# [WCA Regulations 2012] Scramble Reordering



## oranjules (Dec 14, 2011)

Hi everybody, 
I posted a suggestion a few weeks ago on the wca forum, but since i did not have a lot of answers, i thought i could post it here.
Here is the original message (with a few minor corrections) :


> Hi,
> Here is a little suggestion, to avoid competitors to know about easy scrambles (for example 2x2x2 WR).
> We could have 5 scramblers, each one will do only 1 scramble, and note which one he applies on the cube (on the verso of the scoree sheet ? Or on an other sheet, so the competitor will not be able to see it, but it seems more hard to do). So, if you see that a scramble is lucky (for the 2x2x2 WR, or even for my pyra NR, i admit that i saw somebody averaging around 10 doing a 3.xx, but i think i would have seen it anyway), you don't know which it is, and even if you already did it. It will be useful for people doing other methods than the more popular ones : i'm not in face-first for 2x2x2, but if i saw a 0.69, i would have searched for an easy face... Which i won't have done without this indication.
> It has many pros, I listed them already. An other one is that a scrambler would know very well the scramble he has to do, and do it a bit faster than an other one.
> ...



The original topic can be found here.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 14, 2011)

5 scramblers per event is a real challenge. Many times it is hard to find even one person who is free to do scrambles (due to not competing), especially in 3x3x3 speedsolve, where almost everyone who knows how to scramble competes. If we standardized on doing multiple heats (with separate scrambles) per round, that would solve the problem, but there are some in the WCA who really dislike using multiple heats with different scrambles. Perhaps we could also discuss that in this thread (since it would make it possible) - should there be more standardization worldwide on whether or not multiple sets of scrambles should be used in a single round? At the moment, it seems like this is somewhat preferred in some parts of the world, and frowned upon in others. It would be nice if we had a consistent policy.

5 scramblers for an event like square-1 might be really challenging.


----------



## oranjules (Dec 14, 2011)

You're right for square-one... It's also true for clock, megaminx...
But even with 1 scrambler or 2, don't you think disordered scrambles could be better ? Is this the only thing you disagree on, or do you find the general idea bad ?
I didn't find a good translation for "heat", but i assume it means "group". I agree, finals shouldn't have separate scrambles (we had to do this on the last comp i participated in, and it was very bad). The system that had be done at WC2011 was the best i think : all the bests ones in the same group. But i think standardization is both good and bad : it would lead to more equality, but it would be very hard to do in small comps, because all people who can scramble a puzzle would compete...


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 14, 2011)

You'd still be getting all 5 scrambles though, so if someone got a 0.68 it would be in the back of your mind for the rest of the average.
I think most people under 10 seconds would see a 4 move scramble though.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 14, 2011)

Hope you don't mind the hijacking/extension...

We could do the fast-scrambling events (2x2, 3x3, pyra) like we do the magics already: A competitor does all five solves in a row, not leaving the timer. Judge scrambles there as well. Could be a lot faster, and I imagine the single judge being able to randomize the scrambles without mixing them up (pick and mark a new score sheet row, apply its scramble, let solve, enter result at the mark).


----------



## Dene (Dec 14, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Hope you don't mind the hijacking/extension...
> 
> We could do the fast-scrambling events (2x2, 3x3, pyra) like we do the magics already: A competitor does all five solves in a row, not leaving the timer. Judge scrambles there as well. Could be a lot faster, and I imagine the single judge being able to randomize the scrambles without mixing them up (pick and mark a new score sheet row, apply its scramble, let solve, enter result at the mark).


 
- Way too much responsibility on the judges
- Requires training a lot of volunteers
- Puts a lot of trust in friends to not help each other out.

Too many risks, not going to work at most competitions.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 14, 2011)

I've already participated in 2x2 like Stefan proposes, and, although I don't recall correctly, possibly pyraminx and 3x3 as well. At the time we were just doing it to get people out of the way quickly so they could help judge/scramble later on. I don't know if it could work for all competitions, but if it would, I think it would help a lot.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 15, 2011)

3x3 definitely works for final round, at least in north east competitions.
It's also better for show.


----------



## Cheese11 (Dec 15, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Hope you don't mind the hijacking/extension...
> 
> We could do the fast-scrambling events (2x2, 3x3, pyra) like we do the magics already: A competitor does all five solves in a row, not leaving the timer. Judge scrambles there as well. Could be a lot faster, and I imagine the single judge being able to randomize the scrambles without mixing them up (pick and mark a new score sheet row, apply its scramble, let solve, enter result at the mark).



Ahaha, I was JUST telling my friend how it would be so much better the way you proposed. I think it would work for 2x2, Pyra, and 3x3, but anything higher wouldn't work.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 15, 2011)

I think 3BLD, Clock, and Skewb are also potential candidates for this. (And Square-1 could be if there were lots of available scrambler/judges who were very good at turning the puzzle, but there aren't.)


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 15, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I think 3BLD, Clock, and Skewb are also potential candidates for this. (And Square-1 could be if there were lots of available scrambler/judges who were very good at turning the puzzle, but there aren't.)


 
At the last Stanford competition during the Skewb event, Chris sat us down individually and scrambled next to us, under the table. It worked perfectly.


----------



## TimMc (Dec 15, 2011)

oranjules said:


> to avoid competitors to know about easy scrambles (for example 2x2x2 WR)



Can you just *have a competitor area and force people to stop talking about scrambles*?

Tim.


----------



## TMOY (Dec 15, 2011)

Unfortunately, preventing people from talking about scrambles seems to be impossible as soon as something unusual happens. At Cachan Open, I was scrambling for the Square-1 group with the easy scramble; that scramble seemed perfectly normal to us (the scramblers) and we knew about its easyness only when we heard people saying loud "Hey, Arnaud got a 12 !" , and then of course it was too late.


----------



## oranjules (Dec 15, 2011)

Do you think nobody will applause for a new WR ? It's impossible...


----------



## TimMc (Dec 15, 2011)

oranjules said:


> Do you think nobody will applause for a new WR ? It's impossible...


 
This situation has happened a couple of times in Melbourne... I'm not talking about bf4 where the quietness is required.

People tend to be quiet when there's a fazt average taking place. If there's a new single WR then sure, people will clap and cheer.

Tim.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 16, 2011)

No offense, Tim, but looking at the competitions in your area, I don't think you have the experience to properly think about this case. (You said "People tend to be quiet when there's a fazt average taking place" - this is simply not true at competitions without Feliks.) When someone gets a time that is crazy even by at-home lucky solve standards, people will notice how excited they are, and even by that fact alone people will know that something easy is coming up - and this is distinct from Feliks simply getting a relatively good time for him, which can happen on basically any scramble since he's so fast at home. The thing is, even if there is no discussion among competitors, people who haven't finished their averages will know from the audience/competitor reaction to specifically look out for an unexpectedly easy solve.

Back when I was in California the group of cubers there discussed this several times, and I recall the conclusion being that short of extremely drastic measures (such as keeping solvers completely visually and audially separated from both the waiting cubers and any solvers doing a different scramble) there will always be some knowledge of what's to come. It's just an inevitable effect of using the same scrambles for everyone.


----------



## TimMc (Dec 18, 2011)

qqwref said:


> (You said "People tend to be quiet when there's a *fazt* average taking place" - this is simply not true at competitions without Feliks.)



The statement was in response to oranjules' claim that it's *impossible* for that scenario to occur. I used "fazt" here to refer to Feliks setting a fast average instead of posting a specific example to a video proving them wrong. I tried to avoid over generalising and simply reply to oranjules' post. That was the scope of my post. 



TimMc said:


> If there's a new single WR then sure, people will clap and cheer.



I guess I'm wrong on this one if read "will always clap and cheer": Mats breaking the 4x4 single.



qqwref said:


> Back when I was in California the group of cubers there discussed this several times, and I recall the conclusion being that short of extremely drastic measures (such as keeping solvers completely visually and audially separated from both the waiting cubers and any solvers doing a different scramble) there will always be some knowledge of what's to come. It's just an inevitable effect of using the same scrambles for everyone.



If we can all acknowledge that people will talk about scrambles _due to the way that competitions are currently conducted_ then what can we do to change this?

Can scramblers be more professional? (e.g. "Oh, this one's going to be easy! :|")
A competitor area (7h) with sufficient barriers to prevent competitors from seeing the stage or scramble table may help.
7h3 could be extended to prevent communication between competitors and the audience (or competitors in other groups).
A judge could enforce regulations under 7h to prevent communication between competitors in the competitor area (what's the penalty and who does it apply to?).

I agree that there'll always be some knowledge of what's to come. But it'd be good if we could mitigate against it by preventing the audience, judges, and competitors that just witnessed a solve on stage from talking with other competitors that are yet to complete that scramble. I'd rather have a group of competitors overhearing some cheering than know exactly what's about to come. The audience could be cheering over a competitor beating their personal best rather than having a lucky scramble or breaking a world record.

Tim.


----------



## Jaycee (Dec 18, 2011)

TimMc said:


> I guess I'm wrong on this one if read "will always clap and cheer": Mats breaking the 4x4 single.


 


The thread for Mats's WR said:


> Well, it was in the first round and people weren't really paying attention. But there was applause after the video cut off.


 
 There was applause, just not immediately.


----------



## TimMc (Dec 18, 2011)

Jaycee said:


> There was applause, just not immediately.


 
Phew ^_^

Tim.


----------

