# Multiple judges per average?



## LucidCuber (May 20, 2014)

Has the possibility ever been discussed of having a maximum number of attempts a judge may do for a competitor?

I know quite often a single judge may judge all 5 of a competitors solves during an average. I've occasionally done this myself and I'm sure that while in 99% of cases this is all done legitimately it allows an opportunity for fraudulent solves, it would certainly increase peoples confidence if there was a maximum number of solves a judge could do. Perhaps a maximum of 3 out of the 5 solves?

If I recall on martin telefoso's score sheet the same judge had done all 5 solves.


----------



## ottozing (May 20, 2014)

This could also stop people judging certain people just because they're fast and want to be in their possible wr videos or whatever. Interesting idea.


----------



## LucidCuber (May 20, 2014)

It would be quite easy for a person unknown to the cubing community to produce a 12.5 average and no one would even question it. But if multiple judges were required then this average would be a serious red flag

12.47, 13.82 (11.07), 39.97, (42.09)


----------



## kinch2002 (May 20, 2014)

I try to stop judges from waiting for specific cubes to be scrambled. I don't like seeing a 12 year old kid judging his 13 year old friend for all 5 solves. I think people should look out for this and tell the delegate if they see that behaviour.

I don't think a strict limit would be easy to apply at all. A guideline suggesting that you should not be intentionally choosing who to judge each time might be good.

There can be exceptions, though. For example, in a final with fixed seats and fixed judges. That's cool by me.


----------



## Tim Major (May 20, 2014)

ottozing said:


> This could also stop people judging certain people just because they're fast and want to be in their possible wr videos or whatever. Interesting idea.



Yeah I agree, I hate people like that!


----------



## LucidCuber (May 20, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> I try to stop judges from waiting for specific cubes to be scrambled. I don't like seeing a 12 year old kid judging his 13 year old friend for all 5 solves. I think people should look out for this and tell the delegate if they see that behaviour.
> 
> I don't think a strict limit would be easy to apply at all. A guideline suggesting that you should not be intentionally choosing who to judge each time might be good.
> 
> There can be exceptions, though. For example, in a final with fixed seats and fixed judges. That's cool by me.



I was going to suggest an exception for finals too, when everyone is watching and it is filmed too, so cheating is much less of an issue.

I have to say that while I generally just go for a random cube at the scrambling table, if there is some competitor that you've never heard of it can be a real hassle finding them at times, so I can see why people sometimes legitimately want to judge people they know.

I actually recall you stopping people at Oxford looking through the scrambles for specific competitors, so perhaps it should be something that the scramblers are made aware of? If a scrambler notices a scoresheet that has 4 solves with 1 judge, then they could put that scramble aside and specifically give it to another person to judge.


----------



## Dene (May 20, 2014)

I can think of a number of reasons why it would be impractical to implement such a rule without a number of exceptions which would render it semi-useless anyway. 

I can definitely see the merits that this sort of rule would have, but I don't think this is the best solution to the problem. (In saying that, I don't have a better idea off the top of my head, but I still think such a rule would be worse than no rule at all).


----------



## Laura O (May 20, 2014)

When I am scrambling and see someone waiting there for a certain cube I just keep the one he is waiting for and hand him another. This has always worked for me. 

Although such a regulation would be useful, it's very hard to keep track of. And what should be the consequence if this rule is broken?


----------



## TMOY (May 20, 2014)

The runner system usually solves the problem; runners bring your cube to a random judge at a random table, that way you don't always get judged by the same person. But it may not be practical to implement at some comps (in very small venues for example).


----------



## LucidCuber (May 20, 2014)

TMOY said:


> The runner system usually solves the problem; runners bring your cube to a random judge at a random table, that way you don't always get judged by the same person. But it may not be practical to implement at some comps (in very small venues for example).



I actually hadn't thought about that, but I always assumed the runner system was quite rare


----------



## hcfong (May 20, 2014)

In my experience, there are a number of reasons why these things happen:

- People want to judge faster people, in the hope of judging a record.
- People want to judge friends. I've seen this happening. One person would pretty much claim to cube of his or her friend and hold on to it and both scramble and judge the solves.
- This is one that annoys me a lot, because I'm often on the receiving end of it. People see a cube with a difficult name with it and instead of having a go at it, they'll leave it and pick another one. 

The runner system is a good way to prevent this to happen. Another system is one I've seen in Denmark, where they have a sort of slide, so when a cube is scrambled, in will be put on the slide and in the right order. Of course, it's still possible to pick a preferred cube, but the system makes it much more obvious if you pick a cube from the middle of the line, rather than just the first in line. From what I've seen, this worked pretty well as I didn't have to wait until my cube was the only one left, as has happened to me before.


----------



## megaminxwin (May 20, 2014)

ottozing said:


> This could also stop people judging certain people just because they're fast and want to be in their possible wr videos or whatever. Interesting idea.



I know I'm guilty of this, re: Northpark, judging all five of Faz's pyraminx solves.

I think this is a good idea, but it's hard to regulate until after the fact, keeping track of all the judges and competitors at the same time.


----------



## Erik (May 20, 2014)

No reason at all to make any guideline or regulations about this I think. Just a matter of organizing your scrambling table appropriate: a thing I do sometimes is to make a line/queue of cubes (cubes with fewer solves, or slow solvers on the front) to make sure we don't end up with everyone done and just 3 people with 3 solves left. Just instruct the judges to take cubes from the front of the line: done.

This is one of the reasons I think the scramblers should mostly be more experienced cubers (experienced cubers are also better at checking the cubes for legal-ness. Yes I know this is the delegates job, but in reality scramblers check and just notify the delegate in case they see cubes with bad stickers).


----------



## LucidCuber (May 20, 2014)

hcfong said:


> In my experience, there are a number of reasons why these things happen:
> 
> - This is one that annoys me a lot, because I'm often on the receiving end of it. People see a cube with a difficult name with it and instead of having a go at it, they'll leave it and pick another one....
> 
> ....Another system is one I've seen in Denmark, where they have a sort of slide, so when a cube is scrambled, in will be put on the slide and in the right order.



One problem is that competitors are sometimes absent from the competitors area, especially at cramped comps. I must admit I'm somewhat guilty of this, but it's because so many times I've picked up a cube of a competitor I don't know, called their name and not get a response. If you know who someone is, you can just scan the room and immediately go to them.

This Danish system seems very good actually, and would indeed resolve the problem.


----------



## ~Adam~ (May 20, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> A guideline suggesting that you should not be intentionally choosing who to judge each time might be good.



I often look for people who have done the least amount of solves then judge them. The scrambling table could have sections marked off for 1st-5th solves for the scramblers to place the cubes into. I know that space at a scrambling table can be an issue though.

Edit - or just put them in a line like Erik suggested.


----------



## Antonie faz fan (May 20, 2014)

When I have a friend ( or atleast someone I know or talk to quit often) I feel more confident I usually ask a friend to judge me cuz they know how to get me relaxed and when I am readdy( for example this noob at his first comp came to judge me and I sat down grabbed the stopwatch and instead of asking are you ready it ( just so I know it is 100%anonimous) said go and just showed the cube) and also I don't see the reason why having the same judge multiple times will give you an advantage or even let you cheat.


----------



## kinch2002 (May 20, 2014)

cube-o-holic said:


> I often look for people who have done the least amount of solves then judge them. The scrambling table could have sections marked off for 1st-5th solves for the scramblers to place the cubes into. I know that space at a scrambling table can be an issue though.
> 
> Edit - or just put them in a line like Erik suggested.



I do put them in lines of how many solves they've done. Everyone ignores them, so the scrambler has to tell them which one to take anyway


----------



## Antonie faz fan (May 20, 2014)

hcfong said:


> In my experience, there are a number of reasons why these things happen:
> 
> - People want to judge faster people, in the hope of judging a record.
> - People want to judge friends. I've seen this happening. One person would pretty much claim to cube of his or her friend and hold on to it and both scramble and judge the solves.
> ...



Little response on the runners type of comps.
At my only comp with this system I noticed I got to distracted and also some other people pointed out that people who could get records ( for example Paulo Moriello and Bence Barat at that comp) would get distracted. Wich doesn't mew. All the other people don't have the rights for a normal solve. Then again at the other system whe mainly use In the Netherlands and Belgium whe still are calling but I found that at the runners system is much more distracting and can't find a reason to use that at big comps .


----------



## TinaIsAwesome (May 20, 2014)

LucidCuber said:


> It would be quite easy for a person unknown to the cubing community to produce a 12.5 average and no one would even question it. But if multiple judges were required then this average would be a serious red flag
> 
> 12.47, 13.82 (11.07), 39.97, (42.09)



How is that a red flag? I don't average 11-12 seconds but instead 16 and in the second round of my last competition, I popped my cube twice in two different solves. That gave me a 33 and a 57 when I usually average 15-17. I know what you meant but I just wanted to point that out. Anyway, I think it would be impractical to implement such a rule especially because it just overcomplicates the solving process (keeping track of who's had which judge, the only judge being open is one you've had 3 times already so you have to wait for the next one which would waste time, etc.) and because at smaller comps it's hard to even get enough people to judge. The runner system I think works really well. It's been used at most if not all the comps I've been to and it seems to work pretty smoothly and it prevents cheating from happening. The only downfall is that because it's due to chance some people end up doing their solves almost back to back whereas some people have to wait a long time in-between their solves.


----------



## ~Adam~ (May 20, 2014)

Distracting in what way?

Comps are just generally distracting IMO and the only time it ever effected one of my solves was when Ollie was actively trying not to distract me.


----------



## BillyRain (May 20, 2014)

Erik said:


> This is one of the reasons I think the scramblers should mostly be more experienced cubers (experienced cubers are also better at checking the cubes for legal-ness. Yes I know this is the delegates job, but in reality scramblers check and just notify the delegate in case they see cubes with bad stickers).



Or flipped corners... -.-


----------



## LucidCuber (May 20, 2014)

Antonie faz fan said:


> When I have a friend ( or atleast someone I know or talk to quit often) I feel more confident I usually ask a friend to judge me cuz they know how to get me relaxed and when I am readdy( for example this noob at his first comp came to judge me and I sat down grabbed the stopwatch and instead of asking are you ready it ( just so I know it is 100%anonimous) said go and just showed the cube) and also I don't see the reason why having the same judge multiple times will give you an advantage or even let you cheat.



It would be much harder to cheat an average at least if random judges where judging you, and it would make it easier to spot cheaters in general. If someone was getting times of 12-13 seconds with one judge and could never get below 45 with other judges that would certainly be cause for concern, at least for further investigation. I understand pop's can cause people to get very slow times, but it would help flag up anomalies.

One possible guideline could be to ensure that the scoresheet is placed face down on the cube cover, so that people couldn't intentionally look for a certain solver, alongside the line system.


----------



## vcuber13 (May 20, 2014)

Antonie faz fan said:


> I found that at the runners system is much more distracting and can't find a reason to use that at big comps .



Toronto competitions would not finish without using runners. Every competition I've been to has had runners, but I would think it is less distracting and the would run smoother. A runner can easily take two cubes to a table; having one person transport the cubes should take up less room than every judge walking back and forth from the timers to the scrambling table. Do you not find that this delays the solves, and crowds the area?


----------



## LucidCuber (May 20, 2014)

I think the main cause for concern here isn't even so much the intentional cheating, but first time cubers judging each other. I've seen this quite a bit and with the best of intentions, I'm sure some regulations must have been bypassed and never brought up, simply because a new judge and new solver were never aware that a regulation had been broken.


----------



## Antonie faz fan (May 21, 2014)

LucidCuber said:


> It would be much harder to cheat an average at least if random judges where judging you, and it would make it easier to spot cheaters in general. If someone was getting times of 12-13 seconds with one judge and could never get below 45 with other judges that would certainly be cause for concern, at least for further investigation. I understand pop's can cause people to get very slow times, but it would help flag up anomalies.
> 
> One possible guideline could be to ensure that the scoresheet is placed face down on the cube cover, so that people couldn't intentionally look for a certain solver, alongside the line system.



that is true. however, i dont think the judge would actually lett it happen. and i think most (more) advanced cubers wouldn't really cheat becuase having a closer person as judge. the main reason that some people want to judge someone else multiple times is becuase being friends or wanting to judge a WR/CR/NR. as i mentioned earlier personally i ask people to judge me so i feel more relaxed. example in my oficial 9.89 avg i had 2 of mty friends judge me they where telling me the whole time keep relaxed don't stress and such. but at other comps when people judge me who i don't know i mess up.


----------



## Erik (May 21, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> I do put them in lines of how many solves they've done. Everyone ignores them, so the scrambler has to tell them which one to take anyway



I wouldn't say everyone per se. Just firmly instruct the judges, after a while they get used to it, just like your "leave-the-cube-in-the-cup,-but-only-flip-the-cup-when-bringing-back-the-cube" system. I introduced that system in Turkey 2 weeks ago. They got it after one round and they didn't even understand English ;-)

p.s. when friends like to judge friends they are usually up solving again quicker, so when the cube comes back just scramble other cubers' cubes until they reach the same amount of solves. And so what if a friend judges him twice or 3 times or 4 times? The whole system is based on trust anyway. If you can't judge people you like I'll have a tough time finding people I can judge next comp cuz :3


----------



## AvGalen (May 21, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> I try to stop judges from waiting for specific cubes to be scrambled. I don't like seeing a 12 year old kid judging his 13 year old friend for all 5 solves. I think people should look out for this and tell the delegate if they see that behaviour.
> 
> I don't think a strict limit would be easy to apply at all. A guideline suggesting that you should not be intentionally choosing who to judge each time might be good.
> 
> There can be exceptions, though. For example, in a final with fixed seats and fixed judges. That's cool by me.


I couldn't have written this better myself!


hcfong said:


> ...One person would pretty much claim to cube of his or her friend and hold on to it and both scramble and judge the solves...


I just checked and it actually doesn't specify that you cannot scramble and judge at the same time. It is implied from https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#1k that only officials could do this, but it is never actually specified. I would say that under no circumstance should 1 person be allowed to judge a cube that he scrambled!

I find it interesting that there are so many optimizations that have appeared regionally with regards to the scrambling table:
* The Dutch "people with fewer solves cubes at the front"
* The Danish "just pick up from the front of the slide"
* The English "flip the cover to in/out the cube"
* The North-American "Runner-system"
Clearly there is an issue with getting the scrambled cubes to the competitors, but it is a problem that doesn't need regulating because everyone has found their own solution


----------



## ChickenWrap (May 21, 2014)

TinaIsAwesome said:


> How is that a red flag? I don't average 11-12 seconds but instead 16 and in the second round of my last competition, I popped my cube twice in two different solves. That gave me a 33 and a 57 when I usually average 15-17. I know what you meant but I just wanted to point that out. Anyway, I think it would be impractical to implement such a rule especially because it just overcomplicates the solving process (keeping track of who's had which judge, the only judge being open is one you've had 3 times already so you have to wait for the next one which would waste time, etc.) and because at smaller comps it's hard to even get enough people to judge. The runner system I think works really well. It's been used at most if not all the comps I've been to and it seems to work pretty smoothly and it prevents cheating from happening. The only downfall is that because it's due to chance some people end up doing their solves almost back to back whereas some people have to wait a long time in-between their solves.



I completely get what you are saying about the pops, but if there was a different judge for both of those slow solves, it would hardly be suspicious, right?


----------



## hcfong (May 21, 2014)

Antonie faz fan said:


> that is true. however, i dont think the judge would actually lett it happen. and i think most (more) advanced cubers wouldn't really cheat becuase having a closer person as judge. the main reason that some people want to judge someone else multiple times is becuase being friends or wanting to judge a WR/CR/NR. as i mentioned earlier personally i ask people to judge me so i feel more relaxed. example in my oficial 9.89 avg i had 2 of mty friends judge me they where telling me the whole time keep relaxed don't stress and such. but at other comps when people judge me who i don't know i mess up.



It's not the judge's job to calm you down or make you more relaxed. His job is to make sure you do your solve according to the regulations and write down the time. Nothing more. In my opinion, asking for a specific person as a judge, although not prohibited by the regulations, falls in the same category as asking for the cube to be placed in a specific orientation for BLD, because it may give you a small advantage.



AvGalen said:


> I just checked and it actually doesn't specify that you cannot scramble and judge at the same time. It is implied from https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#1k that only officials could do this, but it is never actually specified. I would say that under no circumstance should 1 person be allowed to judge a cube that he scrambled!



I don't think that's what it implies. Everybody who attends a competitions should be an official, as it includes judges and scramblers. It has nothing to do with simultaneously fulflling multiple roles. It just means that if you have been a judge in one event, you can still scramble in another event.

And why should one person never be allowed to judge the cube he scrambled? Yes, I would have a problem with it if it the same person scrambled and judged the same person for the whole average, but if you're running behind schedule and there is still one really slow person (let's say sup 1:30) who has to do 3 more solves, it could be helpful for 1 person to scramble and judge that person's solves, while the next group starts.


----------



## LucidCuber (May 21, 2014)

Antonie faz fan said:


> that is true. however, i dont think the judge would actually lett it happen. and i think most (more) advanced cubers wouldn't really cheat becuase having a closer person as judge. the main reason that some people want to judge someone else multiple times is becuase being friends or wanting to judge a WR/CR/NR. as i mentioned earlier personally i ask people to judge me so i feel more relaxed. example in my oficial 9.89 avg i had 2 of mty friends judge me they where telling me the whole time keep relaxed don't stress and such. but at other comps when people judge me who i don't know i mess up.



Of course a judge normally wouldn't allow it to happen, I'm talking about cases where people may pre-arrange before comp to judge each other to intentionally cheat.

Saying advanced cubers wouldn't cheat is also false, as in the case of Matyas Kuti to name just one.

I understand we all would like to judge WR/CR/NR etc, but that should really be down to random luck, and also if you want to judge all 5 solves in an average, that is simply unfair to other judges who should be given an equal chance to judge A WR/CR/NR solve, aside from the finals when set stationary judges are commonplace.

While it may be nice to judge and be judged by people you know, specifically demanding they judge you can slow down procedure when there are other available judges.


----------



## IamWEB (May 21, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> ottozing said:
> 
> 
> > This could also stop people judging certain people just because they're fast and want to be in their possible wr videos or whatever. Interesting idea.
> ...




I'm sure you said this to invoke irony, but I want you to know that I thought of you as soon as read ottozing's post.
Had a post mentally prepared and everything.

lol


----------



## Laura O (May 21, 2014)

LucidCuber said:


> I understand we all would like to judge WR/CR/NR etc, [...]



Do we? I couldn't care less.

The only reason why such a regulation could be useful are those judges waiting for a specific cube at the scramble table. Nevertheless there are situations where it would slow down a competition (especially events/rounds with few competitors). So I don't think such a regulation would make sense at all.


----------



## LucidCuber (May 21, 2014)

larf said:


> Do we? I couldn't care less.
> 
> The only reason why such a regulation could be useful are those judges waiting for a specific cube at the scramble table. Nevertheless there are situations where it would slow down a competition (especially events/rounds with few competitors). So I don't think such a regulation would make sense at all.



It's more a case of being able to see it rather than specifically you being the judge of the solve. But also the judge gets the best view

There is nothing more annoying than being in the middle of judging someone else, hearing clapping and screaming then having an anxious wait to find out what it was because you're busy judging someone else.


----------



## kinch2002 (May 21, 2014)

larf said:


> The only reason why such a regulation could be useful are those judges waiting for a specific cube at the scramble table.


Agreed, although I still don't think it's a serious enough problem to warrant a regulation. A guideline would be fine, or just a general awareness by organisers/delegates that they should watch out for it and stop it.


----------



## LucidCuber (May 21, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> Agreed, although I still don't think it's a serious enough problem to warrant a regulation. A guideline would be fine, or just a general awareness by organisers/delegates that they should watch out for it and stop it.



A guideline would be good. Because having someone unknown to the community be judged all 5 times by someone else unknown to the community harms the credibility of the general judging procedure which is already imperfect (albeit unavoidable).

I agree though that the only thing required to resolve this would be to alert scramblers/organisers that this should be avoided in most cases (apart from the exceptions previously mentioned)


----------



## uberCuber (May 21, 2014)

hcfong said:


> Yes, I would have a problem with it if it the same person scrambled and judged the same person for the whole average



Oops I just did this at my last comp


----------



## AvGalen (May 21, 2014)

I walked the official way and got rejected for good reason: https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/pull/186#issuecomment-43772558
Basically I saw 2 problems:
* Scrambling for yourself, but that is illegal because of https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#1h1
* Scrambling and judging for a friend/partner-in-crime which CAN be illegal because of https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#2k2


----------



## tseitsei (May 21, 2014)

uberCuber said:


> > Yes, I would have a problem with it if it the same person scrambled and judged the same person for the whole average
> 
> 
> Oops I just did this at my last comp



I did this also in my last comp. 
During 3BLD Kim and I did our solves first because we were considerably faster than other competitors and we needed more judges for other bld competitors. 
So after my solves I picked up a cube (which happened to be my friends cube by the way, but I didn't really choose it specifically) from the scrambling table that was scrambled and went to judge him. 
After the first solve I went back to the scrambling table, scrambled the cube myself (original scrambler, who was actually our delegate btw, was also judging someone at this point to speed things up, so he also scrambled and judged someone by himself) and went back to judge my friends second solve.
And same for the third solve.


----------



## AvGalen (May 21, 2014)

tseitsei said:


> I did this also in my last comp.
> During 3BLD Kim and I did our solves first because we were considerably faster than other competitors and we needed more judges for other bld competitors.
> So after my solves I picked up a cube (which happened to be my friends cube by the way, but I didn't really choose it specifically) from the scrambling table that was scrambled and went to judge him.
> After the first solve I went back to the scrambling table, scrambled the cube myself (original scrambler, who was actually our delegate btw, was also judging someone at this point to speed things up, so he also scrambled and judged someone by himself) and went back to judge my friends second solve.
> And same for the third solve.


I have never done this myself. I am often behind the scrambling table all day and sometimes at the end of the round I pick up a few of the remaining scrambled cubes to help with judging. There is a 1/2 or 1/3 chance that I scrambled that cube, but I pick them up blindly so I don't know who the competitor is and who scrambled that cube. I have no problem with that way of helping to push the round forward. But picking up a cube, scramblind it and judging it sounds like a suspicious activity to me.
(but then again, when I have the choice I will ask somebody else to judge my wife for blindfolded even when it is clear that I didn't scramble her cube)


----------



## Lucas Garron (May 22, 2014)

LucidCuber said:


> It would be quite easy for a person unknown to the cubing community to produce a 12.5 average and no one would even question it. But if multiple judges were required then this average would be a serious red flag
> 
> 12.47, 13.82 (11.07), 39.97, (42.09)



While this is a good principle, our average mechanism complicates things a little. Instead of something simple like "a competitor's attempts in an average of 5 / mean of 3 can't all have the same judge", we have to specify that you have to look ahead.
Now judges have to be more careful. What if a judge doesn't look at the judge initials column until the solve has started, and *then* noticed's (s)he's judged the competitor too many times (not unlikely in crowded competition like Worlds).

Something no one has discussed: if this is would be a mandatory rule, what if it goes wrong, and a competitor gets the same judge 4 or 5 times in an average?
It should not be the competitor's fault unless (s)he was colluding... but that's not a straightforward and objective thing to determine.

If it's the judge's fault... we can't really punish the judge. Punishing the competitor for it seems bad.
We could say that the competitor should get another attempt, but now it's possible to game that. (Got wind that the 4th scramble is bad? "Accidentally" have your friend judge you a fourth time, and "notice" afterwards!) And you can't do that if it's noticed *after* the round.

In addition, who's responsible for catching things? The score taker? They're busy enough, and we can't really hold them accountable.

As some people have observed in this thread, the scrambler's job is almost as important. Someone could easily slip in easy crosses for their friend, and even if there are multiple scramblers it's not *too* hard to scramble all of a specific person's attempts. Right now, we don't even require scramblers to record who scrambled an attempt, so it's not even detectable! Becoming a scrambler to do this is not as simple as being a judge, but it's certainly possible – especially at competitions that ned a lot of help.

I think that in the end, we need to rely on trust. Volunteers are fine, but Delegates need to make sure that judges and scramblers have a minimum trustworthiness. We can't get around that – and we can't have a simple rule for it.

And if a competition needs a lot of help, then it has to be the Delegate's responsibility to make sure the judges are behaving. There's always 2k / 2k2 for a judge to (threaten to) disqualify someone who is misbehaving.



hcfong said:


> It's not the judge's job to calm you down or make you more relaxed. His job is to make sure you do your solve according to the regulations and write down the time. Nothing more. In my opinion, asking for a specific person as a judge, although not prohibited by the regulations, falls in the same category as asking for the cube to be placed in a specific orientation for BLD, because it may give you a small advantage.


Good observation. "Advantage" is a subtle thing, because it can be subjective and hard to measure.




hcfong said:


> And why should one person never be allowed to judge the cube he scrambled? Yes, I would have a problem with it if it the same person scrambled and judged the same person for the whole average, but if you're running behind schedule and there is still one really slow person (let's say sup 1:30) who has to do 3 more solves, it could be helpful for 1 person to scramble and judge that person's solves, while the next group starts.



In the US, we sometimes do this "on purpose". Two well-trusted organizers sit down next to each other, and each one scrambles and judges the other (using scrambles from different groups). This allows us to get an event started quickly, not matter how many competitors and organizers are participating – or how few know to scramble it.

For US Nationals, we sometimes also do this in the judges' groups on the Thursday before the competition. Everyone is trusted and knows what they're doing, so this can be more practical than runners sometimes.

In addition, I can think of the following use cases:


 Big cube BLD/multi often takes place in a separate room with few judges. It's very useful to allow them to scramble and judge all of a competitors' attempts.
 For rare events, it can be hard to find enough people willing nad knowledgeable to judge. At Stanford, we have sometimes held special events (e.g. Skewb when it was still a side event, sometimes big cubes) at a competitor's request, under the condition that they scramble for all the other competitors. They might end up judging all those comopetitors, too.
 As hcfong suggests, sometimes it is useful not to have restrictions when you need to speed up a competiton (see 1h1). Several times, I have seen a busy scrambling table, and paused my running/judging in order to help scramble. Sometimes, I take the cube I scramble and judge it immediately.



AvGalen said:


> I walked the official way and got rejected for good reason: https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/pull/186#issuecomment-43772558


Thanks for the initiative. I waited to participate in this thread, to see if it gained enough worthwhile opinions and ideas.
Now, we won't lose track of it – either we end up with a change, or we explicitly decide it's not worth doing anything about it right now (for documented reasons).


Personally, I think we can use a simple Guideline that suggests the following:

Judges and scramblers should not be preferential to specific competitors. Unless it signficantly helps the logistics of the competition:

 Scramblers should not intentionally scramble most/all of a competitors' attempts.
 A competitor should have different judges for at least two attempts of a round. Because the worst attempt is discarded, a competitor should ideally not have the same judge for more than three attempts in an average of 5 (to ensure that at least one counting/best attempt is by a different judge).
 Judges who are not part of the core organization team should not judge close friends – especially if there are enough other competitors to judge.

I think this is something that most competitions can learn casually learn to abide with – and I think it would be reasonably effective in making collusion look more suspicious.


----------



## Erik (May 22, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Personally, I think we can use a simple Guideline that suggests the following:
> 
> Judges and scramblers should not be preferential to specific competitors. Unless it signficantly helps the logistics of the competition:
> 
> ...



Do we *really* need this? It's such common sense, with so many common sense exceptions (like judging finals), that it'd really just be cluttering the Guidelines I think. If you really want to put *something* in the regs so the delegate/scrambler/orga-team can refer to it when needed then I suggest to just put in one sentence along the line of "_Judges and scramblers should not be preferential to specific competitors. Unless it signficantly helps the logistics of the competition_". But rather just put what you really want to say instead of making long sentences which people with bad english don't even understand: "don't wait for a specific cube" or rather "don't cheat, or help others cheat"...

Also: all of your 3 bullet points are not very solid I think

_Scramblers should not intentionally scramble most/all of a competitors' attempts_ - I always have the intention of scrambling every attempt of every competitor (especially when there are people in the rounds that may break a WR and I have someone scrambling along who I think is either not experienced or just bad at scrambling), because I know I can scramble fast and without mistakes. Yes I know how this bullet point is ment, but it may just be better to leave it, than give it the chance to cause confusion and be misinterpreted.
_A competitor should have different judges for at least two attempts of a round. Because the worst attempt is discarded, a competitor should ideally not have the same judge for more than three attempts in an average of 5 (to ensure that at least one counting/best attempt is by a different judges_ - If you want to determine this so badly, then you should also mention how this works for finals, delegate/orga rounds etc.
_Judges who are not part of the core organization team should not judge close friends – especially if there are enough other competitors to judge._ - This means that core organization is apprantly more trustworthy than other people? Secondly, it means many people can't (shouldn't) judge a large amount of all competitors (there are a lot of friends at comps here). I've had rounds where about 90% of all people were on friend's list of my personal Facebook page...


----------



## DrKorbin (May 22, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Judges and scramblers should not be preferential to specific competitors. Unless it signficantly helps the logistics of the competition:
> 
> Scramblers should not intentionally scramble most/all of a competitors' attempts.
> A competitor should have different judges for at least two attempts of a round. Because the worst attempt is discarded, a competitor should ideally not have the same judge for more than three attempts in an average of 5 (to ensure that at least one counting/best attempt is by a different judge).
> Judges who are not part of the core organization team should not judge close friends – especially if there are enough other competitors to judge.



The second bullet point doesn't save from "cheating" in mean of 3 or best of X rounds. The third one needs to define "close friends" ("We are not close friends, just have played football several times together, so I can judge him").
And I think, the first sentence ("Judges and scramblers should not be preferential to specific competitors") is enough. Or maybe even that is redundant. Just put "don't cheat, or you will be banned!!111", lol.


----------



## Laura O (May 22, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Personally, I think we can use a simple Guideline that suggests the following: [...]



I agree with Erik as I don't think there is the need to explain that.
When I told competitors they should not judge their friends only, I can't remember anyone asked "why?". They know that this can slow down the procedure, they know that they might be suspected to cheat, but they do it anyway.

Something that just came to my mind and is strongly connected with this is the communication with the delegate. I think it's important to encourage competitors to report every suspicious, unfair or unreasonable behavior to the delegate. Even if he/she isn't sure about it or considers it as less important.
Just an example from a competition some month ago: a competitor put himself in the role of the personal judge of a competitor who may break a WR and started to scramble and judge all his attempts. When he was asked by one of the (experienced) scramblers what he was doing, he just replied he wanted to assure that everything went right. Although the scrambler considered this as unfair and not acceptable he didn't stop him from doing this and didn't tell anyone until the end of the round.
I think the behavior of the judge definitely falls under regulation 2k2, but this doesn't work if the delegate doesn't witness it and nobody reports it.
So, what I am trying to say with this is that I don't think we need further rules, but we should make sure that the existing rules are followed and every competitor makes sure they are.


----------



## Tim Major (May 22, 2014)

IamWEB said:


> I'm sure you said this to invoke irony, but I want you to know that I thought of you as soon as read ottozing's post.
> Had a post mentally prepared and everything.
> 
> lol



I don't get how you could say that when you don't come to Auscomps. When I go to the scrambling table if I see someone fast (Feliks, Jay, Kirt) or someone not fast but I'm friends with, I grab their cube as a small priority. I don't wait around.

I've been in a lot of Feliks' videos because I judge a LOT, but also because Feliks solving is very disruptive so I often push him through (a lot of people waste comp time to watch Feliks, which is perfectly understandable)

I don't judge to be in videos, that part of Jay's post isn't accurate about me but there are some kids like that


----------



## ottozing (May 22, 2014)

Let me just say that my post was in no way about Tim  It was just a general comment about how sometimes people will judge faster peeps for stupid reasons.


----------



## Daniel Wu (May 22, 2014)

I've had multiple instances where judges grabbed cubes of people who they knew/wanted to judge. As a result, I did two solves, then sat in the competitor area for a half hour or so until I was one of the last people left to compete. That's extremely annoying. If the cubes were put in some sort of order after they were scrambled and the judges took from the front of the line, then this wouldn't be a problem. Although, in recent competitions, this hasn't been as much of an issue because of the use of runners. I don't know if this is something that necessarily has to be regulated though. The scramblers/organizers should be able to manage it just fine by having some sort of order for distributing cubes or simply instructing judges not to intentionally choose certain people's cubes.


----------



## hcfong (May 22, 2014)

rickcube said:


> I've had multiple instances where judges grabbed cubes of people who they knew/wanted to judge. As a result, I did two solves, then sat in the competitor area for a half hour or so until I was one of the last people left to compete. That's extremely annoying. If the cubes were put in some sort of order after they were scrambled and the judges took from the front of the line, then this wouldn't be a problem. Although, in recent competitions, this hasn't been as much of an issue because of the use of runners. I don't know if this is something that necessarily has to be regulated though. The scramblers/organizers should be able to manage it just fine by having some sort of order for distributing cubes or simply instructing judges not to intentionally choose certain people's cubes.



A line of some sorts would be fine, but in my experience, a line never stays a line. I think the Danish slide works the best, because it is actually a physical structure on which the cubes are put. What also might work, if the biggest problem is friends judging each other, is putting people you expect to want to judge each other in the same group. 

I agree that having to wait because your cube is being ignored is very annoying. It happened to me quite a lot in the beginning and since I'm not that fast, it doesn't really help the comp moving on when you still have 5 solves left to do when everybody else has finished. I once even forfeited my right to complete an average, because I felt guilty for holding up the competition.


----------



## ryanj92 (May 22, 2014)

A simple solution I thought of is to offer the cubes 'blind' on the scrambling table, so place the scorecards 'upside-down' with the cubes, so that the scramblers can't see the competitors name without either flipping over the score card, which can be discouraged by the scramblers as it keeps judges around the scrambling table for longer than they need to be. Obviously this will not fix every issue (notably people scrambling and then judging one cube), but I might try and do this when I compete from now on 

(the only other alternative i could think of is to have a 'judging line', where unoccupied judges would stand, and the person at the front of the line is given a scrambled cube by the scrambler, to then go off and judge. obviously this requires some level of order to be upheld and is not practical for every comp, but it was a thought. typical of a brit to come up with a solution involving a queue, i know )


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (May 25, 2014)

This goes out to those certain organizers who have organized, or is currently organizing a competition. Please put this to use.

Never have I ever seen the "I VOLUNTEER TO JUDGE AND SCRAMBLE" buttons be used directly after all competitors have registered.

Ok, instead of letting random little in-****scent children come up and judge this solve, why can't you actually look into getting a dedicated staff and talk to them personally about judging and scrambling before the competition? There are two check-boxes on the sign up page for a reason.

If you are putting so much work into making this perfect, get judges who actually know what they are doing! At past competitions, I have seen little kids judge, throw off inspection numbers, incorrectly judge penalties, and some have even reset the timer before everything has been written down!

In the case where there are older, first time competitors judging, they actually learn quite a bit along the way. But other than that, put the god damn checkboxes to use, get an actual dedicated staff team, or just go "so be it" and continue to allow this type of behaviour with judges or anyone in the matter.

Also, why have judges go up and grab cubes? Just keep the runner system in place. That may be distracting, but it is fair and it keeps things in line.


----------



## Kit Clement (May 25, 2014)

strakerak said:


> This goes out to those certain organizers who have organized, or is currently organizing a competition. Please put this to use.
> 
> Never have I ever seen the "I VOLUNTEER TO JUDGE AND SCRAMBLE" buttons be used directly after all competitors have registered.
> 
> ...



I utilize these as much as I can, but just because people say they volunteer to judge doesn't mean they know how to judge, are 100% willing to judge at any time, or will be effective judges when taught. It's honestly better sometimes to just wing it with judges, and figure out who you can trust the day of the competition, rather than waste time micromanaging everything.

It's a really nice tool for finding scramblers, as I always set a scrambling schedule before every competition.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (May 25, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> I utilize these as much as I can, but just because people say they volunteer to judge doesn't mean they know how to judge, are 100% willing to judge at any time, or will be effective judges when taught. It's honestly better sometimes to just wing it with judges, and figure out who you can trust the day of the competition, rather than waste time micromanaging everything.
> 
> It's a really nice tool for finding scramblers, as I always set a scrambling schedule before every competition.



I can agree with that. Most of the time I see competitors on the list who seem highly familiar with the regulations, other than one who lets someone inspect for 25 seconds and not even give a penalty. (noob cubers)

All I would ask for, is that each competition has a dedicated staff team. Have extra people be there as well just in case one does not show up.


----------



## Dene (May 25, 2014)

strakerak said:


> All I would ask for, is that each competition has a dedicated staff team. Have extra people be there as well just in case one does not show up.



You seem to think it's all simple and can just be done like that. You really need to get some perspective, as this is impractical for many competitions throughout the world. 

Also, as Kit said people will say one thing and do something else. Quite bluntly, you cannot trust people, and you cannot rely on people. Unless you are fortunate enough to have a group of reliable people (e.g. the Berkeley crew back in 2009) you just have to do the best with what you've got.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (May 25, 2014)

Dene said:


> You seem to think it's all simple and can just be done like that. You really need to get some perspective, as this is impractical for many competitions throughout the world.
> 
> Also, as Kit said people will say one thing and do something else. Quite bluntly, you cannot trust people, and you cannot rely on people. Unless you are fortunate enough to have a group of reliable people (e.g. the Berkeley crew back in 2009) you just have to do the best with what you've got.




I didn't mean to say that. It takes time to find people who would be dedicated and part of any crew. MOST of the time you cannot rely on people, as they might forget anything on the matter. You can trust those who you KNOW would be willing to help out and you KNOW would be available to assume a position and take accountability for it. But then again, I can agree that you can't rely on them to know either most of the regulations, or rely on them to actually show up.


----------



## Dene (May 25, 2014)

strakerak said:


> I didn't mean to say that. It takes time to find people who would be dedicated and part of any crew. MOST of the time you cannot rely on people, as they might forget anything on the matter. You can trust those who you KNOW would be willing to help out and you KNOW would be available to assume a position and take accountability for it. But then again, I can agree that you can't rely on them to know either most of the regulations, or rely on them to actually show up.



...aaaaand to build up such a team is almost impossible in many places. I guess it's difficult to notice in a place where competitions are loaded with competitors, but elsewhere it isn't so simple, and often you rely on people coming from far away.


----------



## TMOY (May 25, 2014)

strakerak said:


> All I would ask for, is that each competition has a dedicated staff team. Have extra people be there as well just in case one does not show up.



From your WCA profile I see you have only competed in medium-sized comps (between 40 and 60 competitors) for the moment. If you had experienced a small comp (with like 15-20 competitors), you would hnow that what you're asking for is simply impossible at such a comp, we need everybody to help period.


----------



## Goosly (May 25, 2014)

strakerak said:


> There are two check-boxes on the sign up page for a reason.



Wait, which check-boxes are you talking about? Mind that there are (apparently) lots of variations in how competitions are being organised around the world. What do these check-boxes indicate?



strakerak said:


> Also, why have judges go up and grab cubes? Just keep the runner system in place. That may be distracting, but it is fair and it keeps things in line.



I've been to 20 competitions so far and in 19 of them, judges went up and grabbed cubes. The runner system (used in the 1/20 competitions) was indeed distracting, in my opinion (because of the runners shouting names and table numbers). Maybe you use a different approach in the runner system that is less distracting. Also, what do you mean by "it is fair"?


----------



## TMOY (May 25, 2014)

Goosly said:


> Wait, which check-boxes are you talking about? Mind that there are (apparently) lots of variations in how competitions are being organised around the world. What do these check-boxes indicate?



Apparently he's referring to the CubingUSA registration system (example here, where you can see two "I volunterr" checkboxes at the bottom of the page. Thay may be here for a reason, but that reason seems to be specific to the US comps because I haven't seen them anywhere else either.


----------



## Ranzha (May 25, 2014)

Goosly said:


> I've been to 20 competitions so far and in 19 of them, judges went up and grabbed cubes. The runner system (used in the 1/20 competitions) was indeed distracting, in my opinion (because of the runners shouting names and table numbers). Maybe you use a different approach in the runner system that is less distracting. Also, what do you mean by "it is fair"?



The way that we use the runner system at Bay Area competitions is that once a cube is scrambled, it gets put promptly into a queue at a station without the runner saying a word. At each station, the judge calls each competitor as his/her cube comes to the front of the station's queue. Usually queues only have at most 3 cubes, so there can be an element of judges choosing which cubes to preferentially judge (e.g. choosing to judge a faster solver before a slower solver), but not something like judging a particular cuber's entire average unless his/her cube shows up in the queue, and especially not something like choosing not to judge a particular cuber if his/her cube shows up in the queue.

@strakerak: What you're asking for is great, but it's still highly impractical. For comps here, we usually want 8 judges, 2 runners, 2 scramblers, and 1 data enterer. By your model, this requires that a competition need 13 acquainted, reliable, and competent people at every competition that exists. Did you ever consider that planning a competition doesn't require attending one beforehand? Did you ever consider that sticking with the same dedicated staff does little to train replacements? Honestly, I'm surprised you didn't ask that every competitor be acquainted, reliable, and competent.


----------



## LucidCuber (May 25, 2014)

With regards to the above two posts, I certainly think it would be beneficial for compulsory orientation with new competitors. If they don't have a WCAID upon registration, they should be given a compulsory 15 minute trainings session. An experienced cuber could explain common procedures, then they could judge a 'dummy average' where there are 3 intentional errors, and the judge would have to flag it up.


----------



## Dene (May 26, 2014)

LucidCuber said:


> With regards to the above two posts, I certainly think it would be beneficial for compulsory orientation with new competitors. If they don't have a WCAID upon registration, they should be given a compulsory 15 minute trainings session. An experienced cuber could explain common procedures, then they could judge a 'dummy average' where there are 3 intentional errors, and the judge would have to flag it up.



k I'll get you around next time I get a 5 year old at a comp.



srsly people need to think a little more before they post.


----------



## LucidCuber (May 26, 2014)

Dene said:


> k I'll get you around next time I get a 5 year old at a comp.
> 
> 
> 
> srsly people need to think a little more before they post.



I was just a suggestion.

Is this 5 year old judging? If not then it isn't an issue, but if he is then surely you need to take extra care to ensure they understand judging procedure (if a 5 year old should even be judging at all)

As far as I was aware, competitors than cannot judge are very rare.


----------



## Erik (May 27, 2014)

> Apparently he's referring to the CubingUSA registration system (example here, where you can see two "I volunterr" checkboxes at the bottom of the page. Thay may be here for a reason, but that reason seems to be specific to the US comps because I haven't seen them anywhere else either.



What is exactly the purpose of these boxes? Everyone has to judge and scramble anyway. Not clicking the boxes would in a way mean you don't even have to show up for the comp since you are not willing to judge or scramble. There is no such thing as volunteering to judge or scramble (except if you are not competing at all and just like to come and judge/scramble for fun without competing ):

1e2) Every competitor must be available for judging. If he is required to judge, a competitor may be excused only for a legitimate reason (e.g. being unfamiliar with a puzzle), at the discretion of the Delegate. Penalty: disqualification from the competition (see Regulation 2k)."

1f2) Every competitor must be available for scrambling. If he is required to scramble, a competitor may be excused only for a legitimate reason (e.g. being unfamiliar with scrambling notation), at the discretion of the Delegate. Penalty: disqualification from the competition (see Regulation 2k).

Btw: if you feel the need of making a designated team of close friends/experienced cubers for judging just because you doubt if everyone else is trustworthy, you must think 99% of all comps are being cheated on. The whole system is based on mutual trust. A comp can't function without it.


----------



## DrKorbin (May 27, 2014)

Erik said:


> What is exactly the purpose of these boxes? Everyone has to judge and scramble anyway. Not clicking the boxes would in a way mean you don't even have to show up for the comp since you are not willing to judge or scramble. There is no such thing as volunteering to judge or scramble (except if you are not competing at all and just like to come and judge/scramble for fun without competing )



There is a point in these boxes. If an organiser/delegate has a choice, he will seek for judges among these volunteers, while he is making roles assignment before a competition. Personally I would be happy to see these checkboxes in usual WCA registration as well, or maybe something even more complex, like "Can you scramble big cubes? Can you scramble sq-1? Skewb? Mega?". Of course, these checkboxes should only appear if a registering competitor agrees to scramble anyway, otherwise neophytes can be confused and scared of the big amount of unknown words.


----------



## hcfong (May 27, 2014)

I think that these checkboxes are not only unnecessary, but can also hinder the competition. The problem with these checkboxes is that people who don't check these boxes, will automatically assume that they are excempt from judging and scrambling. As long as there are enough people who have indicated that they want to help out, there's no problem, but what if there aren't? You could go round and ask people to help out anyway, and even threaten with enforcing 1e2 and 1f2. I agree with Erik that there is no need for these boxes. Every competitor should help out with judging or scrambling, whether he ticked the box or not. The difference that without tickboxes, you don't have to explain why they have to judge or scramble. If you do use tickboxes, you need to be prepared to explain to competitors who haven't ticked the boxes (and therefore by default have indicated they are not available for judging and scrambling) why they now have to help out with judging and scrambling anyway.


----------



## Laura O (May 27, 2014)

DrKorbin said:


> There is a point in these boxes. If an organiser/delegate has a choice, he will seek for judges among these volunteers, while he is making roles assignment before a competition. Personally I would be happy to see these checkboxes in usual WCA registration as well, or maybe something even more complex, like "Can you scramble big cubes? Can you scramble sq-1? Skewb? Mega?". Of course, these checkboxes should only appear if a registering competitor agrees to scramble anyway, otherwise neophytes can be confused and scared of the big amount of unknown words.



I still don't see a general advantage in this.
There are always competitors who see themselves as a good and trustworthy scrambler, but make stupid mistakes because they actually don't know the regulations (e.g. wrong orientation, mixed up order of scrambles). That's something you can't prevent by having those checkboxes.
In the end that's always a decision of the delegate and in the large majority of competitions this works (at least it does here), because he knows who is an experienced solver/competitor and trustworthy.


----------



## Erik (May 27, 2014)

DrKorbin said:


> ...If an organiser/delegate has a choice..."Can you scramble big cubes? Can you scramble sq-1? Skewb? Mega?". Of course, these checkboxes should only appear if a registering competitor agrees to scramble anyway, otherwise neophytes can be confused and scared of the big amount of unknown words.



Organisers always have a choice, because everyone is available. There is no "if". When you are competing in something but can't scramble the cube AND are not able to learn how to scramble the cube in 2 minutes (highly unlikely unless you are 5 years old, pregnant, ill, mentally or physically disabled etc.) you can still judge.

The only unwritten rule is that you don't have to judge/scramble at events and sometimes rounds you are not competing in.

Maybe some of the US cubers can explain these boxes? Not that they matter that much, just out of curiosity.


----------



## DrKorbin (May 27, 2014)

Erik said:


> Organisers always have a choice, because everyone is available. There is no "if". When you are competing in something but can't scramble the cube AND are not able to learn how to scramble the cube in 2 minutes (highly unlikely unless you are 5 years old, pregnant, ill, mentally or physically disabled etc.) you can still judge.



Everyone is available, but if someone wants to be a judge, so be it. If there are two competitors with equal experience, but one wants to judge and another doesn't want, I choose the first one. And if I have a way to know these preferences before a competition, it's good for me and for competitors. Of course, if I still need a judge and no one with checked boxes is left, I will choose someone who didn't check.
And the last quoted sentence is completely false. For example, a person who can solve a puzzle slowly cannot be an effective scrambler: if he makes an error during scrambling, a lot of time will be wasted.


----------



## Goosly (May 27, 2014)

DrKorbin said:


> Everyone is available, but if someone wants to be a judge, so be it. If there are two competitors with equal experience, but one wants to judge and another doesn't want, I choose the first one.



Why choose? Let them both judge.


----------



## DrKorbin (May 27, 2014)

Goosly said:


> Why choose? Let them both judge.



What if I need only one judge (when using runner system, or when the number of competitors is not greater than the number of timer stations, only a fixed amount of judges is needed).


----------



## Goosly (May 27, 2014)

I assume your competition has more than one round, so let them alternate.


----------



## Erik (May 27, 2014)

DrKorbin said:


> ...if someone wants to be a judge.....And if I have a way to know these preferences before a competition.... Of course, if I still need a judge and no one with checked boxes is left, I will choose someone who didn't check.
> And the last quoted sentence is completely false. For example, a person who can solve a puzzle slowly cannot be an effective scrambler: if he makes an error during scrambling, a lot of time will be wasted.


"if someone wants to be a judge" nobody can claim he will only judge or only scramble. You *have* to be available for both. Preferences are totally irrelevant. Of course you choose the best people for the job, but this is something else. The boxes imply that you either volunteer and scramble/judge, or don't volunteer and can sit around doing nothing all day. *If* you want to ask their preferences (which as an organiser I wouldn't care about at all) the boxes should state something like: "which would you prefer, judging or scrambling?"

This is why I am interested in the goal of the boxes.

My quoted sentence is false? In what way? I didn't change your sentence. If you mean that the sentence I quoted is wrong, you are in fact saying that you were wrong yourself since I quoted your own post?

Also: like I said before, of course you don't choose bad scramblers. I only say everyone has to be available to scramble/judge. Btw. a slow solver is not necessarily a slow or bad scrambler and scrambling errors don't always get fixed by the scrambler. They get fixed by the scrambler who made the mistake, a faster scrambler, a fast competitor, or the specific solver of that cube. Whatever is easiest and most convenient.


----------



## Ranzha (May 28, 2014)

I've been asked by a delegate if I would be able to maintain a complete staff. I agree with the idea that all competitors should be available to judge/scramble, but I feel there's a culture that makes asking for officials bothersome to competitors.

I guess one way to help everyone be a competent judge/scrambler is to do a demonstration at each competition, but as an organiser I'd much rather schedule more events than go over stuff that's in the regs already.

I guess it comes down to practicality. It's more practical to have experienced officials continue officiating.


----------



## Erik (May 28, 2014)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> I agree with the idea that all competitors should be available to judge/scramble, but I feel there's a culture that makes asking for officials bothersome to competitors.
> 
> I guess one way to help everyone be a competent judge/scrambler is to do a demonstration at each competition, but as an organiser I'd much rather schedule more events than go over stuff that's in the regs already.



What do you mean with "I agree with the idea"? It's not an idea, its in the regs.

New people can at least help judging (and scramble as well if he/she is scrambling along an experienced cuber). If you are at bigger comps, or comps with many newcomers it costs 5 mins to show them how to judge + maybe 5 for questions. This can in no way slow down your comp, but rather speed up your other events cuz more judges. We just show them these things:
1. inspection 8 and 12 sec
2. how to start
3. how to stop
4. +2
5. if anything happens we didn't show you, ask the organiser or delegate
6. questions? Gogogogogo

Sometimes it is planned into the schedule so people know about it, plus it can also be a good reminder for non-newcomers.


----------



## Tim Major (May 28, 2014)

Erik said:


> What do you mean with "I agree with the idea"? It's not an idea, its in the regs.



That doesn't stop it from being an idea. Especially in a thread where we are discussing the regs. The way our comps in Australia work, we do a demo at the start, encouraging judges. Online signups we had 3 boxes, scrambling, running, judging.

In every comp I've been to I've ticked all 3 until recently, recently I've just been ticking judge+run. Reason being? Joint pain when I cube a lot. Sure, I could be forced to scramble, but stopping me from judging to scramble seems counterintuitive since I'm already helping out, and trading me from something I don't mind to something I do mind won't speed up the comp (unless it's an event like Pyraminx or Skewb where I'm the fastest scrambler/3rd fastest scrambler, in which I do scramble)

Also, it is done because when we have 70 competitors, we don't need 70 helpers. We need (an absolutely minimum of 15~) but at most about 25. If we get 30 people signing those boxes, we can rotate all helpers, and only have people willin to help, help out.

Without these boxes (and assuming we didn't already have relatively established staff), it would be a crapfest of inexperienced judges, and people complaining.

If you have 25 people happy to help, and 45 who would, but chose not to tick the boxes, you choose the 25 people. If you don't have enough volunteers, THEN you can say "judge or we'll dq you".


----------



## scylla (May 28, 2014)

Antonie faz fan said:


> When I have a friend ( or atleast someone I know or talk to quit often) I feel more confident I usually ask a friend to judge me cuz they know how to get me relaxed and when I am readdy( for example this noob at his first comp came to judge me and I sat down grabbed the stopwatch and instead of asking are you ready it ( just so I know it is 100%anonimous) said go and just showed the cube) and also I don't see the reason why having the same judge multiple times will give you an advantage or even let you cheat.



Well, you are giving the answer by yourself. You feel more confident with Some of the judges so it's an advantage if you have 5 times someone of that group (or a disadvantage when it's 5 times someone else)


----------



## Erik (May 28, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> That doesn't stop it from being an idea. Especially in a thread where we are discussing the regs. The way our comps in Australia work, we do a demo at the start, encouraging judges. Online signups we had 3 boxes, scrambling, running, judging.
> 
> In every comp I've been to I've ticked all 3 until recently, recently I've just been ticking judge+run. Reason being? Joint pain when I cube a lot. Sure, I could be forced to scramble, but stopping me from judging to scramble seems counterintuitive since I'm already helping out, and trading me from something I don't mind to something I do mind won't speed up the comp (unless it's an event like Pyraminx or Skewb where I'm the fastest scrambler/3rd fastest scrambler, in which I do scramble)
> 
> ...



That would mean that we finally have an answer to the question what the boxes are for in the first place. To quote myself earlier: 



> The boxes imply that you either volunteer and scramble/judge, or don't volunteer and can sit around doing nothing all day. *If *you want to ask their preferences (which as an organiser I wouldn't care about at all) the boxes should state something like: "which would you prefer, judging or scrambling?" This is why I am interested in the goal of the boxes.


Btw. without these boxes (104/104 comps without boxes for me) I can assure you it does not result in a "crapfest". Sure it's nice to have 25 people who are willing to help by themselves, but in my experience this would not really make a difference since the other 45 will have to judge or scramble some events anyway. Not that I want to tell anyone how to run their comps.

Just in case you are interested: 
at European comps, everyone who is competing in the current round of an event and is not in the current group is per definition judging or scrambling (the only other option here I think is to have a pre-made list of who has to judge/scramble which group of which event). Volunteering has nothing to do with it. Scramblers are mostly found very quickly automatically or the delegate/organiser points some out. If there are enough judges, you are lucky and can hang around. If not, everyone else has to judge (happens quite often if you are at a comp with a high timers/competitors ratio).


----------



## Ranzha (May 28, 2014)

Erik said:


> What do you mean with "I agree with the idea"? It's not an idea, its in the regs.
> 
> New people can at least help judging (and scramble as well if he/she is scrambling along an experienced cuber). If you are at bigger comps, or comps with many newcomers it costs 5 mins to show them how to judge + maybe 5 for questions. This can in no way slow down your comp, but rather speed up your other events cuz more judges. We just show them these things:
> 1. inspection 8 and 12 sec
> ...



It's still an idea. However, I foresee the crapfest Tim mentioned at my competitions as well. Should we simply do away with the boxes and just call people up?

I like the boxes because on occasion I see a competitor who hasn't competed as much who wants to become more active and involved in competitions. The boxes can be a good indicator of willing participation, not just availability.


----------



## ahmfast1 (May 28, 2014)

Erik said:


> I wouldn't say everyone per se. Just firmly instruct the judges, after a while they get used to it, just like your "leave-the-cube-in-the-cup,-but-only-flip-the-cup-when-bringing-back-the-cube" system. I introduced that system in Turkey 2 weeks ago. They got it after one round and they didn't even understand English ;-)
> 
> p.s. when friends like to judge friends they are usually up solving again quicker, so when the cube comes back just scramble other cubers' cubes until they reach the same amount of solves. And so what if a friend judges him twice or 3 times or 4 times? The whole system is based on trust anyway. If you can't judge people you like I'll have a tough time finding people I can judge next comp cuz :3



"they didn't even understand English" lol, you're right, then you have to explain this system to a person who knows english well


----------



## Erik (May 28, 2014)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> It's still an idea. However, I foresee the crapfest Tim mentioned at my competitions as well. Should we simply do away with the boxes and just call people up?
> 
> I like the boxes because on occasion I see a competitor who hasn't competed as much who wants to become more active and involved in competitions. The boxes can be a good indicator of willing participation, not just availability.



Ok I cannot force you to believe my experiences. I don't care how you get judges or scramblers . Just saying that *if* the boxes are for checking the preferences of the competitors (personally I only care about ability, not preference), then I suggest the box-description is to be made clearer (and not make it sound like you have the whole day off if you don't check any box, or that judging or scrambling is a voluntary thing).



ahmfast1 said:


> "they didn't even understand English" lol, you're right, then you have to explain this system to a person who knows english well


And you guys rocked it!


----------



## ahmfast1 (May 28, 2014)

Erik said:


> Ok I cannot force you to believe my experiences. I don't care how you get judges or scramblers . Just saying that *if* the boxes are for checking the preferences of the competitors (personally I only care about ability, not preference), then I suggest the box-description is to be made clearer (and not make it sound like you have the whole day off if you don't check any box, or that judging or scrambling is a voluntary thing).
> 
> 
> And you guys rocked it!



This is our 4th comp , we hope we're gonna get master in processing comps  You guys, experienced guys, are needed for helping noob comps


----------



## XTowncuber (May 29, 2014)

Erik said:


> Ok I cannot force you to believe my experiences. I don't care how you get judges or scramblers . Just saying that *if* the boxes are for checking the preferences of the competitors (personally I only care about ability, not preference), then I suggest the box-description is to be made clearer (and not make it sound like you have the whole day off if you don't check any box, or that judging or scrambling is a voluntary thing).


Ok, sure the boxes could be made clearer. However, I think you're overestimating the scale of the issue that they cause. 

At my first comp (or at least one of the first) I did not check either box, and indeed I assumed that this meant I would get the day off entirely. However, at some point during the competition they called that they needed some people who could judge. I wasn't competing during that round, so what did I do? I went and judged. No big deal, I wasn't doing anything anyway. 

So yeah, just saying.


----------



## Erik (May 29, 2014)

Nah I don't think they are that important. I was just curious about what they are used for. Basically I just posted a bunch to finally get an answer on the question what they were for, since some posts started to drift away (happens a lot here) from that question again. Also: it would be not-that-great if people actually think they can get the day off if they want.


----------

