# Future of competitive speedsolving – participation of delegates



## Cubenovice (Sep 28, 2011)

This has been on my mind for a while and I considered posting it in the other “future of…” thread but was afraid it would get lost in there.
And most of the discussion was geared towards “progress” in cubing and not organization of competitions.

Here goes:
In the current rate in which speedcubing is growing it will inevitably (have to) become more professional.
If we want speedcubing competitions to be taken seriously, *should the WCA delegate for a specific competition be allowed to compete?*

I think we’ll eventually have to go “pro” and exclude the active delegate from competing.
Yes, this will have some consequences and it may become more difficult to find delegates.
But it just doesn’t feel right that people who provide the scrambles are also solving them.

*Some examples to illustrate my concern:*
The clock WR incident (cheating issue - resolved)
There are multiple competitions where the active delegate has won events
Current 3 BLD SAR was set by the active delegate
Current 4 BLD WR was set by the active delegate
Note that I do not want to imply that there is something wrong with these results!

But from an objective standpoint this is just not "right".
Situations like this should be avoided if we want credibility.

*Comparison to another small sport:*
What would you think of Ben Pridmore’s three World Memory Championship titles if you would find out he’s the one who generated the tests?

*What would be the options for the future?*
- Paid non-participating delegates (Speedcubing would have to become BIG before this is going to happen)
- Perhaps there could be some criteria for exceptions: Delegate may only compete in events where he / she is xx % above the average WR times
- Your thoughts?


----------



## Godmil (Sep 28, 2011)

Sadly I agree that in the future delegates shouldn't be competing. The illusion of impropriety is as bad as impropriety itself. Even if no delegates ever cheat (again), the fact that it appears so possible for them to cheat can only hurt the credibility of the WCA. 
Paying people may not be an option for some time, I guess you'd need to rely on people who are so dedicated to the development of cubing that they're willing to attend competitions in purely an official capacity.
Alternatively, if you had a couple of delegates and they could agree before hand to split the events between them, then they can only compete in the events that the other delegate provided the scrambles for.


----------



## Selkie (Sep 28, 2011)

It certainly is a difficult question. Certainly it seems a sensible approach and a change that will no doubt take place one day. You have to wonder what the impact will be, especially in countries with few enough competition as it is. The delegates after all enjoy their hobby like the rest of us and the motivation to organise a competition that you cannot compete in must be diminished.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 28, 2011)

I make it a point to have someone else provide scrambles for any BLD events that I compete in when I'm the delegate (the BLD events are the only ones I'm any good at, so I'm not really that worried about the other events - I'm pretty bad at them). I agree that it's a very uncomfortable problem. I would appreciate it if we could find a solution for this that might still allow a delegate to compete, but makes scrambles safe somehow. We had an earlier discussion here on speedsolving.com where we discussed some ideas, but I'm not sure we ever came up with any really good solutions. The idea of accessing automatically generated scrambles on the spot with a key for that particular competition seemed like it might be somewhat promising, although I don't think we ever fleshed it out. The general idea: a key that only works on the day of the competition is used to access scrambles generated from the WCA website. Perhaps the key doesn't work at all until the starting time for the competition; you could even go so far as to not make a given scramble set work until 30 minutes before the scheduled time of that event. It is nice because the scrambles could then be stored in the WCA database for later access, with little danger of them ever being lost. If you have enough laptops, you could have the scrambler be the one to call up the scrambles as they start scrambling, so no one else even touches the scrambles until scrambling is begun. The problem with this, of course, is the need for technology (computers and probably Internet connectivity, which may not be available at some competitions), and the danger of failure of the technology on the day of the competition.

I would love some sort of technological solution like that, with the idea that the delegate also brings hardcopy scrambles, in case the technological solution fails. Then the idea would be that the delegate is out of luck if the technological solution fails - he/she must not compete since the hardcopy scrambles are being used. I'd be willing to accept that condition as a delegate.

It seems that there might be other issues besides the scrambles to be considered regarding delegates competing, but I think scrambling seems to be the biggest of the issues.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 28, 2011)

Unfortunately I feel I have to agree - we need to stop a delegate from competing as soon as it's feasible.

However, we could slightly get around the problem by getting two delegates, with each being in charge of non-intersecting sets of events, and unable to compete in the events they are in charge of. (I do realize this would require a change in the regulations and a greater number of delegates.) So if one delegate is world-class at BLD events they could get scrambles and be in charge of the others, and have a second delegate track BLD events to make it fair. Of course, if a single delegate is OK with not competing in any events, we wouldn't need a second one for that competition.

About the choosing of delegates, I think it would be worthwhile to try not to choose delegates who are world-class at anything (or nearly there). It would be better to have delegates who are more interested in the social aspect of cubing, and who would not be losing anything substantial such as potential national/regional/world records if they were to not compete in any event.


----------



## Muesli (Sep 28, 2011)

Surely an official WCA scrambling program would be the solution here. If it already exists, then I don't see the problem. A button is pressed, a scramble is generated, the scramble is used right there and then. The generation would be witnessed and the first, and only the first, scramble would be used. The scramble would be copied down into sealed envelopes and distributed. Also, no cube should be within useable distance of the delegate generating the scramble or the witnesses.

Surely this leaves no scope for tampering and still allows the delegate to participate fairly.


----------



## kinch2002 (Sep 28, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> I make it a point to have someone else provide scrambles for any BLD events that I compete in when I'm the delegate (the BLD events are the only ones I'm any good at, so I'm not really that worried about the other events - I'm pretty bad at them).


The WCA delegate for a competition is responsible for: 1c8) Providing the scrambles.
Sure, you're still following that reg by making sure that the scrambles are at the competition, but were you not the person that the WCA has put their trust in rather than the other person? I'm not saying that I think what you're doing is wrong - just explaining why I choose to do something different. I had Robert Yau in my room when I generated the bld scrambles to make sure that I wasn't spamming scrambles for an easy one/memoing them there/etc, and that they went in the sealed envelopes. Yes I know he could be working with me to cheat, and the same is true of Mike's solution, but I still think it's worth a fair amount.



qqwref said:


> About the choosing of delegates, I think it would be worthwhile to try not to choose delegates who are world-class at anything (or nearly there). It would be better to have delegates who are more interested in the social aspect of cubing, and who would not be losing anything substantial such as potential national/regional/world records if they were to not compete in any event.


I totally agree with this, but there isn't always that option so what would we do if that wasn't possible? Also, cubing is still at a stage where anyone can get to a National Record standard in some event very quickly, so I think there's always something 'important' to be gained


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 28, 2011)

As a transitional idea (or perhaps even the final standard as well) I like Michael's suggestion of having two delegates covering non-intersecting events. This way we ensure that no delegate is competing in an event where they also generated scrambles.

I don't know if it is necessarily time to make such a change yet. However, I do agree that the time for this is fast approaching as cubing is being taken more and more seriously, and as competitions are happening more and more frequently like they are right now.


----------



## kinch2002 (Sep 28, 2011)

Further to that idea, couldn't they compete in all events as long as they were in separate groups? i.e. Delegate A generates 3x3 scrambles for group1 and competes in group2. Delegate B does the opposite.

But...we'd need 2 delegates at each comp? At the moment sometimes it's hard enough finding one delegate (we had this problem in the UK for a couple of years).


----------



## Stefan (Sep 28, 2011)

Just another fun idea:

1. WCA generates scrambles.

2a. Delegate gets and brings sheet of paper with 25 scramble parts:


```
1) L2 R2 B  L2 R'
 2) B  U' F2 D  L2
 3) D2 U  L' R' B'
 4) R  B  F2 D' L2
 5) U' L  B2 U2 L'
 6) D2 B  L  U  B
 7) L' R2 B2 D  L'
 8) D2 B2 U  F' R
 9) F' D' U' L' R'
10) F' R  F  D' L
11) B2 R2 F' L' B2
12) F' U' B  F2 L'
13) R2 F  D' F' L2
14) B' U2 F  R  B
15) L  B  U  B  D
16) B' D  R  U' L
17) F2 R2 B' F' D
18) U  F  D' L2 R2
19) D  U2 F' L' R2
20) B' D' B' R2 F
21) D' R2 F  D' B'
22) D  L  U' L2 F2
23) R2 B' D' F2 D2
24) R2 B  F2 U' F
25) D' L2 R' B2 R2
```

2b. Organizer gets and brings sheet of paper with numbered places for the scramble parts:


```
|      22       |       9       |       6       |       8       |      17       |
|      21       |      12       |      11       |      18       |      14       |
|      23       |       4       |      25       |       2       |      10       |
|       3       |      13       |      24       |       5       |      15       |
|      19       |       7       |      16       |       1       |      20       |
```

3. Organizer and delegate take some scissors&glue, cut the parts from the delegate's sheet and paste them onto the organizer's sheet.

Or the delegate could prepare the parts by printing/writing them on sticky paper (post-its?) to save some time at the competition. Or they could use lego pieces.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 28, 2011)

Oh wait, maybe the delegate could manipulate by producing somehow special scramble parts.

Also, much easier idea:
Delegate gets the left half of each scramble, organizer gets the right half of each scramble. So they both bring half a sheet of paper and then glue them together in the middle.


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 28, 2011)

But what about the images of the scrambled state? Whoever has the half with the image basically has access to the entire scramble. Such a system would require us to eliminate images.

I prefer the idea of spontaneous generation on the day of the competition, with our current system to be used as a backup in case of technological issues.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 28, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> But what about the images of the scrambled state? Whoever has the half with the image basically has access to the entire scramble. Such a system would require us to eliminate images.



No. Images could be done similar to my first idea (one has the image parts, the other knows how to combine them). Or they could be copied from a cube after applying the scramble alg.

If we're using computers, then my favorite idea for spreading the trust is still the encrypted zip file. Delegate gets the file, organizer (or delegate #2 or some other trustee) gets the password. And both get some moves of each scramble so they know the other doesn't fake something in the computer (like a fake unzip-program accepting any password and outputting a prepared scramble file instead of the real one). But they must get different moves and not know which moves the other has, otherwise the one with the computer could write a program that unzips the real file and then quickly produces a fake file with moves matching those of the other trustee.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 28, 2011)

We could also develop a system where the WCA board (or someone similarly trusted) creates scrambles and puts them online somewhere, with only the delegates and organizers having access. Then any of those people can check that the correct scrambles are being used while the competition is running.


----------



## Bryan (Sep 28, 2011)

Sure, there's been delegates in the past that have cheated. But guess what? There have been non-delegates that have cheated.

I think we're a long ways from excluding delegates. You would need to lower the bar so that we have more delegates, which I think would do more harm than good.

Running a competition is a lot of work. Now, according to the regulations, the delegate merely has to observe. However, most of them are running the competition unless they're working with a really good team. I do a bunch of stuff before the competition to make sure things are correct. And during the competition I usually rush my solves and compete in just a handful of events.

But really, you want to tell a delegate you'd like them to do a bunch of work, probably drive a few hours, maybe have to use some vacation time, work really hard all day and they don't even get to compete? I think most delegates would say their time is worth more than that.

If this ever came about, I would probably just quit cubing.


----------



## Pedro (Sep 28, 2011)

I'm with Brian here.

We have a good team, but I need to do a LOT of stuff (and carry an extra bag, with displays and other things) on competitions to make them work. If I wouldn't be allowed to participate, I would seriously consider not even going.

The better solutions to me is to generate the scrambles in the time of their use, with some witness(es) (probably the scramblers) and just run away (that's what I do )


----------



## Lucas Garron (Sep 28, 2011)

I see two main issues here

- The effort a delegate would have to go through, related to the facts that any qualified delegate probably would like to compete a bit, and that it is easy to do so.
- I don't know if an extra delegate would prevent problems we currently have.

I think Stefan's scramble-splitting suggestion, while maybe a bit silly, is the most practical kind of approach. However, it prevents perhaps only one source of "easy" cheating.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 28, 2011)

Would it be too difficult to generate the scrambles at the venue? For example have an outside source, such as a spectator, use the WCA scrambler and print them out on the spot.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 28, 2011)

Pedro said:


> generate the scrambles in the time of their use, with some witness(es)


 
Pretty pointless. If you do want to cheat, you simply manipulate the scramble programs.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 29, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Pretty pointless. If you do want to cheat, you simply manipulate the scramble programs.


 
That's why I liked the idea of scrambles being auto-generated by the WCA. When you submit your competition to the database before the competition, you would tell what the events and rounds are, and the scrambles would be generated on a WCA server automatically, then served on the day of the competition. Since the scrambles would be stored there as they're generated, someone could verify the scrambles used at the competition with those on the server, to make sure they weren't manipulated. The only danger of manipulating the scramble program then should theoretically be hacking the server, right?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Sep 29, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> That's why I liked the idea of scrambles being auto-generated by the WCA. When you submit your competition to the database before the competition, you would tell what the events and rounds are, and the scrambles would be generated on a WCA server automatically, then served on the day of the competition. Since the scrambles would be stored there as they're generated, someone could verify the scrambles used at the competition with those on the server, to make sure they weren't manipulated. The only danger of manipulating the scramble program then should theoretically be hacking the server, right?



+ communication channels (who's interacting with the server at the competition and how?) and internet access.


----------



## pjk (Sep 29, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> That's why I liked the idea of scrambles being auto-generated by the WCA. When you submit your competition to the database before the competition, you would tell what the events and rounds are, and the scrambles would be generated on a WCA server automatically, then served on the day of the competition. Since the scrambles would be stored there as they're generated, someone could verify the scrambles used at the competition with those on the server, to make sure they weren't manipulated. The only danger of manipulating the scramble program then should theoretically be hacking the server, right?


If it gets to the point where we worry about people hacking the server to get scrambles before a competition, we've got it wrong. At any competition, there has to be some trust (with scramblers scrambling, judges judging, delegates providing real scrambles w/o looking at them, etc.). The delegate issue is just one of many places throughout a competition where there needs to be trust. Having 2 delegates would certainly reduce the chance of someone cheating, and having 2 scramblers verifying a scramble would reduce the risk of a fixed scramble too. Using a scrambler on the spot would be a good idea, assuming 2 delegates can verify the scrambles are being generated right then and there. Otherwise, generating scrambles on the spot isn't doing much to prevent 1 delegate from cheating compared to if the delegated generated the night before. Another issue with having 2 delegates is that competitions can sometimes have a hard time getting 1 official delegate to show up. 

I think more delegates would do more good than harm. There are loads of people out there probably more qualified than some of the current delegates that could and would be willing to help out in this situation, and I think they should be allowed. Why not gradually expand on the number of delegates across the world? With so many people involved in scrambling and judging, the more qualified people watching, the better. If someone goes to a competition knowing they have a role (such as being 1 of 2 delegates), they will be more keen to making sure things flow properly than if they showed up and get pulled in last minute as a volunteer.


----------



## Vincents (Sep 29, 2011)

I think that in high cuber density areas (e.g. California), having more than one delegate is feasible. However, just a few months back, Jeremy had an insane travel plan of competition hopping through the midwest just to delegate competitions because nobody else could make it. Sometimes I think the energetic toll can be larger a burden than the financial toll. In the end, this is a hobby, and if it starts affecting peoples jobs and schoolwork with no real benefit in return, you're going to get a lot more cuber apathy.

I think, though, that at least for competitions I run, we will start generating at the competition real-time. Benefits are obvious. Anyone running a competition with an active internet connection and nice battery life (or a nearby power source) can do it.


----------



## Erik (Sep 29, 2011)

Lets go through it in a few substeps:

Situation now:
Delegates produce all scrambles for a competition, but fact is too that some delegates will compete in almost all events

Is this unwanted? 
Like stated by several people here, yes. My opinion though: if we cannot trust the delegates in looking at the scrambles, how can we trust them in anything else they do? All delegates are chosen only if they have proven to be reliable enough. So unwanted? Yes maybe. Is it a serious threath to competitions? Nah.

It is never possible to make something 100% cheat-proof. If we already stop trusting delegates, then we might as well put all cubers in seperate prison cells as a waiting area so they can't communicate...

Possible solutions:
Lets say we want to change it though, it seems a majority would like this. Several options were brainstormed:
- organisers help (partly) in providing the scrambles: I am against this, only already for the fact that an organiser is not a delegate (thus not proven trustworthy) and sometimes not even a cuber. On the other side it also happens that the delegate is the organiser.
- 2 delegates: I would favor this, but is it feasible? At big competitions: certainly. World champs, US nationals, Aachen Open etc. all big competitions with several delegates present. The 2nd delegate wouldn't even have to do much, besides bringing a few scrambles. At smaller competitions, 2 delegates are not always present.
- the delegate can just not compete: honestly, which delegate would want to go to a competition, travel, pay for gas, pay for a hotel and be ok with the fact he/she couldn't compete? Like Pedro said, he'd consider not going at all. So I'm quite confident we can agree this is not a solution.


Btw.
@ Stefan: 'if you want to cheat you simply manipulate the scramble program': do you think that's the easiest way of cheating if you wanted to? ;-)


----------



## TMOY (Sep 29, 2011)

Another possible solution: the delegate chooses another competitor he considers trustworthy enough (not necessarily a WCA delegate), and that person provides the scrambles for some events. For small comps, this is definitely more feasible than requiring 2 delegates.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 29, 2011)

WCA could - in addition to the list of delegates - create a list of delegate assistants. Those would assist the delegates with scrambles and maybe a bit more, but not have the responsibility or authority to run a competition on their own. This would provide benefits of having more delegates without actually making more people delegates. Though those assistants could be likely delegate candidates, their assistant work acting as training where they get to know delegating a bit and the delegates get to know them a bit.



Lucas Garron said:


> + communication channels (who's interacting with the server at the competition and how?) and internet access.



That was my first thought as well, but for "manipulating the scramble *program*" that generates scrambles on the server, I'd say Mike was correct. And while the scrambles could me manipulated through the local network, people can still take them home and check them there and see the manipulation.



Erik said:


> @ Stefan: 'if you want to cheat you simply manipulate the scramble program': do you think that's the easiest way of cheating if you wanted to? ;-)



Well, my point was just that witnesses wouldn't see manipulations in the program, so while it prevents simply _bringing _already prepared special scramble sheets, it doesn't ensure they're not _generated _there.

And yes, unless I'm willing to trust an accomplice, that's the easiest way I can think of.


----------



## Erik (Sep 29, 2011)

Haha, I think there are a lot easier ways to cheat if you really wanted to, but lets not discuss that here.

Delegate-assistants sounds like a good plan!

They could also relieve the pressure on the delegate by:
- starting new rounds 
- determining if something is a +2 or not.
- find people to scramble or judge if necessary


----------



## Bryan (Sep 29, 2011)

Stefan said:


> WCA could - in addition to the list of delegates - create a list of delegate assistants. Those would assist the delegates with scrambles and maybe a bit more, but not have the responsibility or authority to run a competition on their own. This would provide benefits of having more delegates without actually making more people delegates. Though those assistants could be likely delegate candidates, their assistant work acting as training where they get to know delegating a bit and the delegates get to know them a bit.



It seems like this would be a lot of work screening people, etc. Plus some organizers would then have to secure two people. Or people who organize and delegate on their own now have another hassle.



Stefan said:


> That was my first thought as well, but for "manipulating the scramble *program*" that generates scrambles on the server, I'd say Mike was correct. And while the scrambles could me manipulated through the local network, people can still take them home and check them there and see the manipulation.


 
I guess the WCA server could generate some MD5 hash of the scramble along with a salt. But honestly, I don't like the idea of being forced to get the scrambles right before a competition. I'm busy with other stuff. 

Also, I thought about the idea of not being able to compete, and I'm wondering how regular competitors would react to that situation. Let's say when the competition starts, a random set of competitors are chosen to lead an event rather than compete in it. It would help keep things on track easily.


----------



## Escher (Sep 29, 2011)

Bryan said:


> Also, I thought about the idea of not being able to compete, and I'm wondering how regular competitors would react to that situation. Let's say when the competition starts, a random set of competitors are chosen to lead an event rather than compete in it. It would help keep things on track easily.


 
I think the phrase is '**** that ****' 

Imo it's not even a question for any competition that doesn't have at least 200+ competitors. It (getting WRs, ERs, personal records) doesn't matter _at all_ unless money is involved, or the competition is sponsored by the Rubik's brand, or until current WR holders get bought tickets to Worlds or regional championships or something.

Cubing is far too young for the kind of things people are suggesting. Until it actually matters; do nothing.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 29, 2011)

Bryan said:


> It seems like this would be a lot of work screening people, etc. Plus some organizers would then have to secure two people. Or people who organize and delegate on their own now have another hassle.


 
Yes, it's certainly more work than now (though also has benefits). But I'm mainly suggesting this as an alternative to the other suggestion of having two full-blown delegates. I think it would be easier than that, still get most of the benefits, and help produce more delegates. TMOY's suggestion also goes in this direction, though even less far. It's like:

A) 1 delegate (current situation)
B) 1 delegate, 1 assistant chosen by delegate
C) 1 delegate, 1 assistant accepted beforehand by WCA
D) 2 delegates


----------



## Bryan (Sep 29, 2011)

Escher said:


> I think the phrase is '**** that ****'
> 
> Imo it's not even a question for any competition that doesn't have at least 200+ competitors.


 
No, it's not even a question ever, regardless of size. I was merely pointing out stuff in a way that allows all people to realize that they really don't want to give up competing.


----------



## Escher (Sep 29, 2011)

Bryan said:


> No, it's not even a question ever, regardless of size. I was merely pointing out stuff in a way that allows all people to realize that they really don't want to give up competing.


 
Sorry, I understood but I wasn't clear in my reply - the first instance of 'it' was meant to be about any further measures we've currently discussed to prevent cheating.


----------



## Meep (Sep 29, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Yes, it's certainly more work than now (though also has benefits). But I'm mainly suggesting this as an alternative to the other suggestion of having two full-blown delegates. I think it would be easier than that, still get most of the benefits, and help produce more delegates. TMOY's suggestion also goes in this direction, though even less far. It's like:
> 
> A) 1 delegate (current situation)
> B) 1 delegate, 1 assistant chosen by delegate
> ...



This is somewhat how the competitions in our area are run. Despite the delegate being listed under a single name, a little group of three split the duties (Like having three delegates, or one and two assistants) at the competition, with one of them only competing if the BLD event exists. When scrambles are generated, they are done in a group (or with someone a delegate from elsewhere recommends). It's entirely possible for two or more people to work to cheat together, but less likely.


----------



## kinch2002 (Sep 29, 2011)

Erik said:


> Delegate-assistants sounds like a good plan!
> 
> They could also relieve the pressure on the delegate by:
> - starting new rounds
> ...


I was under the impression that jobs 1 and 3 there were for the organiser anyway, not the delegate? I realise they are often the same person, in which case they should probably be getting other people to help organise rather than assist in the 'more important' delegate duties.


----------



## Bob (Sep 29, 2011)

I haven't seen it mentioned here, so I will bring it up. There is something called a "main judge" for each event during a WCA competition.



WCA Regulations said:


> 1d)	Each event must have one main judge. The main judge for an event is responsible for:
> 1d1) Making sure that the regulations are followed.
> 1d2) Decisions on disqualification of a competitor for an event, as described in other articles.
> 1d3) Decisions on starting a round later or earlier than scheduled. In case of changes in the time schedule, there should be a clear announcement to all competitors.



These regulations used to insist that the main judge could not compete in the event. However, we decided that if the WCA delegate is the main judge, he could compete in that event (see Regulation 1i). This decision was reached because the WCA delegate is trusted enough that he will not cheat, especially in the events that he is competing in. If he would, he should not be a WCA delegate. Before this regulation, I used to assign somebody who was not competing in the event as a main judge, but it was usually somebody who knew so little about that event that I would make the decisions anyway. It was really hard to find people who are knowledgeable enough about an event that they could be in charge of it but didn't want to compete in it.

Today, I think the quality of delegates has improved dramatically over the years. Sure, we've had a couple that were poorly chosen, but I think most of the delegates do a great job.

This leads me to a question. Do you think that I would generate scrambles and cheat with them? If I did, you'd probably never know because I couldn't even set a WR with them if I tried. What about Tyson Mao? Or Tim Reynolds? Or Bryan Logan? Or Ron van Bruchem? Would they cheat? If they would, we need to start looking at a new set of delegates.


----------



## Erik (Sep 29, 2011)

kinch2002 said:


> I was under the impression that jobs 1 and 3 there were for the organiser anyway, not the delegate? I realise they are often the same person, in which case they should probably be getting other people to help organise rather than assist in the 'more important' delegate duties.


 
Technically, it is the organisers task to do 1 and 3 indeed. But like you already said yourself they are often the same person. Also, I have seen it happen that the organiser wasn't even a cuber (!) so the delegate had to do all things even though he wasn't the organiser. 
I realise that it doesn't really matter than much if someone is an official asisstent or not, to be able to do 1 and 3 anyway, but for number 3 it would give him/her a bit more authority.

@ Bob, totally agree with this.


----------

