# Proposal: Regulations to ensure scrambling accuraccy



## henrysavich (May 11, 2015)

With the 6.88 misscramble, I've gotten to thinking about possible regulation changes in order to increase accuracy, Im not going to write these in "WCA regulation ready form", but I'll try to explain clearly and concisely.

1) Scramblers must sign the scorecards

Very simple but it adds a layer of accountability. The purpose of this is not primarily to make penal consequences easier, but rather that I believe the psychological effect of having to sign will encourage people to take more responsibility in their role as scrambler. I really don't see any reason not to implement this, but i suppose the effectiveness of this system merits some discussion.

2) All scrambles must be checked by a person other than the scrambler, against the pictures provided by the scrambler program.

More effective at ensuring accuracy, but also more of a burden. Fortunately, people don't need to know how to cube to know how to match a cube to a picture. This regulation I feel would best be complemented by the additional regulation that delegates exclusively are allowed to both scramble and check a cube, in order to not hinder efficiency in competition procedure.

More than promoting these singular ideas, I want to encourage a discussion, because I think that mis-scrambles are much more of a pervasive issue than just these high profile occurences may lead us to believe.


----------



## quickalt (May 11, 2015)

2) sounds like it would take up a lot of comp time.


----------



## Kit Clement (May 11, 2015)

We've actually implemented both of these ideas at competitions without these kinds of regulations directly enforced, and surprisingly, there were still scrambling errors at these competitions. The fact of the matter is that scrambling mistakes still occur, and the only thing we can do is plan competitions to ensure that trustworthy and accurate scramblers are available in each round/group of each event. At the very least, we should probably always double or triple check scrambles when someone like Feliks is going to solve it


----------



## Julian (May 11, 2015)

I just had an idea. The pictures to check against should be 3D images instead of cube nets. I think this might get more people to check.


----------



## asierrayk (May 11, 2015)

We need a machine to scramble the cubes.


----------



## cashis (May 11, 2015)

asierrayk said:


> We need a machine to scramble the cubes.



Do you have the money for this?
Maybe at big competitions, but not every one.


----------



## EMI (May 11, 2015)

Julian said:


> I just had an idea. The pictures to check against should be 3D images instead of cube nets. I think this might get more people to check.



+1

And, while we're at it: Let's only permit the boy color scheme  /s


----------



## TyrantCuberKing (May 11, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> We've actually implemented both of these ideas at competitions without these kinds of regulations directly enforced, and surprisingly, there were still scrambling errors at these competitions. The fact of the matter is that scrambling mistakes still occur, and the only thing we can do is plan competitions to ensure that trustworthy and accurate scramblers are available in each round/group of each event. At the very least, we should probably always double or triple check scrambles when someone like Feliks is going to solve it



I agree that misscrambles are going to occur unless ridiculously rigid measures are taken, but my guess is that the frequency of misscramble will at least be lowered. However, it would be extremely difficult to verify or discredit this because there is no rigorous data on the number of misscrambles per competition controlling for scrambling procedure type.


----------



## AlexMaass (May 11, 2015)

Could we use a webcam hooked up to a computer to check that the scrambles are right?


----------



## qqwref (May 11, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> Could we use a webcam hooked up to a computer to check that the scrambles are right?


This kind of thing could work, and could probably be as fast or faster than a human carefully checking the cube. However, you'd need to hook the scramble program up to the webcam program so it knows which scrambles to look at, and you'd also have to have to be able to handle unconventional color schemes, imperfect stickers, and (at least) both white and black cubes. It would probably take some work to set up, but could be very useful once it's done.

Alex suggested a computer, but I'm thinking a smartphone app - compared to laptops or desktops they have better cameras, are very common and standardized, and are also easier to hold up in the air (point the camera at the cube, rather than trying to hold the cube in just the right place).


----------



## AlexMaass (May 11, 2015)

qqwref said:


> This kind of thing could work, and could probably be as fast or faster than a human carefully checking the cube. However, you'd need to hook the scramble program up to the webcam program so it knows which scrambles to look at, and you'd also have to have to be able to handle unconventional color schemes, imperfect stickers, and (at least) both white and black cubes. It would probably take some work to set up, but could be very useful once it's done.
> 
> Alex suggested a computer, but I'm thinking a smartphone app - compared to laptops or desktops they have better cameras, are very common and standardized, and are also easier to hold up in the air (point the camera at the cube, rather than trying to hold the cube in just the right place).



you could just put the cube in WCA orientation, and the software could easily handle nonstandard color schemes by which color is the U R L D B F color. I was thinking webcams because you can just mount them up on something. Its annoying to hold the phone up for the whole round imo. I was thinking two webcams, one pointed at the ULF corner and the other pointed at the URB corner, so the scrambler doesn't have to rotate the cube twice. The program could be made so it could just read the pdfs.


----------



## josh42732 (May 12, 2015)

Why we don't only let perfect cubers compete in competitions? That way, there would be very consistent scrambles, averages, and many problems that we usually have at competitions would just magically go away!?!?! lol jk

But for real though, piggy-backing on what henrysavich originally said, having one person do the scrambles is actually a good idea. I haven't personally been to a comp before, but what if we had selected scramblers, and not have the judges scramble, and then judge? The scrambler would scramble, look at the sheet for every side, then give it to the judge, then go scramble the next cube so that the person scrambling won't have to worry about judging as well, therefore getting more consistent scrambles. And the judge could have a picture at the cube and make sure that the cube is scrambles correctly.


----------



## qqwref (May 12, 2015)

That's how it's already done - scramblers sit at a table and just scramble cubes, then the scrambled cubes are brought to judges.


----------



## Animorpher13 (May 12, 2015)

Ideally, we would be able to implement some sort of technology that is more accurate than use humans currently (in scrambling).


----------



## Lucas Garron (May 12, 2015)

Incorrect scrambles are a big problem – probably the biggest "new" problem since 2014.

Several competitions have already used one of henrysavich's suggestions – the results are better, but not perfect.
Read this thread for the results so far.

I don't think else suggested in this thread currently sounds practical. Probably the most realistic is to use laptop/smartphone cameras.
I'd be very interested if someone could demonstrate a system that worked under less-than-ideal lighting conditions, with any color scheme, preferably on multiple puzzles, doesn't interfere with running competitions in practice, allows multiple scramblers to work efficiently with fewer devices, and ideally also doesn't require a human to identify the correct scramble to use (but also doesn't waste a lot of time scanning, or the use of fancy technology prone to breaking).



TyrantCuberKing said:


> I agree that misscrambles are going to occur unless ridiculously rigid measures are taken, but my guess is that the frequency of misscramble will at least be lowered. However, it would be extremely difficult to verify or discredit this because there is no rigorous data on the number of misscrambles per competition controlling for scrambling procedure type.



See my link above; we do have some data.

I think the most practical thing is to require one of the two suggestions from the first post, unless the Delegate can convincingly vouch that there were almost no scrambling errors (e.g. very experienced cubers were asked to scramble – but even they can make mistakes).


----------



## adimare (May 12, 2015)

Lucas Garron said:


> Incorrect scrambles are a big problem – probably the biggest "new" problem since 2014.



Do you think this is new? Could it be that it's just a lot more noticeable now because everyone uploads their solves to youtube for everyone to see?


----------



## szalejot (May 12, 2015)

For me - option 2)
I think judge should check scramble when he/she picks up the cube.
Printing few pages of scrambles more (for judges) which will reside on scramblers table would not increase cost of competition dramatically and it will make second layer of check to scramble.


----------



## mDiPalma (May 12, 2015)

i think we should have the scramble sheet written in qqtimer's "3x3x3 for noobs" notation.


----------



## blade740 (May 12, 2015)

This is not a problem that regulations can solve. There is already a picture of the cube state on the scramble sheet. If the cube goes out and it does not match that picture, than the scrambler was lazy. Period.

There simply needs to be a concerted effort on the part of competition organizers and staff to use more experienced scramblers, and to remind anyone scrambling to double- and triple-check each scramble against the picture on the sheet.


----------



## Kyle™ (May 12, 2015)

Would it be possible to have something similar to the 'cube solving robot' that we could bring to competitions to scramble cubes in under 5 seconds per cube? 0 mistakes guaranteed.


----------



## biscuit (May 12, 2015)

blade740 said:


> This is not a problem that regulations can solve. There is already a picture of the cube state on the scramble sheet. If the cube goes out and it does not match that picture, than the scrambler was lazy. Period.
> 
> There simply needs to be a concerted effort on the part of competition organizers and staff to use more experienced scramblers, and to remind anyone scrambling to double- and triple-check each scramble against the picture on the sheet.



Well you have to remember that not only is it there job to correctly scramble the cube but also make sure the flow of the competition continues. If they check evey face then they won't be able to scramble fast enough to make sure there is always a scrambled puzzle waiting. This is especially the case here as the other scrambler waltzed off. So if we should be blaming any one then the organizer/delegate is at fault for not making sure there was enough scramlers. Even if you have Feliks Mats and Collin scrambling every comp there will still be mis-scrambles though. I say that if there are enough volunteers then having a scramble checker whose job it is to make sure the scrambler got it right is a good idea. This should not/can not be in the regs but I don't see why not something could e added to the guidelines. I also like the idea of a judge having the scramble to check against but again they need to be ready immediately as the runners will be calling the competitor as they bring the cube so we would have to change it where the judge calls the competitor slowing down the comp. This also creates a liability issue as now more people know the scramble and could (I don't know how) share the scramble with a friend. I dunno it's a tricky situation


----------



## cubernya (May 12, 2015)

Lucas Garron said:


> I don't think else suggested in this thread currently sounds practical. Probably the most realistic is to use laptop/smartphone cameras.
> I'd be very interested if someone could demonstrate a system that worked under less-than-ideal lighting conditions, with any color scheme, preferably on multiple puzzles, doesn't interfere with running competitions in practice, allows multiple scramblers to work efficiently with fewer devices, and ideally also doesn't require a human to identify the correct scramble to use (but also doesn't waste a lot of time scanning, or the use of fancy technology prone to breaking).



Couldn't we use something along the lines of Cube Explorer's scanner, but modifying it so that it would check it against patterns, not the colors themselves. This could (theoretically) be implemented in less-than-ideal conditions (albeit with lesser accuracy), and could even return what scramble number it is (to make sure you did the right one)


----------



## Meep (May 12, 2015)

cashis said:


> Do you have the money for this?
> Maybe at big competitions, but not every one.



This little thing, although slow, costed less than a Speedstacks display:






That said, having used it at a competition, it definitely couldn't replace human scramblers. It heavily traded off speed for reliability and simplicity.



KYLE ALLAIRE DROPS BOMBS! said:


> Would it be possible to have something similar to the 'cube solving robot' that we could bring to competitions to scramble cubes in under 5 seconds per cube? 0 mistakes guaranteed.



I heard that the faster, multi-armed ones (that would be able to execute a scramble in ~5 seconds) would freak out/explode the cube if you put different sized 3x3s in - definitely not 0 mistakes guaranteed.

I do think that a camera checker would be the way to go. badmephisto made this 5 years ago, and it seems reasonably fast/robust regardless of lighting/camera quality and settings. Seeing things that computer vision can do nowadays, a much faster/reliable one sounds very doable.


----------



## Phinagin (May 12, 2015)

I think that having judges check over the scrambles before giving them to the competitors id s very good idea, as a last measure.


----------



## Dene (May 13, 2015)

Meep said:


> This little thing, although slow, costed less than a Speedstacks display:



Awww it's so cute <3

Someone just need to put a cute face on it so it's like wall-e

But if a competition had like 10 of those things going at once, and a couple of people double checking scrambles and replacing cubes, it might work ok.


----------



## joshsailscga (May 13, 2015)

Phinagin said:


> I think that having judges check over the scrambles before giving them to the competitors is a very good idea, as a last measure.



I disagree with this; as biscuit mentioned before, this would just waste more time in comps. Also, in my mind, having scramble sheets at the judge's tables would present even bigger problems than misscrambles.


----------



## Kian (May 13, 2015)

Phinagin said:


> I think that having judges check over the scrambles before giving them to the competitors id s very good idea, as a last measure.



I know this sounds like a nice idea, but I assure you this is absolutely not feasible.


----------



## Jimmy Liu (May 13, 2015)

Implementing scramble checkers and scrambler signing system are both good ways to prevent mis-scrambles, but after some practice, it seemed that that they were not perfect.

What I'm focusing on is how we deal with this kind of situation after they happened. Maybe we could receive a backup scramble before the round ends or before the competition ends. Otherwise, if we find mis-scrambles after competition then we should get DNF. 

How could we encourage people to be honest on this? Repeated scrambles is annoying, too.


----------



## Noahaha (May 13, 2015)

I'm going to go ahead and argue that the current system is ok:

There are two things we're worried about:

1. Cheating
2. Accidental unfairness

1. Yes, it is possible to cheat by being in cahoots with the scrambler, but guess what: there are countless ways to cheat. There's no use in trying to eliminate one potential source of cheating when there are countless easier ways to cheat if you want to. We're all just going to have to accept that we live in an honor system.

2. Sure, it's accidentally unfair if the scrambler gets it wrong, but consider this: let's say there's an accidental mishap during the solve that gets caught like, for example, if the scrambler leaves off the last move of the scramble. It could be a lot of other things as well like timer malfunction or outside interference. Either way, the correct procedure, assuming that the mishap was not the competitor's fault, is to give the competitor a NEW SCRAMBLE. Surely no one will argue that a new scramble is significantly more fair than a mistake scramble, right? Let's say we want to act on the fact that Feliks's cube was mis-scrambled... what do we do? Well, we wish that we could give him another attempt to replace that one. On that attempt, we give him one of the extra scrambles*. How is that any less fair than him receiving the mistaken scramble? And don't say "well, the mistaken scramble was super easy" because for all we know Feliks would have gotten a 5.66 on the extra scramble.

*NOTE: We cannot just give Feliks the correct scramble because there is a non-trivial relationship between the mis-scramble that is one move off and the correct scramble.

There you have it... drastically changing the regs will not drastically change either of the two issues we're worried about. 

Someone tell me why I'm wrong.


----------



## moralsh (May 13, 2015)

I also said this in the WR thread:

Have 5 cubes scrambled, named 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Check the scrambles against this cubes. You can check all faces in very little time and spot any difference easyly.


----------



## Laura O (May 13, 2015)

moralsh said:


> I also said this in the WR thread:
> 
> Have 5 cubes scrambled, named 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Check the scrambles against this cubes. You can check all faces in very little time and spot any difference easyly.



Although this might be helpful, it's only a method how you can make scramble checking easier.
It does not solve the problem that a scrambler isn't checking properly and that a scramble is used twice (e.g. 2nd scramble for the 3rd solve again).


----------



## biscuit (May 13, 2015)

Noahaha said:


> I'm going to go ahead and argue that the current system is ok:
> 
> There are two things we're worried about:
> 
> ...



That's why we need procedures BEFORE it leaves the scrambling area. If it wouldn't be so expensive and time consuming I am all for the robot scramblers. Ohh and I propose a new reg that if Meep doesn't bring that scrambling device to each and every comp he goes to he should be banned for life


----------



## SpicyOranges (May 13, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> At the very least, we should probably always double or triple check scrambles when someone like Feliks is going to solve it



Yeah, I always check, but if it's someone really fast at the event, then I make sure several times that it is correct


----------



## BaMiao (May 13, 2015)

I know this is slightly off topic, but I think we should also discuss the way we deal with mis-scramble situations _when they do come up_. While it's a good idea to reduce the occurrence of these situations, I don't think it's reasonable to expect to eliminate them entirely. That being said, here are my thoughts:

Everyone agrees that the best course of action in the recent situation would have been to identify the mis-scramble and allow an alternate solve. Had that happened, Faz would almost assuredly not have the WR today. In light of that fact, what incentive does the competitor have to ensure the correctness of the scramble? If you suddenly find yourself in the same situation, the "smart" thing to do would be to just keep quiet about any mis-scrambles and risk the WRC giving you a DNF. By following the "correct" procedure, you forfeit any chance at the record.

Here is my proposition: It should be the responsibility of the delegate to check the accuracy of all scrambles used in a NR/CR/WR during the competition. This is done either by using any available video evidence, or by having the competitor attempt a reconstruction if no video evidence exists. It is up to the delegate's discretion whether or not the competitor is physically capable of performing the reconstructed solve in the time of record. Refusal on the part of the competitor to comply results in a DNF. If a mis-scramble is found, an additional solve is attempted. Any additional solves can be performed at any point in the day of the competition (doesn't have to take place before the start of the next event, so there should be ample time to check all scrambles).

I know that mis-scrambles happen in non-record solves, but we don't have time to check every scramble, and it's the records we care about the most. This proposal removes responsibility from the competitor, and places it on the delegate, where there are (theoretically) no conflicts of interest. This also ensures that these situations are taken care of the day of the competition and spares the WRC from having to make controversial decisions. Thoughts?


----------



## tseitsei (May 13, 2015)

BaMiao said:


> Here is my proposition: It should be the responsibility of the delegate to check the accuracy of all scrambles used in a NR/CR/WR during the competition. This is done either by using any available video evidence, or *by having the competitor attempt a reconstruction if no video evidence exists*. It is up to the delegate's discretion whether or not the competitor is physically capable of performing the reconstructed solve in the time of record. Refusal on the part of the competitor to comply results in a DNF. If a mis-scramble is found, an additional solve is attempted. Any additional solves can be performed at any point in the day of the competition (doesn't have to take place before the start of the next event, so there should be ample time to check all scrambles).



I have some solves that I couldn't reconstruct even immediately after the solve. Sometimes I can't even remember what OLL case I just did, let alone what F2L-pairs and in what order... So that's IMO not really a good idea to demand reconstruction.

Also how much time would you give the competitor? If long enough is given the competitor can obviously just try many different solves using his solving method on the normal scramble and choose one that gives an easy solution and claim he used that. Even if he in reality had completely different scramble...


----------



## BaMiao (May 13, 2015)

Martin Telesforo was asked to do a reconstruction, so it is already the de-facto way to deal with record-breaking solves that weren't filmed. I think the reconstruction should be performed in the presence of the delegate, and the number of attempts set at the delegate's discretion. My proposal is aimed at giving the delegate and competitor the best chance of resolving issues _during the day of the competition_, so the WRC doesn't have to deal with these situations after it's too late to manage it properly. If the competitor is not satisfied with the delegate's handling, s/he is still free to bring it up with the WRC afterward.

Besides, I imagine pretty much all record solves will be on film. People have complained when film has been used to disqualify attempts, so maybe it's good to give some incentive to have people film their solves.


----------



## tseitsei (May 13, 2015)

BaMiao said:


> Martin Telesforo was asked to do a reconstruction, so it is already the de-facto way to deal with record-breaking solves that weren't filmed. I think the reconstruction should be performed in the presence of the delegate, and the number of attempts set at the delegate's discretion. My proposal is aimed at giving the delegate and competitor the best chance of resolving issues _during the day of the competition_, so the WRC doesn't have to deal with these situations after it's too late to manage it properly. If the competitor is not satisfied with the delegate's handling, s/he is still free to bring it up with the WRC afterward.
> 
> Besides, I imagine pretty much all record solves will be on film. People have complained when film has been used to disqualify attempts, so maybe it's good to give some incentive to have people film their solves.



I still find it unfair that if I set a record and am unable to reconstruct the solve it will be DNFed. That kind of thing can happen (at least for me) because solving process is mostly automatic thing... Also Telesforo was just a bad bad troll and not a serious wr incident...


----------



## BaMiao (May 13, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> I still find it unfair that if I set a record and am unable to reconstruct the solve it will be DNFed. That kind of thing can happen (at least for me) because solving process is mostly automatic thing... Also Telesforo was just a bad bad troll and not a serious wr incident...



Maybe we can say that being unable to reconstruct isn't an _automatic_ DNF, but it should still be the delegate's responsibility to get as much information as possible the day of the competition. The current status quo is for the WRC to handle it after it is too late, and the WRC has already shown that they will ask for a reconstruction. My proposal just moves that request to the day of the competition, so that it is still possible for the competitor to get a new solve if it is needed.

And I know that what Telesforo did was different from our hypothetical scenario. However, imagine a scenario where someone gets a mis-scramble that ends up being easy, and he gets a world record time with it. To an outside viewer, that looks exactly the same as the Telesforo incident, and the response should be exactly the same. If Martin had said "I can't seem to reconstruct the solve I had, so I think I must have been given a mis-scramble", no one would have doubted him. In that situation, it would be better to give the competitor a chance to check the scramble and get another solve, rather than getting a DNF after it's already too late.


----------



## Julian (May 13, 2015)

BaMiao said:


> *Everyone agrees that the best course of action in the recent situation would have been to identify the mis-scramble and allow an alternate solve.* Had that happened, Faz would almost assuredly not have the WR today.


I don't think you can make this presumption. I'm not sure I agree, actually.


----------



## Kit Clement (May 13, 2015)

BaMiao said:


> Maybe we can say that being unable to reconstruct isn't an _automatic_ DNF, but it should still be the delegate's responsibility to get as much information as possible the day of the competition. The current status quo is for the WRC to handle it after it is too late, and the WRC has already shown that they will ask for a reconstruction. My proposal just moves that request to the day of the competition, so that it is still possible for the competitor to get a new solve if it is needed.
> 
> And I know that what Telesforo did was different from our hypothetical scenario. However, imagine a scenario where someone gets a mis-scramble that ends up being easy, and he gets a world record time with it. To an outside viewer, that looks exactly the same as the Telesforo incident, and the response should be exactly the same. If Martin had said "I can't seem to reconstruct the solve I had, so I think I must have been given a mis-scramble", no one would have doubted him. In that situation, it would be better to give the competitor a chance to check the scramble and get another solve, rather than getting a DNF after it's already too late.



WRC has no input in these decisions.


----------



## BaMiao (May 13, 2015)

Julian said:


> I don't think you can make this presumption. I'm not sure I agree, actually.



It seems to have been the prevailing opinion. Besides, do you think the scrambles shouldn't matter? Also, remember that there have been examples of solves thrown out due to mis-scramble (like with Nathan Soria). Wouldn't it have been nice if he had an additional solve?



Kit Clement said:


> WRC has no input in these decisions.



Sorry, I guess I'm getting my committees mixed up. Is it the board who makes these decisions?


----------



## Julian (May 13, 2015)

BaMiao said:


> It seems to have been the prevailing opinion.


Fine, but you said everyone.



> Besides, do you think the scrambles shouldn't matter? Also, remember that there have been examples of solves thrown out due to mis-scramble (like with Nathan Soria).Wouldn't it have been nice if he had an additional solve?


That's different, Nathan's was DNF'd because the optimal solution was <7.


----------



## MrMan (May 14, 2015)

I will begin my informatic studies next year, I already have some experience and more importantly the two first years will leave me a lot of free time.
So I will try to develop an app for smartphone if nobody does it. It will be a great experience for my studies.


----------



## Myachii (May 14, 2015)

What are the chances of the scrambler looking only at the white face and seeing it is exactly correct to the scramble yet the scramble being incorrect?

Just curious..


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 14, 2015)

Myachii said:


> What are the chances of the scrambler looking only at the white face and seeing it is exactly correct to the scramble yet the scramble being incorrect?
> 
> Just curious..



Pretty high. If you assume that the white face has not only the correct stickers, but the correct pieces, then the chance of the rest of the cube being correct is:
1 in (2^7 * 8! * 3^3 * 4! * (1/2)) = 1 in 1672151040 (1.67x10^9, full cube has 43x10^18 possibilities for reference)
If you're only checking stickers, then its even higher


TL;DR, pretty damn low.


----------



## irontwig (May 14, 2015)

Well, that way of calculating makes a ton of sense, doesn't it? Oh, wait. Better phrased: what's the probability of apostrophe being missed (this can be approximated with a random 2+2C2+2E switch) , but the white face being identical with the right scramble?


----------



## rokicki (May 14, 2015)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Pretty high. If you assume that the white face has not only the correct stickers, but the correct pieces, then the chance of the rest of the cube being correct is:
> 1 in (2^7 * 8! * 3^3 * 4! * (1/2)) = 1 in 1672151040 (1.67x10^9, full cube has 43x10^18 possibilities for reference)
> If you're only checking stickers, then its even higher
> 
> ...



In practice, the chances are much higher than this. Consider the possibility that the scramble ends in
a clockwise move of the yellow face, and the scrambler accidentally twists this face counterclockwise.
This single case alone is much more probable than the value given above. Yet there are many
additional errors that will end with the white face correct.

Any single error in a scramble (inserting a move, omitting a move, or making a move incorrectly)
will cause exactly four edges and four corners to be wrong. If we use this as our model of errors,
we might be able to come up with a much more realistic estimate---and I believe the result will be
too high for our purposes.

Likely we need to check two opposite faces to gain enough confidence. And even that can probably
be "defeated" by a determined adversary.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 14, 2015)

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to make any kind of statement about chances of mistakes overall, just answering the question stated exactly as it was asked.


----------



## irontwig (May 14, 2015)

So you were just answering a meaningless question that has nothing to this with the topic of this thread? Good.


----------



## Mollerz (May 14, 2015)

irontwig said:


> So you were just answering a meaningless question that has nothing to this with the topic of this thread? Good.



No he was answering a question someone asked somewhat relating to the topic.


----------



## kinch2002 (May 14, 2015)

BaMiao said:


> Sorry, I guess I'm getting my committees mixed up. Is it the board who makes these decisions?


The WRC deals with the regulations (e.g. wording of, interpretation of etc).
The Board would make any final decisions in situations that require debate unless if falls under the remit of...
The WDC deal with disciplinary action (although their final recommendations/actions are approved by the Board)


----------

