# Judging Discussion Thread [before: Judges' behavior at WCA competitions]



## coinman (Nov 18, 2010)

Sins most people her has bean or will be asked to judge in competitions I want to say a few words about how I think a judge should behave and not. Mainly not 

In many competitions I have visited the tables has bean to close together and thereby also the competitors. This will have the downside that when a judge is to put a cube down on a competitors table he will squeeze in between people already solving. I have bean bumped in to several times while solving and this is very annoying. Many times it has not bean necessary for them to squeeze in like this. Even if it's tight I always try to do everything I can not to interrupt people who are solving when I judge. You can bend over the competitor you are judging or carefully move sideways between the competitors chairs and move out as fast as possible. 

A list of don'ts that I have bean a victim to my self. 

Judges bumping in to me while solving.

Judges staying between the competitors during the whole solve about 20 cm from me and the other solver and not even standing still! I think it's annoying to have people standing that close, and I don't think I’m alone. 

Judges that is staring at me and everything I do during the whole solve. I think it's ok to look without staring, do it from some distance and discreet. 

Judges cubing while judging. Ones a judge was cubing during a 4x4 solve I made, he popped a piece that bounced under my chair and under the table. I completely lost my place in the algorithm due to this. 

Maybe there should be a WCA rule about distance between the competitors sins this is the biggest problem. But on the other hand this might make it even harder for organizers to find venues.


----------



## flan (Nov 18, 2010)

The judge should look at what your doing or you might cheat.


----------



## Rpotts (Nov 18, 2010)

coinman said:


> Judges that is staring at me and everything I do during the whole solve. I think it's ok to look without staring, do it from some distance and discreet.


 
This is the judges job, they need to stare intently in order to effectively judge someone whose turning at an absurd rate.




coinman said:


> Judges cubing while judging. Ones a judge was cubing during a 4x4 solve I made, he popped a piece that bounced under my chair and under the table. I completely lost my place in the algorithm due to this.



If this happens to you again, talk to the tournament organizer or the delegate, because that is highly improper. However, any solver could pop at anytime (competitor/bystander) and you need to "tune out" anything and everyone else. A piece bouncing under the table is not a legitimate excuse to lose your place.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 18, 2010)

coinman said:


> Judges that is staring at me and everything I do during the whole solve. I think it's ok to look without staring, do it from some distance and discreet.



lol.. what



coinman said:


> Judges cubing while judging. Ones a judge was cubing during a 4x4 solve I made, he popped a piece that bounced under my chair and under the table. I completely lost my place in the algorithm due to this.


 
I don't mind if you wanna grab a cube while I'm doing 6x6x6 or something dumb that takes forever and I don't care about, but it's quite annoying when you're doing 4x4x4 and you can SEE the 3x3x3 cube being solved ABOVE where you are solving. like wtf. Anyway, whenever I had problems like this I just asked people to not do it or do it like less of a fgt and they're happy to do so. 

Just tell people stuff to sort stuff like this out, no need to make silly rules.


----------



## joey (Nov 18, 2010)

Also something that I find pretty distracting is when the judge picks up the pen or w/e when you're close to finishing...


----------



## coinman (Nov 18, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> This is the judges job, they need to stare intently in order to effectively judge someone whose turning at an absurd rate..



Yes of course you should look at the solve when judging to see that no cheating is going on but not standing close and staring, that's annoying. 



Rpotts said:


> If this happens to you again, talk to the tournament organizer or the delegate, because that is highly improper. However, any solver could pop at anytime (competitor/bystander) and you need to "tune out" anything and everyone else. A piece bouncing under the table is not a legitimate excuse to lose your place.



In this case it was the tournament organizer who did it  I know I cud have made a protest and gotten a new solve but we were behind schedule and i didn't care. I'm usually in to my solves and will not lose my place but this was to much  

The point of this thread is to make people think a little bit more about how to behave while judging.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Nov 18, 2010)

I always try to step back and just look over their shoulder from a distance. If the tables are tight, just wait for the solver to finish rather than bumping them, assuming it's a small cube.


----------



## Dene (Nov 18, 2010)

Basically, judges shouldn't be bumping into you but anything else you will just have to put up with because that is the nature of a competition. Same with Joey's problem.


----------



## DavidWoner (Nov 18, 2010)

One thing I have always done as a courtesy to the solver- Since the stopwatches beep when you press the stop/reset buttons, I always put the stopwatch behind my back/under the table to stop/reset the stopwatch once the competitor has started solving in order to muffle the noise.


----------



## EricReese (Nov 18, 2010)

My first competition a few weeks ago ago (I dont know if this is standard) but I had the same guy through all my solves, and he would announce how much time I had left in my inspection. Like I would be done inspecting in about 4 seconds, and at 9 seconds I would hear him say that 9 seconds had passed in inspection, and I would have already been long gone into my solve and it was very distracting. The first time he was like "Oh, you started" and it made me stop because i thought I did something wrong. 

I hope not all of my judges will be like that. I just want to be left alone unless I do get close to inspection time limit (might happen with my OH solves (zz))


----------



## Andreaillest (Nov 18, 2010)

You should really complain to the competition organizers or politely tell the judge to stop.

One problem I hear about is judges who talk or chat during a solve. That's very distracting to the solver and unappropriate.


----------



## CharlieCooper (Nov 18, 2010)

If someone is really judging badly (rather that it being a consequence of the venue or nature of a competition) then you should mention it to the delegate and organiser of the competition so that they can be instructed just how to judge, or asked politely to refrain from doing so.

Picking up a pen/faffing with the stopwatch is however quite avoidable, so people should have the courtesy to not to that mid solve.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 18, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> One thing I have always done as a courtesy to the solver- Since the stopwatches beep when you press the stop/reset buttons, I always put the stopwatch behind my back/under the table to stop/reset the stopwatch once the competitor has started solving in order to muffle the noise.


I do the same.

Does anybody want to start a courtesy protocol? It's becoming more and more clear that the WCA could benefit a lot from unofficial guidelines as distinct from things that need to be truly codified and standardized.


----------



## MTGjumper (Nov 18, 2010)

EricReese said:


> My first competition a few weeks ago ago (I dont know if this is standard) but I had the same guy through all my solves, and he would announce how much time I had left in my inspection. Like I would be done inspecting in about 4 seconds, and at 9 seconds I would hear him say that 9 seconds had passed in inspection, and I would have already been long gone into my solve and it was very distracting. The first time he was like "Oh, you started" and it made me stop because i thought I did something wrong.
> 
> I hope not all of my judges will be like that. I just want to be left alone unless I do get close to inspection time limit (might happen with my OH solves (zz))



The judge is meant to say 8 seconds and 13 seconds at the corresponding time. However, they should realise if you had started your solve by then.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 18, 2010)

I think it's nice to bring this up occasionally, so maybe we can all learn from the experiences to make it better. I do think a courtesy protocol would be a nice idea.



DavidWoner said:


> One thing I have always done as a courtesy to the solver- Since the stopwatches beep when you press the stop/reset buttons, I always put the stopwatch behind my back/under the table to stop/reset the stopwatch once the competitor has started solving in order to muffle the noise.


 
Not too long ago, I bought some of these stopwatches. They don't beep, and don't have any of the extra modes that can confuse someone. And they're inexpensive! They're a little quirky - it feels kind of weird to not have the feedback of a beep. But they are quiet - they make no sound at all. (They say that's so you can use them for administering tests.) And they're a little more idiot-proof than the normal kind. (But it does sometimes get confusing when you have some of these and some normal ones, since the buttons work differently.)


----------



## MichaelP. (Nov 18, 2010)

When I was doing OH, my judge popped 12 pieces all over the table. He also commented on it when I got an H-perm, mid H-perm (also OH). I find it a bit annoying, but it's a friendly environment and I didn't want to down anybody.


----------



## amostay2004 (Nov 18, 2010)

Hmm..I actually prefer that the judge don't care too much about judging me. I don't mind at all if they're solving a cube or talking to someone else (unless in BLD of course). I like when it feels as informal and not competition-like as it helps get some of my nervousness off


----------



## RyanReese09 (Nov 18, 2010)

I'd prefer if they payed attention to me, they are after all, judging me. I DEMAND THEIR ATTENTION.

but in all seriousness, if you judge, your expected to your job. be courteous to the solver and dont be distracting

i've personally never had a problem with a judge except it's very annoying whilst doing a big cube, and they looked bored and wish to not be there. detracts from the mood of the competition for me


----------



## Stefan (Nov 18, 2010)

Doesn't article 11 of the rules already cover such incidents?



Mike Hughey said:


> Not too long ago, I bought some of these stopwatches.


 
Look nice, though could be cheaper. What is "1/1000 resolution"?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 18, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Doesn't article 11 of the rules already cover such incidents?


It covers what to do if a (major) incident occurs, not what should be done to prevent unnecessary, unfair inconveniences for competitors.



Stefan said:


> Look nice, though could be cheaper. What is "1/1000 resolution"?


Obviously equivalent of the reliable "Stackmat accuracy" of 1/100 that SpeedStacks likes to brag about.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 19, 2010)

MTGjumper said:


> The judge is meant to say 8 seconds and 13 seconds at the corresponding time.


 
I thought it was 8 and 12? OH GOD HAVE I BEEN JUDGING WRONG ALL THESE YEARS?


----------



## coinman (Nov 19, 2010)

As far as i know the judge should say 8 and then go at 12 seconds.


----------



## RyanO (Nov 19, 2010)

I had a judge who couldn't figure out how to use the stopwatch and nudged me once I already started the solve (obviously within the 15 seconds allowed) and asked me how to work the stopwatch. I was so angry about it that it affected my whole average negatively.


----------



## ThumbsxUpx (Nov 19, 2010)

I might just have to _*JUDGE *_you on your grammar. Haha, JK! 

But these are very good points, thanks for speaking out.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Nov 19, 2010)

I really don't mind so much when judges cube during my solves, but I can see how others could think it to be annoying.


----------



## ben1996123 (Nov 19, 2010)

Basically, just know how to judge, don't distract people, and don't do this.


----------



## Crazycubemom (Nov 19, 2010)

What I hate if :

Smelly terrible judge 
Judge using a mobile phone while judging.
Judge keep holding the cover while I already said ' Yes I'm ready".
Judge doing a SMS while judging.
Judge telling me how to start.
Judge letting a camera from another competitor JUST 2 cm from me.


----------



## CharlieCooper (Nov 19, 2010)

Crazycubemom said:


> What I hate if :
> 
> Smelly terrible judge
> Judge using a mobile phone while judging.
> ...


 
I forgot about the first one... very important...


----------



## oprah62 (Nov 19, 2010)

ben1996123 said:


> Basically, just know how to judge, don't distract people, and don't do this.


 
Or this...

Please judges, know the regulations.


----------



## Weston (Nov 19, 2010)

I think this is also partially the competitions fault.
I think that competitions should use judges that already know what to do rather than using some random kid competitor.
The norcal comps usually have a set judging team.

Oh yeah. Keemy. Lol.


----------



## bluecloe45 (Nov 19, 2010)

At my last competition, the judge took the cube out of the cover, it got caught in it and it fell on the ground. He then proceeded to, after inspection, cover the cube and when i started the timer, he didn't take the cover off. I basically slapped it away.


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 19, 2010)

Man, some of this does sound bad. Probably my worst experience was solving clock at MSO. I stopped it, the judge (I'll keep back the name) announced to the audience, "Australian Record," mocking me, as that was pretty much the reason I was competing, to beat the slow then AR. (this wasn't the bad experience, I don't mind things like that). The bad experience, was him picking it up to take to Dene to scramble, and me calling him back, saying "check the other side" . It wasn't solved.
Also, I think one of the reasons I haven't had any big issues, is if at the start of my inspection, if the judge is right close, I just ask if they can move back a bit. They listen. I think it's because our organizing team always tells other judges, exactly how to judge, and competitors, how to compete. We usually do examples on how it's all meant to work at the start of the day, and whenever asking for judges, we make sure they know how to judge.
You can't always blame the judge, as after all, they're usually volunteers, and if they screw up, maybe they haven't been taught well. I don't really think a "how to judge" manual is needed, or "judge etiquette". It's just common sense, and how well they've been showed by the organizers.


----------



## Vincents (Nov 19, 2010)

Helps to give a sample solve for judges and competitors to watch before the competition officially begins to cover major transgressions. Of course, you can't get everything in with 1-2 samples, but at least it helps.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 19, 2010)

Weston said:


> should use judges that already know what to do rather than using some random kid competitor.


This is very hard to do.
It's just impossible to avoid needing inexperienced judges, for reasons that are already being enumerated in this thread.

What we would really need is a way to make sure the judges can be _made_ experienced enough as quickly as possible. 

The quickest I have ever trained a judge is by having her read Article A and then go straight into it, with the presumption that she asks any questions if she's not sure. This works quite well, but is impractical to enforce.
However, a consistent, quick "training procedure" event could be useful. I can't imagine how to organize all the little details, though.




Vincents said:


> Helps to give a sample solve for judges and competitors to watch before the competition officially begins to cover major transgressions. Of course, you can't get everything in with 1-2 samples, but at least it helps.


Helps, but you need time and full attendance for this.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 19, 2010)

Note: When judging me, if I talk to you, feel free to talk back.

Are there any rules about this? Like, not being all "OMG WHAT OLL NOW?" but rather "Hey, how are you?" as I'm solving.
Personally, it helps me if anything, but I'd like to know if this is 'legal.'

As for "bad judge!" really the only things I find distracting is when they hover over you or make some sort of physical contact with you.

-statue


----------



## Bryan (Nov 19, 2010)

I have this for judges: http://www.cubingusa.com/jtutorial.php

I need to print out more copies and bring them.

And I should neuter the speakers on my stopwatches.....and order some more.


----------



## Anthony (Nov 19, 2010)

Weston said:


> I think that competitions should use judges that already know what to do rather than using some random kid competitor.


----------



## oprah62 (Nov 19, 2010)

Anthony said:


>





ben1996123 said:


> don't do this.


 
Seems like others agree.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 19, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> The quickest I have ever trained a judge is by having her read Article A and then go straight into it, with the presumption that she asks any questions if she's not sure. This works quite well, but is impractical to enforce.
> However, a consistent, quick "training procedure" event could be useful. I can't imagine how to organize all the little details, though.


 
I'm always interested in new ideas on how best to do this. Andrew Kang and I have organized a number of competitions together, and we generally would run a 10-15 minute training session in the morning for all first time judges before the event started. It was basically an explanation of the rules, followed by some example solves orchestrated by Andrew and myself.

We eventually started requiring new judges to shadow experienced judges for 1-2 solves before they were allowed to judge someone on their own. This also worked quite well, and is something I will try to continue to use in the future.

My biggest judging beefs as a competitor are:
1) Bumping into me while I am speedsolving
2) Talking to your friend and clearly ignoring me while I am solving (what if I decided to cheat?)
3) The BLD judge allowing the paper to hit my hands while I am solving. I realize this happens on accident, and is a product of the rule for BLD cubing, but it still annoys me to be perfectly honest.

My biggest judging beefs as an organizer are:
1) Judges who don't want to judge the slower competitors, and therefore their cubes languish untouched on the scrambling table. I literally assign judges to a cube in these cases it annoys me so much.
2) Judges leaving on break without telling me. I don't care if you need to take a break, that is absolutely fine. But if everyone leaves on break at the same time, I am now in a bind to complete the current round with enough staff.
3) Judges who goof off. I treat competitions very seriously, so if you laugh at a competitor's time or just generally goof off around the scrambling table without helping out then I will generally give you one very stern warning that although I appreciate your help, such behavior will *not* be tolerated. I did once ask a judge to stop judging and no longer take part in the event as a judge because of this.


----------



## a small kitten (Nov 19, 2010)

Shanghai Open: During the OH round my judge (had her 3 times) kept talking to me about my turning speed. Then another person came and they debated whether or not I spoke Chinese. They concluded that I didn't. Then they tried to speak really broken English. It was awkward but I tuned out almost everything they said because I was uber jetlagged.


----------



## Faz (Nov 19, 2010)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> The bad experience, was him picking it up to take to Dene to scramble, and me calling him back, saying "check the other side" . It wasn't solved.



Hey shut up, I didn't know anything about clock xD. I thought 1 side solved = both sides solved lol.

The only thing I don't like, is when I get bumped during a solve. The rest I couldn't care about to be honest.


----------



## Kenneth (Nov 19, 2010)

I hate it when competitors bumps into me while I'm judging 

Seriously, it should be some rule about distance, we often sqeese in to many tables to be able to compleate the round quicker, to be able to have more events. If the venue is small we really should cut down on events rater than destroy many of the solves for the competitors.

If you look at my competiton results, all that are much worse than the normal times I get are mostly because of distractions and there are quite a few of them.

I usally cube when alone and are not used to people talking around me, staring at my actions, bumping into me or the worst, my noob judge was explaning how to judge to another noob judge while I was doing 4x4x4 and they where both leaning against the other side of the table I was solving on = 30 cm from my hands. When she did not know exactly what to say she asked me about the rules, this during the whole solve, still I just lost about 10 seconds 

Yes, I also made errors while judging, it is not that easy to do it all correct all the time and this is of course much harder for a new judge. Mabye we should make it a habit to practice judging at some side table? Let people try it out before they go to the real podium and when doing it have someone experienced there to judge the judges.


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 19, 2010)

fazrulz said:


> Hey shut up, I didn't know anything about clock xD. I thought 1 side solved = both sides solved lol.
> 
> The only thing I don't like, is when I get bumped during a solve. The rest I couldn't care about to be honest.


 
No need to own up for it. Everyone makes mistakes


----------



## Laura O (Nov 19, 2010)

My worst experience was a really annoying judge who asked me again and again if I'm ready although I told him "No, wait" after his first and second question... and after complaining about this behavior he just told me: "Well, that's the rules, you should read it!".


----------



## Stefan (Nov 19, 2010)

Every judge guide should include a reference to this thread so they know that if they're bad, they'll be talked about. Or we create a "Judges Hall of Shame" for the purpose. Or we just tell them that there is such a thing.


----------



## krnballerzzz (Nov 19, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Every judge guide should include a reference to this thread so they know that if they're bad, they'll be talked about. Or we create a "Judges Hall of Shame" for the purpose. Or we just tell them that there is such a thing.


 
If there is going to be a hall of shame for judges, we should base it on a score system. We can split the judge's behavior during solves into a few categories.

General Solving
1) Body odor (10 for smelling like garbage) 
2) If the competitor is sitting, how close is the judges "privates" to the competitor's face? (10 for touching)
3) Cubing during a solve (10 for the judge popping the cube into the comptitor's face and cube)
4) Camera angles (10 for standing in front of the competitor and timer display during a solve)
5) Timing (the higher the point, the more off the judge is when calling out "8 seconds" and etc
6) Talking during a solve (10 for yelling into competitor's face during a solve)

One Hand Solving (in addition to general solving)
1) During a solve, the judge holds the other hand of the competitor (automatic 10 points)

Blindfold Solving
1) The judge touches the face of the competitor with hands while blindfolded (auto 10 points)
2) Judge kisses the competitor while blindfolded (10 points for every second the kiss lasts)
3) The judge resets the stopwatch by accident (auto 25 points)

Of course, the judge of the judge needs the judge's initials to judge the judge's judging ability.

Edit1: added more blindfold stuff


----------



## Stefan (Nov 19, 2010)

krnballerzzz said:


> One Hand Solving (in addition to general solving)
> 1) During a solve, the judge holds the other hand of the competitor (automatic 10 points)



Lol... that would be so sweet.

I can actually imagine doing this. Not the actual hall of shame (too much work, too mean, and might keep people from volunteering), but first telling them that it exists and then something like Andrew just wrote. And then tell them that while the hall is a joke and doesn't really exist (OR DOES IT?), to please keep these things in mind and try to not be distracting. Talking about extremes like popping cubes into the competitor's face might make them remember better. I often successfully use extremes for something else, when I want someone to estimate something and they first say "oh I don't know", then I ask "well more like 2 or more like 600?" and suddenly they're like "no, no, maybe 30". Extremes kinda wake people up.


----------



## Bryan (Nov 19, 2010)

krnballerzzz said:


> Blindfold Solving
> 1) The judge touches the face of the competitor (auto 10 points)


 
It doesn't exactly help when the competitor likes to bob his head. 

I like it when the competitor goes to itch their nose or something and ends up knocking the cardboard into themselves.


----------



## krnballerzzz (Nov 19, 2010)

Bryan said:


> It doesn't exactly help when the competitor likes to bob his head.
> 
> I like it when the competitor goes to itch their nose or something and ends up knocking the cardboard into themselves.


 
I was meaning that the judge physically touches the competitor's face with their hands.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 19, 2010)

krnballerzzz said:


> I was meaning that the judge physically touches the competitor's face with their hands.


 
To make it clearer, let's instead give 10 points for a kiss on the cheek.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 19, 2010)

@Andrew: Point system is hilarious!



krnballerzzz said:


> One Hand Solving (in addition to general solving)
> 1) During a solve, the judge holds the other hand of the competitor (automatic 10 points)



I LOL'd so hard haha.



Bryan said:


> I like it when the competitor goes to itch their nose or something and ends up knocking the cardboard into themselves.



I have to confess that I've done that more than once  Basically my thought process is: "My nose itches.... I should scratch it" Brings hand up and knocks paper/cardboard into face. "Oh right... that." 

Chris


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 19, 2010)

Stefan said:


> To make it clearer, let's instead give 10 points for a kiss on the cheek.


 
How much does Andrew get for what he did during my big BLD solve that evening at US Nationals? I assume it's more than 10 points?


----------



## coinman (Nov 19, 2010)

krnballerzzz said:


> Blindfold Solving
> 1) The judge touches the face of the competitor with hands while blindfolded (auto 10 points)


 
Some blind solvers also bends forward with the head so it comes to stay about 10 cm from the cube, if they move it happens that the paper makes contact with the face or hands. 

I have as everybody else also made mistakes while judging. I actually ones stopped a solve by mistake. The reason was that a girl, who was competing for the first time and evidently didn't know the rules to well, got me totally confused. I asked her if she was ready for inspection and she said yes. I lifted the cube cover and started the stop watch. She then started the timer immediately and with the timer running she carefully inspected the cube without turning anything. This made me believe she misunderstood how the inspection was timed and that she believed that she was supposed to time it with the stack mat timer. I really didn't know what to do so of some reason i stopped her and told her she could quickly restart the timer and start solving sins 15 seconds hadn't elapsed. But she just got irritated and told me she didn't want inspection time and this was the reason for her stating the timer before inspecting the cube. I rely don't believe this, but we decided to give her a new scramble sins it was a judging error


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 19, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> How much does Andrew get for what he did during my big BLD solve that evening at US Nationals? I assume it's more than 10 points?


 
Story time...


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 19, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> Story time...


 
Let's just say I don't understand why people are complaining so much about the TSA searches - at least those don't happen during a BLD solve.


----------



## a small kitten (Nov 19, 2010)

Bonus +5 if they combo kissing on the cheek with holding your hand.


----------



## krnballerzzz (Nov 19, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> Story time...


 
I pretty much groped and tickled Mike like a TSA employee during a blindfold solve. No naughty parts were touched (unless nipples are naugty). 

Mike ended up solving the cube anyway. What a BAMF.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 19, 2010)

krnballerzzz said:


> I pretty much groped and tickled Mike like a TSA employee during a blindfold solve. No naughty parts were touched (unless nipples are naugty).



haha nice!



krnballerzzz said:


> Mike ended up solving the cube anyway. What a BAMF.


 
Agreed that Mike *is* a BAMF!


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 19, 2010)

LOL! This thread has ma rolling! Unless nipples are naughty...depends on if he enjoyed it or not! Haha!

Chris: Do you by chance have a video of you knocking the cardboard into your face? As soon as Bryan said that I'd laughed so hard, and wanted a video!


----------



## joey (Nov 19, 2010)

The thing is, Mike actually is a MF >_>


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Nov 19, 2010)

During a BLD solve it's also really important. At Nats this last year, I was BLD solving and then these 2 judges were whispering to each other:

JUDGE 1: "Oh no... Should I just let him finish or should I stop him?"
JUDGE 1: "Ah, just let him finish"

WORST thing to hear during a BLD solve, even if it wasn't about me. The thing is, I didn't know if it was about me or not but the convo was literally right behind me. So I thought I maybe didn't start the timer or something and didn't notice so I ended up concentrating on that instead of my solve. 

Also, it's kinda disturbing when a judge is sick, wipes his/her nose or w/e, then handles your cube. Or if they're eating some kinda greasy food and then handles your cube and when they give it to you it's all greasy and slippery.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 19, 2010)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> Also, it's kinda disturbing when a judge is sick, wipes his/her nose or w/e, then handles your cube. Or if they're eating some kinda greasy food and then handles your cube and when they give it to you it's all greasy and slippery.


 
I believe that's been talked about before, and I think somebody mentioned that's why judges at European competitions are often seen wearing gloves. I tried to do a search for this but I couldn't find anything after a (very) quick search.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 19, 2010)

Kenneth said:


> Seriously, it should be some rule about distance, we often sqeese in to many tables to be able to compleate the round quicker, to be able to have more events. If the venue is small we really should cut down on events rater than destroy many of the solves for the competitors.


I think I'd rather be bumped a bit or have to explicitly tell judges to stand back than have far fewer events at a competition. But that's just me.

As a judge I always try to pick a good place to stand - if it's next to a person I will choose that, if there is not enough room next to them I will stand behind and to the right/left.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 20, 2010)

This is slightly different, but it is a judging issue.

Someone who was judging me one time(Whose name I will not reveal) said right as he was setting the cube down "You're going to love this cross."
Now I am color neutral, but since he said that I assumed to check white right away. Sure enough, the white cross was super nice. It was something I obviously would have noticed on my own, but it still bothers me that he warned me about a solve. That could give some people a longer amount of time to plan pairs, due to only having to look at 1 face.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 20, 2010)

In reference to that, Hadley, it's so hard not to talk about scrambles though (if you get a good time) if you're a judge and go first, while waiting on them to scramble the first lot of cubes to start calling out names. Typically when people see good solves (for a particular level anyhow) they talk about it and sometimes it just comes out like "Oh man that had such a nice ortega scramble" or something. Even though it shouldn't be talked about, I know I've done it on accident before.

I do agree though that a judge definitely shouldn't say it to a competitor right before the solve.


----------



## Bryan (Nov 20, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> In reference to that, Hadley, it's so hard not to talk about scrambles though (if you get a good time) if you're a judge and go first, while waiting on them to scramble the first lot of cubes to start calling out names.


 
Is it really so hard? It seems like a simple case of self-control.


----------



## krnballerzzz (Nov 20, 2010)

Bryan said:


> Is it really so hard? It seems like a simple case of self-control.


 
YOU'RE OUT OF CONTROL BRYAN!!

But seriously, everyone calm down.

But seriously seriously, it IS a matter of self control. Giving an unfair advantage to another competitor like that isn't cool.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 20, 2010)

krnballerzzz said:


> But seriously seriously, it IS a matter of self control. Giving an unfair advantage to another competitor like that isn't cool.


Not to mention, it's illegal.


----------



## MichaelErskine (Nov 20, 2010)

joey said:


> Also something that I find pretty distracting is when the judge picks up the pen or w/e when you're close to finishing...


 
Damn! I may have been guilty of this since I usually sign the scoresheet immediately after finishing with the stopwatch (i.e. still during the solve). I will not do this any more!


----------



## HaraldS (Nov 20, 2010)

I hate when the judge is in his/her own world and not paying attention at all to the cuber thats solving. Whats the point of having a judge that isnt judging..


----------



## Rubiks560 (Nov 29, 2012)

rowehessler said:


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




I have had the same thing happen to me. My judge gave me the same scramble for BLD, then I told him it was the same one but he refused to give me a new scramble. I should have DNF'd it and told Mike about it, but I just memod for the regular time and then flipped two edges at the end so it would be a DNF. I was HIGHLY tempted to memo in like 15 and then go from there though. But I decided cheating just wouldn't be worth it.

I give you massive props for coming out an doing this. In sure the guilt was eating you alive.


----------



## blah (Nov 29, 2012)

Rubiks560 said:


> I have had the same thing happen to me. My judge gave me the same scramble for BLD, then *I told him it was the same one but he refused to give me a new scramble. I should have DNF'd it and told Mike about it, but I just memod for the regular time and then flipped two edges at the end so it would be a DNF*. I was HIGHLY tempted to memo in like 15 and then go from there though. But I decided cheating just wouldn't be worth it.
> 
> I give you massive props for coming out an doing this. In sure the guilt was eating you alive.


wait wtf? that's not an event that doesn't make sense; that's a series of events that don't make sense


----------



## Rubiks560 (Nov 29, 2012)

blah said:


> wait wtf? that's not an event that doesn't make sense; that's a series of events that don't make sense



I figured I phrased something terrible in there...to shorten it up: did first BLD solve, DNF, second solve had the same scramble, I told the judge it was the same one, he says "Well, it's better to have a scramble you remember then to get a new one", I continue memoing, do solve, DNF on purpose. Hopefully that makes more sense.


----------



## IamWEB (Nov 29, 2012)

Rubiks560 said:


> I told the judge it was the same one, he says "Well, it's better to have a scramble you remember then to get a new one".



That is the worst thing for a judge to say! Seriously, what? This should have been complained about. It wasn't necessary that you DNF a solve because of judge's issue; you should have refused to do the solve and gotten the issue resolved with the delegate.

Also, your phrasing wasn't an issue in understanding the situation.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Nov 29, 2012)

Rubiks560 said:


> I figured I phrased something terrible in there...to shorten it up: did first BLD solve, DNF, second solve had the same scramble, I told the judge it was the same one, he says "Well, it's better to have a scramble you remember then to get a new one", I continue memoing, do solve, DNF on purpose. Hopefully that makes more sense.



What was the judge thinking???

I wonder how many other times someone has gotten the same scramble twice. It must happen more than these two times (you and Rowe). Sometimes mistakes happen. Probably someone somewhere has done the same scramble twice and not confessed to it. (Sighted solve, for instance.)


----------



## Rubiks560 (Nov 29, 2012)

Yeah. I really should have told Mike about it. 

I'm sure this happens a lot. I've had this happen numerous times on 2x2 scrambles.


----------



## That70sShowDude (Nov 29, 2012)

sneaklyfox said:


> What was the judge thinking???
> 
> I wonder how many other times someone has gotten the same scramble twice. It must happen more than these two times (you and Rowe). Sometimes mistakes happen. Probably someone somewhere has done the same scramble twice and not confessed to it. (Sighted solve, for instance.)



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


----------



## sneaklyfox (Nov 29, 2012)

That70sShowDude said:


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



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


----------



## That70sShowDude (Nov 29, 2012)

sneaklyfox said:


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



Yep. This exact thing happened at my most recent comp.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 29, 2012)

Rubiks560 said:


> "Well, it's better to have a scramble you remember then to get a new one"


This is ridiculous. That judge should never ever be a judge again and also receive further punishments.



Geert said:


> [...] After scrambling dozens of cubes, it's almost impossible to remember which cube/cuber already had a certain scramble.


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


----------



## Owen (Nov 29, 2012)

This makes a for a good case study for what I've been saying for quite some time now. Competitions need higher standards for judging. Not that the judge is the one to blame here, but the the chance of something like this happening is decreased if new standards are implemented. I've seen many examples where "time constraints" have prompted organizers to allow 10 year olds who haven't read the regulations judge.


----------



## Tyson (Nov 29, 2012)

Owen said:


> This makes a for a good case study for what I've been saying for quite some time now. Competitions need higher standards for judging. Not that the judge is the one to blame here, but the the chance of something like this happening is decreased if new standards are implemented. I've seen many examples where "time constraints" have prompted organizers to allow 10 year olds who haven't read the regulations judge.



Sure, perhaps this is true. Are you willing to see a reduction in the number of events held at competitions in exchange for this? Are you willing to see a reduction in the number of competitions in exchange for this?


----------



## Owen (Nov 30, 2012)

Tyson said:


> Sure, perhaps this is true. Are you willing to see a reduction in the number of events held at competitions in exchange for this? Are you willing to see a reduction in the number of competitions in exchange for this?



Sure, I'd rather go to one solid competition per year than three shaky ones.


----------



## Goosly (Nov 30, 2012)

'Shaky' is a bit over-expressed. Yes, there are judges who don't fully know how to judge. If you encounter one, just tell him how to do it correctly.


----------



## Tyson (Nov 30, 2012)

Or... or... maybe as competitors you can all help out and participate more in the organization of the competition? And instead of complaining about having to find 10 year-olds to judge, why don't you make yourself available to judge? Or why don't you drop certain events so you can help out more?

Not happy with the level of organization of the competition? Organize one yourself and show the rest of the organizers how it should be done.


----------



## Noahaha (Nov 30, 2012)

*My Apology*

I've judged during most non-BLD events at around seven competitions, so I consider myself fairly experienced, but I think I still make mistakes. What I'm getting at is that we can raise the quality of the average mom/dad/younger sibling judge just by giving them a sheet they have to read before judging. All they really need to "judge" is timer starting/stopping and all they need to be able to do is write down times neatly. Everything else that could happen can be handled by a more experienced person. A little card with a few procedures on it could make a world of difference.


----------



## Owen (Nov 30, 2012)

I think it would help to give a copy of the regulations to each judge, and encourage them to consult it if anything questionable comes up.


----------



## Tyson (Nov 30, 2012)

Owen said:


> I think it would help to give a copy of the regulations to each judge, and encourage them to consult it if anything questionable comes up.



Why would you just judge yourself? It doesn't matter what instructions you give to a non-cuber. A cuber will almost always be a better judge than a non-cuber.


----------



## antoineccantin (Nov 30, 2012)

Tyson said:


> Why would you just judge yourself? It doesn't matter what instructions you give to a non-cuber. A cuber will almost always be a better judge than a non-cuber.



What if you're already judging?


----------



## Noahaha (Nov 30, 2012)

*My Apology*



Owen said:


> I think it would help to give a copy of the regulations to each judge, and encourage them to consult it if anything questionable comes up.



The problem with that is that noncubers don't know what's questionable and what's not. Giving them the entirety of the regulations is absurd. If they see something questionable they just have to ask a more experienced person. The only thing we need to teach them is what to look out for i.e. starts, stops, pops, inspection, when to assign a penalty and when to ask a judge about it.


----------



## Tyson (Nov 30, 2012)

antoineccantin said:


> What if you're already judging?



Then this doesn't apply to you. But I'm asking 2010LENN01 if he would be willing to judge himself so that organizers have access to better judges. And actually, to answer your point, if you're already judging, and you're complaining about the judging quality, then why don't you go and organize your own competition, and assemble your own team of judges, put the processes that you think are necessary to ensure a high level of judging (maybe that's an instruction sheet) and make sure the judging is better.

In both cases, you have no right to complain because you can actively do something to make the situation better.


----------



## Noahaha (Nov 30, 2012)

*My Apology*

Tyson, would you ever consider making a short (around 10 lines) reading mandatory for first-time judges?


----------



## Owen (Nov 30, 2012)

Fair enough. Next competition, I will judge as many events as I can. 

Still, I do agree with Noahaha. I think there should be some mandatory reading for judges.


----------



## Sebastien (Nov 30, 2012)

This is not 10 lines as I have to admit, but it is still fairly short and clear and also available for a long time already: http://www.cubingusa.com/jtutorial.php


----------



## Tyson (Nov 30, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> Tyson, would you ever consider making a short (around 10 lines) reading mandatory for first-time judges?



What would that accomplish? Just because someone reads something doesn't mean that they process it or know anything. Isn't reading those TOS agreements mandatory when you install new software? Don't you click "I agree" and just get on with your day?

I think what might be more effective is a feedback system of judges, or a database to keep track of judges. But in the end, this isn't an issue if the judges are cubers. Which means simply that the community, if they want better judging, needs to put in more effort at these competitions so that 10 year-olds aren't pulled to judge a blindfold solve. Why is a 10 year-old judging a blindfold solve and some experienced cuber just sitting in a corner not helping out?

Or some cuber just whining on the internet about how "judges need to be held to a higher standard" but they don't do anything about it. Yes, we can reduce the number of events so that judges aren't overloaded, but this isn't the problem. The problem is that the new members of the community need to step up and make things happen. And this is reflected in the larger issue with things such as US 2014.



Eric79 said:


> You could also say future people in the same situation know they can [try to] cheat without the fear of being punished.



I'm still waiting for Eric79's response to my claim that this notion makes no sense because future people cannot take advantage of this situation. Because to profit from cheating, you can't come forward. And if you get caught without coming forward, you're going to get owned.


----------



## Noahaha (Nov 30, 2012)

*My Apology*

^I agree with everything you said except the first part. I'm guessing most first-time judges don't even know that they need to watch the timer stop, so having them read "give a +2 penalty if the competitor is still touching the cube once he has stopped the timer" will accomplish making them aware that they even need to pay attention to it.

Of course, this argument I am making would not be necessary if, as you say, more experienced people were willing to help out.

Another decision that some organizers could make but I have never seen is to make all competitors have to judge or scramble for one event, or perhaps give free/reduced entry to people who judge/scramble a certain amount.


----------



## Goosly (Nov 30, 2012)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why would a non-cuber need to help judging? All the competitions I've been to had enough judges (sometimes after calling "You'll get disqualified if you don't judge" and things like that). If you work in 2 groups, the one group judging and scrambling for the other one, there should never be a problem about not having enough judges, and thus needing non-cubers to judge. But maybe in the USA competitions are organised differently.


----------



## cubernya (Nov 30, 2012)

Goosly said:


> (sometimes after calling "You'll get disqualified if you don't judge" and things like that)



The delegate can't do this IIRC. It's only a recommendation, not mandatory


----------



## Goosly (Nov 30, 2012)

_1e2) All competitors should be available for judging, if needed by organisation team. Penalty: disqualification of the competitor for the competition._

Delegates _can _do it.


----------



## Bob (Nov 30, 2012)

Goosly said:


> Maybe I'm missing something here, but why would a non-cuber need to help judging? All the competitions I've been to had enough judges (sometimes after calling "You'll get disqualified if you don't judge" and things like that). If you work in 2 groups, the one group judging and scrambling for the other one, there should never be a problem about not having enough judges, and thus needing non-cubers to judge. *But maybe in the USA competitions are organised differently.*



Indeed, they are. There is even significant variation in organization of competitions in different areas of the USA. Competitions in New Jersey are a lot different from competitions in Minnesota or Ohio or California.


----------



## antoineccantin (Nov 30, 2012)

Goosly said:


> Maybe I'm missing something here, but why would a non-cuber need to help judging? All the competitions I've been to had enough judges (sometimes after calling "You'll get disqualified if you don't judge" and things like that). If you work in 2 groups, the one group judging and scrambling for the other one, there should never be a problem about not having enough judges, and thus needing non-cubers to judge. But maybe in the USA competitions are organised differently.



Because this regulation isn't enforced often enough in North American competitions.
1e2) All competitors should be available for judging, if needed by organisation team. Penalty: disqualification of the competitor for the competition.


----------



## cubernya (Nov 30, 2012)

That's the one thing I don't understand about the regs. I don't understand how there is a penalty if it says *should*, not must


----------



## Divineskulls (Nov 30, 2012)

Sebastien said:


> This is not 10 lines as I have to admit, but it is still fairly short and clear and also available for a long time already: http://www.cubingusa.com/jtutorial.php





Tyson said:


> What would that accomplish? Just because someone reads something doesn't mean that they process it or know anything. Isn't reading those TOS agreements mandatory when you install new software? Don't you click "I agree" and just get on with your day?



While some people may just read something like this and not understand it, I think having a reference is a good idea, especially at a competition with a lot of new cubers that might be willing to judge. I'm now planning to have a few reference tools at Levittown this weekend, including a few print outs going over judging procedure and obviously a single print out of the regulations. I'll be using the above cubingUSA link to base the judging procedure sheets off of. If it goes well, I might post it somewhere (unless someone has already done this at past competitions, then please ignore the majority of this post. ). 

Anyway, I think if this should be discussed further, someone should make a new thread about it. It isn't really on topic with Rowe's apology anymore, and if people have more they want to say, they should be able to say it without getting off topic.


----------



## Goosly (Nov 30, 2012)

I guess because of the 'if' statement. The delegate can use this if required, but in my experience it's just used as a threat, and always as kind of a joke. But it works.


----------



## samchoochiu (Nov 30, 2012)

Tyson said:


> But in the end, this isn't an issue if the judges are cubers. Which means simply that the community, if they want better judging, needs to put in more effort at these competitions so that 10 year-olds aren't pulled to judge a blindfold solve. * Why is a 10 year-old judging a blindfold solve and some experienced cuber just sitting in a corner not helping out?*
> 
> Or some cuber just whining on the internet about how "judges need to be held to a higher standard" but they don't do anything about it. Yes, we can reduce the number of events so that judges aren't overloaded, but this isn't the problem. The problem is that the new members of the community need to step up and make things happen. And this is reflected in the larger issue with things such as US 2014.
> 
> ...



How could you expect any competitor that paid(in most cases) to COMPETE, to judge and/or scramble?


----------



## antoineccantin (Nov 30, 2012)

samchoochiu said:


> How could you expect any competitor that paid(in most cases) to COMPETE, to judge and/or scramble?



Because by entering a competition, you therefore have agreed to respect the WCA regulations which say you should be available for judging.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 30, 2012)

samchoochiu said:


> How could you expect any competitor that paid(in most cases) to COMPETE, to judge and/or scramble?



Because this is a community. Organizers aren't getting paid to run these competitions. Registration fees go right back to the competitor, be it through venue costs, food, prizes, etc. Without volunteers, competitions wouldn't run. With more volunteers, the competition runs smoother and more events can be held. It all goes back to the competitors.


----------



## Goosly (Nov 30, 2012)

samchoochiu said:


> How could you expect any competitor that paid(in most cases) to COMPETE, to judge and/or scramble?



LOL, you should never come to a competition in the Netherlands/Belgium


----------



## JasonK (Nov 30, 2012)

samchoochiu said:


> How could you expect any competitor that paid(in most cases) to COMPETE, to judge and/or scramble?



Wow, some people are really selfish...

When you pay to enter a competition, you do in the hope that it will be well-run and fair. This can only happen if there are an adequate amount of good judges. There will only be an adequate amount of judges if people actually volunteer to judge.


----------



## samchoochiu (Nov 30, 2012)

PatrickJameson said:


> Because this is a community. Organizers aren't getting paid to run these competitions. Registration fees go right back to the competitor, be it through venue costs, food, prizes, etc. Without volunteers, competitions wouldn't run. With more volunteers, the competition runs smoother and more events can be held. It all goes back to the competitors.



Would it not be the organizer(s) job to ask experienced competitors to help judge/scramble if it is clear that there is not enough man power? Though from what I have seen there are usually adequate amount of helpers and they receive something in return such as lunch or free entry or both. The issue is that not all of these volunteers are living up to the standards of what a competitor expects from a judge.


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 30, 2012)

samchoochiu said:


> Would it not be the organizer(s) job to ask experienced competitors to help judge/scramble if it is clear that there is not enough man power?



It certainly is their responsibility to ask. But according to 1e2 quoted above, they have the right to ask any competitor they wish (which happens to include the more selfish competitors like you), who better well agree to help.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 30, 2012)

samchoochiu said:


> Would it not be the organizer(s) job to ask experienced competitors to help judge/scramble if it is clear that there is not enough man power? Though from what I have seen there are usually adequate amount of helpers and they receive something in return such as lunch or free entry or both. *The issue is that not all of these volunteers are living up to the standards of what a competitor expects from a judge.*



Which goes back to the original statement that you were trying to fight.


----------



## samchoochiu (Nov 30, 2012)

uberCuber said:


> It certainly is their responsibility to ask. But according to 1e2 quoted above, they have the right to ask any competitor they wish *(which happens to include the more selfish competitors like you)*, who better well agree to help.


That statement is an incorrect assumption that you and a few others have made towards me. I simply pointed out that some people have unreasonable expectations when it comes to volunteering.


----------



## JasonK (Nov 30, 2012)

samchoochiu said:


> That statement is an incorrect assumption that you and a few others have made. I simply pointed out that some people have unreasonable expectations when it comes to volunteering.



What's unreasonable about asking that everyone who wants the competition to run smoothly plays a part in making that happen?


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 30, 2012)

samchoochiu said:


> That statement is an incorrect assumption that you and a few others have made towards me. I simply pointed out that some people have unreasonable expectations when it comes to volunteering.



If you don't personally have a problem with judging/scrambling whenever it's needed, then why are you trying to argue this point? Why try to defend other people that aren't willing to put in the volunteer work that you apparently are willing to do (work that, in fact, is a *responsibility* of competitors, according to the regulations that they agree to by registering in the first place)?


----------



## qqwref (Nov 30, 2012)

Tyson said:


> Or some cuber just whining on the internet about how "judges need to be held to a higher standard" but they don't do anything about it.


I think people working towards a list of things for new judges to read would certainly help having judges held to a higher standard. I mean, let's be honest here, your typical cuber can, at most, themselves be a judge at every competition they go to, which doesn't add that much. Organizers and delegates can do more but most cubers are unlikely to be either of these anytime soon.

I think we absolutely can make newbie judges read some stuff before judging, if we have something printed out for them. If it's short and succinct we can ask them to read the instructions as a replacement for verbally telling them what to do. It's a lot different from the terms of service because it's not going to be some long-ass boilerplate document in legalese, but a short list of info. We could start off with a condensed version of that jtutorial.php page, adding in stuff like "if the competitor disagrees with you, don't insist you're right - instead, ask another judge or the delegate" and "if the competitor doesn't solve the cube, make sure to write down DNF for the solve".


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Nov 30, 2012)

Wow.. yeah sometimes I think I am actually glad I have bad hearing (deaf without aids)! It is easier to tune out sounds and things while solving because I am used to doing that anyway.

The only downside to me judging is that I at times cannot hear that the cover can be taken off, but I solve that simply by asking "ready?" with my hand on the thing, and then when they nod I know I can take it away. Sometimes that still goes awry a little, but yeah.. the venues are often noisy.. it's irritating but nothing too bad. 

I DO take care that I do NOT EVER take a cube from someone who I can see has solving times under like 10 seconds; I don't want to botch their chances at a national record or something huge like that.


The first time I went to a venue (Eindhoven in my case) I was given a link to the judging area amongst other things on the WCA page. And I read it too. I did not judge that first time as I was way too nervous because of the above disability. 

I always step back and just look from a small distance.


You know what -I- find annoying? When I am hurrying to get a cube back to the table there are people not competing (family, friends) watching like at less than a few feet away and I almost bump into them and have to say sorry sorry sorry coming through excuuuuse me. Ugh, irritating as heck, that.


----------



## Bob (Nov 30, 2012)

Kattenvriendin said:


> You know what -I- find annoying? When I am hurrying to get a cube back to the table there are people not competing (family, friends) watching like at less than a few feet away and I almost bump into them and have to say sorry sorry sorry coming through excuuuuse me. Ugh, irritating as heck, that.



We had a lot of parents in the way at the Jersey Shore Open. I solved this problem by paying a kid $5 to be the "bouncer." He would tell people to back up and stay out of the area for the first hour or two. Afterwards, people were already used to not being in the area, so it was a lot less frustrating.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 30, 2012)

Hahaha, that's hilarious. And also genius.


----------



## uniacto (Nov 30, 2012)

Bob said:


> We had a lot of parents in the way at the Jersey Shore Open. I solved this problem by paying a kid $5 to be the "bouncer." He would tell people to back up and stay out of the area for the first hour or two. Afterwards, people were already used to not being in the area, so it was a lot less frustrating.



ingenious. 

"psssst, hey kid. wanna be a bouncer for 5 bucks?"

On topic: I've never been to a comp, so I can't speak from personal experience, but it seems that some judges at small competitions are more of the family and friend volunteers, right?


----------



## Goosly (Nov 30, 2012)

^ Seems like there's just a local difference in the way judging works. Maybe there's also a difference in the number of competitors.


----------



## Ranzha (Nov 30, 2012)

As far as the BLD same scramble thing goes, I've gotten a repeat scramble once. I noticed it after a bit, and I told the judge (maybe Vincent?) I thought I'd gotten that scramble before. Leaving the timer running, to make sure that if I was wrong my attempt was still valid, the judge validated that the scramble was a repeat, and I got the legit second scramble on a new attempt.
I don't see what's all too difficult about this process =x

Also, @Eric Müller: In regard to punishing judges, it's not as if judges are WCA-appointed. Actually, the WCA Regulations clearly state that every competitor must be available for scrambling/judging. Have you ever done so?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 30, 2012)

I am sorry about what happened at Indiana 2012; I was not aware of the incident until Chris mentioned it here on the forum. We are currently going through our data from the competition trying to make sure we know all the facts about the situation, and we will report our findings to the WCA board.



Sebastien said:


> This is not 10 lines as I have to admit, but it is still fairly short and clear and also available for a long time already: http://www.cubingusa.com/jtutorial.php



I would like to point out that even this excellent judging tutorial says absolutely nothing about what to do if a competitor receives a duplicate scramble. The only applicable rules there would be #1 (be familiar with the WCA regulations, which kind of defeats the idea of a short list of instructions anyway), and #15 (when in doubt, ask the main judge or WCA delegate - again, here you have to know enough to know that you're in doubt). I think we who have competed in many competitions often forget how complicated judging actually is. It's not as simple as one might think - it only seems that way after you've had the experience of doing it for a while. I totally agree that we should do anything we can do in the future to improve judging, but I also think we should be somewhat understanding when people make mistakes.

The one thing I can think of that would have truly helped in this situation (and which I intend to do at all future competitions where I am involved in running the competition) is that before any judge begins judging at any competition, we should ALWAYS tell them that if they ever get in a situation where they are even the slightest bit unsure of what to do, or if they EVER have a situation where a competitor is asking them to do something that they think might not be correct, they MUST find a delegate or organizer and discuss it before making a decision. It would probably be best to have both a judge's tutorial (like the one above) and this rule clearly read to each judge. But the rule I give here is probably actually more important than even the judge's tutorial.


----------



## nickvu2 (Nov 30, 2012)

Maybe in addition to a judge's tutorial, each judging station should have a little job aid taped to the table. Just a checklist of what to do or look for during each solve.


don't let competitor see cube
reset timer
inspection time?
If yes, reveal cube when they say they are ready, time 15 sec (announce 8s and 12s).
If no, they may begin when you both are ready.
ensure cube is solved
record time, DNF, or DNS
give card and cube back to runner
if there is EVER ANY confusion, you MUST ask the head judge.


That's just off the top of my head so I may have missed something...and I'm sure it could be worded better. The list would just serve as a reminder. Simply having the list doesn't mean you've been trained.


----------



## shelley (Nov 30, 2012)

You can distill judging procedures down all you want. You still run into the problem regarding the judge's assessment of what is considered "confusion".

At a recent competition, someone was judging a 4 year old competitor. When it was evident that the 4 year old didn't know the proper starting procedure, rather than try to explain it to her, the judge started the timer for her after she had picked up the cube.

At another competition, a judge tried to call a competitor up for his solve. When the competitor didn't show up, the judge wrote DNS for that solve and returned the (still scrambled and covered) cube to the scrambling table.

In neither of these incidents did the judge think to notify the delegate before or after taking action. The judge wasn't a non-cuber family member either, which goes to show that just being a cuber isn't enough to qualify you to be a good judge.

It's easy enough to say "oh, just enforce regulation 1e2", but many competitors are first timers or young children who barely know the competing procedures, much less how to judge, and the incidents outlined above go to show that competitions have gotten big enough that organizers can't just pull competitors indiscriminately and be able to trust their judgment. If you as a competitor consider yourself an experienced judge, actually go up to volunteer. Don't just wait for the organizer (who probably is already juggling too many tasks) to enlist you.


----------

