revoked I think, and start from scratch. Sure you can say that since he was honest about this that he would be honest about the others, but maybe it is to divert attention from him?


Do you understand what he did? He took advantage of a situation that is pretty rare. Suggesting that this means he might have cheated all his other solves is absurd.



Eric79 said:


> Or, maybe future people would not get themselves into the same situation in the first place - if there were punishments?


This *is* a punishment. The time was revoked. And people shouldn't get themselves into the same situation anyway because the publicity of this will make us work towards eliminating repeat scrambles.


----------



## Ranzha (Nov 30, 2012)

Kian's post sums all of my thoughts and more up.
Major respect for owning up to it. It must've eaten you alive. Forcing down stuff like that is gut-wrenching.


----------



## Bhargav777 (Nov 30, 2012)

That was really really a brave thing. Apologising in public, even after getting into one of the best cubers club is'nt soething everyone can do.
#Respect


----------



## Sebastien (Nov 30, 2012)

Eric79 said:


> Sebastien, I don't know where exactly you read that "the WCA Board had never punished a cheater".



I neither read that nor assumed that you explicitely stated this. I just said that you talked as if that was the case.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 30, 2012)

Tyson said:


> I just wanted to take a moment to point out that your argument here is fundamentally wrong. The idea that future people in the same situation can try to do the same thing without being punished? This is incorrect.


You misinterpreted what I worte. In short: I (basically) said that this is sending out the wrong message and that people might risk cheating more often - because they assume there were no punishments because of how this incident is handled.
In long: I didn't say people were not punished in future. What I wrote was a reply and indication of how people could interpret what qqwref said (the part I cited; the context of my post) and how your/the Boards actions may be understood by competitors and the public. This underpinned by pointing to the fact that people (here Rowe) actually take advantage of such situations - which kinda shows that what I wrote is far from being "fundamentally wrong".



Tyson said:


> The reason why Rowe's punishment is very lenient is because he's the one who came forward.


This - in my opinion - was a reason to impose a more lenient punishment, yes. But a punishment additionally to removing his time - opposed to only removing his time from the tables. If you commit a crime and confess afterwards, you still get punished. His crime was cheating in a WCA event. This should be the worst misdemeanor in WCA competitions as it harms the WCAs image the most, internally and externally.
One shouldn't say he just took advantage of the situation and that it was the judges fault by forgetting to fill out the card correctly and thus it's no cheating: Rowe did - with full knowledge (everyone is asked to read and know the rules before competing) and thus wilfully - infringe the rules. He was responsible to controll the judge ("A7c) The competitor is responsible for checking the result on the sheet, immediately after the judge has written it down."). Therefore he indeed cheated.
So removing the illegally achieved WR is not a punishment, it is simply correcting former results. Just like not granting another belatedly try with a new scramble is not a punishment - as he cheated, we don't owe him this chance in the first place.
And just to make things clear again: As previously stated I don't worry too much about Rowe, it's about principles and that breach of the rules should be punished.



Tyson said:


> So in order to have treatment similar to Rowe, the cheater would have to come forward. Which then makes no sense as to why you would cheat in the first place.


I agree, but you have to - for example - ask Rowe why he still confessed or took advantage of the situation in the first plave - even though he knew better.



Tyson said:


> If someone cheated, and then was discovered by the WCA Board or another source, then it would be a different matter. Certainly some type of ban would be in place in that situation.


And so should be proceeded in this situation as well as the misdemeanor happend, it's not undone by confessing.



Tyson said:


> But I still don't see how someone can look at Rowe's situation and Rowe's outcome, and benefit from it. If I'm wrong, let me know. But from my thinking, I feel that your argument is flawed.


As said before, you should ask others for their motivation to cheat. I can only assume that they do it for possible PBs and/or fame. To them the risk of getting caught still seems to be (to them obviously is) reasonable for what they might gain.

anyway, I of course understand that you see things different from me because we simply are two different people with a different background. But you should consider that your point of view as a board member (and maybe personal friend of Rowe) is flawed too: After all you are representing a worldwide association and thus you (the board) should not only have your personal point of view when deciding things, you should also try to take other cultures/peoples morals and way of viewing things in consideration as well. Western (with a western mind) people judge different than people from the Middle or Far East. But the WCA is representing people from all over the world, so you should meet those peoples expectations somehow. As you can see in the threads regarding the incident, there actually are quite some people who had expected a punishment.

You want the WCA to be officially respected and acknowledged in the whole world. Not only by WCA members but also by the people and the media in general. So being sloppy (now I'm not only talking about this case, but in general about not always have anything double checked during competitions 100%, which makes cheating by false/double scrambles possible in the first place) or being inconsequent (see things mentioned e.g. here like judges at one place judging different than at another place) for sure does not help to achieve that goal. Handling this recent incident like you did reminds me more of innocent playground rules instead of serious world association rules. After 8 years the WCA should have matured more. So the rest of the world might not take you/us serious if things work like that.
Of course it all should be about fun in a friendly atmosphere instead of punishment, but nowadays there are newspapers writing about events and world records, speedcubers show up even on TV... so it should be time to get things straight and to make sure that if things are against the rules, that there are consequenses and punishments. And if because of this there are less competitions, I agree with Owen who wrote (here): "Sure, I'd rather go to one solid competition per year than three shaky ones.". In my opinion Rowe should be banned - just like anyone else who was caught cheating. The difference in his case should be in how long he is getting banned.



Tyson said:


> Can you give examples of cheating incidents where you feel that there needed to be more punishment?


Sure: Rowe in this case and the judge who said "Well, it's better to have a scramble you remember then to get a new one" when being told that he gave out the same scramble twice to the same competitor (mentioned in this post here). That judge also should be banned - as competitor and as judge. As judge for a lifetime. Yes, I know I have strong opinions.

Ok, by now I've written enough and I made my point (more than once), so this is my last post on this topic here. Unfortunately I don't feel like things will change for the better anytime soon.


----------



## tim (Nov 30, 2012)

Eric79 said:


> and the judge who said "Well, it's better to have a scramble you remember then to get a new one" when being told that he gave out the same scramble twice to the same competitor (mentioned in this post here).



It looks to me as if this incident was never brought up to the WCA board let alone the WCA delegate on site.


----------



## chris410 (Nov 30, 2012)

Good on that you cleared your conscience and came forward when you could have easily gotten away with it...now you can move past it.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 30, 2012)

tim said:


> It looks to me as if this incident was never brought up to the WCA board let alone the WCA delegate on site.



I gave more information on the other thread, but this is currently in discussion with the WCA board; I'm trying to take care of it.

And as for Rowe's situation: Rowe, I really appreciate that you came forward with this - thank you.


----------



## tim (Nov 30, 2012)

Mike Hughey said:


> I gave more information on the other thread, but this is currently in discussion with the WCA board; I'm trying to take care of it.



The purpose of my post was actually solely to point out his flawed example. I didn't want to blame anyone for potentially ignoring the incident. Great that you take care of it!


----------



## bran (Nov 30, 2012)

Eric79 said:


> ~("A7c) The competitor is responsible for checking the result on the sheet, immediately after the judge has *written* it down.")~





rowehessler said:


> ~My judge was inexperienced and did not *write* down DNF on the second solve.....



And hats off to you Rowe for confessing to something which could have just been your secret for your whole life.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 30, 2012)

One last thing:


tim said:


> It looks to me as if this incident was never brought up to the WCA board let alone the WCA delegate on site.


I totally agree and I didn't want to make it sound as if it was brought up back than. But now it surfaced and was brought up to the Board. Tyson asked me for examples and I mentioned that judge/incident as one.


----------



## hcfong (Nov 30, 2012)

Eric79 said:


> anyway, I of course understand that you see things different from me because we simply are two different people with a different background. But you should consider that your point of view as a board member (and maybe personal friend of Rowe) is flawed too: After all you are representing a worldwide association and thus you (the board) should not only have your personal point of view when deciding things, you should also try to take other cultures/peoples morals and way of viewing things in consideration as well. Western (with a western mind) people judge different than people from the Middle or Far East. But the WCA is representing people from all over the world, so you should meet those peoples expectations somehow. As you can see in the threads regarding the incident, there actually are quite some people who had expected a punishment.



The WCA Board consists of 4 persons, from 2 different continents, so saying that Tyson made a decision based solely on his own personal views is just plain wrong. I assume that this decision has been made by the whole Board and not just an individual Board member.


----------



## Thaynara (Nov 30, 2012)

I am a bit ''disappointed'' for doing what you did, but at least you did come up with the truth which is the best in these cases. However, we can't really blame some ''stupid'' actions that teenagers do because they don't think about their actions and If those actions can reflect in a near future. By that time you were 17, now you have 21y/o (right?) and many people can learn over the years....and guess what? You did and I'm proud of you. 
I always had respect for the person that you are (because when I started speedcubing, you were one of the persons that ''I mirrored'' to be more fast and also because Breandan showed me what kinda of human-being you are). Now you should be wondering yourself about what Breandan told be about you haha but I'm not gonna say anything here, because I don't need to ''judge'' you or whatever. If people know you, If people know what kinda of human you are, they will accept your apology as I do.
Below is a passage from a song I like, because we can think about our actions and expect to be accepted by society. 

''Don't worry, cause' evrey little thing gonna be alright'' - Bob Marley
<3 Rowe


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 30, 2012)

Thanks Rowe, coming clean to Ron/Tyson must must have been hard to do. As a fellow cuber I appreciate you admitting your past mistake, and I'm happy to move past it.


----------



## CarlBrannen (Dec 1, 2012)

Congratulations on confessing. That must have been horrible.

But I'm not sure what a contestant should do when confronted with a scramble that is apparently identical to one already given. I don't do BLD, but the same problem certainly can come up in sighted solves.

If I tell them that the scramble is a repeat do I get a replacement scramble? What if I'm wrong, by telling them that I suspect it's the same scramble do I get a DNF? In fact, there is a chance that you could get two identical scrambles in a row in a perfectly legitimate set of two scrambles. It's as likely as getting a "solved cube" as a scramble but the probability is not zero.

After they show you the cube, the pressure is on. I can see why someone would solve the thing and worry about the consequences later. We're timed on how long it takes us to solve a cube not on how long it takes us to resolve moral dilemmas. When I'm solving a cube (and being serious about it), I'm thinking of nothing but solving that cube.

I can totally see how one could postpone telling the judges that it seemed like a repeat scramble until after finishing the solve. But after solving it, how can the judges figure out if it was, in fact, a repeat? Isn't it your word against, well, no one in this case. So should the judges give an extra scramble to a contestant who claims that he's been given a repeat scramble?


----------



## A Leman (Dec 1, 2012)

CarlBrannen said:


> So should the judges give an extra scramble to a contestant who claims that he's been given a repeat scramble?



This could lead to a different type of cheating where someone says they had a repeat scramble after a bad solve to protect their average and give them another chance.


----------



## Julian (Dec 1, 2012)

CarlBrannen said:


> Congratulations on confessing. That must have been horrible.
> 
> But I'm not sure what a contestant should do when confronted with a scramble that is apparently identical to one already given. I don't do BLD, but the same problem certainly can come up in sighted solves.
> 
> ...


What I would do is solve the cube, then tell the head judge that you think you got a duplicate scramble. If you did and it was an accident, chances are the scrambler will be able to confirm the mistake, and you will get a replacement scramble.


----------



## uberCuber (Dec 1, 2012)

Julian said:


> If you did and it was an accident, chances are the scrambler will be able to confirm the mistake



Do you actually think so? I would think that with scrambling a bunch of cubes for different people, they wouldn't really remember which scrambles they've performed on which cubes. This could be hard to remember even with a conscious effort to do so.


----------



## antoineccantin (Dec 1, 2012)

uberCuber said:


> Do you actually think so? I would think that with scrambling a bunch of cubes for different people, they wouldn't really remember which scrambles they've performed on which cubes. This could be hard to remember even with a conscious effort to do so.



He could easily confirm that it is the same scramble by checking what the first scramble looks like.


----------



## uberCuber (Dec 1, 2012)

antoineccantin said:


> He could easily confirm that it is the same scramble by checking what the first scramble looks like.



Julian also said he would solve the cube first, though. Perhaps I should have included that in the quotation


----------



## tim (Dec 1, 2012)

The rules of thumb I follow:
- In speed solves I never complain about a duplicated scramble since I only have four (cross) pieces as a reference and being wrong could lead to a DNF (depends on the judge/delegate). But I make sure to solve the cross differently in order to get a different solve. And I also make sure to complain afterwards or tell the scramblers to pay more attention.
- In BLD solves I always complain since I'm 100% sure about what I memorized a few minutes ago.

I don't know about Multi BLD, though. Since complaining costs valuable time and I might lose focus I'll probably be tempted to give the cube a few turns without anyone noticing. ^^


----------



## hcfong (Dec 1, 2012)

tim said:


> The rules of thumb I follow:
> - In speed solves I never complain about a duplicated scramble since I only have four (cross) pieces as a reference and being wrong could lead to a DNF (depends on the judge/delegate). But I make sure to solve the cross differently in order to get a different solve. And I also make sure to complain afterwards or tell the scramblers to pay more attention.



Really? Has it ever happened to you? I don't think that wrongly, but in good faith, reporting a duplicate scramble should ever result in a DNF. In the worst case, you get the reverse scramble. But, do correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## tim (Dec 1, 2012)

hcfong said:


> Really? Has it ever happened to you?



Getting the same scramble? All the time.
Getting a DNF? No, but I've never been wrong when I complained about a duplicated scramble. I've been told (by a delegate), that not being right might result in a DNF, though. And I understand why that is the case. When you complain you basically ask for a new scramble: If it turns out that the cube was in fact scrambled correctly they can't give it back to you since then you'd have more than 15 seconds of inspection. So the only other choice they have is to scramble it differently. If you always do this when you get a bad scramble you'll gain an advantage over the other competitors.


----------



## Meep (Dec 1, 2012)

hcfong said:


> Really? Has it ever happened to you? I don't think that wrongly, but in good faith, reporting a duplicate scramble should ever result in a DNF. In the worst case, you get the reverse scramble. But, do correct me if I'm wrong.



It has happened before. I'd imagine that some person might take advantage of it by requesting a reverse scramble if they inspected and found a particular scramble had a bad cross/first step.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 1, 2012)

Perhaps we could somehow design a system that makes repeat scrambles basically impossible. The trick would be to (a) isolate the scrambles so a scrambler can't do the wrong one, and (b) make sure the judges don't forget to write down a result. Here are a few ideas.


1) Have the judge do the scrambling right there, perhaps with some kind of opaque thing they can slide over the scramble sheet to make sure they never accidentally use the wrong move sequence. Of course this only works with short puzzles (where the scramble only takes a little time), and requires the judge to be a cuber.

2) A bit more involved: have a separate scrambling area for each solve - maybe a table, maybe just a makeshift cubby or booth - and a separate scrambler for each one, who only has the one scramble. The judge would have to keep track of which scramble number they are on, and either return it to the next booth or tell the runner what number that solve was, but assuming they did that it would be foolproof.

3) Set up a computer system where you select the competitor's name from a dropdown box or something, and select the event, and it pops up their next scramble. The computer would keep track of which one has been done so nobody else has to. We'd have to have a good user interface that makes it easy to get 2+ scrambles for the same person in a row, and also makes it hard to accidentally skip someone's scramble. The problem here is making it work with multiple human scramblers at once without messing up.


----------



## Schmidt (Dec 1, 2012)

@#2: if there were 5 booths with one scrambler in each, the runner only has to look at the paper to see what number the last solve had and add 1 to that number to know where the cube should be taken to.

@#3: hook a computer up with a Lego robot and have a barcode for each solver=no mistakes.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 1, 2012)

Schmidt said:


> @#2: if there were 5 booths with one scrambler in each, the runner only has to look at the paper to see what number the last solve had and add 1 to that number to know where the cube should be taken to.


I'm thinking they'd personally ask the judge.



Schmidt said:


> @#3: hook a computer up with a Lego robot and have a barcode for each solver=no mistakes.


Robotic scramblers are very slow and can't easily handle multiple sizes/types of cube, and it would also take a crazy amount of work to get them made, programmed, and properly set up for competitions.


----------



## cubernya (Dec 1, 2012)

I think #3 could work well. Nearly all competitions have at least 1 computer handy.


----------



## Tristan97tfj (Dec 1, 2012)

Wow, this is shocking, but I admire you even more than I did. Well done for coming clean. As Albert Einstein once said, If you never make a mistake, you have never tried anything new.


----------

