# Sebastián Pino Castillo Clock WRs Invalid



## Kirjava (Jun 2, 2011)

From the WCA Forum;



> Fellow members of our community,
> 
> After examining evidence presented by various WCA competitiors, and examining evidence independently gathered by the IAC, we have determined that Sebastián Pino Castillo manipulated WCA scrambles and gained an unfair advantage in WCA competition. The WCA will take the following actions:
> 
> ...



A lot of people have thought something has been wrong for a while. Thanks to Daniel Sheppard and the IAC for investigating.

When you watch the videos back, this explains a lot.

Shouts to David Woner	(6.25 Single) and Yu Sajima (7.53 Average) who have their current world records returned.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Jun 2, 2011)

The world record solve did seem EXTREMELY easy. I didn't really think he would resort to cheating, though. D:

DAVID WONER HAS TEH WORLD RECORD!!!!!1111!!!!


----------



## vcuber13 (Jun 2, 2011)

i think when someone "manipulated WCA scrambles and gained an unfair advantage in WCA competition." it counts as cheating


----------



## bamilan (Jun 2, 2011)

What are the evidences?


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Jun 2, 2011)

vcuber13 said:


> i think when someone "manipulated WCA scrambles and gained an unfair advantage in WCA competition." it counts as cheating


 
No, you misunderstood. I mean I didn't think he WOULD resort to such cheating, not that changing scrambles isn't considered cheating.


----------



## AJ Blair (Jun 2, 2011)

How was it discovered that he did this?


----------



## AustinReed (Jun 2, 2011)

Wow. Congrats to Woner then.


----------



## JackJ (Jun 2, 2011)

The Chilean cubers are starting to lose my respect...


----------



## vcuber13 (Jun 2, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> No, you misunderstood. I mean I didn't think he WOULD resort to such cheating, not that changing scrambles isn't considered cheating.


 
oh ok that makes sense


----------



## DavidWoner (Jun 2, 2011)

JackJ said:


> The Chilean cubers are starting to lose my respect...


 
Why? "Mr. Pino has been cooperative with this process, and the WCA finds no reason to doubt the authenticity of records for anyone other than himself."


----------



## qqwref (Jun 2, 2011)

Wow, this is a big deal. I hope this doesn't hurt Chilean cubing.


----------



## a small kitten (Jun 2, 2011)

I'm looking at Sebastian's posts in this thread: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...k-s-Clock-New-WR-5.05-Sebastian-Pino-Castillo

Wasn't there that time where some random Chilean guy or his judge reported a WR single (don't remember if that was by accident)? To me, the fact that he manipulated the scrambles and posted as if his record was legitimate is more telling of his behavior than his "cooperation". It could just be an attempt to avoid heavier consequences.


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 2, 2011)

well that's embarrassing


----------



## Stefan (Jun 2, 2011)

JackJ said:


> The Chilean cubers are starting to lose my respect...


 
1. Why?
2. As far as I know, the WCA got the allegations of him cheating *from Chilean cubers*, and they helped with the investigation.
3. Why don't you lose respect for let's say male cubers, since he's a male cuber? In fact, all convicted cheaters so far have been male!!!


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 2, 2011)

Stefan said:


> 3. Why don't you lose respect for let's say male cubers, since he's a male cuber? In fact, all convicted cheaters so far have been male!!!


 
I have no respect for you or myself or any of the WR holders.


----------



## IamWEB (Jun 2, 2011)

Stefan said:


> 3. Why don't you lose respect for let's say male cubers, since he's a male cuber? In fact, all convicted cheaters so far have been male!!!


 
Shelley is a mastermind at everything, including 'cheating.'


----------



## blah (Jun 2, 2011)

JackJ said:


> The Chilean cubers are starting to lose my respect...


Because all Australian cubers are ridiculously fast.


----------



## JackJ (Jun 2, 2011)

Well, one main reason is a few months back I remember a thread being made claiming the new 3x3 WR single had been broken by a Chilean. While I personally didn't buy into it, it did fool a few people. Anyway, I do think I catagorized the Chileans into a group of cheaters, which was wrong. I apoligize.


----------



## Cool Frog (Jun 2, 2011)

JackJ said:


> Well, one main reason is a few months back I remember a thread being made claiming the new 3x3 WR single had been broken by a Chilean. While I personally didn't buy into it, it did fool a few people. Anyway,* I do think I catagorized the Chileans into a group of cheaters, which was wrong. I apoligize.*


 
Tends to happen when you take actions of a few and apply it to a large group.


----------



## TiLiMayor (Jun 2, 2011)

Somehow, I got that feeling of 'justice has been made', although this its not exactly the way I expected to be.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Jun 2, 2011)

Man, this really is big. I can't believe the _delegate_ of all people would do this. I hope their cubing community and competition opportunities aren't hurt by this.


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 2, 2011)

am I the only one that actually lol'd when I saw the title?


----------



## IamWEB (Jun 2, 2011)

Probably.


----------



## caseyd (Jun 2, 2011)

and I saw the solve, hell that was really easy, it seemed like he was going slow to not make it so obvious


----------



## Owen (Jun 2, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> David Woner	(6.25 Single) and Yu Sajima (7.53 Average)


 
Wait...


----------



## Pedro (Jun 2, 2011)

nlCuber22 said:


> Man, this really is big. I can't believe the _delegate_ of all people would do this. I hope their cubing community and competition opportunities aren't hurt by this.


 
Well, the _delegate_ is the only one (or should be) who could do this (cheating scrambles), since he is responsible for providing the scrambles.


----------



## Sakarie (Jun 2, 2011)

In the WR thread, 09-27-2010, about that the delegate is supposed to bring the scramble:



Olivér Perge said:


> Interesting point, Phillip! However we have other examples from the past, the rule which says the scramble has to be provided by the WCA delegate is quite new, so I'm assuming only Ron (and maybe Edouard) broke a WR with a scramble given (printed) by himself. So after Ron, Sebastián comes close second.
> 
> *Obviously this is no reason for being suspicious, it's just an interesting fact.*



Obviously...


----------



## cuberkid10 (Jun 3, 2011)

Cograts Woner!


----------



## amostay2004 (Jun 3, 2011)

nlCuber22 said:


> Man, this really is big. I can't believe the _delegate_ of all people would do this. I hope their cubing community and competition opportunities aren't hurt by this.


 
I totally believe people would do this. In fact I was wondering when a delegate would actually misuse authority to cheat. It's just too easy. Finally


----------



## whauk (Jun 3, 2011)

where is the evidence?


----------



## Rpotts (Jun 3, 2011)

The scrambles. I remember someone calculated the odds of the amount of skips he got in each scramble, and it was some extremely statistically significant figure, far less than 1%.


----------



## whauk (Jun 3, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAl5cAhIrTQ
this guy got an LLskip. the chance for this is also way less than 1%.... enough evidence for "cheating"?


----------



## Rpotts (Jun 3, 2011)

that's not the same. He had solved clock faces on most of his scrambles (which he generated.) It would be akin to having a 1x2x2 or 2x2x2 or 3/4 cross on every solve in an average.


----------



## whauk (Jun 3, 2011)

as far as i see this is not impossible...


----------



## Andreaillest (Jun 3, 2011)

Wow, what a pity.

Congrats to Woner and Yu for reclaiming their WR titles.


----------



## Rpotts (Jun 3, 2011)

whauk said:


> as far as i see this is not impossible...


 
obviously it's not impossible. But it's near impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not intentionally manipulate the scrambles to his advantage. He was cooperative in the investigation, which to me means he admitted guilt.


----------



## r_517 (Jun 3, 2011)

whauk said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAl5cAhIrTQ
> this guy got an LLskip. the chance for this is also way less than 1%.... enough evidence for "cheating"?


 
for a standard 14-step solve, it's likely to have 2-3 steps skipped if u have a _very_ good observation as well as _very_ good instant judgement (and sometimes luck). i would say a 5-step skip is as lucky as a LLskip
u could never PREDICT a 6-step skip and even without flipping the clock


----------



## vcuber13 (Jun 3, 2011)

Rpotts said:


> But it's near impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not intentionally manipulate the scrambles to his advantage.


 i disagree, even if its only .001% it would happen one day and that doesnt mean they cheated


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jun 3, 2011)

Guys, none of us were part of the investigation, nor do we have any evidence that the board had to use to make their decision, so stop assuming crap.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 3, 2011)

This is one thing that makes me nervous as a delegate. I am fortunately slow enough at most puzzles that there's not much danger of me doing much damage as a delegate, other than BLD, so I don't worry about doing speedsolving scrambles. But I admit I'm really concerned about doing BLD scrambles, which is why I make it a point to have someone else bring the BLD scrambles. (As delegate, my responsibility is to provide scrambles, but I can do that by having someone else bring them.) I bring backups (in case the ones that were provided are bad somehow - perhaps the person I put in charge of it made a mistake or forgot them), but I'm thinking I might not participate if I ever have to use scrambles I've provided; I just don't want there to be any doubt about the scrambles.

It seems like we might finally be getting big enough that simply placing trust in the delegates to not cheat with scrambles may no longer be enough. Perhaps we need to find a better way to handle the scrambles. The only problem is, I can't really think of a secure solution. Does anyone have any good suggestions?


----------



## demma (Jun 3, 2011)

Rpotts said:


> (...) He was cooperative in the investigation, which to me means he admitted guilt.


That is what means to you. That sentence in the WCA report is pretty ambiguous. I can cooperate with an inestigation being inocent, just letting them search what they are looking for.
BTW I'm not defending him.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jun 3, 2011)

Perhaps have the Board give you the scrambles, which in turn you provide to the competition.

I think it's safe to assume video happens nearly every competition for BLD, so the delegate would have to worry about if reconstruction happened, and hte scramble turned out to not be the same. It would be a lot easier to tell if the delegate was trying to cheat. It would be incentive to stay clean.

Edit-Meh idea. The delegate could still practice the scramble.


----------



## trebolde4 (Jun 3, 2011)

this is the "official" thread about this conflict:
http://www.cuberos.cl/foro/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2083
is in spanish, maybe you can use google translator.
, in the third page FranciscoG gave testimony about what he saw while organizing SSCC open, the championship in which he made the avg WR. I will try to translate this testimony.


----------



## Hodari (Jun 3, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> It seems like we might finally be getting big enough that simply placing trust in the delegates to not cheat with scrambles may no longer be enough. Perhaps we need to find a better way to handle the scrambles. The only problem is, I can't really think of a secure solution. Does anyone have any good suggestions?


 
For one thing, the delegate should be required to generate the scrambles(using the appropriate program) to be used in front of at least one other person who will not be competing in that event. Ideally, this should be done as close to the start time of the competition as is reasonably practical(in theory at least if a laptop is available with the scramble programs on it, this could be done immediately before each round, although allowing some extra time in case of a problem might be desired). This would ensure that in order for someone to cheat in this way, at least 3 people(the delegate, the person verifying the scrambles, and the competitor) would have to be involved and would leave as little time as possible for either of the officials to communicate with the competitor about the scramble after it is generated.


----------



## kinch2002 (Jun 3, 2011)

As most you now know, I played a part in this investigation and I have a few things to say. In case you were interested, after receiving some interesting evidence in March, I wrote to the WCA about it (and I think some Chilean cubers also did so around the same time), and the investigation was conducted by the IAC (Independent Advisory Committee), who also consulted me and some Chilean cubers during it.

My first thought is one of sorrow for the Chilean cubing community. Unfortunately the actions of one person has resulted in a great many people over there being affected. I really hope that people here don't hold this against the country as a whole. Hopefully they will move on swiftly from this and achieve great things in the cubing world in the future.

I'm afraid that at this point I'm not willing to give exact details of the evidence, or any information I got back from the IAC as I feel that it would be up to the WCA to release such details if they saw fit. But don't worry - this was an extremely thorough investigation conducted over several months, and I always had full confidence that they would reach the correct conclusion whatever that may be.

Please don't think that I have something against him and that I was trying to get him banned or anything, because that's not the way it worked. Hate is not the way to work things out. I don't know him, but from what I hear, he's generally a lovely guy. Everyone makes mistakes, and this one has cost him dearly. I hope that in 2 years he will be welcomed back to competitions with open arms.


----------



## Pedro (Jun 3, 2011)

If he was found guilty and cooperated with the investigation, that means he assumed his mistakes, so he won't be getting any extra penalty nor the chilean cubers will be penalized.



r_517 said:


> for a standard 14-step solve, it's likely to have 2-3 steps skipped if u have a _very_ good observation as well as _very_ good instant judgement (and sometimes luck). i would say a 5-step skip is as lucky as a LLskip
> u could never PREDICT a 6-step skip and even without flipping the clock



2-3 steps on ALL 5 solves is really really really not likely...

@Mike
Yeah, that's the hard part of being a fast-ish delegate. But I always have a couple people watching me generating the scrambles during the competition, to make sure I didn't see them before or had the chance to practice.

I also don't see a good solution for this. Having the board send scrambles to every competition seems too much work and mess. What if we manage to save time and have another round of event X? E-mail the board and hope they are able to send scrambles in time?

I say we should keep trusting the delegates, since they were chosen by a series of reasons. Of course someone could cheat, people are just like that. We used to trust competitors blindly until someone found an opening to cheat and took advantage. But we don't trust the delegates blindly. They're chosen people, not some random 12-years-old kid who's competing for the first time.


----------



## toastman (Jun 3, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> Perhaps have the Board give you the scrambles, which in turn you provide to the competition.
> 
> I think it's safe to assume video happens nearly every competition for BLD, so the delegate would have to worry about if reconstruction happened, and hte scramble turned out to not be the same. It would be a lot easier to tell if the delegate was trying to cheat. It would be incentive to stay clean.
> 
> Edit-Meh idea. The delegate could still practice the scramble.


 
Was thinking about something like a "Salt". I.e., generate a one-move (or 3 move, or 5 move) "pre-scramble" on the fly, using dice or software. You generate and apply this immediately before applying the "generated" scramble (and write it on the timesheet). Takes away the benefit on knowing/practicing the scramble beforehand. Down side: unless you have a computer you can't "verify" that the scrambler scrambled correctly.

Problem is with 2x2 / Pyraminx, you could unintentionally "help the solve" and accidentally give someone a "legit" scramble with a 3 move solution or something.

I was also thinking about generating scrambles in two parts, each given to (or generated by) a different person. Does not prevent collusion, and probably a nightmare to administer.


----------



## Dene (Jun 3, 2011)

amostay2004 said:


> I totally believe people would do this. In fact I was wondering when a delegate would actually misuse authority to cheat. It's just too easy. Finally


 
How is that smile worthy? This sucks for all delegates. Brings our reputation into question. And if the trustworthiness of delegates is questionable, then the trustworthy of anyone could be called into question.


----------



## kinch2002 (Jun 3, 2011)

Remember that delegates are appointed by the WCA because they are trusted individuals. I like to think that most people appointed to said position wouldn't be taking advantage of it (although of course that has now happened). If there really is no perfect solution to the problem, then delegates who are world class in a particular event (e.g. Mike in BLD) should know what exactly what options they have in order to ensure they don't leave themselves open to accusations.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 3, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> Perhaps we need to find a better way to handle the scrambles.


How about this: the WCA board would provide all scrambles for each competition. If at least one member of the board is competing in a given competition, one of the members who isn't competing should generate them. If all members of the WCA board are competing, they should find an independent person who is trustworthy, but not competing in that competition, to generate scrambles.

I know it could be a lot of work for the board to generate as many as 5+ sets of scrambles per week, but maybe this could be fixed by having some program(s) which would generate a whole set of scrambles automatically. And they could always generate enough scrambles for the maximum possible rounds, just in case. If the scrambles were sent as a file, this wouldn't waste paper or anything, just very slightly more space.


----------



## trebolde4 (Jun 3, 2011)

Alvaro Gonzalez just post in his facebook a note that said the man who was investigating the case send a mail that said this:
"He finally confessed cheating, thus making the work easier for us. I am grateful for your support of my investigation. Thanks. "


----------



## gpt_kibutz (Jun 3, 2011)

I think there should be changes in the WCA Regulations. Maybe the generation of the scrambles at the same instant that are being applied?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 3, 2011)

Rpotts said:


> not a bad idea but not all venues have internet access, and I believe the wca scrambler is only accessible through the website.


Very beside the point. Have you been paying attention to the official scramblers used for the last 8 years? _Every_ one of them is designed to be run offline.

Anyhow, I don't think that's the right kind of solution. Records of the scrambles are a good step towards accountability, and I think they should be preserved. I'm not sure that generating them on the fly would actually do anything except make things more complicated, and maybe even harder to hold anyone accountable for.



Rpotts said:


> Just because one delegate was irresponsible doesn't mean we have change the regulations. However if the problem spreads and many delegates begin to abuse their power (unlikely imo) then a regulation change should be considered.


No.

No delegates should ever abuse their power. This is something we need to prevent, not patch. Maybe it doesn't need to be a regulation change, but this can't be a matter of "catching" people.


----------



## iSolve (Jun 3, 2011)

When I went to my first competition, the delegate there was Michael Young. He had people who weren't competing scramble the puzzles and he was very careful to warn everyone not to look at the scrambles. I was asked to help scramble 4x4s and I didn't know how. I was going to ask Michael something about the scrambles and he was very quick to turn away and say he couldn't look at the scrambles. The only time a participant scrambled the puzzles for that event was when nobody knew how to scramble those puzzles. I'm not saying that this is a foolproof way of keeping people from cheating, but it would help. (I have been to only to one competition and I don't know how they do it in other places.)


----------



## Zarxrax (Jun 3, 2011)

Here is an idea for scrambles:
The wca should have an online site that generates scrambles and stores them in a database after generating, and provides a code to access these scrambles in the future.
The delegate can request scrambles from the site at any time--sometimes in advance, or even right during the competition. As long as the code is preserved, anyone could check it against the site to ensure that the correct scrambles were used.


----------



## Xishem (Jun 3, 2011)

Zarxrax said:


> Here is an idea for scrambles:
> The wca should have an online site that generates scrambles and stores them in a database after generating, and provides a code to access these scrambles in the future.
> The delegate can request scrambles from the site at any time--sometimes in advance, or even right during the competition. As long as the code is preserved, anyone could check it against the site to ensure that the correct scrambles were used.


 
This is something very similar to what I was going to suggest.


----------



## Meep (Jun 3, 2011)

Similar to what Mike Hughey said, I assigned the fellow competition organizer to bring the scrambles for the events I cared about after having discussed the whole potential suspicion scenario with another delegate.


----------



## cmhardw (Jun 3, 2011)

I love the idea of the "Salt" algorithm (where does that word come from anyway?). This would require some doing, but basically:

1) The WCA delegate generates _an electronic copy_ of the scrambles. They would all be of the desired length, as per the current rules.

2) Someone other than the delegate, just before the beginning of the round where the scrambles are to be used, generates a short sequence of turns to applied to the beginning of each scramble in that round.

3) Both the WCA delegate scramble, and the pre-sequence, are typed into a program that is setup to then generate the image of what the puzzle will look like after applying the pre-sequence, then the scramble.

Example:
1) For the 3x3x3 round the WCA delegate generates an electronic copy of the scramble: R B' R' U2 B2 U' F' L' D' B' D U' B2 F R' L2 D2 L B L' F D2 B' F U2

2) Shortly before the round begins someone other than the delegate gives a pre-sequence: L D2 R' F U'

3) (L D2 R' F U') (R B' R' U2 B2 U' F' L' D' B' D U' B2 F R' L2 D2 L B L' F D2 B' F U2) is then typed into a scramble program which generates an image of the cube after being scrambled. This image is either printed at the venue, or the image of the cube is viewed directly off the computer screen.

Now, if we don't want this to result in 30 move scrambles, adding more time to the scramblers' job, then the WCA delegate simply generates a 20 move scramble, and the pre-sequence is set at 5 turns to make the total the same as the current 25.

Pros:

1) The WCA delegate could not prepare the scramble before hand, as doing so would be completely pointless as the pre-sequence would destroy the prepared solve state.

2) Gives an impression that the scrambles are very secure, while at the same time making them actually very secure.

Cons:

1) This would require the use of 2 computers, and also having a printer would be very nice as well. So more equipment is needed than is currently required to run a competition.

2) The "person who is not the WCA delegate" could work together with the delegate. Meaning that the person who generates the pre-sequence could inform the delegate of which pre-sequence is to be used. This could be avoided by having the scrambling program used in step #3 generate a random pre-sequence at the competition, thus avoiding the influence of another person being involved in the first place. To make this more secure the *scramblers* themselves would be the ones to use the program in step number 3 shortly before they begin to scramble.

3) This would require a program to be written that would allow the staff to type in the pre-sequence and the scramble that would then generate an image of the scramble. This is not necessarily a con, but it would mean more files need to be on hand for a competition to be run. Plus, someone would have to write it.

This seems like a lot of work, but it would at least make things more secure than they are now as long as the 2nd Con issue in my list is addressed properly.

Also, for the record, I am in complete agreement with Mike about generating BLD scrambles. For every competition where I have helped organize I make sure that my co-organizer generates the BLD scrambles, and that I do not see them until after I have done my official solves. I feel that having the WCA delegate see the BLD scrambles before the event would give a distinctly unfair advantage. If I even caught a passing glimpse of the 5x5x5 BLD scrambles beforehand, then I would be able to spot blocks of certain colors and would already have an idea of which re-orientation I might use. The same issue would arise with 4x4x4 BLD. I find it best to avoid this issue by simply having the co-organizer generate those scrambles, and I never see them until after that event is over.


----------



## Jungleterrain (Jun 3, 2011)

JackJ said:


> The Chilean cubers are starting to lose my respect...


 
I'm Chilean.


----------



## Tyson (Jun 3, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I love the idea of the "Salt" algorithm (where does that word come from anyway?). This would require some doing, but basically:
> 
> 1) The WCA delegate generates _an electronic copy_ of the scrambles. They would all be of the desired length, as per the current rules.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Chris,

But this doesn't really change anything. What guarantee do you have that the scrambler is going to scramble the cube according to the scramble? In that case, we would have to catch the cheating via video evidence of having it not match the scramble. Your solution would have changed some aspects of this case, but not the fundamental principles of the evidence.

You can't close every gap in the system. Eventually, there's one person you have to trust, and that person *SHOULD* be the WCA delegate.

-Tyson


----------



## Bapao (Jun 3, 2011)

Why not prohibit delegates from participating in a competition that they're providing scrambles for altogether? It's not like the ref. of a soccer match can just punt a goal that actually counts.


----------



## aronpm (Jun 3, 2011)

b4p4076 said:


> Why not prohibit delegates from participating in a competition that they're providing scrambles for altogether? It's not like the ref. of a soccer match can just punt a goal that actually counts.


 
That is completely unfair for the delegate.


----------



## Dacuba (Jun 3, 2011)

For faking a world record, the faker should be lifetime banned and not for two years.
I just flew over the thread, and was shocked by the facts. I pretty much like the idea of the Scramble database held by the WCA.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jun 3, 2011)

b4p4076 said:


> Why not prohibit delegates from participating in a competition that they're providing scrambles for altogether? It's not like the ref. of a soccer match can just punt a goal that actually counts.


 
Poor analogy. Refs get paid to officiate matches, that is the ONLY reason they are there. Delegates are not paid. If a delegate cannot compete then why would they sacrifice their time and money to go to a competition?


----------



## bamilan (Jun 3, 2011)

You can't be sure the delegate is not talking to a competitior about the scramlbe, or easiest color...
The method described few posts ago has an idea of premoves. Premoves would not solve the problem cause delegate can do the already known scramble backwards, which would result in a 5-move-far-from-solved position. Guys who are good at FMC(use premoves) know what I mean.
Why can't delegate generate and print scrambles right before the event?


----------



## Bapao (Jun 3, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> Poor analogy. Refs get paid to officiate matches, that is the ONLY reason they are there. Delegates are not paid. If a delegate cannot compete then why would they sacrifice their time and money to go to a competition?


 
Couldn't scrambles be provided more or less "last minute" by someone that isn't a participant then?


----------



## Tim Major (Jun 3, 2011)

b4p4076 said:


> Couldn't scrambles be provided more or less "last minute" by someone that isn't a participant then?


 Which someone? The delegate could just get their cheating friend to "generate" them. I think we just have to trust in our current system, if we need to make up some complex method to ensure trust in scrambles, what is the point of the delegate?


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 3, 2011)

bamilan said:


> Premoves would not solve the problem cause delegate can do the already known scramble backwards, which would result in a 5-move-far-from-solved position.


 
Yeah, that wouldn't look suspicious at all.


----------



## flan (Jun 3, 2011)

It almost feels like cheating is something you just have to live with and try to disqualify later. You cant eliminate luck even from averages, and it sounds stupid but maybe we just have to face that one in every 100 WR's might just be fake, and take them with a pinch of salt. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to stop it but we kind of risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Lets face it were never going to go as far as blood testing, and were never going to eliminate ALL cheaters.


----------



## Robbytrooper (Jun 3, 2011)

These delegates are placed in a position of trust, to ensure that a competition runs smoothly and 99.9% of the time they do because we have rules and delegates to ensure that they are upheld. The fact that situations like this happen so infrequently proves that the system works. If this was a common issue then looking at how competitions are conducted by delegates would definitely need redressing.

What happened in Chile, I believe, is a very rare occurrence. Most of us as cubers, including the delegates, have the same ethos where we want to see events fun fairly without corruption. Unfortunately, corruption has reared its ugly head in cubing and a delegate has abused the position he holds to gain an unfair advantage. I bet it happens a lot more in other sports!

The situation has been dealt with. I know a lot of you may think that Sebastián's punishment is to lenient, maybe it is but this is without taking into consideration of the underlying consequences of this scandal that he is going to have to carry with him long after he has served his ban, he is going to have quite a cross to bear for the rest of his life.

I think the situation has been dealt with to a satisfactory standard by the WCA. Well done to them for dealing with the situation and to Dan for stepping up to the mark and doing the right thing. This proves that you cannot and will not get away with cheating, the WCA and competitors alike take a very dim view of it and if it did happen again, I’m certain that it would quickly come to light and would be dealt with in the same manner. This is all proves that the current system works. We should move on and be careful not to tar people with the same brush because of their nationality or their status as delegates.

Let’s hope that this never happens again.


----------



## gbcuber (Jun 3, 2011)

Couldn't the scrambles be generated as the cubes are being scrambled? Have someone bring a laptop with a random scramble generator on it and use that


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 3, 2011)

Robbytrooper said:


> I know a lot of you may think that *Sebastien*'s punishment is to lenient, maybe it is but this is without taking into consideration of the underlying consequences of this scandal that he is going to have to carry with him long after he has served his ban, he is going to have quite a cross to bear for the rest of his life.


 
*lol, could you PLEASE refer to the right person? Thank you!* 

On topic: I really hope this story will not put too much doubt in the work of other delegates.

I can understand that world class results set on self-provided scrambles can provoke some doubt. I'm very happy that my 24 move FMC solution comes from a Dutch competition, as well as 4 of 5 sub30 solution in total.

Concerning scrambles I usually print them together with at least one organisation team member the day before the competition and I make sure that noone, including me, sees them again before the event starts in the competition.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 3, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I love the idea of the "Salt" algorithm (where does that word come from anyway?).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_(cryptography)



Tim Major said:


> Which someone? The delegate could just get their cheating friend to "generate" them.



Not if the WCA chooses the other person. Delegate could get the scrambles in an encrypted zip-file, the other chosen person could get the password.



Robbytrooper said:


> The fact that situations like this happen so infrequently proves that the system works.



How do you know that it *happens* infrequently? All I can see is that it is *detected* infrequently. How does that prove that the system works?


----------



## ardi4nto (Jun 3, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Not if the WCA chooses the other person. Delegate could get the scrambles in an encrypted zip-file, the other chosen person could get the password.


 
This is good idea.
How about having two delegates on each competition, the WCA board send the encrypted zip file scrambles to one delegate , and send the another one the password?


----------



## aronpm (Jun 3, 2011)

Some countries don't have two delegates.


----------



## Meep (Jun 3, 2011)

ardi4nto said:


> This is good idea.
> How about having two delegates on each competition, the WCA board send the encrypted zip file scrambles to one delegate , and send the another one the password?


 
It's difficult enough to sometimes get one delegate for a competition. (Three Vancouver competitions needed Dave to fly across Canada for them)


----------



## Robbytrooper (Jun 3, 2011)

Sébastien_Auroux said:


> *lol, could you PLEASE refer to the right person? Thank you!*



My apologies Sébastien, I have edited my post just in case there is any confusion.





Stefan said:


> How do you know that it *happens* infrequently? All I can see is that it is *detected* infrequently. How does that prove that the system works?



Stefan, I think your reply was very rude and patronizing. I don’t know that it happens infrequently, no one can really say for sure. I was attempting to voice my opinion and I got slapped down in doing so. Thank you very much.


----------



## Bapao (Jun 3, 2011)

> Stefan, I think your reply was very rude and patronizing. I don’t know that it happens infrequently, no one can really say for sure. I was attempting to voice my opinion and I got slapped down in doing so. Thank you very much.



You're a Storm Trooper, you can stomach harder shots than that right?  
He's got a point though...


----------



## Robbytrooper (Jun 3, 2011)

b4p4076 said:


> You're a Storm Trooper, you can stomach harder shots than that right?
> He's got a point though...



Stormtroopers cannot take shots fullstop!!! No matter where we get hit we always go down! I don't know why we even bother with armour!

Stefan might have a point but he get it across without being so arrogant!!!


----------



## Bapao (Jun 3, 2011)

Robbytrooper said:


> *Stormtroopers cannot take shots fullstop!!! *No matter where we get hit we always go down! I don't know why we even bother with armour!
> 
> Stefan might have a point but he get it across without being so arrogant!!!


 
Now you have a point too 

Yeah. But I think Stefan is actually a stranded Vulcan in disguise.


----------



## Xishem (Jun 3, 2011)

Robbytrooper said:


> Stefan might have a point but he get it across without being so arrogant!!!


 
Hi. Welcome to Speedsolving. We don't have free cookies.


----------



## Zarxrax (Jun 3, 2011)

Robbytrooper said:


> Stefan might have a point but he get it across without being so arrogant!!!


 
I'm not going to suggest that Stephan isn't arrogant at times, but perhaps you are just a bit sensitive? I saw nothing in his comment directed negatively towards you. He was merely pointing out a flaw in your reasoning. I was actually going to make the same comment, but Stephan did it first.


----------



## krnballerzzz (Jun 3, 2011)

Damn, it's pretty freaking hard to come up with a solution that doesn't require a bunch of monies :3. I like Stefan's password encrypted idea combined with Chris' salt algorithm. What about time locking the file so that it can't be opened until a certain time?


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 3, 2011)

krnballerzzz said:


> What about time locking the file so that it can't be opened until a certain time?


 
not possible.


----------



## krnballerzzz (Jun 3, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> not possible.


 
We can try naming the file PLEASE DONT OPEN UNTIL "THIS" TIME.


----------



## Pedro (Jun 3, 2011)

krnballerzzz said:


> We can try naming the file PLEASE DONT OPEN UNTIL "THIS" TIME.


 
Yeah. Will it stop someone from opening it before?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 3, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> not possible.


I think the issue with a suggestion like this isn't "not possible", it's more about "maybe possible, but more trouble than it's probably worth, while only covering a limited range of side-channel attacks".

Brainstorming could be good, though.

Personally, I don't think making this more digitally complicated will help. *Possibly* the encrypted archive + password could be used to increase security and accountability a bit, but I'm not sure if that's worth enough.

Are we even ready to abolish printed scrambles?


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 3, 2011)

Lucas Garron said:


> maybe possible


 
I'd like to hear how you think so. I can't think of a way that it could be implemented without being vulnerable to attack.

Anyway, I agree otherwise. All these ideas just make the whole thing needlessly convoluted.


----------



## TiLiMayor (Jun 3, 2011)

Locked Zip with scrambles sent to the delegate (by Ron, or Tyson) the day the event gets posted on the WCA page, then the day of the comp, the password is sent to the event organizer, then the organizer and the delegate and maybe a few other witnesses open the Zip.

Then the scrambles get posted along with the comp results whenever they are uploaded to the WCA.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 3, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I'd like to hear how you think so. I can't think of a way that it could be implemented without being vulnerable to attack.


Well, you could make decoding rely on a passcode transmitted by internet/phone at a specified time. You could build a special computer with a secure timer that doesn't decrypt / release the key until a specified time.
Not that I advocate this, but depending on your constraints, it's *possible* for most definitions.

I can't think of *anything* that could be implemented without being vulnerable to attack. That's the point. If the delegate wants to, (s)he can get around almost anything. We don't have the resources to run competitions where scrambles are as secret as Apple products. And even those get leaked.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Jun 3, 2011)

Assuming internet access.
WCA (Tyson, Ron, etc...) uploads scrambles to a Cloud Network, with a password to get in to access it. If access is breached by anyone, it can be found out, and a new scramble is uploaded to the Cloud.

If on day of competition Cloud files still haven't been breached, then delegates get the password, and access the Cloud to retrieve the scrambles.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 3, 2011)

I was looking for something that wasn't essentially the same as Stefan's idea.


----------



## krnballerzzz (Jun 3, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I was looking for something that wasn't essentially the same as Stefan's idea.


 
Morse code. Delegates get special training in decoding it. On the day of, a trooper is dropped from plane into the competiton with radio equipment. The WCA then sends the encrypted scrambles to the delegate via radio contact. Solution found?

On topic: Electricdoodles idea requires too much internet, which most competitons won't have access to.


----------



## Tyson (Jun 3, 2011)

krnballerzzz said:


> Morse code. Delegates get special training in decoding it. On the day of, a trooper is dropped from plane into the competiton with radio equipment. The WCA then sends the encrypted scrambles to the delegate via radio contact. Solution found?
> 
> On topic: Electricdoodles idea requires too much internet, which most competitons won't have access to.


 
Haha... last summer, Macky, Toby, Ambie, and I spent quite a bit of time learning morse code. We almost bought iambic paddles.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 3, 2011)

I like the paratroopers - cubing just gets cooler and cooler!

Seriously, I guess it does seem like all of this probably isn't worth the trouble, but when I brought the topic up, I was just basically taking the same perspective as Lucas - brainstorming might pay off. If it doesn't, that's okay, but I thought that with all the smart people on here, it was worth a try.


----------



## cmhardw (Jun 3, 2011)

Yes I agree with the comments about brainstorming. I understand that most solutions are unnecessarily difficult to implement, but perhaps through brainstorming a relatively simple and yet still relatively effective method can be found to make the whole process more secure.


----------



## krnballerzzz (Jun 3, 2011)

How are delegates chosen in the first place? I don't see it in the regulations on how that is decided. Is it just a "that guy is trustworthy since he's done x and y" decision or do the top WCA officials have something written up?


----------



## Cubenovice (Jun 3, 2011)

[Brainstorm]
- Use printers of the type used for salary-specification sheets or PIN codes: they spit out "sealed sheets"
- Scrambles generated, printed, etc etc opened by a certified notary, solicitor or scrivener
- The delegate responsible for the scrambles may not participate
- A scrambler program that generates encrypted scrambles
- Scramblers are seated behind screens: no prints of the scrambles: Only the actual scramblers see the scramble
- post all scrambles on speedsolving.com 7 days before the event: let's all cheat!!!!!
- hide scrambles into chinese fortune cookies
[/Brainstorm]


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 3, 2011)

Is it really worth changing though? It seems to work well enough as it is and this is the first(?) time it's happened so it's not a major problem. 
Just my say on it.


----------



## Meep (Jun 3, 2011)

krnballerzzz said:


> How are delegates chosen in the first place? I don't see it in the regulations on how that is decided. Is it just a "that guy is trustworthy since he's done x and y" decision or do the top WCA officials have something written up?


 
As far as I know it's moreso if there is a need for one in the area (decent sized community, delegates having to travel far to have competitions there), along with a current delegate making a recommendation to the WCA.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Jun 3, 2011)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> It seems to work well enough as it is and this is* the first(?) time it's happened* so it's not a major problem.
> Just my say on it.





Stefan said:


> How do you know that it *happens* infrequently? All I can see is that it is *detected* infrequently. How does that prove that the system works?


Yes?


----------



## Jungleterrain (Jun 3, 2011)

How about like in bank heist films where the password of doors change every 3 minutes or something like that? So right before the event, the scramble is unique and new, and anyone that had a chance to look at it beforehand would have a useless scramble on their hands if they attempted to cheat.


----------



## James Ludlow (Jun 3, 2011)

Robbytrooper said:


> Stormtroopers cannot take shots fullstop!!!



Especially not at sea!


On topic - when did cubing get so serious? If we competed for booze, birds and fast cars I could understand. But for a weekend away with other cubers?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 3, 2011)

How about fame and respect? It may not be the biggest and most valuable hobby in the world, but it's big enough, and we do have a pretty substantial community. I can see why people would put in a lot of time and effort, and maybe even break some rules and make some enemies, in order to do well in it.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Jun 3, 2011)

There's a bunch of new stuff on the Chilean forum if this hasn't been brought up yet, here.


----------



## James Ludlow (Jun 3, 2011)

qqwref said:


> How about fame and respect? It may not be the biggest and most valuable hobby in the world, but it's big enough, and we do have a pretty substantial community. I can see why people would put in a lot of time and effort, and maybe even break some rules and make some enemies, in order to do well in it.



I just re read my statement, and it didn't really come out as I intended lol. It does sound a bit harsh, and I detect a little "grrrrrr" in your response. I wasn't putting anyone down.

I learnt a long time ago, that very little good comes from cheating. Out of interest, how old was the fella?


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Jun 3, 2011)

rickcube said:


> There's a bunch of new stuff on the Chilean forum if this hasn't been brought up yet, here.


 
Don't know if it's a Google Translate fail, but I laughed at this part:


> *Mike Hughey* speedsolving it is in with a headache by saying *he's too scary* q be the one who provides the scrambles, and that is an issue.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 3, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> *Mike Hughey* speedsolving it is in with a headache by saying *he's too scary* q be the one who provides the scrambles, and that is an issue.


 
Dene knows I'm scary.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Jun 3, 2011)

I think that was referring to Mike saying that he didn't like to compete on scrambles that he provide particularly in BLD.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Jun 3, 2011)

rickcube said:


> I think that was referring to Mike saying that he didn't like to compete on scrambles that he provide particularly in BLD.


 Yeah, I just checked it in Spanish, and it says:

"Mike hughey mismo esta en speedsolving con un dolor de cabeza diciendo q le da mucho miedo ser el quien proporcione los scrambles, y que es todo un tema."

Something along the lines of:
"Mike Hughey himself is on speedsolving with a head ache, saying that it gives him a lot of fear to be the one who provides the scrambles, and that it is all an issue."


----------



## fastcubesolver (Jun 3, 2011)

hmmm, tsk-tsk, cheaters annoy me, on his WR vid, he didn't seem too surprised, like he had expected it. :/


----------



## Dene (Jun 4, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> ElectricDoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Hughey speedsolving it is in with a headache by saying he's too scary q be the one who provides the scrambles, and that is an issue.
> ...


 
He'll beat the crap out of you!


----------



## blah (Jun 4, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> Dene knows I'm scary.


He will strike you when you least expect it and instill a perpetual fear in your hearts and minds forever.


----------



## Hodari (Jun 4, 2011)

Robbytrooper said:


> Stormtroopers cannot take shots fullstop!!! No matter where we get hit we always go down!


 
Yeah, and we know how good Stefan is at shooting to different targets.


----------



## AJ Blair (Jun 4, 2011)

Hodari said:


> Yeah, and we know how good Stefan is at shooting to different targets.


 
Win!


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 4, 2011)

I just read this;

http://www.cuberos.cl/foro/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2085

I'm really annoyed by the entire thing. Quite a few instances of "what the **** this is disgraceful" going on there.

Now I suddenly feel like two years isn't enough.


----------



## Vincents (Jun 4, 2011)

Why is it that whenever a cuber from X nation gets sanctioned, banned, or investigated, cubers go GRAHHH WE'RE BEING TARGETED WCA HATES X COUNTRY I WILL PROTEST BY NOT GOING IT'S ALL AN AMERICAN HEGEMONY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD?

A simple start could be for there to be 3+ generated sets of scrambles for a competition, and for someone random to pick the file used.


----------



## Nestor (Jun 4, 2011)

I just finished reading the ongoing discussions and bans at _cuberos_. _rubikaz, rubikmexico_ and other sites are also boiling. So far, the evidence and his own remarks and actions have disgraced him.
I feel sorry for Chilean cubers since some people outside of Chile will use the actions of one (or perhaps a few) to judge Chileans as a whole.


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 4, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I just read this;
> 
> http://www.cuberos.cl/foro/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2085
> 
> ...


 
oh. god.


----------



## Chuck (Jun 4, 2011)

Moral of the story:
Whenever you're planning to cheat on a competition, don't let anybody take video.


----------



## AJ Blair (Jun 4, 2011)

Chuck said:


> Moral of the story:
> Whenever you're planning to cheat on a competition, don't let anybody take video.


 
Moral of the story:
How about we not cheat at all?


----------



## Tyson (Jun 4, 2011)

AJ Blair said:


> Moral of the story:
> How about we not cheat at all?


 
Sure. I, myself, am just going to sit here, enjoying my cake, glad that I can't read Spanish. It saves me a lot of time that I can't read Spanish.

Well, I could if I tried. I guess it saves a lot of time by pretending I can't. I have to go. My pet potato battery is calling me fat.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 4, 2011)

Chuck said:


> Moral of the story:
> Whenever you're planning to cheat on a competition, don't let anybody take video.


How about: don't cheat?


----------



## Chuck (Jun 4, 2011)

:fp

I'm saying we should have a way to know someone's cheating even without any video.


----------



## rubikaz (Jun 4, 2011)

Hello, I am Carlos (from rubikaz). Do you know the famous clock scrambles? You can see them here:

http://www.rubikaz.com/foro/viewtopic.php?p=134785#p134785

Superti (Javier Tirado) have explained why that scrambles are very lucky, there are some skips in the 5 scrambles. I have calculated the probability of getting that 5 skips (if we suppose that the scramble generator is a random one) and the result that I have obtained is:

1/1.981.355.655.168

About this:

_"Mr. Pino has been cooperative with this process, and the WCA finds no reason to doubt the authenticity of records for anyone other than himself."_

I do not know what Sebastian Pino told to the WCA members but he have said it:



> http://www.cuberos.cl/foro/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2085
> (...)
> Adentrándome en el veredicto, no me declaré culpable, no reconocí lo irreconocible, no dije que había hecho trampa, porque nunca la he hecho. Deben tener muy malos planes de comprensión lectora en Suecia, porque lo que acepté fue que hubo irregularidades en los scrambles del WR average, porque nadie debió haber participado con esos scrambles, pero yo no los manipulé.
> (...)
> Después de ser notificado en reiteradas oportunidades de apocalípticas sanciones que podrían caer sobre la comunidad chilena, se me ofreció asumir un castigo para despejar las dudas sobre el país entero. Literalmente lo que se me planteó fue si prefería hacerle las cosas fáciles al país o si quería hacerme las cosas fáciles para mí.



He says that he is innocent, that the clock scrambles should have been changed but he did not manipulated them (and it was what he said to the WCA board). 

He also says that the WCA board told him that if he did not accept his suspension, then all the Chilean community would be punish.

And about cuberos.cl, it is true that they have banned several users that think that Sebastian Pino cheated (I do not know if they insulted or not, but I think that they did not).


----------



## MTGjumper (Jun 4, 2011)

rubikaz said:


> He also says that the WCA board told him that if he did not accept his suspension, then all the Chilean community would be punish.



I highly, highly doubt this.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 4, 2011)

Robbytrooper said:


> Stefan, I think your reply was very rude and patronizing. I don’t know that it happens infrequently, no one can really say for sure. I was attempting to voice my opinion and I got slapped down in doing so. Thank you very much.



Yeah, sorry, I just can't stand the word "proof" being used with such levity.



Hodari said:


> Yeah, and we know how good Stefan is at shooting to different targets.


 
(reads...) What? I have no clue what you're talking about.

(5 hours later, doing other stuff) Oooooohhhhh! Right. LOL.

In my defense, I don't usually get up at 9am, give me a break.


----------



## rubikaz (Jun 4, 2011)

MTGjumper said:


> I highly, highly doubt this.



I also doubt it. I am going to translate the exact words:



Sebastian said:


> Se me ofreció asumir un castigo para despejar las dudas sobre el país entero. Literalmente lo que se me planteó fue si prefería hacerle las cosas fáciles al país o si quería hacerme las cosas fáciles para mí.





translation said:


> They offered me to accept a penalty in order to remove the doubts about the whole country. Literally they asked me if I preferred to make things easier for the country or to make things easier for me.


----------



## Sa967St (Jun 4, 2011)

Chuck said:


> :fp
> 
> I'm saying we should have a way to know someone's cheating even without any video.


That's not a moral...


----------



## Bryan (Jun 4, 2011)

On the mornings of my competitions, I'm extremely busy. Scrambles are usually generated sometime in the week before the competition, and only saved on my computer's local drive (this is why I'm crap at posting scrambles later). And trying to have multiple people on the thing does add some complexity, because for some competitions, it's me running most of it.


----------



## legolas (Jun 4, 2011)

Some time ago I could see the scrambles and I can assure you that:

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IS A CHEAT

It was only a matter of time knew the truth and thankfully it has. I have participated in many championships and I know perfectly this modality.

Congratulations David Woner and Yu Sajima.

WCA thank you very much.

Ernesto (Spain)

3 medals at world championships
1 European Championship
4 national championships
11 opens
1 European Record

I think I know what I'm talking about


----------



## tehmaxice (Jun 4, 2011)

I'm not satisfied with just the "improbability" of getting such scrambles being the only evidence, although it hopefully isn't.
Rare events happen all the time, and as you may have heard: statistics can fool juries


----------



## Rpotts (Jun 5, 2011)

legolas said:


> Congratulations David Sajim Woner and Yu.


 
lol


----------



## kinch2002 (Jun 5, 2011)

tehmaxice said:


> I'm not satisfied with just the "improbability" of getting such scrambles being the only evidence, although it hopefully isn't.
> Rare events happen all the time, and as you may have heard: statistics can fool juries


Don't worry, there was other evidence


----------



## rubikaz (Jun 5, 2011)

tehmaxice said:


> I'm not satisfied with just the "improbability" of getting such scrambles being the only evidence, although it hopefully isn't.



The probability is 1 against 1981355655168 (almost 2 european billions).

How much is it? For example the probability of solve the cross in the first layer and get 4F2Lskip+LLskip is 1 against 418037760 (smaller than 1000 millions).


----------



## Stefan (Jun 5, 2011)

rubikaz said:


> I have calculated the probability of getting that 5 skips (if we suppose that the scramble generator is a random one) and the result that I have obtained is:
> 
> 1/1.981.355.655.168



Can you show us the calculation as well, please?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 5, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Can you show us the calculation as well, please?


Yeah, I was going to complain, but my browser crashed. I'm getting only about one in [3 million].
And more like one in [20 thousand] if you allow diametrically opposite clocks on the same side to match the center (more peg-switching, but still less turning).

His calculation is the probability that a set of clock scrambles has exactly the same positions (and sides) matching centers as in these scrambles. I wish we could somehow get people around here to stop trying to estimate the likelihood of something unusual that occurred by over-constraining the specification. In this case, it's not a justifiable estimate. [Read below. Apparently that's not what was being calculated. Though I still think it's a bit unreliable to try to calculate exact numbers for this.]
(If anyone would like to respond "Who cares? It's still really unlikely!" here, it's only likely to lower my respect for your reasoning capabilities and ability to gather and interpret evidence.)
(As some wise guy once said, it's extremely unlikely that Feliks's WR solve would have had exactly the scramble and solve it did – but it did.)

Edit: Was too busy pointing out how far off the first calculation was to check the one I ended up posting. In any case, easy clocks are even more likely than I first suggested.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 5, 2011)

Lucas Garron said:


> (As some wise guy once said, it's extremely unlikely that Feliks's WR solve would have had exactly the scramble and solve it did – but it did.)


 
I try and use stuff like this when people say that evolution is too unlikely to happen.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 5, 2011)

Lucas Garron said:


> I'm getting only about one in two billion. And more like one in two million if you allow diametrically opposite clocks on the same side to match the center (more peg-switching, but still less turning).



For what exactly?

If I define an "easy side" as one that has adjacent edges showing the same time as the center and an "easy clock" as one having an easy side:


```
Easy side:          2.551119% (1 in 39.20)
Easy clock:         5.037156% (1 in 19.85)
Five easy clocks:   0.000032% (1 in 3083707.48)
```


```
for $a (0..11) {
  for $b (0..11) {
    for $c (0..11) {
      for $d (0..11) {
        $easy++ if !$a&&!$b
                || !$b&&!$c
                || !$c&&!$d
                || !$d&&!$a;
        $all++;
      }
    }
  }
}

$easySide = $easy/$all;
$easyClock = 1 - (1-$easySide)**2;

printf "Easy side:        %10.6f%% (1 in %.2f)\n", 100 * $easySide,       1 / $easySide;
printf "Easy clock:       %10.6f%% (1 in %.2f)\n", 100 * $easyClock,      1 / $easyClock;
printf "Five easy clocks: %10.6f%% (1 in %.2f)\n", 100 * ($easyClock**5), 1 / ($easyClock**5);
```


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 5, 2011)

Stefan said:


> For what exactly?
> 
> If I define an "easy side" as one that has adjacent edges showing the same time as the center and an "easy clock" as one having an easy side:
> 
> ...


Ah, oops. I made a typo right before adjusting the calculation, and skipped a sanity check for that one because I didn't treat it as important enough for the post. Embarrassing, because that's exactly what I'm telling people to be more careful about.

Anyhow, I agree with you, since I used the same calculations, and the easy side probability comes out the same:

```
Count[Tuples[Table[Range[12],{4}]],[email protected]@(RotateRight[{12,12,_,_},#]&/@Range[4])]/12^4

529/20736
```

(Also, counting diametrically opposite, I get 3.71%, 7.30%, 0.000207% respectively)

Edit: By the way, did you know that skipping 5 faces on a single clock solve is about as likely as an OLL skip? (1/236 vs. 1/216)


----------



## Stefan (Jun 5, 2011)

Ok, I can't quite read your expression, but now that it's there, that's *my* fault 

As a general guideline, I'd say nobody should post a probability in a serious issue like this one without specifying:
- for what exactly it is
- how it was calculated
Otherwise it's rather irresponsible.

Didn't know the OLL thing. Random fact or relevant here?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 5, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Didn't know the OLL thing. Random fact or relevant here?


Not relevant.

What's important here is to notice that although a single solve with two adjacent solved clocks on a side (this is specifically what we should be looking at) is about 1/20, and thus likely to appear about every 4 official averages, having every single solve in an average be like this is extremely unlikely - on the order of having a solved 2x2x2 pop out of the WCA scrambler. And remember, this is on the level of an average, not a single solve and is an inherent property of scrambles, so there is only one opportunity per official round.


This is an important point to make as well: if, by a ridiculous stroke of luck, an entire average is so inherently easy that anyone who solves it will have a huge advantage over others, I'd expect the delegate to point this out and generate new scrambles - especially if that delegate is the only one at the competition who could potentially set a regional record. Not doing this is, at best, highly dishonest.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 5, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Ok, I can't quite read your expression, but now that it's there, that's *my* fault


I made some obfuscatory choices in condensing the code. Would have tried to be cleaner if yours wasn't already so clear.
(Basically, I generate all possible arrangements of 4 clocks, and perform pattern matching.)



Stefan said:


> As a general guideline, I'd say nobody should post a probability in a serious issue like this one without specifying:
> - for what exactly it is
> - how it was calculated
> Otherwise it's rather irresponsible.


This sounds like a good policy. I'll try to hold myself to it: Sanity check the final result, and post clear code/math.

Could there be a standard way to specify things like this? (Actually, I have some good ideas, but they would take too much time and effort to implement compared to other important things.)



Stefan said:


> Didn't know the OLL thing. Random fact or relevant here?


Actually, this is what I first thought Carlos was talking about (due to the last clock). This is why I had a few calculations floating around in my notebook, and reported the wrong one.


----------



## rubikaz (Jun 5, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Can you show us the calculation as well, please?


 
Ok. I do not know if you have observed that each clock have only one pin up and the 2 adjacent clocks aligned with the center are associated to this pin. So I have calculated it the probability of:

- each clock have one pin (and only one pin) up.
- each up pin has 2 associated adjacent clocks. These clocks have the same position than the center one.


The pins of one rubik clock have 16 positions. There are 8 positions with a pin up (4 for each face). So:

One clock have one pin and only one pin up is 1/2.
Each clock have one pin and only one pin up is (1/2)^5.

Suppose now that we get it. We have 1 fixed pin in each clock. The two adjacent clocks associated to this pin have to have the same position than the center one. Since 2 adjacent clocks have 12^2 positions and we have 5 rubik clocks, the final probability is:

((1/2)^5)/(12^2)^5=1/1981355655168


----------



## Stefan (Jun 5, 2011)

qqwref said:


> if, by a ridiculous stroke of luck, an entire average is so inherently easy that anyone who solves it will have a huge advantage over others, I'd expect the delegate to *point this out and generate new scrambles*



When? I'd rather not have a competitor study the scrambles beforehand. And afterwards you'd have to repeat the round and that might understandably anger people.



Lucas Garron said:


> (Basically, I generate all possible arrangements of 4 clocks, and perform pattern matching.)



Yeah yeah, I understood the basic idea, I just couldn't read all details. It's like French to me.



Lucas Garron said:


> Could there be a standard way to specify things like this? (Actually, I have some good ideas, but they would take too much time and effort to implement compared to other important things.)



Don't know. I don't really care about the format, I just want people to tell *what* they calculated and *how*. As long as that's reasonably clear, I'm happy. But don't just spit out "1/1.981.355.655.168" without any explanation.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 5, 2011)

rubikaz said:


> I do not know if you have observed that each clock have only one pin up and the 2 adjacent clocks aligned with the center are associated to this pin.



Thanks for the clarification, describing your "what" and "how" very well now. But I think your basis is wrong: on the scramble sheet I've seen, the pins of scrambles 3 and 4 were not like that (the others are like you said).


----------



## rubikaz (Jun 5, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Thanks for the clarification, describing your "what" and "how" very well now. But I think your basis is wrong: on the scramble sheet I've seen, the pins of scrambles 3 and 4 were not like that (the others are like you said).



Maybe my basis is wrong, I am not be sure. I obtained this information from Javier Tirado. Javier Tirado uploaded the following image in rubikaz.com (here http://www.rubikaz.com/foro/viewtopic.php?p=134785#p134785):







He says that this image represents the scrambles (i.e. the final position of each clock). The blue point of each clock is the pin that is up. I will ask him again about the image, maybe he uploaded an example.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 5, 2011)

Stefan said:


> When? I'd rather not have a competitor study the scrambles beforehand. And afterwards you'd have to repeat the round and that might understandably anger people.


Once at least one person has competed and pointed out that the scrambles are far too easy, I'd expect the round to be repeated or nulled - by the same honesty principle that had Grzegorz Prusak agree to null one of his Square-1 singles that was misscrambled. It's more important to be fair and honest than to be efficient and inoffensive, and I think many of the existing rules and opinions reflect that.

Keep in mind, I'm just talking about entire averages that are so intrinsically lucky that it's far more likely someone planted them there than that they were generated by chance. So it'd be a good sanity check against the possibility of a cheating official, or a scrambler with good slight of hand skills. And you're right about nobody studying the scrambles beforehand - that's exactly why we need to consider this option, because if the scrambles were replaced before the round nobody could know. I don't expect such an easy average to ever legitimately happen, but the idea of replacing scrambles is important to consider.


Interesting hypothetical side question: suppose an honest delegate generates brings their own scrambles, and somewhere before one of the 3x3 rounds, at least one of the 3x3 scramble sheets is replaced by a scramble sheet brought by some corrupt scrambler (not a delegate or organizer) in a way that nobody else notices. Now, although the scramble is not blatantly easy, and in fact most people get a normal time on it, one of the competitors, in league with the scrambler, has pre-memorized an unconventional F2L order that gives them a LL skip. They then get a ridiculously fast time (let's say a low 5.xx). To all appearances this solve was just extremely lucky; video shows the scramble was correctly applied, they solve with a normal method and get a huge skip, and they act appropriately excited. Plus, nobody except the cheaters knows that the scrambles have been replaced. What should be done?


----------



## Stefan (Jun 5, 2011)

rubikaz said:


> He says that this image represents the scrambles (i.e. the final position of each clock). The blue point of each clock is the pin that is up. I will ask him again about the image, maybe he uploaded an example.


 
It's not just an example. It matches the scramble sheet I've seen, except the up pin of scrambles 3 and 4 is on the other side (that's the top-right and bottom-left scrambles on that image (weird layout)).


----------



## Stefan (Jun 5, 2011)

qqwref said:


> by the same honesty principle that had Grzegorz Prusak agree to null one of his Square-1 singles that was misscrambled.



I think that wasn't because it was easy but because it was wrong, which I consider something entirely different.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 5, 2011)

When I said "by the same honesty principle", I meant that it was removed because it would be unfair to keep it, and thus similar situations should be dealt with similarly. We only replace/DNF wrong scrambles when they're unfairly easy, which suggests that it's not because the situation involves a wrong scramble, but because the situation is unfair to others.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 5, 2011)

Yeah I understand, I just disagree that naturally occurring easy scrambles should be invalidated (unless it's in the regulations, but I think it isn't).

Edit: And it shouldn't be a delegate's task to make up rules for what is "too easy" on the spot. If we do this at all, it should be the same everywhere, otherwise *that* would be unfair. Since the WCA provides the scramble programs already, any such rules could be built into them. In my opinion, all scrambles allowed by the WCA regulations and created by the WCA scramble programs are ok, and must *not* be invalidated.


----------



## irontwig (Jun 5, 2011)

And if a delegate is able to remove too easy scrambles should (s)he also be able to remove too hard scramble too?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 5, 2011)

Stefan said:


> In my opinion, all scrambles allowed by the WCA regulations and created by the WCA scramble programs are ok, and must *not* be invalidated.


So then there is nothing wrong with Sebastian's scrambles...? After all, they're valid scrambles - the WCA scramble program could have created them. We can't know for sure. Even having the same scramble as your WR single again a few comps later is possible by luck alone. (The point of removing too-easy scrambles is NOT to work around the official scrambler - it's to help deal with possible unprovable cheating situations.)



irontwig said:


> And if a delegate is able to remove too easy scrambles should (s)he also be able to remove too hard scramble too?


I don't think that unfairly difficult scrambles exist. We know from the distributions of optimally solved twisty puzzles that they tend to share a long tail in the direction of fewer moves, and a much shorter tail in the direction of more moves. The same thing happens with human methods: each step can be skipped, which saves a lot of time, but there are far more cases where it isn't skipped, and those cases are all similar in difficulty.


----------



## rubikaz (Jun 5, 2011)

Stefan said:


> It's not just an example. It matches the scramble sheet I've seen, except the up pin of scrambles 3 and 4 is on the other side (that's the top-right and bottom-left scrambles on that image (weird layout)).



Hi, I can confirm now that you are right. But it seems that scrambles 3 and 4 were prepared but there was a mistake with that scrambles: the position should be the correct one (for the skip) if you interchanges the front face and the back face. Of course, I can not be sure about it but I also have read that Sebastian told to the judge (twice) that the scramble of the clock he had to solve was not the correct one. They checked it and it was correct. So I think that maybe he told it with scramble 3 and 4 because he though that the position of the spins had to be the good one for getting the skip. Of course, I can not affirm it. I will ask about it. Edit: the blue text speaks about other competition. Sebastian did not get any WR there.

Anycase, I have calculated again the probability of getting 2 adjacent clocks in the same position that the center one. If I have not make a mistake, it is:

- 1 clock: 21658847 against 429981696 (approx. 1 against 20).
- 5 clocks: 21658847^5 against 429981696^5 (aprox. 1 against 3 millions).


----------



## rubikaz (Jun 5, 2011)

rubikaz said:


> but I also have read that Sebastian told to the judge (twice) that the scramble of the clock he had to solve was not the correct one. They checked it and it was correct.



I have been looking for what I have read. Ok, I do not know it it was twice or once. It was written by Alvaro (a Chilean cuber) here: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&&note_id=171073149620824

EDIT: This text speaks about other competition. Sebastian did not get a WR there.



> -En la participación de Bahía Inglesa ocurré un hecho trascendental, que tiene como testigos a dos participantes mas que me han pedido mantener oculta su identidad (cosa que no estoy de acuerdo), y a mi. Estando en la resolución de clock, mientras Sebastian inspeccionaba dentro de los 15 segundos, empieza a retar a la Gabriela que era la Scrambler, diciéndole "está mal scrambleado". Este hecho llamó inmediatamente mi atención, porque.. ¿el tendría como saber si estaba mal scrambleado?.



He says that during the 15 seconds for inspecting the rubiks clock, Sebastian told to the person that scrambled it that the scramble was not correct.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 5, 2011)

qqwref said:


> So then there is nothing wrong with Sebastian's scrambles...?



Right, I don't see anything wrong with those scrambles themselves. If they were created by the WCA program in the normal way (*), I think they're totally fine and you're not _"highly dishonest"_ if you use and keep them.

(*) Of course you must not produce millions of scrambles and pick easy ones, you must use the first you get and not analyze them.



qqwref said:


> The point of removing too-easy scrambles is NOT to work around the official scrambler - it's to help deal with possible unprovable cheating situations.



That's an interesting point, hadn't thought about it from that perspective. Not sure how good that is, though, it only prevents rather naive cheating and might give a false sense of security. But again, I'm not totally against removing too-easy scrambles, I'm just against doing so in a highly subjective way, without shared regulations for it. And against calling someone _"highly dishonest"_ for using what WCA provided.



qqwref said:


> I don't think that unfairly difficult scrambles exist.



Let's give Feliks scrambles where color-neutral cross needs 9qtm and see how well he can solve cross and look ahead to F2L 



rubikaz said:


> He says that during the 15 seconds for inspecting the rubiks clock, Sebastian told to the person that scrambled it that the scramble was not correct.


 
That alone sounds really bad (no matter what the scramble was), as he shouldn't be able to tell beforehand whether it was scrambled correctly.


----------



## hic2482w (Jun 5, 2011)

rubikaz said:


> He says that during the 15 seconds for inspecting the rubiks clock, Sebastian told to the person that scrambled it that the scramble was not correct.



"Hey! This wasn't the scramble I ordered!"


----------



## Vincents (Jun 6, 2011)

I have a slight problem with "easy scrambles". Doesn't it depend on what method you use? A scramble may be incredibly easy for a Roux-er but incredibly difficult for someone using MGLS. How do you avoid discriminating? You could protest that maybe a scramble that is 10 moves from solved (for 3x3) is "easy", but where do you draw the line?


----------



## Sa967St (Jun 6, 2011)

Vincents said:


> I have a slight problem with "easy scrambles".


Yes, you do.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 6, 2011)

Sa967St said:


> Yes, you do.


There's a difference between "easy solve" and "lucky scramble", although they overlap. Adjacent solved pieces tend to be lucky for most cubers.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 6, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Right, I don't see anything wrong with those scrambles themselves. If they were created by the WCA program in the normal way (*), I think they're totally fine and you're not _"highly dishonest"_ if you use and keep them.


We'll just have to disagree then - for me, keeping extremely inherently easy scrambles/averages is entirely a question of fairness.



Stefan said:


> Let's give Feliks scrambles where color-neutral cross needs 9qtm and see how well he can solve cross and look ahead to F2L


I can't see how that would force him to lose more than 1 second if he's on top of his game. Assuming Feliks averages about 8 seconds, I can easily generate many very easy scrambles which would usually take him about 4 seconds. But there is no way I can see to generate a scramble which would usually take him about 12 seconds - such a scramble probably does not exist at all.



Vincents said:


> I have a slight problem with "easy scrambles". Doesn't it depend on what method you use?


We're talking about inherently easy scrambles, which tend to give easy times for most people, and they certainly do exist. (This differs from scrambles which give normal times to most people, but end up giving you a very fast time because of the specific way you solved it.) Still, it's always possible to use a method that ignores the easiness of a scramble.


----------



## superti (Jun 6, 2011)

sorry . i don't speak english 

http://rubikaz.com/foro/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=8778&p=135159#p135159

i compared

the wr single obtained for Sebastian, is the 2º of 5 scrambles
they apeears here

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...n-Pino-Castillo/page2&highlight=pino+castillo

the scramble come to apear another time, in the scrambles of WR avg, but now, it appears de first
but the position of de buttoms, was changed







¿ its magic ?


----------



## Stefan (Jun 6, 2011)

qqwref said:


> We'll just have to disagree then - for me, keeping extremely inherently easy scrambles/averages is entirely a question of fairness.



For me, too 

If you keep them for everybody, then everybody has the same chance to get them. If at one competition "easy scrambles" are kept but at another, equivalent scrambles are removed, that creates an unfairness. And since you want to remove some scrambles but not all, you have to draw a line somewhere. Where's that line? Any "easy" scramble (and what exactly is "easy"?)? Two or more in an average? Three? Four? Five? Where? And how do you know at another competition they draw the exact same line, so that everybody has the same chance?



qqwref said:


> I can't see how that would force him to lose more than 1 second if he's on top of his game. Assuming Feliks averages about 8 seconds, I can easily generate many very easy scrambles which would usually take him about 4 seconds. But there is no way I can see to generate a scramble which would usually take him about 12 seconds - such a scramble probably does not exist at all.



Well, nobody said they're *as* hard as others are easy, or *as* unfair as easy ones can be.

The question arose with irontwig asking about removing too hard scrambles as well. Feliks is far ahead right now, but imagine there's someone equally fast and then Feliks keeps getting such scrambles that consistently cause him to take a second longer. You don't think that's an unfair disadvantage, and he shouldn't get those scrambles?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 6, 2011)

Stefan said:


> If you keep them for everybody, then everybody has the same chance to get them. If at one competition "easy scrambles" are kept but at another, equivalent scrambles are removed, that creates an unfairness. And since you want to remove some scrambles but not all, you have to draw a line somewhere. Where's that line? Any "easy" scramble (and what exactly is "easy"?)? Two or more in an average? Three? Four? Five? Where? And how do you know at another competition they draw the exact same line, so that everybody has the same chance?


You can't draw a mathematical line, it has to be at the discretion of the delegate, who should understand this type of thing. A 3x3 which has a 13f* solution is probably okay, unless it has tons of blocks; a 3x3 which has a 5f* solution is definitely not okay. And I only think things that are extremely unlikely should be removed - one in a million level stuff. Like an entire average being made of 1-in-20 easy scrambles, or a 3x3 with a 5f* solution.

I don't think anyone really wants to get such easy scrambles anyway. You might get a WR, but what would you say about it when asked? Unless you were super arrogant, you'd tell everyone "yeah, but it was an incredibly easy scramble/group of scrambles". And then your WR is worth as much as 2x2 single.





Stefan said:


> Well, nobody said they're *as* hard as others are easy, or *as* unfair as easy ones can be.
> 
> The question arose with irontwig asking about removing too hard scrambles as well.


Exactly. The point I was making about scrambles being as hard as others are easy is that easy scrambles can have far more effect on times, and so there's no point in removing hard scrambles. A one-in-a-million lucky hard scramble is maybe slightly worse (and it depends how you solve it anyway), but a one-in-a-million lucky easy scramble is obviously better, and by far. If someone gets lots of hard scrambles, sorry, but that's just how luck is - I'm not talking about drastically altering the probability landscape, just removing some outliers.


----------



## Erik (Jun 6, 2011)

Hey I tend to be proud of my 2x2 WR! 
I'm convinced it took skill to be able to do it this fast, and also a lot of skill to be able to predict it.
Anyway, my attitude towards this would probably be different if my WR would be one of 4 moves instead of 7 where it takes less skill to do it so fast and less cube know-how to be able to predict the solution...


----------



## AustinReed (Jun 6, 2011)

What was the solution of your WR, Erik?


----------



## nlCuber22 (Jun 6, 2011)

AustinReed said:


> What was the solution of your WR, Erik?


 
[AUF]RU'R'URU'R' IIRC.


----------



## TMOY (Jun 6, 2011)

superti said:


> ¿ its magic ?


 
The same scramble showing up more than once ? Of course it's magic. Or master magic, maybe.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2011)

I think 4 move 2x2x2 WR would be impressive if it was sub 0.5 or something.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 6, 2011)

qqwref said:


> You can't draw a mathematical line, it has to be at the discretion of the delegate, who should understand this type of thing. A 3x3 which has a 13f* solution is probably okay, unless it has tons of blocks; a 3x3 which has a 5f* solution is definitely not okay. And I only think things that are extremely unlikely should be removed - one in a million level stuff. Like an entire average being made of 1-in-20 easy scrambles, or a 3x3 with a 5f* solution.



How are the delegates supposed to know they shall do this? I think the regulations don't say anything about it, and I believe we talked about it in the WCA forum and nothing came out of it. Everything points to using what the WCA gives you, not overruling the WCA.

A 5f* isn't one-in-a-million, btw, more like one-in-100000000-million.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2011)

Potentially innappropriate;



Spoiler



SebastianPino: kirjava, if you want to speak with me, please, spit all the [ejaculate] you have in your mouth



I was asking him about the clock stuff on TTW. This was just particularly funny


----------



## qqwref (Jun 6, 2011)

Stefan said:


> How are the delegates supposed to know they shall do this? I think the regulations don't say anything about it, and I believe we talked about it in the WCA forum and nothing came out of it. Everything points to using what the WCA gives you, not overruling the WCA.


This is a suggestion for future WCA/delegate behavior, not a suggestion for current delegate behavior.



Stefan said:


> A 5f* isn't one-in-a-million, btw, more like one-in-100000000-million.


Since 100000000 million is more than 1 million, my point stands about 5f* being astronomically lucky.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Jun 6, 2011)

Here's the entire thing. A lot of it is in Spanish, but the important stuff is in English or can easily be translated.



Spoiler



[Kirjava joined the game]
[Kirjava is kibitzing]
PauRubik: lo tienes un poco dificil...
Amkor: Pino! Estoy contigo! 
Kirjava: lol sebastian pino
[Amkor left the game]
[prolig joined the game]
[Amkor joined the game]
SebastianPino: la verdad triunfara ante esos falsantes
[Amkor is kibitzing]
PauRubik: quienes son los falsantes?
Kirjava: Hey Pino, **** you 
SebastianPino: me tendrian que dar la gracias porque iban a echar todo chile si no llega a ser por mi
[PauRubik is kibitzing]
[New scramble!]
SebastianPino: kirjava, if you want to speak with me, please, spit all the cum you have in your mouth
AndrewR: Hey Thom.
AndrewR: <3
Kirjava: Why? I like cum 
PauRubik: madre de dios, esto se calienta...
SebastianPino: Im sure
prolig: hola
Kirjava: I read your post on the chile forum
PauRubik: sebastian, contestame porfavor, quienes son los falsantes
prolig: ostia sebastian pino
Kirjava: There's no way the WCA would punish all cubers
[Robert joined the game]
SebastianPino: wow, you can read?
prolig: es el de verdad? XD?
[Robert is kibitzing]
Kirjava: ofc
SebastianPino: todos los acusadores que se inventaron lo de los scrambles, que tome una imagen
SebastianPino: eso es falso
Kirjava: yah
prolig: ostia si que es el de verdad xD
PauRubik: seguro?
Kirjava: WRs were falso <3
PauRubik: como lo puedes demostrar?
[Kirjava is playing]
Amkor: Pino
Amkor: Metete un Pino
SebastianPino: con los videos
prolig: jajajja
[New scramble!]
prolig: puto Amkor
SebastianPino: ademas dijo francisco que tenia una foto mia con los crambles de clock
SebastianPino: la habeis visto?
Amkor: xD
[Amkor left the game]
SebastianPino: amkor, atragantate con un pepino infectado español
[Deluchie joined the game]
prolig: Pino machote que te han pillao con el carrito del helao como se dice aqui xD
SebastianPino: habeis visto la foto de francisco?
Kirjava: Hey sebastian, did you cheat to get your WRs? Or were they legit?
[DWoner joined the game]
SebastianPino: envidioso
SebastianPino: of course kirjava
PauRubik: escucha,ssinceramente, te pillaron, y tienes todas las del mundo en contra...
[danthecuber joined the game]
AndrewR: Wonie? You too? This is awesome!
danthecuber: hai
prolig: pero tio si no es por el WE
prolig: WR*
prolig: lo digo por qe luego
DWoner: andrew you're anoncuber right?
SebastianPino: solo digo que si habeis visto la foto de francisco
prolig: te dedicas a banear a gente
[Kirjava is kibitzing]
SebastianPino: la ha visto alguien?
Kirjava: You mean of course you cheated?
[danthecuber is kibitzing]
SebastianPino: of course cum is your favourite food
AndrewR: Yes, I am David.
[New scramble!]
prolig: mira sebastian
SebastianPino: gallegos, habeis visto vosotros la foto de francisco?
danthecuber: cum is delicious
PauRubik: eh eh, respeto.
prolig: no se si hiciste trampas o no
prolig: pero eres un payaso
Kirjava: Why are you so obsessed with cum?
PauRubik: nadie te ha faltado al respeto.
Worms: dios, esto está lleno de maricones
Kirjava: want me to give you a blowjob? 
SebastianPino: you asked me about it
prolig: jajaja worms xD
prolig: desde luego
Kirjava: naaah
prolig: estos guiris XD
Kirjava: you're the one that mentioned cum
SebastianPino: danthegay
prolig: Pino tio aparte del WR eres un payasete tio y lo estas demostrando
Worms: sorry guys, but, are you all gays?
SebastianPino: kirgaya
SebastianPino: tu si que eres un payaso
danthecuber: sebastian: lol?
Kirjava: What's wrong with being gay?
SebastianPino: te he insultado yo a ti?
SebastianPino: nothing
[New scramble!]
prolig: Pues a mi no pero a mi inteligencia si
SebastianPino: worms says you all are gay
PauRubik: has dicho gallegos
Worms: nothing, only curiosity
PauRubik: eso es una falta de respeto
Worms: calla calla
Worms: que como se meta ernesto se lia la de dios
PauRubik: yo a ti no te he llamado nada, solo por tu nombre, cosa que quizas ni deberia, ya que eres un TRAMPOSO
prolig: pero tio
Kirjava: Le puedo mostrar fotos de mi verga si te gusta <3
SebastianPino: una falta de respeto es que digais que he hecho trampas cuando las pruebas que hay son insuficientes
prolig: pero tio si yo lo digo por lo de los bans que hiciste en la web
PauRubik: hahah, pero si hay para dar y regalar
SebastianPino: sorry kirjava, i left the microscope at home
Deluchie: TOO MUCH SPANISH!!!!!
prolig: qe es de ser tonto
Kirjava: ahaha
DWoner: lolandrew
prolig: y luego ya lo de la previsualizacion del clock
prolig: es la ostia
Kirjava: ¿Puedo ver la foto de tu polla en lugar entonces?
prolig: al menos
[New scramble!]
prolig: tirate 5 segundos
SebastianPino: prolig tienes envidia de que nadie te ha hecho a ti moderador en un foro
SebastianPino: seguro que hasta te banearon
PauRubik: yo si fuera tu, es mejor decir la verdad, decir que has hecho trampa y dedicarte a otra cosa, y dejar este mundo del cubo.
Worms: hablad en ingles gente
SebastianPino: el cloc es sencillo de mirar
SebastianPino: yo he dicho la verdad
prolig: para un skip no
prolig: y lo sabes
prolig: mira y encima vacilon
DWoner: lol
PauRubik: dejalo, lo veremos en 2013 competir.
SebastianPino: pero si hay skip es al principio y es lo mas sencillo
prolig: no si yo soi un mierdas
prolig: pero no me gusta
prolig: que se hagan trampas
SebastianPino: ves los números iguales
AndrewR: Nice 8, David.
SebastianPino: sabes que empiezas por ahi
[New scramble!]
SebastianPino: para que voy a mirarlo 5 segundos
prolig: Pino tio
PauRubik: sebastian, sinceramente, dices que este mundo ( el del cubo) esta lleno de tramposos, dejalo y asi nos dejas a nosotros en paz
prolig: Si eres tan tonto no me extraña
PauRubik: haciendo trampas que nos lo pasamos bien en los campeonatos
SebastianPino: prolig si no haces cubos ponte kibitzing
[prolig is kibitzing]
prolig: y tu si vas a hacer trampas ponte DNF no te jode
[New scramble!]
SebastianPino: prolig yo a ti no te he insultado
SebastianPino: me faltas el respeto
Worms: y pa que baneas a carlos si nisiquiera escribió en el foro?
prolig: macho te lo vuelvo a repetir
SebastianPino: se metio conmigo y iba a escribir caca
prolig: a mi no a mi inteligencia
SebastianPino: tu no tienes inteligencia
SebastianPino: no puedo insultarla
prolig: jaja mira chaval
prolig: si de verdad no hiciste trampas
PauRubik: dejalo, prolig, aqui puede hacer tiempos pero en la WCA no
prolig: no me extraña
[New scramble!]
prolig: qe te manipularan todo eso
SebastianPino: ya lo corregiran y me tendreis que pedir perdon
prolig: con lo tocawebos qe eers
Kirjava: Sebastián: Creo que eres sexy
SebastianPino: tocahuevos vosotros yo estoy haciendo cubos
PauRubik: si si.
SebastianPino: y pronto hare cubos en otras competencias
prolig: para que tio?
PauRubik: si si, de público
Worms: ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz
Kirjava: Todo lo que hacemos es el turno de mí en
prolig: estudiate unos cuantos scrambles hombre
[New scramble!]
prolig: y intenta batir a feliks
Worms: http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/style_emoticons/others/popcorn.gif
SebastianPino: y habeis visto que muchos chilenos me defienden porque saben que no hice trampas
prolig: si con muchos te refieres a Matias
Kirjava: CASARTE CONMIGO
prolig: wors
prolig: worms
prolig: andas por ai?
Worms: si
Worms: dime
[New scramble!]
SebastianPino: no mires en rubikaz que eso apesta
PauRubik: el único que te defiende es Matías y no se porque lo hace
prolig: qe digo qe porcierto qe encantado de conocerte xD
SebastianPino: ahi solo esta matias pero porque es un tramposo
prolig: qe siempre te habia visto por el foro
SebastianPino: pronto lo vereis que hay videos
prolig: y tenia ganas de hablar contigo
Worms: matias y los paletos del foro
prolig: aunque fuera por chat xD
Worms: y tu quien eres?
Worms: xd
Worms: ajaj
Worms: es broma
prolig: jaja
PauRubik: venga, bona nit
Worms: eres prolig, a que si? xd
prolig: un chavalin del foro
prolig: si xD
PauRubik: este especimen no se merece ni que le hablemos
Worms: 
Worms: prolog?
Worms: porque?
[New scramble!]
Kirjava: Sebastian: anyway, ou wanna explain what exactly happened?
Kirjava: I'm quite interested
AndrewR: Me too
SebastianPino: there are two groups of chilean cubers
prolig: bueno aora va a contar el cuento
[New scramble!]
SebastianPino: the other groups always says the we are cheating
SebastianPino: i get the wR
Worms: la historia del salvador
SebastianPino: they were jealous
Kirjava: but, it looks like you are cheating
SebastianPino: and they told a lot of thing tha were not true
prolig: si claro que si tio
Kirjava: what wasn't true?
prolig: hay dos
prolig: los cuberos
prolig: y tu!!!!!
SebastianPino: all thing they say
PauRubik: dejadlo en paz
Kirjava: what about the time you told a judge that the clock you were inspecting was scrambled wrong?
PauRubik: que vaya escampando la mierda que dice, nosotros sabemos la verdad.
[Amkor joined the game]
PauRubik: ahi ahi Kirjava!
Worms: a ver
SebastianPino: it is false
Worms: eres un tramposo y punto
[Amkor is kibitzing]
[PauRubik left the game]
Worms: si quieres llovrar te vas a tu mami o a la wca
SebastianPino: y tu un gusano
Kirjava: what about thhe fact that all the scrambles were stupidly easy
prolig: JAJAJAJAAJJAJAJAJAAJAJJJAJAJAJAJA
Worms: y tu un pepino
prolig: jajajajajaajajajjajajja
prolig: eso eso viva el pepino Español xD
Amkor: xD
[New scramble!]
prolig: qe esta en crisis
Worms: Sebastian Pepino
prolig: jajajaj
SebastianPino: it is not my fault the easy scrambles
Worms: tu provocaste lo de la estirichia colli o como se escriba, que dicen que sale de excrementos
Worms: como te metes los pepinos por el culo
SebastianPino: Is it a fault to be lucky?
prolig: tio
[Deluchie left the game]
SebastianPino: ask it to erik
Kirjava: I'm saying that it wasn't luck
[Deluchie joined the game]
prolig: una cosaes suerte
[New scramble!]
prolig: y luego encima
prolig: tu traiste los scrambles
prolig: o eso dicen
SebastianPino: los scrambles los genere en el campeonato
prolig: tio hay fotoas
prolig: fotos
prolig: qe ponen qe son de la noche anterior
[New scramble!]
SebastianPino: he preguntado antes si habeis visto esas fotos
prolig: yo si
SebastianPino: porque dicen que hay fotos
SebastianPino: pero las habeis visto?
SebastianPino: pues enseñame las fotos
prolig: yooooooooooooooooo si
Kirjava: yes, we say that you generated the scrambles
prolig: y es que encima
SebastianPino: que has visto a ver que demuestran
Worms: no es para defender a nadie
SebastianPino: enseña las fotos
Worms: pero da igual cuando se generen los scrambles
prolig: buscalas tu
SebastianPino: ves?
Worms: lo raro es que si hay fotos del dia anterior, alguien mas tenia acceso a los scrambles :S
SebastianPino: no existen las fotos
[New scramble!]
prolig: a ver pesadito
prolig: qe te paso el link
SebastianPino: kirjava, yes, i generated the scrambles with the WCA program
Kirjava: But what about hte fact that you turn the clock so slowly
prolig: es verdad
[SebastianPino is kibitzing]
[New scramble!]
prolig: disimula al menos xD
SebastianPino: Eduard Chambon turned the cube slow when he got the WR average
SebastianPino: was he cheating?
[Robert left the game]
Kirjava: no, but the solves that you didn't setup were the same speed
Kirjava: or turning
Kirjava: and those times are about 11 seconds
[New scramble!]
SebastianPino: and?
[dancohen joined the game]
Deluchie: OMGWHYSOOBAD
SebastianPino: prolig, y las fotos?
Kirjava: I think you really average about 11 seconds
AndrewR: That can't be compared with current WRs.
prolig: las estoi buscando
[rabux joined the game]
prolig: es que vuestro foro es una jungla xD
[rabux is kibitzing]
SebastianPino: I will prove that i am not a cheater very soon
SebastianPino: wait a month
Kirjava: Sebastian: What about where you did a noflip solve and only looked at the back side for less than a second?
[New scramble!]
Kirjava: cool
[Deluchie is kibitzing]
[DWoner left the game]
Kirjava: I'm looking forward to the proof
SebastianPino: kirjava, it is a new method
Kirjava: oh really?
Kirjava: that sounds interesting
SebastianPino: yes
Kirjava: can you tell me more
Deluchie: Sebastian i've got a solution for you! Leave TTW for now :O Breaking news!
[New scramble!]
SebastianPino: no, because i dont want anybody learn it
AndrewR: Hey Dan.
prolig: esa es otra pino
Kirjava: Can you give me the gist?
prolig: es el mismo scramble
SebastianPino: i got worse time the second time
SebastianPino: if i prepare the scarmble, i will get better time
[New scramble!]
SebastianPino: prolig, las fotos que?
SebastianPino: quien miente ahora?
Kirjava: please tell me more about this new method
SebastianPino: tienes fotos pero no aparecen
prolig: te quieres esperar
SebastianPino: kirjava i told you that my method is a secret
prolig: http://www.rubikaz.com/foro/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=8778&start=15
[danthecuber left the game]
prolig: ai tienes una
prolig: si bajas para abajo la veras
SebastianPino: if i speak about it, maybe someone can break my WR
prolig: pero espera
[clincher joined the game]
Kirjava: Sebastian: are you solving more than one clock at the same time?
[antoineccantin joined the game]
Amkor: seba.. Estas en espania?
[New scramble!]
prolig: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=YB42TVO4
AndrewR: Not your WR anymore
prolig: ai tambien
prolig: estan
SebastianPino: it will be again, you have to wait a month
SebastianPino: when i prove im not a cheater
SebastianPino: prolig, yo solo veo una foto de unos clocks
SebastianPino: no veo una foto mia haciendo trampa
[Worms joined the game]
[Worms joined the game]
Kirjava: tell me, does the method involve solving multiple things at once?
[Hershey joined the game]
Kirjava: we should paste these delicous logs on the forums
AndrewR: +1
[Hershey left the game]
Worms: me cai
SebastianPino: you cant prove im the real sebastian pino!
Worms: ha dicho algo nuevo el melo este?
[Worms is kibitzing]
SebastianPino: 
Worms: melon
AndrewR: OHNOES!!!!1111!!!!
[New scramble!]
Amkor: quee
Worms: hola
[dancohen is kibitzing]
prolig: si bastantes cosas worms
prolig: sigue llorando xD
Worms: ha confesado?
Kirjava: Sebastian: I can think of something that could be better than the pochmann method
prolig: qe va
SebastianPino: prolig, he visto las fotos
SebastianPino: estas fotos no prueban nada
Kirjava: can I tell it to you somewhere in private and you can tell me if I'm correct? 
SebastianPino: yo puedo crear un pantallazo con archivos que yo me invente
SebastianPino: ahi no se vea que yo haya creado esos archivos
prolig: mira tio
[New scramble!]
clincher: ten verguenza Sebastian, es obvio
prolig: para que monten este pifostio para joderte
prolig: hay 3 razones
prolig: 1 has hecho trampas
SebastianPino: kirjava, people though that there was not anything better than old blindfold methods
SebastianPino: and now there are better methods
Kirjava: No they didn't?
Kirjava: People always think that methods can be improved
prolig: 2 Eres un payaso como estas demostrando y se debieron pillar tal cabreo y aun asi lo dudo
prolig: y 3
Kirjava: I'm trying to go along with you on this
[AndrewR is kibitzing]
prolig: has hecho trampas y encima eres un payaso
dancohen: uh sebastian
Kirjava: you don't have to tell me, maybe I can even help you improve it
[Deluchie left the game]
dancohen: chris has been using BH since 2006
dancohen: there's nothing "new" today
prolig: y luego lo de los baneos
SebastianPino: i say older methods
Worms: prolig, en la 2 y la 3 lo has llamado pallaso
Worms: payaso
Kirjava: w/e, I can wait a month XD
antoineccantin: scramble?
Worms: joder
SebastianPino: prolig es un analfabeto que no sabe escribir
Worms: la 3 es una mezcla de la 1 y la 2 
Kirjava: Sebastian: does it allow you to have a lower movecount?
prolig: qe dices tio
prolig: pone payaso Worms xD
SebastianPino: ok kirjave, you will have to give me apologizes 
SebastianPino: kirjava, yes
clincher: hahaha. ni ingles sabe y le dice al otro analfabeto
Worms: si, ya, pero digo que la 3 es una mezcla de la 1 y la 2
[AndrewR is playing]
SebastianPino: el otro no sabe ni castellano
prolig: muy bien worms
Kirjava: I'll send you pictures of my dick instead
SebastianPino: que escribe pallaso
prolig: son las 2
Kirjava: anyway
prolig: por eso te digo
SebastianPino: kirjava i dont have a microscope
Kirjava: you already used that joke once
SebastianPino: you also used the same joke
Kirjava: what joke?
prolig: kirjava he repeats the thinks
Kirjava: huh?
prolig: like he do with the clock and
Kirjava: it was a serious offer, as dan will tell you 
prolig: with the scrambles
AndrewR: I'm sorry, I'm not the host anymore.
SebastianPino: you have said twice you will send a photo of your micropenis
Kirjava: it wasn't a joke
SebastianPino: then you are very stupid 
Kirjava: why?
SebastianPino: you are so stupid that you can understand why 
clincher: can or can't?
SebastianPino: cant
Kirjava: silly and stupid are different things
SebastianPino: you are both things 
Kirjava: very nice
Kirjava: anyway
AndrewR: Clincher, can you please kubitz if you aren't solving?
antoineccantin: clincher: SCRAMBLE!!!
Kirjava: come on the speedsolving chat room so we can talk in private
SebastianPino: you want to show me your penis?
[Kurama joined the game]
Kirjava: no, I want to talk about the WCA
[clincher is kibitzing]
[New scramble!]
[clincher is playing]
SebastianPino: i will send my proves to WCA next week
[clincher is kibitzing]
clincher: i dont know how this works...
[Kurama is kibitzing]
Kirjava: come talk to me in private, it'll be worth your while
Kirjava: maybe I can help people believe in you :O
SebastianPino: i dont need it
SebastianPino: thanks
[New scramble!]
prolig: Kurama si vienes a cubear aqui ai un lio xD
[clincher left the game]
Kurama: Hi! I've just registered
[New scramble!]
Kirjava: ok, well I have all I need here
[antoineccantin is kibitzing]
Kirjava: time to paste this on the forum
[Kurama is playing]
prolig: Hi
Worms: ostias
SebastianPino: hi
prolig: Kurama you are ting no?
Worms: señor delegado
Kurama: yes, I am
SebastianPino: kirjava, are you sure i am sebastianpino?
prolig: a va
Worms: mira prolig, kurama no imprimió los scambles de murcia el dia del campeonato!!!
Worms: ajaja
prolig: jajajajaj
[New scramble!]
Kurama: 
SebastianPino: if somebody ask me if i wrote it, i will tell i was not
prolig: si yo lo ago por liarla un poco xD
prolig: si seguro qe no es ni sebastian xD
Worms: aparte, kurama ganó en 4x4
Kirjava: I'm sure they will believe it
Worms: fijo que se aprendio los scrambles 
Kirjava: AHAHAHAHA
AndrewR: <3 Kir
Kurama: how works the timer?
Worms: control
Worms: mantenlo pulsado
prolig: ctrl
Worms: hasta que se ponga verde
AndrewR: Hold down ctrl
SebastianPino: me tengo que ir
SebastianPino: chaito
[SebastianPino left the game]


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2011)

oh god I'm a slut


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Jun 6, 2011)

demma said:


> No. You logon and said "Hey Pino, **** you ".


 
And, shortly after, he began asking him about clock. He didn't say it was entirely clock related.

Plus, he put a smiley face.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2011)

demma said:


> No. You logon and said "Hey Pino, **** you ".


 
So I wasn't asking him about clock stuff?


----------



## demma (Jun 6, 2011)

I deleted my post because this crap is just personal stuff, not even related with clock, competitions or the WCA.
And I don't know if that chat conversation was real. I'm not interested in feeding stuff like this.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2011)

you should read further.

The "secret method" stuff reminds me of matyas.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Jun 6, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> The "secret method" stuff reminds me of matyas.


 
Agreed.


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 6, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> Here's the entire thing. A lot of it is in Spanish, but the important stuff is in English or can easily be translated.


 
ahahahaha thats awesome. I just read the whole thing.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Jun 6, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> ahahahaha thats awesome. I just read the whole thing.


 
The best part is at the end when Sebastian says that it wasn't really him and we had no proof that it was him.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2011)

Nah, the best part was where he said that if anyone asks he'll say that it wasn't him.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 6, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Since 100000000 million is more than 1 million, my point stands about 5f* being astronomically lucky.


 
Yeah, my point is just that that's not a particularly interesting or troublesome case. It's really unlikely to happen, really easy to determine, and really easy to decide (if we had a rule that easy scrambles shall be removed, *everyone* would remove this). A 12f* is one-in-a-million, it's much more likely to happen, much harder to determine, and much harder to decide. I somewhat agree with the idea of removing too easy scrambles, but it's the borderline cases that I'm worried about, those where different people will make different decisions unless we have clear objective criteria.


----------



## Erik (Jun 7, 2011)

nlCuber22 said:


> [AUF]RU'R'URU'R' IIRC.



No,
UR'U'RUR'U'
(sorry for the short low-info post)


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Jun 7, 2011)

demma said:


> And I don't know if that chat conversation was real. I'm not interested in feeding stuff like this.


 
It's 100% real.


----------



## AustinReed (Jun 7, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Nah, the best part was where he said that if anyone asks he'll say that it wasn't him.


 
+1


----------



## rubikaz (Jun 7, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Potentially innappropriate;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You first wrote "Kirjava: Hey Pino, **** you" (obtained from theanonymouscuber post) so... are you sure you were asking him about the clock stuff? I do not think so.



theanonymouscuber said:


> Here's the entire thing. A lot of it is in Spanish, but the important stuff is in English or can easily be translated...



If you have got it from TTW, how can you be sure he was the real Sebastian Pino? If not, you should delete your messages as soon as possible.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 7, 2011)

rubikaz said:


> You first wrote "Kirjava: Hey Pino, **** you" (obtained from theanonymouscuber post) so... are you sure you were asking him about the clock stuff? I do not think so.



Are you sure you read the whole thing? 



rubikaz said:


> If you have got it from TTW, how can you be sure he was the real Sebastian Pino? If not, you should delete your messages as soon as possible.



Lols.


----------



## rubikaz (Jun 7, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Are you sure you read the whole thing?



[Kirjava is kibitzing]
PauRubik: lo tienes un poco dificil...
Amkor: Pino! Estoy contigo! 
*Kirjava: lol sebastian pino* <- your first message
[Amkor left the game]
[prolig joined the game]
[Amkor joined the game]
SebastianPino: la verdad triunfara ante esos falsantes
[Amkor is kibitzing]
PauRubik: quienes son los falsantes?
*Kirjava: Hey Pino, **** you * <- your second message and he have not told you nothing.
SebastianPino: me tendrian que dar la gracias porque iban a echar todo chile si no llega a ser por mi
[PauRubik is kibitzing]
[New scramble!]
*SebastianPino: kirjava, if you want to speak with me, please, spit all the cum you have in your mouth* 



Kirjava said:


> Lols.



Suppose I tell you I know who was written and that he was not Sebastian Pino...


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 7, 2011)

still it is dumb from you to say, he would have not asked about the clock stuff, because he definitely did within the quoted chat. He never said that it was the first thing he asked about.


----------



## anders (Jun 7, 2011)

Due to the development in the case, the IAC has decided to make a statement (http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=940&p=5238#p5238)

/Anders


----------



## rubikaz (Jun 7, 2011)

Sébastien_Auroux said:


> still it is dumb from you to say, he would have not asked about the clock stuff, because he definitely did within the quoted chat. He never said that it was the first thing he asked about.



First of all, why are you using the "dumb" word? Have I insulted you or someone?

Second, he did not said that it was the first thing but when you read his message it seems (at least to me) that he want to say "I asked him about clock stuff and then he insulted me". Kirjava says "Potentially innappropriate" when "**** you" is also potentially innappropriate.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 7, 2011)

rubikaz said:


> Suppose I tell you I know who was written and that he was not Sebastian Pino...



Why would someone trying to impersonate him suddenly claim to not be him when he realises that the person talking to him is going to post the logs of the chat more publically?



rubikaz said:


> Second, he did not said that it was the first thing but when you read his message it seems (at least to me) that he want to say "I asked him about clock stuff and then he insulted me".



Sorry if you didn't understand me, I _did_ state it was just one of the funny things from our exchange.



rubikaz said:


> Kirjava says "Potentially innappropriate" when "**** you" is also potentially innappropriate.



I didn't say it wasn't. A lot of that chat is inappropriate. I added the disclaimer after discussing the post I was about to make with a moderator. It's simply to try and conform to the rules. 

People seem really annoyed that I was initially unpleasant. Given what this man has done I really don't care what you think about that.


----------



## Cubenovice (Jun 7, 2011)

Why do you think we're interested in this discussion?

The guy cheated, *admitted* and now denies.
What more is there to say?


----------



## rubikaz (Jun 7, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Why would someone trying to impersonate him suddenly claim to not be him when he realises that the person talking to him is going to post the logs of the chat more publically?



Maybe he say it because he know you will think that it corfims he is Sebastián.

I think he is not Sebastián. Why not? Sebastián is from Chile and I am from Spain so I know that Chileans speak different than Spaniards so I think that the guy that wrote it was from Spain, he mixes Spanish from Chile and Spanish from Spain.

@Cubenovice, I think that nobody have said here that Sebastián was not cheating.


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 7, 2011)

rubikaz said:


> First of all, why are you using the "dumb" word? Have I insulted you or someone?
> 
> Second, he did not said that it was the first thing but when you read his message it seems (at least to me) that he want to say "I asked him about clock stuff and then he insulted me". Kirjava says "Potentially innappropriate" when "**** you" is also potentially innappropriate.



My intention was not to insult you, I just used the "dumb" word because it fits. Using an argumentation like "person A did not ask person B about topic Y in a long conversation because A did not ask B about Y at first" IS dumb.


----------



## rubikaz (Jun 7, 2011)

anders said:


> Due to the development in the case, the IAC has decided to make a statement (http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=940&p=5238#p5238)
> 
> /Anders


 
Lol. I have written a message in cuberos.cl including this link and someone have deleted it.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 7, 2011)

rubikaz said:


> I think he is not Sebastián. Why not? Sebastián is from Chile and I am from Spain so I know that Chileans speak different than Spaniards so I think that the guy that wrote it was from Spain, he mixes Spanish from Chile and Spanish from Spain.



Hang on a second....



rubikaz said:


> Suppose I tell you I know who was written and that he was not Sebastian Pino...


----------



## Yes We Can! (Jun 7, 2011)

Sebastian Pino's location at rubikaz.com is _ScrambleLand_; sorry, but I found that kind of funny. xD


----------



## rubikaz (Jun 7, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Hang on a second....



What? I do not know what you mean now.



Yes said:


> Sebastian Pino's location at rubikaz.com is _ScrambleLand_; sorry, but I found that kind of funny. xD


 
Really? I did not know that he was registered there. What nick does he have?

Edit: I have found an account from Sebastian Pino in rubikaz.com but his location is empty. I do not know if he have other account.


----------



## Yes We Can! (Jun 7, 2011)

rubikaz said:


> Really? I did not know that he was registered there. What nick does he have?
> 
> Edit: I have found an account from Sebastian Pino in rubikaz.com but his location is empty. I do not know if he have other account.



http://www.cuberos.cl/foro/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2085
Is the thread starter not Sebastian Pino? I figured he was because the nickname contained _pin0_ and the first reply started with "Seba, [...]". 
Also, this says:


anders said:


> Mr Pino later denies in public that he has manipulated the scrambles, as for instance expressed in the following forum post: http://www.cuberos.cl/foro/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2085.


, which for me undoubtedly says that it is his him.
If I am/was mistaken, I apologize.

EDIT: oh, sorry. I didn't mean _rubikaz.com_ but actually _cuberos.cl_.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 7, 2011)

rubikaz said:


> What? I do not know what you mean now.



At first you said you knew exactly who it was who was 'impersonating' him. Then you explained your reasoning of why you *think* it was not him. That doesn't make any sense.

If you like, you can tell us exactly who it was since you apparently know.


----------



## Godmil (Jun 7, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> At first you said you knew exactly who it was who was 'impersonating' him. Then you explained your reasoning of why you *think* it was not him. That doesn't make any sense.
> 
> If you like, you can tell us exactly who it was since you apparently know.



He didn't say he knew, he said 'suppose' he knew. I thought he was being hypothetical in his original post.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 7, 2011)

Godmil said:


> He didn't say he knew, he said 'suppose' he knew. I thought he was being hypothetical in his original post.



Go back and read the exact wording.


----------



## rubikaz (Jun 7, 2011)

Godmil said:


> He didn't say he knew, he said 'suppose' he knew. I thought he was being hypothetical in his original post.



You are right.


----------



## Rodrigo Piaggio (Jun 7, 2011)

Clearly the person who posted it on the chat was not Sebastian. In Latin American Spanish we say "viste el scramble"=did you saw the scramble. The Spain´s Spanish form is "habeis visto el scramble". There are lots of other examples in the chat. That person was not Sebastian. He must be, for his kind of spanish, a Spain cuber who has some information. Very easy for native/latin/spain spanish to tell the difference. This is an attempt to worsen Sebastian´s reputation


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 7, 2011)

Come on, it can't get much worse


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Jun 7, 2011)

First off, the Spanish spoken in that chat is definitely not Chilean.

Also, you know why he said he would "say it wasn't him?" That's the easiest way to impersonate someone. I make the name Kirjava, and say a bunch of idiotic things, than say "Hey, if anyone asks me later about this, I'll just deny it was me." This is an obvious tactic, because when people really do talk to you about it, you ARE going to deny it. But, since I already stated that, it will only confirm that it is you. And you guys are falling into this trap, so easily.

Another thing, is that while playing with some SS cubers on TTW, Nakaji1084 logged on, getting avgs of 10secs. I asked him about Monster Hunter, and he had no idea what it was. Obviously it wasn't the real Nakaji (the real one plays Monster Hunter), and everyone started asking him about it. He instantly confessed that it wasn't him, since it was very obvious after his mess-up. 

It's very easy to impersonate anyone on TTW, and get away with it. To think that anyone on there, especially if they're a famous cuber, is who they say they are, is ignorant. (unless you've had the real cuber tell you so from a source that you know is them.)


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 7, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> To think that anyone on there, especially if they're a famous cuber, is who they say they are, is ignorant.



Not really. There's an arseload of real 'famous' cubers who are who they say they are.


----------



## aronpm (Jun 7, 2011)

To assume they are who they say they are, without evidence, is ignorant.


----------



## rubikaz (Jun 7, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> Another thing, is that while playing with some SS cubers on TTW, Nakaji1084 logged on, getting avgs of 10secs.



No, the nick that you see was not Nakaji1084, it was Nakaji1085. The guy that used this nick is a Nakajima's fan and he also used this nick in www.rubikaz.com (there we knew who he was).

Due to this confusion, he have changed his nick and his new nick is Carlos Méndez (in TTW and in rubikaz.com).

His official times: http://worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2010GARC02


----------



## Yes We Can! (Jun 7, 2011)

rubikaz said:


> No, the nick that you see was not Nakaji1084, it was Nakaji1085. The guy that used this nick is a Nakajima's fan and he also used this nick in www.rubikaz.com (there we knew who he was).
> 
> Due to this confusion, he have changed his nick and his new nick is Carlos Méndez (in TTW and in rubikaz.com).


 
Sorry, this has now led to confusion (I deleted my post because I realized that it was probably wrong). nevermind


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 7, 2011)

aronpm said:


> To assume they are who they say they are, without evidence, is ignorant.



You could be an elaborate impersonation of the real aron. Reposting his videos, pretending to be him on IRC. 

It's not ignorant for me to assume that you aren't.


----------



## rubikaz (Jun 7, 2011)

@Yes, We Can! You were right. You posted his youtube channel.

It lead now to confusion? Then I explain it again: Carlos Méndez's nick was nakaji1085 but he changed it yesterday (I changed his rubikaz's nick and Luis changed his TTW's nick).

His nick was nakaji1085 because he is a Nakajima's fan (and I think that Nakajima's nick is nakaji1084).


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 7, 2011)

Feel free to do so, that sounds flattering.


----------



## Godmil (Jun 7, 2011)

oops sorry you may have replied to my post, but I deleted it cause it was pointless.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 7, 2011)

Well now I just look silly ;_;


----------



## tehmaxice (Jun 8, 2011)

anders said:


> Due to the development in the case, the IAC has decided to make a statement (http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=940&p=5238#p5238)
> 
> /Anders


 
"Analysis of the scrambles made by members of our community
shows that the scrambles are too lucky and too special to be random"

I reject this statement.
I generated 100 numbers (pseudorandom, but nevertheless) and the chance of
getting exactly these numbers is 1 to 10^100. But I still got them.

It's just that we think good scrambles are somewhat special, but they're not.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 8, 2011)

tehmaxice said:


> I generated 100 numbers (pseudorandom, but nevertheless) and the chance of
> getting exactly these numbers is 1 to 10^100. But I still got them.


 
And what was special about them?



tehmaxice said:


> It's just that we think good scrambles are somewhat special, but they're not.


 
Their being good *is* their specialty.


----------



## Jungleterrain (Jun 8, 2011)

This thread is pretty entertaining.


----------



## tehmaxice (Jun 8, 2011)

Well, this is exactly the point I'm trying to make.

We tend to label some things (like a a round number, say 100000, or a particulary good scramble) 
nice or special, and that when we apply randomness to generate things they should not look
nice. 

1,2,3,4,5,6. That doesn't look random, that looks special.
It's just the notion that 'special' srambles can't be random, though I cannot see why they couldn't be.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 8, 2011)

tehmaxice said:


> I generated 100 numbers (pseudorandom, but nevertheless) and the chance of
> getting exactly these numbers is 1 to 10^100. But I still got them.


I don't think you should be talking about probability if you don't understand it  (I'll rephrase: the Clock scrambles were all good in a very specific way, which is well-known by Clock solvers to save moves and time, so this isn't a case of "these specific scrambles are unlikely", it's a case of "this average is easier than the vast vast majority would be".)

PS: if you used a PRNG, the chance is actually (probably) much less than 10^100. There are generally much less than 10^100 possible seeds. So for instance, if your program happened to use a 32-bit seed, there are 2^32 or about 4.3 billion (= 10^9.6329...) possible 100-number sequences that could be generated, and the chance of that particular one is only 1 in 4.3 billion


----------



## tehmaxice (Jun 8, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I don't think you should be talking about probability if you don't understand it


 
I might have made a poor analogy, and I'll certainly agree that I don't know too much about statistics.
Is it truly impossible to get the scrambles Pino had on his wr avg out of the 'random' WCA generator?
Because if it's not, then the scrambles are not too lucky to be random (perhaps just incredibly unlikely). Do you agree?


----------



## Stefan (Jun 8, 2011)

tehmaxice said:


> Is it truly impossible to get the scrambles Pino had on his wr avg out of the 'random' WCA generator?


 
No, and nobody claimed that.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jun 8, 2011)

Daniel has already mentioned that more proof, than just this probability, arose.


----------



## tehmaxice (Jun 8, 2011)

Stefan said:


> No, and nobody claimed that.


 
Ehm, then I really misinterpreted the message from IAC thad Anders posted, and apoligize if I did so.


----------



## tehmaxice (Jun 8, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> Daniel has already mentioned that more proof, than just this probability, arose.


 
Oh, I'm not questioning the validity of the suspension, just that one statement about scrambles beeing 'too lucky'.

edit: slight change of words


----------



## Stefan (Jun 8, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> Daniel has already mentioned that more *proof*, than just this probability, arose.


 
Where? Here?



kinch2002 said:


> Don't worry, there was other *evidence*



I don't like such exaggeration.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jun 8, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Where? Here?


 Yes.


kinch2002 said:


> Don't worry, there was other evidence


----------



## Stefan (Jun 8, 2011)

Looks like you missed the point.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jun 8, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Looks like you missed the point.


 
No, I didn't miss the point.


----------



## Nestor (Jun 8, 2011)

anders said:


> Due to the development in the case, the IAC has decided to make a statement (http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=940&p=5238#p5238)
> 
> /Anders



I would love to see the email that Sebastian wrote to the WCA confessing. 

So much fuzz over lol_CLOCK_lol


----------



## AustinReed (Jun 8, 2011)

> So much fuzz over lol_CLOCK_lol


It's still an official event.


----------



## macky (Jun 8, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Well now I just look silly ;_;


But it's as much this stuff as your speedcubing theory contributions that we love you for. I'm a fan. <3

[edit]
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Thom_Barlow


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 8, 2011)

Well, now I *am* flattered.


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 8, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> No, I didn't miss the point.


 
dude, stop failing....evidence <> proof


----------



## Stefan (Jun 8, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> No, I didn't miss the point.



Then your reply makes no sense. Why did you just post Daniel's quote that I had posted already? And why did you do *that* instead of commenting on the actual issue, that you were wrong and the quote shows it?


----------



## Pedro (Jun 8, 2011)

UnAbusador said:


> I would love to see the email that Sebastian wrote to the WCA confessing.
> 
> So much fuzz over lol_CLOCK_lol


 
The fuzz is not over clock, is about cheating, no matter the event.


----------



## irontwig (Jun 8, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> The same would apply to scrambles. When I use a scrambler, the odds of getting a regular scramble is the same as getting a "nice" scramble.


 

lolno.


----------



## Aleksandr (Jun 8, 2011)

James Ludlow said:


> Especially not at sea!
> 
> 
> On topic - when did cubing get so serious? If we competed for booze, birds and fast cars I could understand. But for a weekend away with other cubers?


 I think you are right!


----------



## MTGjumper (Jun 8, 2011)

There are more "regular" scrambles than there are "nice" scrambles.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Jun 8, 2011)

MTGjumper said:


> There are more "regular" scrambles than there are "nice" scrambles.


 
Ah, point taken. That makes more sense.
I was more of "trying to understand" what tehmaxice was saying, and was asking if it was it. I added some parts that I believed, to make it more understandable, but now I see that it was wrong. I'll go delete it, now.

So, I'm guessing that what tehmaxice is saying, is that it should be removed from the case, on the grounds that just because it's very unlikely, it's not impossible.


----------



## rubikaz (Jun 8, 2011)

You should stop the discussion about how lucky the scrambles were because *Sebastian Pino affirms that the scrambles were manipulated*:

http://www.cuberos.cl/foro/viewtopic.php?p=28888#p28888

He have said several things:

1.- The scrambles were manipulated.
2.- He did not manipulate the scrambles.
3.- He provided some scrambles and someone changed the scrambles.
4.- Maybe they changed the scrambles in order to blame Sebastian later.


----------



## Tyson (Jun 9, 2011)

rubikaz said:


> You should stop the discussion about how lucky the scrambles were because *Sebastian Pino affirms that the scrambles were manipulated*:
> 
> http://www.cuberos.cl/foro/viewtopic.php?p=28888#p28888
> 
> ...


 
And if all these little things that are said just happen to be true, then we have pretty much the biggest fail of a delegate ever. Though I will say, the original explanation is far far more simple.


----------



## moogra (Jun 9, 2011)

rubikaz said:


> You should stop the discussion about how lucky the scrambles were because *Sebastian Pino affirms that the scrambles were manipulated*:
> 
> http://www.cuberos.cl/foro/viewtopic.php?p=28888#p28888
> 
> ...


 
I thought he knew that his clocks weren't scrambled properly. However, this doesn't make sense as the only way he'd know while solving the clock that they were not scrambled properly was by knowing the scrambles beforehand. Still, he could be telling the truth about not manipulating the scrambles, but because he knew the scrambles were wrong, he must have known they were manipulated sometime before he began to be timed officially.


----------



## superti (Jun 9, 2011)

i tell one history
one day. one person.... we can say him "X". practice clock, and find a few scrambles very very easy (5-6-10-)and he save in a file. Before, he see, scrambler wca code, and modify it... then, when him run sacrambler modificated, load automatically the scrambles saved. when he press F5, then scrambles easy , take turns
he, prove it in one competition, and it works... he got WR single.... in 2º attemp. 
more days Later, he try again... He run de scrambler modificated, and retouch they ,in his house, and save the scrambles into pendrive
in the next competition, the organizers, are going to obtain the scrambles for the clock round, in wca oficial page pressing F5
SR X, forced to put his pendrive in PC, and showed they . his scrambles (jpg)
his girl friend scramble his clock... and he obtain de WR avg.. magically, some scramble repeat . 1º attemp


another history
There is a conspiracy in chile, to catch him.


sorry, for my english


----------



## Godmil (Jun 9, 2011)

Sadly this will illustrate how in the future Delegates will not be able to compete.
There is a phrase I heard recently that I liked: "The illusion of impropriety is as damaging as impropriety itself."
If someone has the means and the motive to cheat, it's not unreasonable to suspect them of cheating.
So unfortunatly, not at the moment, but definitely in the future, Delegates shouldn't be competing in event's that they're delegating over... or it will damage the reputation of the whole WCA.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 9, 2011)

superti said:


> one person.... we can say him "X"



Oh, so you're *that* uncertain about your fantasy story that you don't dare to say the real name?



superti said:


> his girl friend scramble his clock


 
What does that have to do with anything? Grasping at straws much?


----------



## Dene (Jun 9, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Oh, so you're *that* uncertain about your fantasy story that you don't dare to say the real name?


 
His name is X mang, keep up.


----------



## goatseforever (Jun 9, 2011)

So has the FBI contacted anyone about this yet?


----------



## Godmil (Jun 9, 2011)

goatseforever said:


> So has the FBI contacted anyone about this yet?



Don't be rediculous, why would the FBI be investigating it!

It's clearly outside of the US, so it would be the CIA.
(Don't know if they are doing an investigation yet)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 9, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Sadly this will illustrate how in the future Delegates will not be able to compete.
> There is a phrase I heard recently that I liked: "The illusion of impropriety is as damaging as impropriety itself."
> If someone has the means and the motive to cheat, it's not unreasonable to suspect them of cheating.
> So unfortunatly, not at the moment, but definitely in the future, Delegates shouldn't be competing in event's that they're delegating over... or it will damage the reputation of the whole WCA.



This would obviously be a somewhat better solution, but it would certainly cut back heavily on the number of competitions we could have. At big competitions, they could be paid, perhaps even adequately to warrant doing the job. But at local competitions, being a delegate would be even more a labor of love than it already is. If I couldn't compete, I might still be willing to be delegate at competitions within 25 miles of Indianapolis, but I probably wouldn't be willing to go any further as a delegate, ever.

The other thing is, this still doesn't completely solve the problem. A delegate could still cheat to the benefit of another competitor. Or perhaps two delegates could collude, agreeing to cheat for each other at two different competitions. Since this is possible, you're still stuck with an absolute need to be able to trust the delegates.


----------



## Godmil (Jun 9, 2011)

You're right on all points, however I'd have to add that cheating for someone else's benefit would have to be a little less likely.


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 9, 2011)

Godmil said:


> You're right on all points, however I'd have to add that cheating for someone else's benefit would have to be a little less likely.


 
I don't think it's any less likely when you could get the other person to cheat for you in return


----------



## Stefan (Jun 9, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> I don't think it's any less likely when you could get the other person to cheat for you in return


 
You don't think two cheaters, who also have to know about each other, are less likely than one? And how do they get to know about each other and their willingness to cheat? I mean, you can't just walk around asking people whether they want to cheat with you.


----------



## Pedro (Jun 9, 2011)

Stefan said:


> You don't think two cheaters, who also have to know about each other, are less likely than one? And how do they get to know about each other and their willingness to cheat? I mean, you can't just walk around asking people whether they want to cheat with you.


 
You just make an arrangement with your friend beforehand, each one gets one event (or 2 or whatever), with the help of the other one.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jun 9, 2011)

What if the other person doesn't want to cheat, and you already told him you want to cheat?


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Jun 9, 2011)

Pedro said:


> You just make an arrangement with your friend beforehand, each one gets one event (or 2 or whatever), with the help of the other one.


 
What are the chances that the first delegate you ask is a cheater? If you ask one faithful delegate, you're screwed over.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 9, 2011)

Pedro said:


> You just make an arrangement with your friend beforehand, each one gets one event (or 2 or whatever), with the help of the other one.


 
But again: what is more likely?

1) You're a cheater.
2) You're a cheater *and* you have a friend willing to cheat with you *and* you know it.

Unless those two additional conditions have 100% probability, scenario 1) is more likely.

Besides, this is about delegates, so your cheat-buddy even needs to be a delegate.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 9, 2011)

For now, we should just trust delegates. If something like this happens, oh well - we know we can never trust that person again.

It will only be feasable to have delegates who don't compete when cubing is a lot bigger and we can pay them. Until then, there's no reason for an active cuber to fly across a country to delegate a competition - if they can't compete, and aren't getting paid, why bother going to the competition at all?


----------



## blah (Jun 9, 2011)

qqwref said:


> if they can't compete, and aren't getting paid, why bother going to the competition at all?


Ask Jim.


----------



## Bapao (Jun 9, 2011)

If cubing were a pro-sport with money involved, I could better understand the desire/ motivation to cheat. What with cash and other benefits involved. But lets face it; what does a "cubing cheater" have to gain here other than recognition as things stand right now? Kinda sad...I just don't understand the drive behind the whole thing 

If the person participating in the chat that *Kir* was part of, really is the perpetrator in question, then he seriously is quite the sneaky b*tch. To put it mildly. Lifetime ban based on that material, no less IMO. But was it him? 

Why did the IAC post the last statement that they did without proof that it was actually Pino posting said stuff on that forum though? I mean, a one to one Skype video call would have been more reliable and legit as "evidence". And probably not hard to organize, even in Chile.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 10, 2011)

b4p4076 said:


> Why did the IAC post the last statement that they did *without proof that it was actually Pino posting said stuff on that forum though?*



Do you mean this?
http://www.cuberos.cl/foro/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2085

What do you mean with "without proof"? That IAC didn't have proof, or that IAC's post didn't contain proof? And why is it needed? Does anybody doubt that Sebastian wrote that? Does it contain something crucial for or against him? Did the verdict or penalty change because of it?


----------



## cookieyo145 (Jun 10, 2011)

i don't think the TTW sebastion was the real one, there was this guy called ****rubik talking about spitting the cum and stuff like that to danthecuber


----------



## Daniel Wu (Jun 10, 2011)

Too much vosotros form used in that chat log. Definitely a Spaniard not a Chilean.


----------



## Dene (Jun 10, 2011)

Stefan said:


> But again: what is more likely?
> 
> 1) You're a cheater.
> 2) You're a cheater *and* you have a friend willing to cheat with you *and* you know it.
> ...


 
To be honest I haven't read what's gone on in this thread for about the past 100 posts, but I'm inclined to think that, whatever you are arguing about, you have given a false representation of the options. Maybe I'm way off, but should they not be like this:

What is more likely?
1) You are cheating by yourself and nobody else knows
2) You are cheating and you have a friend willing to cheat and you know it.

Once put like this you're additive style reasoning no longer applies and we must address each hypothesis individually. 

Like I say, I don't know exactly what you are arguing about. However I would say this: if the situation allowed, it is quite probably that the second option would be more likely, if it would aid the person in cheating (i.e. increase the probability that they could cheat and get away with it).


----------

