# Proposal: Video Evidence Should NOT be used to overturn official records



## DeeDubb (Jun 27, 2014)

Video evidence was recently used to overturn a NR in Square 1 by Kunaal Parekh when he accidently nudged one side during the inspection. This was missed by the judges as well as most people viewing the video. A few sharp eyes caught the error and WCA officials overturned the NR by changing it to a DNF.

It's been a few weeks, and I haven't seen anything official from the WCA stating their policy on using video. 

To me, it is sad to see personal video used as official evidence to overturn records. This policy definitely gives an advantage to those who do not allow their solves to be filmed (sure there might be some cases where video can help, but generally it can only hurt by catching some minor infraction that the judge misses). If the idea is to spread cubing to a global audience, YouTube is a great way to achieve that. Especially YouTube videos of WCA events, however, this policy hurts people who take video of their official solves, and may discourage people from taping their solves or putting them on the internet.

Personally, I think that unless the WCA forces organizers to have video of EVERY solve at a given event, then video should not be used to overturn judge's decisions in either direction.

I understand the counterargument is that the emphasis is getting the call right, but there's no way to get the call right on people who aren't being filmed other than the judge watching with his own eyes in real time. Giving people instant replay to watch over and over and catch a minor infraction is not fair considering how many minor infractions must have been missed for those who are solving without video.

So, basically, the argument boils down to: is it more important to treat every cuber as fairly as possible or to get the call right as often as possible?


----------



## Tim Major (Jun 27, 2014)

If it can't be used to overturn "lucky" calls, it can't be used to overturn completely wrong calls.

IE: If I get a 9.50 and it's put in the database as 19.50. I think it's fine how it is currently.


----------



## Petro Leum (Jun 27, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> Personally, I think that unless the WCA forces organizers to have video of EVERY solve at a given event, then video should not be used to overturn judge's decisions in either direction.



this. personally, while i previously found having a recording of your official solves cool to upload and "show off" i am now not even gonna think about recording my official solves. i cba to have a debate over some official result by me (and at least im not close to getting some nr/cr/wr )

so if i want reconstructions of my solves or just wanna check my turning, id record my times at home. it's a shame though.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 27, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> If it can't be used to overturn "lucky" calls, it can't be used to overturn completely wrong calls.
> 
> IE: If I get a 9.50 and it's put in the database as 19.50. I think it's fine how it is currently.



But how is it currently? Is there an official policy on the matter?

Also, if your time is wrong due to a data entry error, wouldn't your official card be enough to overturn that?


----------



## Erik (Jun 27, 2014)

The goal must always be to get correct decisions, correct times in the database and of course correct records. Any sound evidence that helps finding mistakes the (maybe inexperienced) judges or scoretakers make is welcome in this. Especially video evidence. 

Yes, fast people do get filmed more often than slower people. But then again, not many people would be upset if there was a mistake in a 1 minute solve and a lot of people would be upset when the stakes are high and it is about NR/CR/WRs.


----------



## Ollie (Jun 27, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> Especially YouTube videos of WCA events, however, this policy hurts people who take video of their official solves, and may discourage people from taping their solves or putting them on the internet.



It also might encourage people to be more careful, especially when they have potential to get NR/CR/WRs. In Kunaal's unfortunate case, whether he nudged the side accidentally or not, he broke a regulation in getting his NR. This is unfair on someone who got the previous NR without any infractions. 



DeeDubb said:


> Personally, I think that unless the WCA forces organizers to have video of EVERY solve at a given event, then video should not be used to overturn judge's decisions in either direction.



This is virtually impossible. Evidence for a thing doesn't become less valuable because we don't have evidence of every other solve to compare it to, nor does it become less valuable if it's 'unfair' on that person who's solve got filmed. Evidence is evidence.



DeeDubb said:


> I understand the counterargument is that the emphasis is getting the call right, but there's no way to get the call right on people who aren't being filmed other than the judge watching with his own eyes in real time. Giving people instant replay to watch over and over and catch a minor infraction is not fair considering how many minor infractions must have been missed for those who are solving without video.



We need to catch as many infractions as we possibly can to make it fair for everyone. If we find evidence of someone breaking a regulation, deliberately or not, we can't let them off because we may or may not have missed previous breaches in the regulations. That's absurd. *It's like letting Luis Suarez off because someone, somewhere, may have bitten another player without it being caught on film.*


----------



## RicardoRix (Jun 27, 2014)

You gotta feel the pain. Sounds a bit harsh the way you put it.
But if it's a bad decision then it's a bad decision, you should direct your energy to that point, don't take it out on the video.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 27, 2014)

Ollie said:


> *It's like letting Luis Suarez off because someone, somewhere, may have bitten another player without it being caught on film.*



I don't think that analogy is fair. That's a malicious, criminal thing. An infraction during a solve is more equatable to an offsides. Let's say an offsides is missed, and leads to a winning goal, then days later, the goal is overturned when a fan's video of the match shows that the scorer was actually offsides. That is pretty much identical, and that would never happen.

EDIT to add to that:

Pro sports has official regulations on when and how replays can be used to overturn calls. They would never ask someone in the audience for their cell phone video of the event, and then use that to determine the outcome of the game. There's plenty of missed calls that changed the outcome of championships. Video evidence shows that one team clearly should be the champion, but instead the other team is crowned, however the call was missed, and that's fair because judge's error is part of any sport.


----------



## szalejot (Jun 27, 2014)

I think videos should not be considered as evidence unless to points are taken into consideration:
1. Every solve should be filmed.
2. There should be official set of rules that define how videos should be recorded.
Until this happens, in my opinion, video should not be considered as evidence in speedcubing.


----------



## Laura O (Jun 27, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> To me, it is sad to see personal video used as official evidence to overturn records. This policy definitely gives an advantage to those who do not allow their solves to be filmed (sure there might be some cases where video can help, but generally it can only hurt by catching some minor infraction that the judge misses). If the idea is to spread cubing to a global audience, YouTube is a great way to achieve that. Especially YouTube videos of WCA events, however, this policy hurts people who take video of their official solves, and may discourage people from taping their solves or putting them on the internet.



Sorry, but this is a strange approach.
You actually think something is unfair since it reveals unfair actions?
I don't want to discuss Kunaal's solve again (this has been done enough in the relevant thread), but we shouldn't generalize this.

Our goal should be that the rules are observed by everyone in every single solve and that's actually the spirit of the WCA ("behave sportsmanlike"). Video evidence does help to follow this.
And just think of the following situation: someone does a fabulous 4/5BLD record, in the video you can see that he did a speedsolving solution, everyone knows that he cheated but there are no consequences because the regulations prohibit video evidence?


----------



## Ollie (Jun 27, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> I don't think that analogy is fair. That's a malicious, criminal thing. An infraction during a solve is more equatable to an offsides. Let's say an offsides is missed, and leads to a winning goal, then days later, the goal is overturned when a fan's video of the match shows that the scorer was actually offsides. That is pretty much identical, and that would never happen.
> 
> EDIT to add to that:
> 
> Pro sports has official regulations on when and how replays can be used to overturn calls. They would never ask someone in the audience for their cell phone video of the event, and then use that to determine the outcome of the game. There's plenty of missed calls that changed the outcome of championships. Video evidence shows that one team clearly should be the champion, but instead the other team is crowned, however the call was missed, and that's fair because judge's error is part of any sport.



The analogy was just to demonstrate that you can't penalize people on the basis that breaches of regulations can also occur off camera, which you claimed in the OP. There are also a number of pro-sports where competitors have been disqualified (mostly athletics.) 



> Pro sports has official regulations on when and how replays can be used to overturn calls. They would never ask someone in the audience for their cell phone video of the event, and then use that to determine the outcome of the game. There's plenty of missed calls that changed the outcome of championships. Video evidence shows that one team clearly should be the champion, but instead the other team is crowned, however the call was missed, and that's fair because judge's error is part of any sport.



By that logic, Matyas Kuti deserves to have all his blind records back, which I'm sure you don't agree with. He was found to have been cheating in a number of events from personal footage. (edit, ninja'd by ^)

The only difference in Kunaal's case is that it is likely that the nudge of one side was accidental. You can't create a set of criteria for 'accidents' and a set of critera for malicious cheaters. Breaches in regulations have to be treated the same otherwise they become easy to manipulate.


----------



## kinch2002 (Jun 27, 2014)

It is clear that different analogies can support different points of view. However, most of these fail to recognise that speedsolving is a record-setting timed 'sport'. Football is not. So why not look to a sport that reflects that - Athletics? Video evidence is an accepted form of evidence in that sport.

Talking about using fans videos in sports is pointless, because we know that all those sports are professionally filmed anyway. But actually, in the almost-impossible situation that a fan had a video of Usain Bolt starting before the gun goes off, but none of the technology picked it up, I think you'd find he gets disqualified.

Saying that people who don't get filmed are at an unfair advantage is saying that you'd rather everyone was allowed to disobey the rules rather than some people being allowed to. Then we may as well not have rules.

I don't even want to think how the WDC would operate without being allowed to use video evidence.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 27, 2014)

Ollie said:


> The analogy was just to demonstrate that you can't penalize people on the basis that breaches of regulations can also occur off camera, which you claimed in the OP. There are also a number of pro-sports where competitors have been disqualified (mostly athletics.)



But my analogy was still closer. Generally, if it isn't caught during the game, the outcome will not be changed.



Ollie said:


> By that logic, Matyas Kuti deserves to have all his blind records back, which I'm sure you don't agree with. He was found to have been cheating in a number of events from personal footage. (edit, ninja'd by ^)
> 
> The only difference in Kunaal's case is that it is likely that the nudge of one side was accidental. You can't create a set of criteria for 'accidents' and a set of critera for malicious cheaters. Breaches in regulations have to be treated the same otherwise they become easy to manipulate.



This is a tough call. There's some gray area here that could still be open for discussion, but punishing the Kunaal's to catch the Matyas's doesn't seem right to me. I think for anyone undeserving to break a WR would require a pretty obvious level of cheating that is far different from moving a Square 1 piece 30 degrees during inspection.



kinch2002 said:


> It is clear that different analogies can support different points of view. However, most of these fail to recognise that speedsolving is a record-setting timed 'sport'. Football is not. So why not look to a sport that reflects that - Athletics? Video evidence is an accepted form of evidence in that sport.
> 
> Talking about using fans videos in sports is pointless, because we know that all those sports are professionally filmed anyway. But actually, in the almost-impossible situation that a fan had a video of Usain Bolt starting before the gun goes off, but none of the technology picked it up, I think you'd find he gets disqualified.



I would argue that he would not be disqualified, because organized athletics generally has rules on when/how video evidence can be used.



kinch2002 said:


> Saying that people who don't get filmed are at an unfair advantage is saying that you'd rather everyone was allowed to disobey the rules rather than some people being allowed to.* Then we may as well not have rules.*



This is an absolutely silly conclusion to draw. You still have judges with their eyes looking to spot infractions. Not allowing video does not negate rules whatsoever, especially since none of the rules address using video.

In order to have an official record, you have to compete at an official event with an officially appointed judge. This is the criteria set forth by the WCA. To add an additional element of passing a video inspection of the solve for some competitors, but not others is simply unfair. 

How about this for a proposal, since these issues will really only come up when someone is pushing for a record:

*Anyone who wants to set a NR/CR/WR must do so at an official competition AND have a reasonable quality video taken of their inspection solve. *

I would definitely be fine with this, because at least the elite level of competition would be held to the same standards.

This would not be too crazy to ask because anyone in the running for a record pretty much knows that they are capable of it, and would definitely have the capability to have someone film their solves, especially at this point, where there aren't too many fluky records.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 27, 2014)

I think that video evidence can be used. Why? Yes, you do have a good point in saying that it's "unfair" that others aren't filmed and might get away with things like that, but sadly, life is simply unfair. So are other sports as you've said. The WCA has the responsibility to keep records as accurate as possible, and as clean of errors as possible. Now of course they're not going to catch every single one, because no one ever does in any other sport, but it seems right that once one infraction is known, then that attempt is invalidated.

I know that in most other sports, the video evidence can only be used during the game, and anything afterwards, it's too late, but this is because it'd be too much effort to reorganize and go back to replay that game (and perhaps other games if it's been long enough), so they just leave it as it is. But in cubing, it's pretty easy to go back and say, "oh, that single solve was done wrong. We can remove it and leave all the others though." In other sports, you can't simply "fix" one part in the middle of the game, because you'd have to redetermine the rest.

Sadly, life is unfair, and we'll just have to live with that, especially when it's us getting caught doing something wrong while others didn't.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 27, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> It's been a few weeks, and I haven't seen anything official from the WCA stating their policy on using video.



Have you tried reading the regulations?


----------



## David Zemdegs (Jun 27, 2014)

If a video shows that someone breaks the rules then so be it. If they have been so close to breaking a NR, CR or WR then with determination and practice they will certainly do it eventually. Disputes regarding non videod records will always be problematic. The only evidence in the these cases would be past recorded results. Hence we have often questioned a record that seems to "come from nowhere" so to speak.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 27, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> Have you tried reading the regulations?



You're right, I skimmed it, but I missed it.



> 11f) Decisions about an incident may be supported with video or photographic analysis, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.



There is some policy on video, so that's better than I thought.


----------



## Ollie (Jun 27, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> This is a tough call. There's some gray area here that could still be open for discussion, but punishing the Kunaal's to catch the Matyas's doesn't seem right to me. I think for anyone undeserving to break a WR would require a pretty obvious level of cheating that is far different from moving a Square 1 piece 30 degrees during inspection.



You've ignored my point entirely. By not allowing the use of personal footage as evidence, then we have no grounds to disqualify Matyas Kuti for any of his blind world records which we now know were illegitimate. _This wouldn't have been possible without considering personal footage_. If this measure is to ensure equal fairness, then allowing these records to stand isn't fair on anyone. 

Plus what if, in the future under your proposed rule change, someone else decided to make the same 30 degree turn to give themselves a better start, knowing the judge isn't paying attention? This isn't fair on anyone trying to get that NR legitimately, and supports Dan's "absolutely silly" conclusion. Why bother following any of the rules if my judge isn't paying 100% attention? Sometimes people might exploit this, but at least with video evidence we can catch those that do.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 27, 2014)

Ollie said:


> You've ignored my point entirely. By not allowing the use of personal footage as evidence, then we have no grounds to disqualify Matyas Kuti for any of his blind world records which we now know were illegitimate. _This wouldn't have been possible without considering personal footage_. If this measure is to ensure equal fairness, then allowing these records to stand isn't fair on anyone.



You're right. Without being allowed to use video OR even without video itself, there would be no grounds to disqualify him. The WCA would have just had to add the paper thing to the rules and move on, conceding that he had gotten away with it.



Ollie said:


> Plus what if, in the future under your proposed rule change, someone else decided to make the same 30 degree turn to give themselves a better start, knowing the judge isn't paying attention? This isn't fair on anyone trying to get that NR legitimately, and supports Dan's "absolutely silly" conclusion. Why bother following any of the rules if my judge isn't paying 100% attention?



That can still happen if they aren't being filmed. Isn't this an issue with making sure the WCA delegate is appointing competent judges rather than depending on a failsafe that only applies of someone happens to be filming the solve?


----------



## Ollie (Jun 27, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> That can still happen if they aren't being filmed. Isn't this an issue with making sure the WCA delegate is appointing competent judges rather than depending on a failsafe that only applies of someone happens to be filming the solve?



The delegate doesn't 'appoint' judges. Judges are mostly volunteers and competitions rely on them. Some are more experienced than others, some require training but everyone is capable of making mistakes. 

Why throw out a perfectly good method of detecting infractions, just because judges can mistakes and/or people can break regulations when no-one is filming them?


----------



## kinch2002 (Jun 27, 2014)

Proposal 1

All official solves must be filmed with a high quality camera, from an unobscured viewpoint.
All judges must have undergone a full training program and gained a judging qualification. Same for scramblers.

Sounds good right?

Oops, forgot to add that competitors have to pay $200 per competition to pay for the officials, their training, the cameras etc.
And we'll have to halve the number of events as well because of the extra hassle of each solve.

Proposal 2

Leave everything as is, apart from that video evidence is not allowed in any way

Yay now we don't need to worry about uploading videos to youtube.

Owait, as long as the judge doesn't notice or decide to act at that moment in time, I can get away with anything including that time the judge was distracted for a second and I put the scrambled cube in my pocket and got a solved cube out. 10 people were filming and another 20 were watching but that doesn't matter, I can keep my world record.

Proposal 3

We have regulations. Let's follow them to the best of our ability, whilst keeping competitions fun at the same time.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 27, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> Proposal 1
> 
> All official solves must be filmed with a high quality camera, from an unobscured viewpoint.
> All judges must have undergone a full training program and gained a judging qualification. Same for scramblers.
> ...



Doesn't need to be high quality cameras. Everyone has a smart phone these days. If you are gonna be going for a NR/CR/WR, there could be an additional requirement that you need to have someone filming your solve with a reasonable quality camera.

As for judges, There's more than can be done to ensure the judges understand their role. There's video from a US comp in another thread where the BLD judge is playing on their cell phone during a BLD solve and not using a paper to cover the solve. This is clearly a lack of understanding by the judge at a very fundamental level.



kinch2002 said:


> Proposal 2
> 
> Leave everything as is, apart from that video evidence is not allowed in any way
> 
> ...



Again, any decent judge would catch something that is this egregious. 



kinch2002 said:


> Proposal 3
> 
> We have regulations. Let's follow them to the best of our ability, whilst keeping competitions fun at the same time.



Sounds like this is the answer that most people are satisfied with. At least there's discussion going on though.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 27, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> Doesn't need to be high quality cameras. Everyone has a smart phone these days. If you are gonna be going for a NR/CR/WR, there could be an additional requirement that you need to have someone filming your solve with a reasonable quality camera.



This would be unfair for people going for these records as the conditions are not equal.


----------



## brian724080 (Jun 27, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> Proposal 1
> 
> All official solves must be filmed with a high quality camera, from an unobscured viewpoint.
> All judges must have undergone a full training program and gained a judging qualification. Same for scramblers.
> ...



Assuming this applies not only to the inspection period, but also to the solve, what will you do if competitor choose not to solve on top of the table?


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 27, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> This would be unfair for people going for these records as the conditions are not equal.



You mean not equal to other competitors who aren't going for records? yeah, that's true, but that's not really an issue considering people aren't really looking at video evidence to overturn a 30 second 3x3 solver.


----------



## kinch2002 (Jun 27, 2014)

brian724080 said:


> Assuming this applies not only to the inspection period, but also to the solve, what will you do if competitor choose not to solve on top of the table?


It was not a serious proposal. Just one that was trying to make a point of how it would not be a good idea, which you have furthered with your point 



DeeDubb said:


> You mean not equal to other competitors who aren't going for records? yeah, that's true, but that's not really an issue considering people aren't really looking at video evidence to overturn a 30 second 3x3 solver.


But wasn't one of your original points about it being unfair that some solves are subject to more scrutiny than others? You seem to be going against your own point by saying that we only need to scrutinise a subset of the solves.

Define 'Going for NR/CR/WR'. You can get records without trying for them. Especially in more luck-based events.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 27, 2014)

My points:


The issue that should have come out of Kunaal's Square-1 solve is that the rules on misalignments for Square-1 are incredibly unclear in the regs. We allow up to 45 degrees in the solved state, but does this also apply to misalignments in inspection?
If someone breaks the regulations or is falsely accused of breaking the regulations, we want to get it right. Letting someone get away with a regulations infraction is not fair to other competitors.
Video recording devices are not as accessible as we'd like them to be everywhere in the world. As our community continues to grow into new regions, requiring video cameras would impose significant costs on future organizers/delegates. Video recording every solve might be possible (though not practical) in the USA, but not in many other countries.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 27, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> My points:
> 
> 
> The issue that should have come out of Kunaal's Square-1 solve is that the rules on misalignments for Square-1 are incredibly unclear in the regs. We allow up to 45 degrees in the solved state, but does this also apply to misalignments in inspection?



I agree with you on all points, Kit. But especially this one. I hope you guys are working on it? I think misalignment in inspection needs clarifying somewhat for all puzzles, not just Square-1. As is, I'm not sure I would know how to rule on some scenarios where the puzzle turns a little during inspection.


----------



## kunparekh18 (Jun 27, 2014)

Mike Hughey said:


> I agree with you on all points, Kit. But especially this one. I hope you guys are working on it? I think misalignment in inspection needs clarifying somewhat for all puzzles, not just Square-1. As is, I'm not sure I would know how to rule on some scenarios where the puzzle turns a little during inspection.



Even I want to know what permissible limits for inspection misalignments should be.

On topic, Kit's second point is true, 
using video evidence for rectifying judging / solving mistakes is right.


----------



## Bhargav777 (Jun 27, 2014)

In my opinion, we could possibly have something like this. 
<45 degree rule applies to all puzzles not only after solving but also during inspection. 
Wait a minute, what if someone takes undue advantage of it and makes turns during inspection? 
We could bring in the OH rule here. While solving one handed, the competitor is not allowed to take support of any of his body parts. Although, if the delegate confirms that the cube fell over the competitor 's body unintentionally, the solve need not be disqualified. 
So if the move is unintentional and the judge /delegate confirms it was, the solve need not be disqualified.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 27, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> You mean not equal to other competitors who aren't going for records? yeah, that's true, but that's not really an issue considering people aren't really looking at video evidence to overturn a 30 second 3x3 solver.



The issue of conditions being unfair is very much an issue.


----------



## Noahaha (Jun 27, 2014)

The only thing that bothers me is when people decide not to post videos when they think a solve might be disqualified. I know that there's no way to make these people turn in their "evidence" but it's a little bit of an uncomfortable situation.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 27, 2014)

I know an issue was created for this, but I was surprised to see that no proposed change was made. Here is my proposal, which does not necessarily represent the current regulations or how we may go in the future.

https://github.com/KitClement/wca-documents/compare/KitClement:official...sq1-inspection?expand=1 (EDIT: updated link)

If I had to interpret the regulations as they are currently, then I would say 45 degrees is permissible for realigning the faces. Here are the regulations I would cite:

A3c1) The competitor must not apply moves during inspection. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).
A3c2) If the parts of the puzzle are not fully aligned, then the competitor may align the faces, as long as misalignments stay within the limits of Regulation 10f.
10f) Limits of acceptable misalignment for puzzles:
10f4) Square-1: at most 45 degrees (U/D) or 90 degrees (/).

By A3c2, Square-1 may be aligned up to 45 degrees if the puzzle comes in a state where "/" moves cannot be performed. You could argue that this realigning can only be done when "parts of the puzzle are not fully aligned," and from the video, it appears that Kunaal's square-1 came fully aligned. However, this is subjective, as in reality, every puzzle is going to be at least marginally misaligned. Thus, I would believe any turn under 45 degrees in inspection is actually valid by the current regulations.

Of course, the board can make rulings that supersede the regulations. Currently, the regulations do not make sense with regards to misalignments of square-1 in inspection, so a board ruling would make sense here. Again, I state this not as an official ruling or statement, but just my own judgment of the regulations.

EDIT:

To Mike: As for misalignments for other puzzles, I believe any unintentional misalignment during inspection within 10f can be interpreted similarly. Thus, if a competitor happens to turn a 3x3 30 degrees and realigns it, that should be fine.


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 27, 2014)

Here is the one problem I have with video being used, and this one really annoys me.

The way it appears to me, a regular WCA competitor who has no access to delegate/board discussions, is that once the decision was made to set Kunaal's solve as a DNF, the board had no intention of considering any counterarguments. Several people, including myself, made posts in the Kunaal thread arguing that the misalignment he did during inspection is not a DNF based on the regulations. I believe I made my initial post a full month ago. The last post made in that thread was 3 weeks ago. The board has had plenty of time to consider our arguments. But no reply ever came, not to agree with us and remove the DNF penalty, not to give an explanation why our arguments were not valid based on the current regulations, and not even to let us know that they were considering our arguments. The fact that neither reply came after this much time makes it appear (note I am not saying it is the case, but appearances are important) that the board intended to let the case simply be forgotten with time, as people would get tired of arguing about it eventually.

The board can overturn stuff based on video if they want, but they'd better listen to specific arguments based on the regulations as to why their decision might not be the right one. I don't want to have to think of the board as a dictatorship that will decide to do whatever they please without acknowledging sound arguments against them, but the Kunaal incident has, to this point, strengthened that impression.

Until I see that the board will listen to appeals by seeing a response from them regarding Kunaal's incident, I will remain against the use of video. (and will certainly never have my own square-1 solves filmed and uploaded if something as stupid as an accidental 30-degree misalignment causes an automatic DNF)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 27, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> To Mike: As for misalignments for other puzzles, I believe any unintentional misalignment during inspection within 10f can be interpreted similarly. Thus, if a competitor happens to turn a 3x3 30 degrees *and realigns it*, that should be fine.



Here's where I get a little confused. Does the competitor have to realign it? As I read A3c2, there's an implication (which I'm not sure is clear enough, but it is implied) that the puzzle must be closer to correctly aligned after the adjustment than it was before the adjustment. So if a 3x3x3 were 30 degrees off and you realign it to make it 5 degrees off, that would clearly meet the regulation. But what if, for instance, the 3x3x3 was 5 degrees off, and you made it 10 degrees off? I actually see A3c2 as implying (but not very clearly stating) that this would not be acceptable - it's not aligning the faces; it's misaligning the faces ("the competitor may align the faces"). And one could see where making such an adjustment might actually help - it could make it easier to corner-cut, for instance. So perhaps such a silly example is actually important? (But I hope not, because I think watching for a 5 degree misalignment is essentially impossible to ask of judges.) Ability to corner-cut really can make a mess of these regulations if we want to protect against people taking advantage of misalignments.

To give an example (fortunately, I've never seen this in competition yet), if you as a delegate saw some competitor who always made a slight turn (just a few degrees) on their 3x3x3 during inspection to match the first turn they're going to make in the solve, would that constitute sufficient grounds for DNF? And if so, on what basis? Because of what I mentioned above with A3c2? I'm afraid this could get quite ugly for judges.

(I have a feeling Ron would say I'm just making this more complicated than it needs to be. Perhaps I am; if so, I'm sorry.)


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 27, 2014)

Mike Hughey said:


> Here's where I get a little confused. Does the competitor have to realign it? As I read A3c2, there's an implication (which I'm not sure is clear enough, but it is implied) that the puzzle must be closer to correctly aligned after the adjustment than it was before the adjustment. So if a 3x3x3 were 30 degrees off and you realign it to make it 5 degrees off, that would clearly meet the regulation. But what if, for instance, the 3x3x3 was 5 degrees off, and you made it 10 degrees off? I actually see A3c2 as implying (but not very clearly stating) that this would not be acceptable - it's not aligning the faces; it's misaligning the faces ("the competitor may align the faces"). And one could see where making such an adjustment might actually help - it could make it easier to corner-cut, for instance. So perhaps such a silly example is actually important? (But I hope not, because I think watching for a 5 degree misalignment is essentially impossible to ask of judges.) Ability to corner-cut really can make a mess of these regulations if we want to protect against people taking advantage of misalignments.
> 
> To give an example (fortunately, I've never seen this in competition yet), if you as a delegate saw some competitor who always made a slight turn (just a few degrees) on their 3x3x3 during inspection to match the first turn they're going to make in the solve, would that constitute sufficient grounds for DNF? And if so, on what basis? Because of what I mentioned above with A3c2? I'm afraid this could get quite ugly for judges.
> 
> (I have a feeling Ron would say I'm just making this more complicated than it needs to be. Perhaps I am; if so, I'm sorry.)



You would be right in saying that this isn't really covered by the regulations -- and it probably should be. In reality, this probably happens more often than we notice, with competitors just barely misaligning faces more than what they were originally. I think the main thing to watch for is intentionally misaligning faces in order to make the first move a smaller turn, which would be up to the judge's discretion. This isn't covered by the regulations, and in reality, competitors don't have much to gain from this slight misalignment. However, I don't think it would hurt to add a regulation to allow judges to award DNFs to competitors for intentionally misaligning the puzzle in a way that's advantageous for the competitor.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Jun 27, 2014)

to be honest, i don't think that this thread makes much sense. some of the arguments i have read seem to assume that everyone who takes a personal video is _obligated _ to put it on the internet. it is not unfair to make use of evidence that someone willingly made available. 

example: in the first round of my last competition, my hand slipped during inspection of a solve causing one face to make a full turn. i dropped the cube and didn't know which face i had turned. the judge said nothing so i just continued on as if nothing had happened. this entire thing was caught on video, but i decided not to upload it to youtube because of this. now it isn't like i was too concerned about the result being changed seeing as it is not even close to a record solve, but i simply didnt want to deal with any sort of social ramifications. that video is my personal property, and i can do with it what i wish, and if i happen to make a poor decision, i should face the consequences for it.


----------



## Ranzha (Jun 27, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> By A3c2, Square-1 may be aligned up to 45 degrees if the puzzle comes in a state where "/" moves cannot be performed. You could argue that this realigning can only be done when "parts of the puzzle are not fully aligned," and from the video, it appears that Kunaal's square-1 came fully aligned. However, this is subjective, as in reality, every puzzle is going to be at least marginally misaligned. Thus, I would believe any turn under 45 degrees in inspection is actually valid by the current regulations.



Scrambles for Square-1 to my knowledge leave the puzzle in a sliceable state. After checking 100 scrambles generated by TNoodle, this appears to be the case.

Of course we could get into discussion of making sure the puzzle doesn't misalign between the scrambling table and the start of the inspection phase, but that's a whole other issue.

On-topic: Having video evidence has allowed for regulation-abiding calls to be made. It serves a good purpose and allows discussions about the regulations to take place where things may be fishy. However, considering Justin's point and the logistical complexity of running one camera per station at all times, I feel that we cannot possibly cover as many bases as we would like. I do, however, like the idea of a judge instructional course requirement. It could be like a WCA-given certification after taking a comprehensive test on judging procedure. I'd be willing to assist with making such a test.


EDIT:


Ross The Boss said:


> i should face the consequences for it.


Intentional pun?


----------



## Ninja Storm (Jun 27, 2014)

Personally, I wouldn't mind video evidence to be used by the WCA.

However, I'd much rather have consistency with this topic. 

At Harvard Spring 2012, I accidentally reset the timer before the judge wrote down my time. I had video evidence of my times, but the judge refused to watch the video and write my time down.

I DNF'd both attempts(which may or may not have solidified my standings into the 2nd round of 3x3, another mistake at the competition.) 

Either use all video evidence to support or hinder solves, or use none. Don't cherry pick whenever it's relevant to records.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 27, 2014)

Ninja Storm said:


> Personally, I wouldn't mind video evidence to be used by the WCA.
> 
> However, I'd much rather have consistency with this topic.
> 
> ...



A6f) The competitor must not reset the timer until the judge has recorded the result on the score sheet. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF), at the discretion of the judge.
11f) Decisions about an incident may be supported with video or photographic analysis, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.

The judge's discretion is used on awarding DNFs on a competitor resetting the timer, and the judge cannot look at video without delegate approval. The discretion a judge/delegate has in these situations may not be the same for all reset situations, but the regulations don't require it to be consistent. And that's a good thing, because each incident is different.



Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Scrambles for Square-1 to my knowledge leave the puzzle in a sliceable state. After checking 100 scrambles generated by TNoodle, this appears to be the case.
> 
> Of course we could get into discussion of making sure the puzzle doesn't misalign between the scrambling table and the start of the inspection phase, but that's a whole other issue.



Yeah, scrambles for Sq1 are always in a sliceable state. I was more concerned about Kunaal's Sq1 being misaligned during the transfer.


----------



## MWilson (Jun 27, 2014)

WCA record keeping is a global scale attempt to create a database representing real life events. In this case, those events are the speeds at which individuals have solved various puzzles. All WCA regulations are set toward getting accurate measurements of these times.

It is possible for a video to suggest an inaccuracy in the record keeping, but not be conclusive, hence:


> 11f) Decisions about an incident may be supported with video or photographic analysis, *at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.*



However, if video evidence of inaccurate record keeping is blindly ignored even when _conclusive_, and is not used to modify the record to be more accurate, then the WCA is no longer making use of all available means to record an accurate representation of what has occurred in real life events. This would cause the WCA to no longer serve a purpose in terms of record keeping.

Unlike major sports organizations, the WCA does not have to balance accurate record keeping with political and business interests totaling in the billions of dollars. Neither do they need to worry about career destroying media backlash, or losing their multi-million dollar holiday bonus because they made a player look bad who happened to be commercially endorsing a product of a major sponsor. Comparing the record keeping and regulations of the WCA to these comparatively gargantuan organizations is pointless, as their decisions are fueled by far more than just fair play.

The WCA is in a position where they can focus on accurate record keeping, and should certainly take advantage of that by using _conclusive_ video evidence to maintain as accurate record of real life events as possible. Without doing so, they nullify one of their major purposes for existing at all.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 27, 2014)

Dominate said:


> WCA record keeping is a global scale attempt to create a database representing real life events. In this case, those events are the speeds at which individuals have solved various puzzles. All WCA regulations are set toward getting accurate measurements of these times.
> 
> It is possible for a video to suggest an inaccuracy in the record keeping, but not be conclusive, hence:
> 
> ...



I assume you're responding to Keaton's incident. I don't know the specifics of his incident and therefore don't want to speak about that result. But in any similar incident, if the judge did not receive time to write down the time from the timer, then the regulations say the judge has the discretion to give a DNF. If the judge does award that DNF (and the delegate agrees), then that is the accurate result for the solve, because that's what the regulations say. Why would we do this rather than try to get the accurate result?

- It's entirely preventable by the competitor, and not the fault of the judge or any other outside party. While likely due to a mental lapse, ignorance isn't an excuse either, as competitors are required to know the regulations.
- It takes a decent amount of the delegate's time to go through video to correct this result, and depending on how the competition is going, the delegate might not have time to look over video evidence.
- Letting the result go through doesn't reinforce the proper procedure, which may lead the competitor to accidentally do this again and potentially waste more time.

There are many different reasons for different regulations, and ensuring the most accurate times are recorded is not the only one.


----------



## MWilson (Jun 27, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> I assume you're responding to Keaton's incident. I don't know the specifics of his incident and therefore don't want to speak about that result. But in any similar incident, if the judge did not receive time to write down the time from the timer, then the regulations say the judge has the discretion to give a DNF. If the judge does award that DNF (and the delegate agrees), then that is the accurate result for the solve, because that's what the regulations say. Why would we do this rather than try to get the accurate result?
> 
> - It's entirely preventable by the competitor, and not the fault of the judge or any other outside party. While likely due to a mental lapse, ignorance isn't an excuse either, as competitors are required to know the regulations.
> - It takes a decent amount of the delegate's time to go through video to correct this result, and depending on how the competition is going, the delegate might not have time to look over video evidence.
> ...



I was responding in general to the topic of whether or not to use video evidence at all. That said, I don't think I should ignore your points, as they do indirectly address mine.

I am aware that the WCA cannot ensure perfectly accurate records. I was suggesting that all regulations are attempts toward the most accurate records possible.

Of course, these are not records of results from a machine simulation. These records are of something influenced greatly by human behavior, and therefore there will always be errors both in the records, and in the methods of obtaining them. This means regulations made toward the highest degree of accuracy possible must balance between the logical behavior of the puzzle, the scrambling process, and the timer, as well as the biological and psychological behavior of the judges and competitors.

Examples of regulations based on the logical behavior of the puzzle, the scrambling process, and the timer:


> 3h) Modifications that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle are not permitted. Modified versions of puzzles are permitted only if the modification does not make any additional information available to the competitor (e.g. orientation or identity of pieces), compared to an unmodified version of the same puzzle.
> 4b) Puzzles must be scrambled using computer-generated random scramble sequences.
> 10b) Only the resting state of the puzzle, after the timer has been stopped, is considered.



Examples of regulations based on the biological and psychological behavior of the judges and competitors:



> 2g) Competitors must remain quiet when inside the designated competition area. Talking is permitted, but must be kept at a reasonable level, and away from competitors who are actively competing.
> 2i1) Competitors may use certain non-electronic aids that do not give the competitor an unfair advantage, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate. This includes:
> --- 2i1a) Medical/physical aids worn by the competitor (etc. glasses, wrist brace, hearing aids).
> A6f) The competitor must not reset the timer until the judge has recorded the result on the score sheet. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF), at the discretion of the judge.



I include A6f, because when I make the point that the WCA database exists only to keep records of real life events, and suggest that all regulations must be toward the accuracy of that database, it was not meant to be a mechanical thought as if about a computer simulation. I am still considering the fact that the competitors and judges are human. I feel that I am including your three points, in that judges are more likely to make a mistake the more rushed and stressed they are. The competitors should definitely be aware of the regulations before competing, including those regulations that are in place to ensure that the judges are not distracted by unnecessary responsibilities or unreasonable time constraints.



> - It's entirely preventable by the competitor, and not the fault of the judge or any other outside party. While likely due to a mental lapse, ignorance isn't an excuse either, as competitors are required to know the regulations.


I agree with the approach of the competitor also being responsible for ensuring accurate recording, because ...



> - It takes a decent amount of the delegate's time to go through video to correct this result, and depending on how the competition is going, the delegate might not have time to look over video evidence.
> - Letting the result go through doesn't reinforce the proper procedure, which may lead the competitor to accidentally do this again and potentially waste more time.


... a smooth, low stress system of record collection is crucial to it's accuracy when such a large degree of human behavior is involved. The competitor must play their part in the data collection being smooth and accurate. A mistake by the competitor should affect the accuracy of their own times, rather than delay future events and exhaust or distract judges, possibly affecting the accuracy of other competitors soon after.

I actually don't have any complaints about the current regulations myself. I'm just saying that I believe video evidence, when both conclusive and used under discretion, is in the interests of the WCA database regardless of potential debatable "unfairness" to competitors.


----------



## Sa967St (Jun 27, 2014)

Ninja Storm said:


> At Harvard Spring *2012*, I accidentally reset the timer before the judge wrote down my time. I had video evidence of my times, but the judge refused to watch the video and write my time down.
> 
> I DNF'd both attempts(which may or may not have solidified my standings into the 2nd round of 3x3, another mistake at the competition.)
> 
> Either use all video evidence to support or hinder solves, or use none. Don't cherry pick whenever it's relevant to records.



From 2010 until 2012, Article 11f was: 


> 11f) The main judge, organisation team and WCA delegate must not support their decisions with video or photograph analysis.



It wasn't until the beginning of 2013 that it was changed to the current version: 


> 11f) Decisions about an incident may be supported with video or photographic analysis, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 27, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> But wasn't one of your original points about it being unfair that some solves are subject to more scrutiny than others? You seem to be going against your own point by saying that we only need to scrutinise a subset of the solves.
> 
> Define 'Going for NR/CR/WR'. You can get records without trying for them. Especially in more luck-based events.



Yes, one of my original points was exactly that. I'm reevaluating and modifying my point somewhat, because the main arguments for/against video apply mostly to how it's impossible to film EVERYONE, which I concede, and that video evidence is most important for ensuring legitimacy of record solves. That's why I propose that every record solve must be submitted with video as well. This would also solve the dilemma that was presented with the 4 second solve from Mexico last year. Sorry, no video, no record.

As for defining "going for a record", if you want a chance at a record, you better film your solves is basically it. I wouldn't need to because I know currently it's quite impossible for me to get anything close to any record in any event, and if I did get a record, it would be so fluky that it's not even worth me having. That being said, I'll still film my solves probably, just for fun.



Ross The Boss said:


> to be honest, i don't think that this thread makes much sense. some of the arguments i have read seem to assume that everyone who takes a personal video is _obligated _ to put it on the internet. it is not unfair to make use of evidence that someone willingly made available.
> 
> example: in the first round of my last competition, my hand slipped during inspection of a solve causing one face to make a full turn. i dropped the cube and didn't know which face i had turned. the judge said nothing so i just continued on as if nothing had happened. this entire thing was caught on video, but i decided not to upload it to youtube because of this. now it isn't like i was too concerned about the result being changed seeing as it is not even close to a record solve, but i simply didnt want to deal with any sort of social ramifications. that video is my personal property, and i can do with it what i wish, and if i happen to make a poor decision, i should face the consequences for it.



This was addressed in my opening post, that my concern was people would be afraid to post their official solves out of fear of being retroactively punished. This hurts the community as a whole when people aren't spreading solves.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 27, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> That's why I propose that every record solve must be submitted with video as well.



Do you think that this doesn't come with more problems (?) , because there are a whole host of them.


----------



## cubizh (Jun 27, 2014)

I personally think people should be more concerned in having a sportsmanlike behaviour when competing and just DNFing a result if they make an error (regardless if the judge sees or not), and politely accept a ruling if it is seen (now or later) that there was a mistake, and less scanning videos to see if it's safe to upload or not, or worried if they get filmed or not.

In this regard, I don't think anything should change.


DeeDubb said:


> That's why I propose that every record solve must be submitted with video as well. This would also solve the dilemma that was presented with the 4 second solve from Mexico last year. Sorry, no video, no record.


I can only assume you are joking. If not, maybe you should reread what you typed and ponder on it.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 27, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> Do you think that this doesn't come with more problems (?) , because there are a whole host of them.



I think it has problems that are outweighed by the benefits. I'd like to hear the problems you foresee, because maybe I missed some.

These are the possible Pros and Cons that I see

Pros:
Eventually when every record is broken, all record holders would be held to the same standards of judging
Every record solve is available on the internet for all to enjoy

Cons:
Technical difficulties could mean someone doesn't get a record - _legit concern_
Gray area in the quality level of video - _Anyone with a modern smart phone has a good enough camera_
If you have a bad camera man who can't hold you in frame during your solve, that could cost you. - _Make sure your camera man knows how to film you_
I suppose longer events such as MBLD could be annoying - _also legit concern. MBLD could have separate rules or not be subject to this altogether_
People should film FMC? That's stupid - _You're right, no reason for FMC to be subject to the video rule._

I'll ask you, what percent of current records are NOT on film, especially WR? I think the vast majority were filmed.




cubizh said:


> I can only assume you are joking. If not, maybe you should reread what you typed and ponder on it.



Not joking at all. I've thought about everything I wrote. Why don't you tell me what you find wrong with what I said, and then we can have a discussion about it.

If his solve had been on video, it would have been obvious that he was cheating instead of having to go through the process that the WCA went through. If someone covered their tracks a little better, they could have a cheated record not on video and the WCA would have no way to disprove it without video.


----------



## rowan (Jun 27, 2014)

Your second pro is very bizarre, a lot of cubers are not solving for others and they do not have to provide enjoyment for other cubers. This should not be considered a positive aspect of your proposal.

Also, you are (essentially) adding a financial requirement, people now have to own a camera or a smartphone or have access to one. Not everyone owns one of these things and shouldn't be required to. There are a multitude of reasons that cubers may not want to be filmed (pressure, personal preference, etc) and all of those are valid. There are so many issues with what you are proposing here that I don't think have been considered. I am sure others could think of endless reasons that requiring a video would be problematic.

You keep changing what you want required to help fix the initial problem you cited, too. First you said that videos shouldn't be used to overturn official records and now they should be required for them? I understand that what happened that inspired this thread needs to be addressed but I think (as others have pointed out) that is more of an issue with the puzzle regulations than with video evidence.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 28, 2014)

rowan said:


> *You keep changing what you want required to help fix the initial problem you cited, too*. First you said that videos shouldn't be used to overturn official records and now they should be required for them? I understand that what happened that inspired this thread needs to be addressed but I think (as others have pointed out) that is more of an issue with the puzzle regulations than with video evidence.



I think video shouldn't be used to determine the validity of a record unless it can be used to determine the validity of all records. My original point was that because it can't be used for everyone, it shouldn't be used for anyone, out of fairness. The debate then went towards concern about record holders, and the cheating that can only be caught on video. This is a pretty strong counterargument to my original point. So, I think, why not just focus on record holders instead of negating video because it's impractical to film every single person.

I can't think of a single person who is near record level who wouldn't have someone at an organized event willing to film them. The equipment required to organize an event is also costly, but still required. The idea that it's possible for someone who is at NR/CR/WR level would not have access to someone willing to film them doesn't seem like a feasible hypothetical situation to me. 

As for the nerves aspect, people are nervous solving at a competition, but the WCA still requires that, because it helps fairness. If someone cannot perform under the pressure of a WCA event, we would say "I'm sorry, but that's just how we have to do things." If the camera were required, people would understand going in that it's part of the pressure, and they would just have to cope.

Alex asks that his films not be solved, and that's reasonable because filming solves is not required. He can't ask the judge to turn around while he solves so he can do it with less pressure, because the rules require the judge to be watching. If the rules required film, then Alex would have to deal with it.


----------



## Ollie (Jun 28, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> I think video shouldn't be used to determine the validity of a record unless it can be used to determine the validity of all records. My original point was that because it can't be used for everyone, it shouldn't be used for anyone, out of fairness. The debate then went towards concern about record holders, and the cheating that can only be caught on video. This is a pretty strong counterargument to my original point. So, I think, why not just focus on record holders instead of negating video because it's impractical to film every single person.
> 
> I can't think of a single person who is near record level who wouldn't have someone at an organized event willing to film them. The equipment required to organize an event is also costly, but still required. The idea that it's possible for someone who is at NR/CR/WR level would not have access to someone willing to film them doesn't seem like a feasible hypothetical situation to me.
> 
> ...



So, my 4BLD record wasn't filmed, but Dan (a delegate with years of competition experience) judged it. A number of people also witnessed it. Similarly, Marcell's 5BLD WR was done off camera at the World Championships. What happens to our WRs? Or if similar situations happen again?

If unexpected WRs occur where the competitor did not anticipate performing very well or getting lucky scrambles, should they be punished?

What if camera malfunctions occur? What if a camera runs out of memory because it was used to film a faster person who didn't perform as well on the day?


----------



## kinch2002 (Jun 28, 2014)

What happens if I set a record but it isn't filmed? I get a DNF?

Who is going to film all 60 solves in the 2x2 final?

How annoyed will the organizers/delegate be when so many solves are preceded by a minute of the competitor trying to find someone to film?

How annoyed will people who just want to watch be when they are constantly being asked to film?

Who is going to scramble and judge the events at the end of the day when most people have left and everyone else is competing or filming?

What if a record is set but the camera ran out of battery/memory?

What if someone walks in front of the camera during the solve?


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 28, 2014)

Ollie said:


> So, my 4BLD record wasn't filmed, but Dan (a delegate with years of competition experience) judged it. A number of people also witnessed it. Similarly, Marcell's 5BLD WR was done off camera at the World Championships. What happens to our WRs? Or if similar situations happen again?
> 
> If unexpected WRs occur where the competitor did not anticipate performing very well or getting lucky scrambles, should they be punished?
> 
> What if camera malfunctions occur? What if a camera runs out of memory because it was used to film a faster person who didn't perform as well on the day?



Obviously, previous records would stand, because they were not subject to the rule. Future records would need to be filmed, because everyone would understand the rules.

What event could have a record by someone who isn't anticipating the possibility of getting a record? Maybe lucky Skewb, Pyra, or 2x2 singles? All of those were caught on camera even without it being a requirement.

Camera malfunctions was something I addressed as a legit concern earlier, that would be unfortunate, and the only really legit con that I could think of. Camera memory isn't much of an issue IMO. There's lots of people at these events with lots of cell phones, so I don't see how there could be a situation where a solve would not be able to be filmed.


----------



## kunparekh18 (Jun 28, 2014)

uberCuber said:


> Here is the one problem I have with video being used, and this one really annoys me.
> 
> The way it appears to me, a regular WCA competitor who has no access to delegate/board discussions, is that once the decision was made to set Kunaal's solve as a DNF, the board had no intention of considering any counterarguments. Several people, including myself, made posts in the Kunaal thread arguing that the misalignment he did during inspection is not a DNF based on the regulations. I believe I made my initial post a full month ago. The last post made in that thread was 3 weeks ago. The board has had plenty of time to consider our arguments. But no reply ever came, not to agree with us and remove the DNF penalty, not to give an explanation why our arguments were not valid based on the current regulations, and not even to let us know that they were considering our arguments. The fact that neither reply came after this much time makes it appear (note I am not saying it is the case, but appearances are important) that the board intended to let the case simply be forgotten with time, as people would get tired of arguing about it eventually.
> 
> ...



I totally agree, no word from the Board about it at all.



> Kit:
> 
> Thus, I would believe any turn under 45 degrees in inspection is actually valid by the current regulations.
> 
> Of course, the board can make rulings that supersede the regulations. Currently, the regulations do not make sense with regards to misalignments of square-1 in inspection, so a board ruling would make sense here. Again, I state this not as an official ruling or statement, but just my own judgment of the regulations.



So that means that by your understanding of the regulations, it shouldn't be DNF, right?

Many people on the Indian Speedcubing page told that they would stop recording/uploading their solves, fearing getting a DNF.

This incident reduces the chances of getting quality and/or lucky solves on video which would be a treat to watch.

Videotaping all solves is impossible, and it shouldn't even be considered.

Even if all the solves were to be filmed, would the delegate have enough time to check each and every solve for mistakes? The very thought makes me laugh out loud 

In the end, video evidence should be used to overturn solves, but then as Noah said, there is the situation where the competitor knows he/she did a mistake, has it on video, yet refuses to upload it so that it he/she doesn't get caught.


----------



## Ranzha (Jun 28, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> What event could have a record by someone who isn't anticipating the possibility of getting a record? Maybe lucky Skewb, Pyra, or 2x2 singles? All of those were caught on camera even without it being a requirement.



I didn't know Riley was filming my Skewb solve. In fact, I have been known to perform much worse (see: BASC 3 Flagj 2014 Skewb Round 1) when I try recording myself because sometimes I can't shake the pressure of the camera during solves. Therefore, it is a legitimate concern that competitors who don't want that pressure should be able to have it, especially when filming would not be required for every solve in the database.

Let me get this straight, DeeDubb. You argue:
1) All record-breaking attempts should be submitted with film evidence with penalty of DNF.
2) Competitors who do not set records with their attempts are not required to have their solves filmed.


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 28, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> What event could have a record by someone who isn't anticipating the possibility of getting a record? Maybe lucky Skewb, Pyra, or 2x2 singles? All of those were caught on camera even without it being a requirement.



The 7.41 Square-1 single by Andrea Santambrogio was not recorded. He is not even sub-20 and therefore had absolutely no reason to expect a WR as a possibility.


So are you arguing, then, that if I were to go to a competition with 6x6 right now and get a 1:40.87 single not on camera, there would be no problems at all, solve would be accepted. But if I got a 1:40.86 single not on camera, it couldn't be considered a legitimate tied WR and would have to be DNF'd? Being 0.01 seconds _faster_ is a cause of penalty?


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 28, 2014)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Let me get this straight, DeeDubb. You argue:
> 1) All record-breaking attempts should be submitted with film evidence with penalty of DNF.
> 2) Competitors who do not set records with their attempts are not required to have their solves filmed.




My proposal would at least set record-setting solves to the same standard. My main point is that people should be on an equal playing field when it comes to how they are judged.

In the end, the whole argument revolves around the key points of what is more important in the eyes of the community:

A. Judge every solve as accurately as possible. This means using video when/if it's available.
Drawbacks: 
- Possible punishment for sharing your videos publicly
- Judging those who are filmed by a different set of standards than those who are not filmed

B. Judge every solver as equally as possible, and since people are raising concerns about filming everyone or even filming only record solves, this would lead to not allowing ANY video to be used.
Main Drawback: 
- No recourse against cheaters
- More inaccurate records than if we can use video to make corrections later

It seems I'm in the minority in siding with B. Most people here are happy with A, and if that's the consensus, then I'm fine with it too. I see merit on both sides of things.

My proposal was an attempt to find a compromise where it really matters, when records are involved. However, some legit concerns have come up with that proposal, and if the concerns outweigh the benefits, then that idea is not good either. So, I will just say, I stand by my opinion. I don't want people to get away with cheating, but I also think it's not fair that some people are not subject to the same slow motion, rewatchable scrutiny of their solves as other people are, and to me, that outweighs the benefits of catching cheaters.


----------



## Ranzha (Jun 28, 2014)

Here's what makes the option you prefer worth considering:
More accuracy in score-reporting.

Here's why competitors might not prefer that option:
Film pressure for better solvers _exclusively_.
Inaccuracy of score reporting due to cases like the Andrea Santambrogio case.

Here's why organisers might not prefer that option:
More time will need to be allotted to make sure solves are being filmed.
Enforcing the 1.5m rule will get tougher.
Organisers may need to purchase cameras to ensure solves are being filmed, which can get costly.

Here's why parents of young competitors might not prefer that option:
There is no photo release that competitors/spectators or their legal guardians are required to sign in order to allow for the filming of competitors/spectators.


----------



## rybaby (Jun 28, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> What event could have a record by someone who isn't anticipating the possibility of getting a record?



The main event of practically every competition could: 3x3x3 Speedsolve. If you read through Alex Lau's 7.52 ER average thread, you know that nobody is known to have filmed it. Why? Alex doesn't like being filmed (understandable) because of the increased pressure. Under your proposal, would this be a DNF because Alex himself is uncomfortable with a constant film presence? Or should we require that Alex be filmed, knowing he will probably fare worse under that pressure?



DeeDubb said:


> Alex asks that his films not be solved, and that's reasonable because filming solves is not required. He can't ask the judge to turn around while he solves so he can do it with less pressure, because the rules require the judge to be watching. If the rules required film, then Alex would have to deal with it.



Why should we force someone to be filmed under these circumstances? This is not the NBA or NFL, these are Rubik's cube competitions. Should we require giant spotlights so everyone can see the "top contenders" better? Of course not. Saying that Alex would just "have to deal with it" is quite arrogant and not understanding of the pressure he faces even without cameras. Let's keep the WCA competing environment friendly without added pressures, please.


----------



## Dene (Jun 28, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> I can't think of a single person who is near record level who wouldn't have someone at an organized event willing to film them. The equipment required to organize an event is also costly, but still required. The idea that it's possible for someone who is at NR/CR/WR level would not have access to someone willing to film them doesn't seem like a feasible hypothetical situation to me.



Hi, my name's Dene. Nice to meet you.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 28, 2014)

Sa967St said:


> It wasn't until the beginning of 2013 that it was changed to the current version:



lol, thanks for that -- I thought that changed in 2012.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 28, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> Video evidence was recently used to overturn a NR in Square 1 by Kunaal Parekh when he accidently nudged one side during the inspection.



I remember that someone originally stated that the misalignment was (2, 0), which would definitely be a DNF.

After watching the video, I told the Board that the solve appeared fine. The most consistent way to interpret the Regulations for Square-1 is that 45 degrees are allowed. 10f+ is a non-normative explanation, doesn't quite make as much sense for Square-1.

I haven't followed that topic, and I don't know why the result is still DNF. In any case, I've poked the Board about it.



DeeDubb said:


> It's been a few weeks, and I haven't seen anything official from the WCA stating their policy on using video.


The Board has used video to support decisisions for many years. As Sarah states, 11f states that video is fair game.
Originally, video evidence wasn't allowed _at the competition itself_ (only by the Board). Tyson told me that the intention was to protect Delegates from competitors who might make frequent or frivolous requests if they think a video shows a mistake in their favor (when they should be disputing that at the end of the solve).



DeeDubb said:


> So, basically, the argument boils down to: is it more important to treat every cuber as fairly as possible or to get the call right as often as possible?


This is a double-edged sword. If you let a competitor keep an unfair mistake in their favor, this disadvantages those that they were competing against. The most fair thing is to apply the Regulations as consistently as possible given the available information.



uberCuber said:


> But no reply ever came, not to agree with us and remove the DNF penalty, not to give an explanation why our arguments were not valid based on the current regulations, and not even to let us know that they were considering our arguments. The fact that neither reply came after this much time makes it appear (note I am not saying it is the case, but appearances are important) that the board intended to let the case simply be forgotten with time, as people would get tired of arguing about it eventually.



I think you overestimate the deliberateness of their intentions. I get the feeling that they're mostly too busy, and this just didn't get handled.





The proposal to require a video for every NR is not a good idea for several reasons, but the main on is that it is completely impractical – especially in some parts of the world that we need to encourage as much as possible.

However, using video evidence has been very useful, as in the very high-profile 2008 case of cheating. Kunaal didn't do it intentionally, and it was a fairly minor violation (whic, as I've stated, shouldn't be a DNF), but to be fair to everyone the Regulations should be applied when rules are broken, unless there's an especially good case for otherwise. I don't believe this has a signficant chilling effect on people posting videos of their solves.

Requiring competitors to bring their own cameras is unfair and unwieldy. Refusing to acknowledge records just because someone didn't film it is unfair.
After all, this is exactly what the judge is for. We still don't have an answer for what to do if the judge makes a mistake, but this is an important problem.

We've considered trying to get cheap cameras to film every solve at Nationals, but it's not actually that cheap, and it would take organizers too much time to set it up and run it – much less make sure everything is always filming as intended. We have enough trouble with Stackmat timers, and those are core to every speedsolve.



The way I see it, DeeDubb is upset about the handling of Kunaal's case, and trying to offer preposterous proposals to daw attention to it.
I believe that there is no reason to change the WCA's video policy right now. It seems that people who have been more familiar with cases of video evidence also agree with this.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Jun 28, 2014)

Yes. It should. Why shouldn't it? Then everyone can cheat and get away with it with noob 9 year old judges that don't notice anything


----------



## Tim Major (Jun 28, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> I can't think of a single person who is near record level who wouldn't have someone at an organized event willing to film them. The equipment required to organize an event is also costly, but still required. The idea that it's possible for someone who is at NR/CR/WR level would not have access to someone willing to film them doesn't seem like a feasible hypothetical situation to me.



I wish people would be willing to film me, I have to force them, most of my OcR average is missing (and it was 10th in the world at the time, not a really slow CR or anything).

Most of the time, the only people filming CRs or w/e are filming because the person solving organised it. Jay got top 5 or so in the world in 2x2 and probably only his Mum filmed!


----------



## brian724080 (Jun 28, 2014)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> I didn't know Riley was filming my Skewb solve. In fact, I have been known to perform much worse (see: BASC 3 Flagj 2014 Skewb Round 1) when I try recording myself because sometimes I can't shake the pressure of the camera during solves. Therefore, it is a legitimate concern that competitors who don't want that pressure should be able to have it, especially when filming would not be required for every solve in the database.



This is also true for me. I'd be much more nervous about making mistakes knowing that there will always be video footage around.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 29, 2014)

kunparekh18 said:


> Videotaping all solves is impossible, and it shouldn't even be considered.


Several years ago I had an idea about how to videotape all solves at a competition. This was in California, so organizers have more extra money than in some places, but it may still be viable depending on equipment.

Basically the idea is to get a camera of some sort for each timer station (opposite from the competitor). It sounds expensive, but it looks like you can get a pretty good camcorder for ~$200 and a cheap-ass one for under $50, so it's on the order of the cost of stackmat+timer+display. The cameras would be filming whenever someone is solving at that station, so barring equipment malfunction every stackmat solve would be on video. Alternatively, we could equip all active (i.e. judging a current attempt) judges with a GoPro, at about the same cost.

These cameras would be part of the set of equipment an organizer brings to competitions (scoresheets, timers, displays), and thus mostly a fixed cost. However, it could also be a way to make some money at each competition to help offset the cost of the cameras themselves. Once you have all videos, have someone keep track of what person or event is in each one. Then, after the competition, you can charge people for the official videos - maybe something like $5 for access to all of a specific person's solves (mostly this would be for your own solves), or $10 for access to every solve.

A side benefit of this is that parents/friends of competitors would not have to bring a camera and spend time filming just to get a record of the official solves. And of course every WR, CR, and even NR would be on video.

EDIT:


DeeDubb said:


> I can't think of a single person who is near record level who wouldn't have someone at an organized event willing to film them. The equipment required to organize an event is also costly, but still required. The idea that it's possible for someone who is at NR/CR/WR level would not have access to someone willing to film them doesn't seem like a feasible hypothetical situation to me.


I've had four CRs and two WRs (in 4 different events total) and I think only the 7x7x7 stuff was on film (and not with good enough quality to tell what moves I was doing). In fact I can only think of a handful of instances in my competition career where I was filmed without explicitly bringing someone to film me (which I only did once).


----------



## Noahaha (Jun 29, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> I wish people would be willing to film me, I have to force them, most of my OcR average is missing (and it was 10th in the world at the time, not a really slow CR or anything).
> 
> Most of the time, the only people filming CRs or w/e are filming because the person solving organised it. Jay got top 5 or so in the world in 2x2 and probably only his Mum filmed!



I don't know what it's like in other parts of the world, but at the comps I've gone to, the understanding is that everyone arranges for their own solves to be filmed, and it's a little strange if someone films your solves without you knowing.


----------



## BillyRain (Jun 29, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Several years ago I had an idea about how to videotape all solves at a competition. This was in California, so organizers have more extra money than in some places, but it may still be viable depending on equipment.
> 
> Basically the idea is to get a camera of some sort for each timer station (opposite from the competitor). It sounds expensive, but it looks like you can get a pretty good camcorder for ~$200 and a cheap-ass one for under $50, so it's on the order of the cost of stackmat+timer+display. The cameras would be filming whenever someone is solving at that station, so barring equipment malfunction every stackmat solve would be on video. Alternatively, we could equip all active (i.e. judging a current attempt) judges with a GoPro, at about the same cost.
> 
> ...



Coming from an organiser who likes to use technology at his comps more than others, this would be an absolute and epic nightmare.

Keeping track of if the cameras are running and educating new judges to ensure they are working would be chaos. Also, if they are > $50 cameras then the resulting videos would not be of very good quality at all. Also we would have to have them maybe clipped to the stackmat displays so the angle would only show hands/puzzle so it would miss any reactions and what not that people love to see after a good solve. 

Also it's just one more set of equipment to make sure they all have friggin batteries or are all charged in time for when they are needed. Then if one breaks you have the issue that solves completed on that station would not be documented (yes we could have spares but it still doesn't make it any more feasible).

You'd also need to create a system in order to track which solve was who's.. Most judging systems have random competitiors at random stations throughout their averages so it would be a nightmare to collate all of the footage after a comp. Also I really don't think anybody would want to pay money for a bad quality/angled video. 

Yes, in an ideal world we would have cameras on every solving station to film every solve. It would be great, but it's just not practical. Maybe when technology moves on in the future and there are different solutions then it could be doable. But right now, if this regulation were to be bought in in one country, it would have to be enforced in all and I can't see many cubing organisations forking out for ~20 cameras.


----------



## cubizh (Jun 29, 2014)

I think adding surveillance to all solves doesn't really follow the spirit of the WCA, which aims for people from all over the world to have fun together in a friendly atmosphere, help each other and behave sportsmanlike, not to mention the complete infeasability in certain remote parts of the world. See the following table:


Spoiler: All countries with at least one WCA competition



[TABLE="class:grid,align:left] 
[TR][TD] Argentina [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Australia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Austria [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Belarus [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Belgium [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Bosnia and Herzegovina [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Brazil [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Canada [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Chile [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] China [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Colombia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Croatia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Czech Republic [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Denmark [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Dominican Republic [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Estonia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Finland [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] France [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]  Georgia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Germany [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Greece [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Guatemala [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Hong Kong [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Hungary [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Iceland [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] India [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Indonesia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Iran [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Ireland [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Israel [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Italy [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Japan [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Jordan [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Korea [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Latvia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Lithuania [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Macau [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Malaysia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Mexico [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Mongolia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Netherlands [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] New Zealand [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Norway [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Peru [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Philippines [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Poland [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Portugal [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Romania [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Russia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Serbia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Singapore [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Slovakia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Slovenia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] South Africa [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Spain [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Sweden [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Switzerland [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Taiwan [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Thailand [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Turkey [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Ukraine [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] United Arab Emirates [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] United Kingdom [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] USA [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Venezuela [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Vietnam [/TD][/TR]
[/TABLE]


Analysing the places where WCA competitions have taken place (and extrapolating to where more competitions will take place in the future), there are places where the standard of living are many many miles away to what you can have in richer countries in Europe or North America. I'm sure anyone will agree even a simple camera may not be a simple commodity in all of these countries.
In certain places of the world the price for a proper venue alone, added to the price of the necessary equipment to hold a competition *is* a big toll to organizers and delegates and can in certain circumstances prevent them to have more competitions, or in better conditions. Adding cameras to these costs and ensuring everyone has the same conditions of being filmed, with maintenance/handling associated to this fixed costs is something that, to me, seems quite impractical.

Having said that, I think qqwref's idea is interesting. 

A stackmat camera module with a miniSD card that would attach to the competition display with adjustable orientation that would autorecord whenever a button was pushed (like the reset button of the stackmat before a solve) and end a few seconds after the timer was stopped would be interesting to see.

Someone with connections should propose that to speed stacks people for the 4.0 timers/displays.

I can see that as an optional bonus for competitors/organizers/delegates that would get them for their competitions helping people who want to reconstruct their solves and have a close-up of their competition, but it should not have to be mandatory, as it would be an immense work to track everything down properly and an associated extra cost.

Again, sorry for repeating myself, but people should be more concerned in the fairness of their own results and less worried about this. The issue that raised this debate uncovered a flaw in the regulations regarding Square-1, that should be addressed, but I think that's it.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 29, 2014)

This will be my last post in this thread. I want to say thank you to everyone who considered my ideas and gave good counterarguments in a polite manner. It is nice to have open discussions like this without them degenerating. I appreciate it.

My thoughts now after reading what everyone had to say:

This is an issue of fairness vs. accuracy of records. I feel that fairness in judging outweighs the accuracy issues that may come from not using video evidence. However, the community voted, and responded, and they don't feel that way.

I offered two ideas: Either don't allow any video evidence to be used, or require video of every NR/CR/WR solve (because that's where the video support is most important to catch cheaters). Both of these would add an element of fairness (though the second one may be considered unfair, because it only applies to very fast solvers).

The main counterargument to the first idea is that there would be no way to overturn something obvious, such as the BLD record holder who peeked under his blindfold. Without video, you would have no recourse either, and it's not a good system to depend on the possibility of someone filming as a failsafe, so if someone can cheat without video, then they should be able to cheat with video too. Most people disagree with this, and that's where we just have to agree to disagree.

The main counterargument to the second idea is practicality issues. There were legit issues revolving around availability of cameras, legality issues, technical issues, and how to score unfilmed record solves. These are the ones that swayed me the most. I concede that my second idea would not work in the current cubing world. Hopefully it's something that becomes a possibility in the future.

Since my second proposal will not work, I must stick to my first one that no video evidence should be used. The majority of the community disagrees with me, and that's fine. At least it was discussed.

A few final responses to people:



Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Here's why parents of young competitors might not prefer that option:
> There is no photo release that competitors/spectators or their legal guardians are required to sign in order to allow for the filming of competitors/spectators.



This is actually one of the strongest counterarguments I've seen against videoing every solve. I didn't consider this at all. It would be tough to force parents to sign photo releases.




rybaby said:


> Why should we force someone to be filmed under these circumstances? This is not the NBA or NFL, these are Rubik's cube competitions. Should we require giant spotlights so everyone can see the "top contenders" better? Of course not. *Saying that Alex would just "have to deal with it" is quite arrogant and not understanding of the pressure he faces even without cameras.* Let's keep the WCA competing environment friendly without added pressures, please.



I think you misunderstood what I was saying here. I was saying he would just have to deal with the pressure of cameras the same way he already has to deal with the pressure of a judge, the event, and the audience. It would be an additional pressure, but one that would just have to be dealt with in order to reap the benefits of having every record film solved. There are, however, other arguments that I've seen that really show why filming every solve would be quite impractical.



Lucas Garron said:


> The way I see it, DeeDubb is upset about the handling of Kunaal's case, and trying to offer preposterous proposals to daw attention to it.
> I believe that there is no reason to change the WCA's video policy right now. It seems that people who have been more familiar with cases of video evidence also agree with this.



Thanks for the very well thought out post, it helped me a lot. I just want to address the ending here about my motivations for this thread. The Kunaal case didn't upset me. I have no personal relationship with Kunaal, and therefore have no dog in this fight. I simply saw something that I considered to be a fairness issue, and I still do. I presented some ideas that seemed practical to me to hear reasons why they may not be. I still don't feel like anything I said was preposterous, but I appreciate people offering issues that I didn't consider when I made my proposals.


----------



## Petro Leum (Jul 1, 2014)

i think the best solution for this problem is better judging. i suggest encouraging judges to pay attention by various means, for example, along with the standard stopwatches and pens, have proper judging equipment at the competitions.


----------



## BillyRain (Jul 1, 2014)

Petro Leum said:


> i think the best solution for this problem is better judging. i suggest encouraging judges to pay attention by various means, for example, along with the standard stopwatches and pens, have proper judging equipment at the competitions.



LOL I think the whistle is a little unnecessary but I've always thought we should probably take a leaf out of the stackers book and use the cards.


----------



## Hari (Jul 1, 2014)

The DNF has been overturned and the NR now stands  https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/events.php?eventId=sq1&regionId=India&years=&show=100%2BPersons&single=Single


----------



## Villyer (Jul 5, 2014)

Hari said:


> The DNF has been overturned and the NR now stands  https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/events.php?eventId=sq1®ionId=India&years=&show=100%2BPersons&single=Single



Was there an explanation given for why it was overturned?


----------



## Cubeologist (Jul 5, 2014)

My answer would have been yes if the WCA was doing the filming. But whereas they would be using other competitors' videos to do this, I would imagine that Mats and Feliks would be under a lot more scrutiny than I would. And that doesn't seem fair.


----------



## Ollie (Jul 5, 2014)

Villyer said:


> Was there an explanation given for why it was overturned?



Yes, but I assume it's been moved to the other thread


----------



## antoineccantin (Jul 6, 2014)

dsbias said:


> My answer would have been yes if the WCA was doing the filming. But whereas they would be using other competitors' videos to do this, I would imagine that Mats and Feliks would be under a lot more scrutiny than I would. And that doesn't seem fair.





Ollie said:


> Yes, but I assume it's been moved to the other thread



See the previous page.


----------



## kinch2002 (Sep 16, 2014)

I'm resurrecting this thread for discussion about how to approach retroactive video evidence, as it seems people want to continue it.

Ideally, all solves that do not follow regulations should not be valid. To start allowing solves that were e.g. scrambled wrong, would surely create the need for a very grey line? Here are some situations to think about. In all cases, I am assuming the mistake was noticed using a video after the end of the competition.
A1. If a 2x2 was scrambled wrong and a 1 move solve was done should it be allowed?
A2. If a 3x3 was scrambled wrong and a 15 move sub4 solve was done should it be allowed?
A3. What if that solve was in the WC final and would cause them to drop from 1st to 4th if DNFed?
A4. If a 3x3 was scrambled wrong and a normal solve by an average cuber was done, should it be allowed?
Clearly drawing a line somewhere is not easy at all.

An alternative is to find a new competition process such that mis-scrambles do not happen.

Aside from those situations which are not the competitor's fault, we have:
B1. Regulation violations that are the competitor's fault, were accidental, and (at least) might have given an advantage
B2. Regulation violations that are the competitor's fault, were accidental, and did not give an advantage
B3. Regulation violations that are the competitors fault, were deliberate, and (at least) might have given an advantage
B4. Regulation violations that are the competitors fault, were deliberate, and did not give an advantage
If they should be treated differently, then distinguishing between the 4 cases is something the Board or WDC would do.
But what should the decision be for each (and why)?


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 16, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> A1. If a 2x2 was scrambled wrong and a 1 move solve was done should it be allowed?



2x2 scrambles are filtered. 1 move solves would be called out immediately. Even if it wasn't noticed (BJ people in charge), it should be a DNF as, again, 2x2 scrambles should require 4 or more moves to solve.


----------



## ryanj92 (Sep 16, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> 2x2 scrambles are filtered. 1 move solves would be called out immediately. Even if it wasn't noticed (BJ people in charge), it should be a DNF as, again, 2x2 scrambles should require 4 or more moves to solve.


Good point - I don't think 2x2x2 is a great example to use, as 4-5 move solutions are more often that not easily replicable, so if someone gets a scramble with a 4-5 move solution (within scramble filtering limits), it's fairly easy to tell if the cube was misscrambled or not, by checking if such a solution actually exists on the scramble 
I think the general case of A2 still stands, though.

This whole video evidence thing is something I've been thinking about for a while - I will probably post here once I'm happy with my thoughts...


----------



## kcl (Sep 16, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> I'm resurrecting this thread for discussion about how to approach retroactive video evidence, as it seems people want to continue it.
> 
> Ideally, all solves that do not follow regulations should not be valid. To start allowing solves that were e.g. scrambled wrong, would surely create the need for a very grey line? Here are some situations to think about. In all cases, I am assuming the mistake was noticed using a video after the end of the competition.
> A1. If a 2x2 was scrambled wrong and a 1 move solve was done should it be allowed?
> ...



In a case like the first or second, sure. But honestly when it doesn't change the solve itself at all?


----------



## Bindedsa (Sep 16, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> In a case like the first or second, sure. But honestly when it doesn't change the solve itself at all?



How do you judge when the solve is changed? With the 3x3 NAR, Lucas got a 6.72, His 3rd best single, when the scramble was done on the wrong orientation. I do not think he should have the time DNFed, but the solve was certainly not normal.


----------



## kinch2002 (Sep 16, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> 2x2 scrambles are filtered. 1 move solves would be called out immediately. Even if it wasn't noticed (BJ people in charge), it should be a DNF as, again, 2x2 scrambles should require 4 or more moves to solve.





ryanj92 said:


> Good point - I don't think 2x2x2 is a great example to use, as 4-5 move solutions are more often that not easily replicable, so if someone gets a scramble with a 4-5 move solution (within scramble filtering limits), it's fairly easy to tell if the cube was misscrambled or not, by checking if such a solution actually exists on the scramble
> I think the general case of A2 still stands, though.



You're both not taking what I said about assuming it was not reviewed until after the competition seriously enough. Of course 'It would never happen', but I'm posing the question of what if it did? You can't make a regulation that supposedly covers everything when it is based on an assumption certain things are too unlikely to happen. You can change A1 to 3 moves (or 5 moves on a pyraminx/6 moves on a skewb etc), but the intended difference between A1 and A2 is that the scramble is less than the move filter limit.

If people want to allow some mis-scrambled solves, where is the line? Or is there no line? That is my point about the scrambling part of it.


----------



## tseitsei (Sep 16, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> I'm resurrecting this thread for discussion about how to approach retroactive video evidence, as it seems people want to continue it.
> 
> Ideally, all solves that do not follow regulations should not be valid. To start allowing solves that were e.g. scrambled wrong, would surely create the need for a very grey line? Here are some situations to think about. In all cases, I am assuming the mistake was noticed using a video after the end of the competition.
> A1. If a 2x2 was scrambled wrong and a 1 move solve was done should it be allowed?
> ...



A1. Obviously this would be caught in competition because ANYONE scrambling can see it is only 1 move away and looks nothing like it should be. So it wouldn't really be an issue in the first place. If it did tough that would be the same problem than with B2. really and I don't have a good solution for this. 

A2. I don't know what should be done with this actually because it would be unfair for the competitor to DNF this. HOWEVER it would be unfair to get such a lol-scramble with 15-move solution also. I have no answer to this. The best way is obviously to make sure these kind of things don't happen in comps, but that might not be always possible...

A3. If the wrong scramble and the solve was just a normal looking scramble and not some cross/f2l-skip I think it would be most fair to accept the solve. But it is quite impossible to determine when the scramble has been "too easy"... If the wrong scramble was something insanely lucky then again I don't know what we should do here (See my previous answer A2.)...

A4. Yes it should be allowed. But it is quite impossible to determine when the scramble has been "too easy"...


B1. Obviously DNFed. It doesn't really matter if it is an accident or not you still have to follow regulations and at least you can't gain any advantage by breaking them.

B2. Obviously DNFed. It doesn't really matter if it is an accident or not. You still have to follow regulations and it is completely in your own hands if you follow them or not. If you do a mistake in speedsolve it will cost you some time, making a mistake in following regulations should cost you some time: +2 or DNF. Besides how/who will determine if someone gets any advantage by breaking some regulation(s)?

B3. If we have clear evidence it was deliberate violation of regulations (Also known as cheating) then we should do 2 things IMO: 1. DNF the solve obviously. 2. Ban the competitor for some period of time. Cheating should not be accepted in any situation.

B4. If we have clear evidence it was deliberate violation of regulations (Also known as cheating) then we should do 2 things IMO: 1. DNF the solve obviously. 2. Ban the competitor for some period of time. Cheating should not be accepted in any situation.



kinch2002 said:


> If people want to allow some mis-scrambled solves, where is the line? Or is there no line? That is my point about the scrambling part of it.



This is the problem and the important question. Sadly I have no answer to that. 

I think that allowing misscrambles in ALL scenarios is unfair (F2L-skip and unbeatable WR or something like that is obviously quite unfair), but also DNFing them all is also unfair (DNFing someones solve on a scramble that is like any other normal scramble and not giving him a new attempt is unfair to me. Because it is not the competitors fault and there is no way he can prevent this in any way)


----------



## Carrot (Sep 16, 2014)

My view on this:
If people film their solves and something "fishy/good" happens, they can/should analyze it DURING the competition, if a violation has been made by a judge/scrambler and it is caught DURING the competition, the delegate is allowed to give the competitor an extra attempt. If a WR/CR/other is broken I see NO reason why a scrambler wouldn't scramble any puzzles near them and make the competitor verify it was the correct scramble (at least for all smaller puzzles).


----------



## stoic (Sep 16, 2014)

ryanj92 said:


> I will probably post here once I'm happy with my thoughts...


Seriously dude, this is the internet. 
How dare you be so reasonable.


----------



## tseitsei (Sep 16, 2014)

Carrot said:


> If a WR/CR/other is broken I see NO reason why a scrambler wouldn't scramble any puzzles near them and make the competitor verify it was the correct scramble (at least for all smaller puzzles).



Maybe regulations should actually demand this to be done to all WR/CR/NR solves? 

Then again someone could still get misscrambles and get lucky with them if he doesn't break any records but IMO WR/CR/NR solves matter much more than some random dudes personal bests...

EDIT: nevermind not a good idea. Then every WR/CR/NR solve should be filmed...


----------



## sneaklyfox (Sep 16, 2014)

Bindedsa said:


> How do you judge when the solve is changed? With the 3x3 NAR, Lucas got a 6.72, His 3rd best single, when the scramble was done on the wrong orientation. I do not think he should have the time DNFed, but the solve was certainly not normal.



For a case like this (same with things like one-move miscramble) I think it should not be DNF'ed as an official record, but it could be in some way not counted (like a DNF) for that competition only. You could say he got an unfair advantage over other competitors because maybe other people at the same competition would also have a chance at good times with the same scramble and this would affect ranking at that competition.


----------



## Bindedsa (Sep 16, 2014)

sneaklyfox said:


> For a case like this (same with things like one-move miscramble) I think it should not be DNF'ed as an official record, but it could be in some way not counted (like a DNF) for that competition only. You could say he got an unfair advantage over other competitors because maybe other people at the same competition would also have a chance at good times with the same scramble and this would affect ranking at that competition.



Couldn't you make the same argument for people who had a timer dysfunction and had to use an extra scramble?

Also completely unrelated, our cubes solved this year is almost identical, though I think you count OH and BLD, while I don't.

Edit: Nevermind, I thought mine was 28k not 29k.


----------



## Mr Cubism (Sep 16, 2014)

If someone solves a misscrambled 4x4 and gets double parity, then he should have an extra solve afterwards because he had an "unlucky" scramble?


----------



## sneaklyfox (Sep 16, 2014)

Bindedsa said:


> Couldn't you make the same argument for people who had a timer dysfunction and had to use an extra scramble?
> 
> Also completely unrelated, our cubes solved this year is almost identical, though I think you count OH and BLD, while I don't.
> 
> Edit: Nevermind, I thought mine was 28k not 29k.



Oh, you're right. I didn't think of that.

I have done almost no BLD solves this year and not much OH solves either. But anyway, I guess I have spent a lot more time doing 3x3 solves though you have more solves because you are faster than me.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 16, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> An alternative is to find a new competition process such that mis-scrambles do not happen.



That should maybe be done anyway (I only say maybe because I don't know how big the problem is). There were some ideas, like someone suggested adding a scramble checker person between scramblers and runners/judges. Another idea to allow rudimentary checking for the judge (or even the competitor, as the visible information doesn't give away much, at least for 3x3 upwards):


----------



## Ollie (Sep 16, 2014)

Stefan said:


> That should maybe be done anyway (I only say maybe because I don't know how big the problem is). There were some ideas, like someone suggested adding a scramble checker person between scramblers and runners/judges. Another idea to allow rudimentary checking for the judge (or even the competitor, as the visible information doesn't give away much, at least for 3x3 upwards):
> 
> http://i58.tinypic.com/oh6d1h.jpg



The cover would need one more slot around where the D layer would be, in case an accidental D/D'/D2 move by the scrambler creates a block or easy face or something? But yeah, nice

edit: D/D'/D2 would apply to 3x3x3+, accidental U/U'/U2 moves plus a rotation on 2x2x2 could give a 'false positive' which is obviously less likely, but you get the idea


----------



## obelisk477 (Sep 16, 2014)

The way I envision having a scramble checker would be this: there are scramblers and runners/judges like normal, except in between there would be the checker. The runner gives the cube to the checker WITHOUT the score sheet. The checker has the layout on a sheet in front of him, and either confirms or rejects the scramble. If the latter, he fixes the scramble one more time, and as he would not know whose cube it was (apart from custom logos or whatever), it would keep things objective.

The biggest argument against this I think would be the extra time required, but even then I don't think it would take that long. For one round, if the checker gets used to seeing the scrambles over and over, the checking could be done quickly since they would be used to seeing various blocks and patterns etc.


----------



## Carrot (Sep 16, 2014)

Ollie said:


> The cover would need one more slot around where the D layer would be, in case an accidental D/D'/D2 move by the scrambler creates a block or easy face or something? But yeah, nice



The purpose of his proposal is not to make 100% sure that the cube is scrambled correctly, but to make it easy to spot obvious scrambling mistakes without giving away too much information abouth the scramble.


----------



## GuRoux (Sep 16, 2014)

how are you suppose to scramble a cube if there is japanese color scheme or some randomly made color scheme?


----------



## obelisk477 (Sep 16, 2014)

GuRoux said:


> how are you suppose to scramble a cube if there is japanese color scheme or some randomly made color scheme?



Via this regulation


----------



## GuRoux (Sep 16, 2014)

obelisk477 said:


> Via this regulation



thanks.


----------



## Ollie (Sep 16, 2014)

Carrot said:


> The purpose of his proposal is not to make 100% sure that the cube is scrambled correctly, but to make it easy to spot obvious scrambling mistakes without giving away too much information abouth the scramble.



Wasn't the main issue that discovering misscrambles using video evidence has lead to DNFs? So we *should* be ensuring as close to 100% accuracy as possible on scrambles to avoid giving unfair advantages or vice versa?


----------



## Torch (Sep 16, 2014)

What would people think of having a third box on the scoresheet for the scrambler to sign? It would let us know who scrambled for each attempt, and be a way of reminding the scramblers that they're responsible for correctly scrambling.


----------



## Carrot (Sep 16, 2014)

Ollie said:


> Wasn't the main issue that discovering misscrambles using video evidence has lead to DNFs? So we *should* be ensuring as close to 100% accuracy as possible on scrambles to avoid giving unfair advantages or vice versa?



discovering misscrambles AFTER the competition leads to DNFs, I am pretty sure most delegates would allow you to get an extra attempt given someone spots it during the competition. 

Sure your proposal is more accurate, but it surely also gives more away of the puzzles state, you need to draw the line somewhere.


----------



## Ollie (Sep 17, 2014)

Carrot said:


> discovering misscrambles AFTER the competition leads to DNFs, I am pretty sure most delegates would allow you to get an extra attempt given someone spots it during the competition.
> 
> Sure your proposal is more accurate, but it surely also gives more away of the puzzles state, you need to draw the line somewhere.



I'm not sure if revealing 5 stickers out of a possible 48 (not counting centers) gives a significant advantage to the competitor over 4 stickers on one face for 3x3x3 upwards. Yes, admittedly it is a much bigger problem for 2x2x2 scrambles. 

The irony is that the 2x2x2 scrambles are the shortest so you'd think mistakes during scrambling are less likely, but they also need the highest accuracy so mistakes aren't as tolerable.


----------



## DeeDubb (Sep 17, 2014)

If the scramble puts the cube under the required movecount (4 for 2x2), and it's not caught in the comp, it has to be DNF'd. If it gives them an advantage, and can be deemed as intentional (which should be obvious on video), it should also be DNF'd and an investigation must happen. If it gives them an advantage, but is deemed unintentional (like Riley's at home UWR), it should NOT be DNF'd.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 17, 2014)

Stefan said:


> (or even the competitor, as the visible information doesn't give away much, at least for 3x3 upwards)



that idea makes me uncomfortable


----------



## cubizh (Sep 17, 2014)

The idea of exposing certain parts of a puzzle is a bit unfeasible given the different variety of puzzle sizes and especially of puzzle types.
It's too much hassle just to do something that the scrambler should already be doing, that is verifying if the puzzle is properly scrambled.
I think extra awareness should be raised towards people who are given the task of scrambling that it's a two step task and not just apply written moves.


----------



## Kit Clement (Sep 17, 2014)

Torch said:


> What would people think of having a third box on the scoresheet for the scrambler to sign? It would let us know who scrambled for each attempt, and be a way of reminding the scramblers that they're responsible for correctly scrambling.



I like this idea -- going to implement this somehow in the future. Holding individual scramblers accountable may encourage scramblers to do their job correctly, and also informs organizers as to who might be making scrambling mistakes.


----------



## kcl (Sep 17, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> I like this idea -- going to implement this somehow in the future. Holding individual scramblers accountable may encourage scramblers to do their job correctly, and also informs organizers as to who might be making scrambling mistakes.



I second this. It's a super simple idea but I can't believe I didn't think of it.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 17, 2014)

Exposing just parts of the puzzle like Stefan showed would only work if the competitor had to do the checking, since no one else would know the proper colors for unusual color schemes - it would simply look like the wrong scramble. And even if the competitor did the checking, we'd have to rely on every competitor with an unusual color scheme knowing the proper color correlation, which would be unlikely for new competitors. I don't think that idea is practical, unless we force everyone to switch to the same color scheme (which I sincerely hope we do not do, as it would mean starting over on BLD for me).


----------



## qqwref (Sep 17, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> 1. If a 2x2 was scrambled wrong and a 1 move solve was done should it be allowed?
> A2. If a 3x3 was scrambled wrong and a 15 move sub4 solve was done should it be allowed?
> A3. What if that solve was in the WC final and would cause them to drop from 1st to 4th if DNFed?
> A4. If a 3x3 was scrambled wrong and a normal solve by an average cuber was done, should it be allowed?


During a competition, if the misscramble is noticed, none of these should be allowed. It's against regulations, right? The solve should be removed and the competitor should be given a replacement solve, just like if they were given the same scramble twice, or handed a solved cube.

The problem is when, after a competition, someone gets a DNF due to a situation completely out of their control. Then there is no time to give them a replacement solve, so getting rid of the affected solve is a potentially huge penalty (especially given that we only even look at solves that are good enough to be on video, i.e. mostly regional records or official PBs). In case A1, the delegate and/or judges are idiots and should probably be "fired". In the other cases, the competitor performed a legitimate solve of a clearly scrambled cube that they had no prior knowledge of - let it stand, and if you want to punish someone, punish the scrambler.



kinch2002 said:


> Aside from those situations which are not the competitor's fault, we have:
> B1. Regulation violations that are the competitor's fault, were accidental, and (at least) might have given an advantage
> B2. Regulation violations that are the competitor's fault, were accidental, and did not give an advantage
> B3. Regulation violations that are the competitors fault, were deliberate, and (at least) might have given an advantage
> B4. Regulation violations that are the competitors fault, were deliberate, and did not give an advantage


B1, B2: Who cares? Accidents happen.
B3: Cheating. Disqualify an appropriate number of solves, and suspend competitor for an appropriate amount of time, depending on the actual situation.
B4: Not sure why someone would do this. But if you are sure it gives no advantage, give the competitor an official warning not to do it again, and take further action only if they keep doing it.



Re: exposing parts of the puzzle. Are you guys serious? What's the point of a cover and timed inspection then? What if someone uses a non-Fridrich method and this actually helps them out? And what do you plan to do with people with alternate color schemes (e.g. Mike Hughey scheme which swaps orange<->red and yellow<->blue from the perspective of holding white/green steady)? I guarantee this will cause more problems than it solves.


----------



## BaMiao (Sep 17, 2014)

qqwref said:


> The problem is when, after a competition, someone gets a DNF due to a situation completely out of their control. Then there is no time to give them a replacement solve, so getting rid of the affected solve is a potentially huge penalty (especially given that we only even look at solves that are good enough to be on video, i.e. mostly regional records or official PBs). In case A1, the delegate and/or judges are idiots and should probably be "fired". In the other cases, the competitor performed a legitimate solve of a clearly scrambled cube that they had no prior knowledge of - let it stand, and if you want to punish someone, punish the scrambler.



So if Martín Telésforo had claimed that his 4.41 simply came from a misscramble, would you have allowed that "record" to stand? We would not have had any reason to suspect foul play at the time. Remember, the only justification for disqualifying that solve was because of the bogus solution to the official scramble that he presented. Allowing misscrambled times to stand might open us up to this kind of cheating in the future.


----------



## TMOY (Sep 17, 2014)

Stefan said:


> That should maybe be done anyway (I only say maybe because I don't know how big the problem is). There were some ideas, like someone suggested adding a scramble checker person between scramblers and runners/judges. Another idea to allow rudimentary checking for the judge (or even the competitor, as the visible information doesn't give away much, at least for 3x3 upwards):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nµice idea, but how do you deal with nonstandard color schemes ?

Edit: ninja'd


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 17, 2014)

How about... If a WR/CR/NR is broken and it's on video, immediately verify the scramble on the spot?


----------



## tseitsei (Sep 17, 2014)

Mike Hughey said:


> Exposing just parts of the puzzle like Stefan showed would only work if the competitor had to do the checking, since no one else would know the proper colors for unusual color schemes - it would simply look like the wrong scramble. And even if the competitor did the checking, we'd have to rely on every competitor with an unusual color scheme knowing the proper color correlation, which would be unlikely for new competitors. I don't think that idea is practical, unless we force everyone to switch to the same color scheme (which I sincerely hope we do not do, as it would mean starting over on BLD for me).



The competitor doing the checking is the whole point of this thing. Because if competitor does the checking and the scramble is found to be wrong after the competition, we can now say that competitor should have noticed it and we can fairly DNF the solve, because competitor had a chance to notice the wrong scramble and demand a correct one (unlike they have now). 
Different color schemes don't matter since every competitor should know their scheme and regulations when competing.



qqwref said:


> Re:1. exposing parts of the puzzle. Are you guys serious? What's the point of a cover and timed inspection then?
> 
> 2.What if someone uses a non-Fridrich method and this actually helps them out?
> 
> 3. And what do you plan to do with people with alternate color schemes (e.g. Mike Hughey scheme which swaps orange<->red and yellow<->blue from the perspective of holding white/green steady)? I guarantee this will cause more problems than it solves.



1. The point of cover is to cover the rest of the puzzle and the point of inspection is to see the rest of the puzzle obviously.
2. I REALLY doubt that seeing 4 stickers from different pieces will help anyone significantly. (At least outside 2x2, so maybe for 2x2 this is not a good idea but for other cubid puzzles I think it could be)
3. Already answered earlier in this message.


Only real problem I see is having sufficient covers since people can have different sized cubes...


----------



## Erik (Sep 17, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> I like this idea -- going to implement this somehow in the future. Holding individual scramblers accountable may encourage scramblers to do their job correctly, and also informs organizers as to who might be making scrambling mistakes.



*Please don't!* 

This will burden the scramblers with too little to gain. 

Scrambling 2x2's or Pyraminxes or 3x3's is already very hectic now, where most of the time is actually spend on arranging the score sheet and putting the cube in the covers, checking which cube needs scrambling next etc. 

Having to sign every cube as well is just too much of a hassle, I don't want to have to sign 150 2x2 scrambles for group A and then another 150 for group B (assuming I have 30 cubes). 

Besides, what will you do if you find out after a competition that scrambler XY scrambled wrong? Warn him? Never allow him to scramble again? What is it that you expect to gain? Encouragement for scramblers is a bad reason to implement something like this. There are many other ways you can do this which are much more clever and less of a burden.

For instance: encourage scramblers to glance at their co-scramblers and do a quick check if they scrambled correctly (I always do that when I am scrambling) or announce that at any time a delegate/runner/random person can pick a random scrambled cube and check if it's correct or not.

The signing by the judge and competitor thing already is a mistake in the regulations. It just doesn't work. You can't read who signed it, people just make an X or a smiley or put down their autograph. In no way this can be traced back to the correct judge. You can maybe force the competitor to sign correctly since this can be checked, but not the judge. This burocracy should definitely not be expanded more.


Also: why do you say something like this before we have an idea about how big the problem actually is? If you do have numbers, please share.


----------



## Logiqx (Sep 17, 2014)

Can someone develop a phone app which uses the camera to check the scrambled puzzle?

A single photo could verify 3 sides of a cube (e.g. FRU) which is probably going to pick up scrambling errors.

Custom colour schemes could also be handled automatically with some simple logic.


----------



## tseitsei (Sep 17, 2014)

Erik said:


> *Please don't!*
> 
> This will burden the scramblers with too little to gain.
> 
> ...



+1 

I agree with this


----------



## kinch2002 (Sep 17, 2014)

I think exposing parts of puzzles is a very bad idea (no offense). As well as different colour scheme problems, you also have to put the cube in a non-random orientation. Even without those problems I totally object on the grounds of...well...can't think of the word, but it just seems 'wrong' to show the puzzle 



qqwref said:


> During a competition, if the misscramble is noticed, none of these should be allowed...


Agreed. My questions were posed with the stated assumption that it wasn't noticed during the competition as I don't think there's any debate what should happen if it is noticed 


qqwref said:


> The problem is when, after a competition, someone gets a DNF due to a situation completely out of their control...
> ...let it stand, and if you want to punish someone, punish the scrambler.


Interesting...but do you have a suggestion of how to punish the scrambler?


kinch2002 said:


> B1. Regulation violations that are the competitor's fault, were accidental, and (at least) might have given an advantage
> B2. Regulation violations that are the competitor's fault, were accidental, and did not give an advantage





qqwref said:


> B1, B2: Who cares? Accidents happen.


B1: You sure about that? What if the competitor stops the timer early by mistake and neither of them notice?


----------



## Seanliu (Sep 17, 2014)

I think all should be filmed, so not 'Video evidence should not be used' , and 'All should be filmed and checked for errors'


----------



## Dene (Sep 17, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> I like this idea -- going to implement this somehow in the future. Holding individual scramblers accountable may encourage scramblers to do their job correctly, and also informs organizers as to who might be making scrambling mistakes.



I agree completely with Erik, but something else I wanted to add:

How often exactly do you notice a mis-scramble anyway? It's such a rare occurrence... I can't see the extra workload being nearly worth the tradeoff. That is, unless you have a significant problem with mis-scrambles at your competitions. But if that is the case, there are much better ways to address the problem.


----------



## (X) (Sep 17, 2014)

How about having a person that sits at the scramble table and only checks if the scrambles are correct. That person could then cycle the puzzles that are misscrambled directly back to the scramblers.


----------



## XTowncuber (Sep 17, 2014)

(X) said:


> How about having a person that sits at the scramble table and only checks if the scrambles are correct. That person could then cycle the puzzles that are misscrambled directly back to the scramblers.


I really think this idea would work pretty well. As a scrambler, you have an awful lot of tasks to juggle, and it can be difficult to remember to give each cube a thorough check. However, a person with a set job of checking scrambles would not have nearly as much of a difficult time remembering to check cubes. 

Downsides are the need for a larger scrambling table, having more staff, and that it makes the scrambling process slower. Also, it still wouldn't necessarily be 100% effective. And probably some other stuff that I haven't thought of. 

In any case it seems like a better idea to me than some sort of scramble checking cube cover.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 17, 2014)

tseitsei said:


> The competitor doing the checking is the whole point of this thing.



No it's not. There's a reason I put competitor checking in parentheses and after the main point.

I just should have added a "maybe", though, as I doubt it gives away valuable data but I'm not sure. On the other hand, the cuber would right afterwards see the entire cube for 15 seconds anyway. Is everybody against this "minimalistic pre-inspection" also against inspection?



kinch2002 said:


> I think exposing parts of puzzles is a very bad idea (no offense). As well as different colour scheme problems, you also have to *put the cube in a non-random orientation*.



I thought this was coming anyway, though I might be mistaken. At least I didn't find it in TNoodle.

But we could still do that, maybe scramble 3x3 with double layer turns only and then expose not corner stickers but center stickers? And make it so that the scrambles in each group all end up with different cube rotations. If the scrambler makes exactly one mistake (a move, or picking the wrong scramble), the centers check would find it, and if the scrambler makes several mistakes, the centers check would still find it with high probability. Also, it would only require checking two stickers (quite convenient for scrambler, runner or judge, whoever checks).

About the scramble checker person idea: Besides checking scrambles, they could make the job of the scramblers easier. They could check the incoming puzzles (particularly clock, where sometimes the judges don't notice a DNF), give them to the scramblers with proper orientation, order them so that people behind with their average get scrambled first, and if time permits, they could scramble as well.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 17, 2014)

Stefan said:


> No it's not. There's a reason I put competitor checking in parentheses and after the main point.
> 
> I just should have added a "maybe", though, as I doubt it gives away valuable data but I'm not sure. On the other hand, the cuber would right afterwards see the entire cube for 15 seconds anyway. Is everybody against this "minimalistic pre-inspection" also against inspection?
> 
> ...



Another vote for adding "scramble checker" to the list of official functions. A scramble checker would NOT be allowed to twist a puzzle though, because that would make him the obvious suspect for helping a cheater. There are so many benefits to this, with the only negative being "1 more person needed to help"
Other benefits:
* No more unscrambled cubes given to a competitor
* No more "I already had this scramble"
* No more "Other people are already doing their 4th solve and I only had 1"


----------



## Stefan (Sep 17, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> A scramble checker would NOT be allowed to twist a puzzle though, because that would make him the obvious suspect for helping a cheater.



That's if you want to make this help prevent cheating in addition to help prevent mistakes. But it's probably easier to have an accomplice among the many judges instead of the one scrambler checker anyway.

Being allowed to twist not only allows scrambling but also allows solving (for re-scrambling after wrong scrambling). And if they're someone that needs to be trusted anyway, like a delegate, then I don't see much value in trying to prevent them from helping someone cheat this way.

Although, if not allowed to scramble, they could look up at any moment and try to see whether only runners/judges are taking cubes and to tell judges who are looking for specific cubers they want to judge to instead take the next in line. And call for people who are late or for more judges.

A whole bunch of good stuff this person could do.

(sorry for getting rather off-topic, yes I realize most of this has nothing to do with the thread topic)


----------



## tseitsei (Sep 17, 2014)

Stefan said:


> No it's not. There's a reason I put competitor checking in parentheses and after the main point.



Ok. I still think it would much be better for competitor to be the one checking the corner stickers because:

If the judge/runner/someone else does the checking and the wrong scramble gets through anyway then we still have the same problem.
Now if we demand the competitor to check the stickers and the scramble is still found to be wrong afterwards, we can say that it was the competitors own fault to not notice that and DNF the solve fairly.

Do you see my point?


----------



## kinch2002 (Sep 17, 2014)

tseitsei said:


> Ok. I still think it would much be better for competitor to be the one checking the corner stickers because...


But the competitor would see part of the puzzle before inspection starts. In my opinion that's just wrong and should not happen, no matter that your argument for it is a good one.

I think having a scramble checker is the only feasible option so far. It would make things run a bit slower, but hopefully not too much. And should eliminate 99% of the mistakes.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 17, 2014)

I do think a scramble checker is the most workable suggestion made so far in this thread, but I am afraid that that "one extra person" could significantly slow down competitions. It's always a challenge to have enough scramblers, especially for a single-round event (where the guidelines suggest only a single scramble group should be used - 1h++) - the scramble checker would have the same restrictions as scramblers, which would make it significantly harder. When running my own competition, for these events, I typically sit out of the event, and as a non-competing scrambler, scramble for a good scrambler through all 5 solves, and then that scrambler can take care of everyone else at a relatively normal pace. With a scramble checker, I'd have to scramble for the good scrambler through all 5 solves, then have that scrambler scramble for a second person (who would become the scramble checker) for all 5 solves, and then the two of them could run the rest at a relatively normal pace. That could cost a significant amount of time for slower events such as 5x5x5.

Also, would a scramble checker be needed on every single solve? If so, then you'd need two non-competing scrambling-capable people (for the first person through) for each event like this - that would almost certainly be a problem - one is hard enough.



Erik said:


> The signing by the judge and competitor thing already is a mistake in the regulations. It just doesn't work. You can't read who signed it, people just make an X or a smiley or put down their autograph. In no way this can be traced back to the correct judge. You can maybe force the competitor to sign correctly since this can be checked, but not the judge. This burocracy should definitely not be expanded more.



I agree with almost everything you said, Erik, except this item. Perhaps in Europe what you're saying is true (due to people making an X or smiley, etc.), but I know I have used judges' initials many times to resolve issues with regards to difficult-to-read times or other issues. At the competitions I've delegated, it's _almost_ always possible to determine the judge from the initials. There are admittedly exceptions, but they are rare, and the judges' signatures help a great deal at our competitions.

Still, I agree with your other statements, and I think the scrambler signing for scrambles would be more harmful than helpful.


----------



## Erik (Sep 17, 2014)

Mike Hughey said:


> I agree with almost everything you said, Erik, except this item. Perhaps in Europe what you're saying is true (due to people making an X or smiley, etc.), but I know I have used judges' initials many times to resolve issues with regards to difficult-to-read times or other issues. At the competitions I've delegated, it's _almost_ always possible to determine the judge from the initials. There are admittedly exceptions, but they are rare, and the judges' signatures help a great deal at our competitions.



Don't get me wrong, I wish it did work so the signing would actually have somewhat of a useful function. To be honest I have seen delegates and even board members sign with smileys and stuff as well. I guess there is a lack of awareness on how 'important' the signing is. If initials are used they are not readable in most cases, at least in Europe and because of the bad signing it's really hard to find out who it was that is signing badly (talking about the judge here). It's a chicken-egg thing 

Scrambler checker: I don't really understand why this is proposed (and apparently supported by some) when it's not even clear how big this 'problem' is. Also: expecting even more competitors to help will not increase the level of fun during a competition, but push it more towards it being a day of work. 

Having a scrambler checker is like having a judge-checker, or even a delegate checker, it's just going too far. 
You guys talk about this as if you are discussing the optimization of a measurement device by doing constant plausibility checks. This is not some mathematical problem you are trying to solve. In reality we are still talking about a competition in solving plastic puzzles where people want to have some fun where everything is based on trust.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Sep 17, 2014)

Is signing really that bad in Europe? The signing system works near flawlessly here. It's pretty rare that we have someone signing so poorly that we can't read it.
Perhaps it just needs to be more clear how important the signing is?


----------



## ~Adam~ (Sep 17, 2014)

Most of the time there is more than 1 scrambler. Couldn't one check the scrambles for the other/s? It would take a little longer but you wouldn't need an extra person.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 17, 2014)

tseitsei said:


> Ok. I still think it would much be better for competitor to be the one checking the corner stickers because:
> 
> If the judge/runner/someone else does the checking and the wrong scramble gets through anyway then we still have the same problem.
> Now if we demand the competitor to check the stickers and the scramble is still found to be wrong afterwards, we can say that it was the competitors own fault to not notice that and DNF the solve fairly.
> ...



I see your point and I'm not saying competitor-checking is worthless, I did include it in the suggestion after all. I'd just find checking by runner/judge more important, and the hope is that the runner/judge checking the scramble would get rid of almost all mistakes so they don't play out in the first place. Also, some dishonest competitor could realize that he's getting the same scramble again and say "yes it's correct".


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 17, 2014)

Erik said:


> Don't get me wrong, I wish it did work so the signing would actually have somewhat of a useful function. To be honest I have seen delegates and even board members sign with smileys and stuff as well. I guess there is a lack of awareness on how 'important' the signing is. If initials are used they are not readable in most cases, at least in Europe and because of the bad signing it's really hard to find out who it was that is signing badly (talking about the judge here). It's a chicken-egg thing
> 
> Scrambler checker: I don't really understand why this is proposed (and apparently supported by some) when it's not even clear how big this 'problem' is. Also: expecting even more competitors to help will not increase the level of fun during a competition, but push it more towards it being a day of work.
> 
> ...


We can call it the "table master" or "pitt boss". He is responsible for what comes in and out. Now scramblers often spend time on this that wouldn't be needed if there was a pitt boss. I think the net effect on time spend of having a pitt boss versus an extra judge isn't very different but things would be more polished.

Also, by calling it a pitt boss we will surely get a volunteer for this function that might otherwise not help, right


----------



## Dene (Sep 17, 2014)

cube-o-holic said:


> Most of the time there is more than 1 scrambler. Couldn't one check the scrambles for the other/s? It would take a little longer but you wouldn't need an extra person.



My post is directed at quite a few people, but I'm just going to quote you 

Basically, why is everyone acting as if it's just going to mean more staff? If implemented effectively, there would only be need for extra staff in really fast events (2x2, pyra). In everything else, the scramblers could fill the role once things are chugging along. Maybe an extra person would be needed while 3x3 rounds get started up because there is a big rush at the start. 

A lot of it depends on how people run their competitions. For example, the problems brought up by Mr. Hughey would never be a problem here. I know what it's like having only one competent scrambler for an event, but you don't need a competent scrambler to be scramble checker, as they're just checking a picture. You could just get a parent to do it...

The way we run things here, by getting everyone to help out, we'd never have a problem finding someone to do it.

Also, it seems a lot of organisers treat staff work as a chore. It used to be like that here, but nowadays people are super keen to help out. Being at the scramble table is a good time to socialise, so people want to be there >.<


----------



## XTowncuber (Sep 17, 2014)

Dene said:


> Basically, why is everyone acting as if it's just going to mean more staff? If implemented effectively, there would only be need for extra staff in really fast events (2x2, pyra). In everything else, the scramblers could fill the role once things are chugging along.


I'm confused by what you mean here. How is this different from what we have now? Do you mean "competitors" instead of "scramblers" in the last sentence?


----------



## ~Adam~ (Sep 17, 2014)

Dene said:


> The way we run things here, by getting everyone to help out, we'd never have a problem finding someone to do it.



I see it as wasting an extra person's time all competition long if the task can be accomplished without that person. I'd rather give people breaks who have been working hard than adding more tasks.


----------



## DrKorbin (Sep 17, 2014)

Rubiks560 said:


> Is signing really that bad in Europe? The signing system works near flawlessly here. It's pretty rare that we have someone signing so poorly that we can't read it.
> Perhaps it just needs to be more clear how important the signing is?





Mike Hughey said:


> Perhaps in Europe what you're saying is true (due to people making an X or smiley, etc.), but I know I have used judges' initials many times to resolve issues with regards to difficult-to-read times or other issues.



I attended only one competition in USA, but I noticed that everyone signs scorecards using first letter of their name and surname. At other competitions I've visited (mostly east Europe) signs mostly are letters from name and/or surname outlined (and often crossed) with circles, flourishes, lines and so on. In this case it becomes harder to identify the author of this sign.


----------



## kcl (Sep 17, 2014)

DrKorbin said:


> I attended only one competition in USA, but I noticed that everyone signs scorecards using first letter of their name and surname. At other competitions I've visited (mostly east Europe) signs mostly are letters from name and/or surname outlined (and often crossed) with circles, flourishes, lines and so on. In this case it becomes harder to identify the author of this sign.



That's weird.. Here we all use our initials.

Edit: we all excludes California apparently


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 17, 2014)

Dene said:


> I know what it's like having only one competent scrambler for an event, but you don't need a competent scrambler to be scramble checker, as they're just checking a picture. You could just get a parent to do it...



Not true. A parent wouldn't be able to easily grasp the issue of handling nonstandard color schemes. Nonstandard color schemes make "just checking a picture" not all that easy - especially if you're worried about things like a scramble being applied with the wrong orientation.


----------



## Ranzha (Sep 17, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> That's weird.. Here we all use our initials.



I usually sign "Ranzha". Ryan Jew usually "signs" with a heart sticker.


----------



## DrKorbin (Sep 17, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> That's weird.. Here we all use our initials.
> 
> Edit: we all excludes California apparently



Apparently by "first letter of their name and surname" I meant initials


----------



## Noahaha (Sep 17, 2014)

I don't know if this has been suggested before:

If you set a record and get it on camera, you would be able to get it reviewed at the competition by the delegate. That way if a resolve is necessary, you definitely won't lose a record for it.


----------



## antoineccantin (Sep 17, 2014)

Noahaha said:


> I don't know if this has been suggested before:
> 
> If you set a record and get it on camera, you would be able to get it reviewed at the competition by the delegate. That way if a resolve is necessary, you definitely won't lose a record for it.



So does that mean you have to make a delegate watch a video of every single one of your solves during the competition to make sure you have the right scramble and you solve isn't DNFed?

Seems like a huge waste of the Delegate's time.


----------



## Mr Cubism (Sep 17, 2014)

Let a "Cubestormer" do the scramble


----------



## Noahaha (Sep 17, 2014)

antoineccantin said:


> So does that mean you have to make a delegate watch a video of every single one of your solves during the competition to make sure you have the right scramble and you solve isn't DNFed?
> 
> Seems like a huge waste of the Delegate's time.



Just for records.

Like NRs, CRs, WRs.


----------



## Dene (Sep 18, 2014)

XTowncuber said:


> I'm confused by what you mean here. How is this different from what we have now? Do you mean "competitors" instead of "scramblers" in the last sentence?



hmm I'm not sure why you're confused, but if you are there might be others that are too so I'll try and re-phrase it more clearly.

If a scramble-checker system is implemented in an effective way you wouldn't have much need for extra staff. I assume in most cases there would be two scramblers (or more) for events like bigcubes or megaminx or something. At first everyone would be needed for scrambling, but once the event gets rolling along cubes won't be coming back in great heaps. As such, the extra scrambler can change to the role of scramble checker. Thus there wouldn't be an extra staff member, just a changing of roles.



Mike Hughey said:


> Not true. A parent wouldn't be able to easily grasp the issue of handling nonstandard color schemes. Nonstandard color schemes make "just checking a picture" not all that easy - especially if you're worried about things like a scramble being applied with the wrong orientation.



Perhaps not, but it isn't much more complicated than running, which parents can definitely do


----------



## Laura O (Sep 18, 2014)

Erik said:


> If initials are used they are not readable in most cases, at least in Europe and because of the bad signing it's really hard to find out who it was that is signing badly (talking about the judge here). It's a chicken-egg thing



Sorry, but this is not true (at least for me).
Initials are often a lot easier to identify than scribbled names. As a scoretaker I have never seen any initials I couldn't identify directly or with the help of the competitors list.


Apart from this: we already have people who check scrambles. They are called scramblers and that's defined in 4g. I don't see a need to change this. That's just like "oh, they don't comply with the regulations, so let's change them".


----------



## Erik (Sep 18, 2014)

Laura O said:


> Sorry, but this is not true (at least for me).
> Initials are often a lot easier to identify than scribbled names. As a scoretaker I have never seen any initials I couldn't identify directly or with the help of the competitors list.



Challenge accepted! Next comp we are attending both, I will ask you to decode some 



> Apart from this: we already have people who check scrambles. They are called scramblers and that's defined in 4g. I don't see a need to change this. That's just like "oh, they don't comply with the regulations, so let's change them".



Nicely short and to the point


----------



## XTowncuber (Sep 18, 2014)

Laura O said:


> Apart from this: we already have people who check scrambles. They are called scramblers and that's defined in 4g. I don't see a need to change this. That's just like "oh, they don't comply with the regulations, so let's change them".



The problem is that the scramblers have so many things to keep track of that it's really easy to forget to thoroughly check each cube. However, someone with the specific job of checking scrambles would be much more likely to consistently confirm that cubes are scrambled correctly. 

Put yourself in the position of someone who has been delegated the task of checking every cube to see if it's scrambled properly. Do you really think you would let very many slip through? Maybe you are good at remembering to consistently check each cube as a scrambler, but not everyone is.


----------



## Dene (Sep 18, 2014)

Laura O said:


> Apart from this: we already have people who check scrambles. They are called scramblers and that's defined in 4g. I don't see a need to change this. That's just like "oh, they don't comply with the regulations, so let's change them".



You're right, if we just ignore the problem it will go away... let's just wait a while, they'll all see...


----------



## Stefan (Sep 18, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> Also, by calling it a pitt boss we will surely get a volunteer for this function that might otherwise not help, right



What's a pitt?


----------



## tseitsei (Sep 18, 2014)

Stefan said:


> What's a pitt?



A pit with extra t I suppose


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 19, 2014)

tseitsei said:


> A pit with extra t I suppose


Actually I didn't know how to write it, so I used logic:
I knew pit bull had LL
I knew pit boss had SS
so logic said that pit should have TT

That is something I really dislike about English. When you know what a word sounds like you can only guess how it is written. Colorful is full of color, but for some reason not written as colorfull 

Having somebody check himself is mostly not done. Programmers and testers are normally seperated roles, as are police and judges. scramblers and "pit boss" should be seperate as well


----------



## Erik (Sep 19, 2014)

XTowncuber said:


> The problem is that the scramblers have so many things to keep track of that it's really easy to forget to thoroughly check each cube. However, someone with the specific job of checking scrambles would be much more likely to consistently confirm that cubes are scrambled correctly.
> 
> Put yourself in the position of someone who has been delegated the task of checking every cube to see if it's scrambled properly. Do you really think you would let very many slip through? Maybe you are good at remembering to consistently check each cube as a scrambler, but not everyone is.



A scramblers one and only job is to scramble the cube according to the scramble. Not scrambling correctly is like not timing inspection as a judge or not checking if it's a +2. You could definitely call it lazy/irresponsible. My prediction is: if you put a scramble-checker on the job, he will not find any wrong scrambles since the scramblers don't want to look like fools.



Dene said:


> You're right, if we just ignore the problem it will go away... let's just wait a while, they'll all see...



That's not what she said... at all... 

She just pointed out the fact that we already have people responsible for checking scrambled cubes: scramblers. Maybe we should focus on scramblers doing their job instead of 'patching'.

Also: I still haven't seen any indication as to how big this 'problem' is.


----------



## Dene (Sep 19, 2014)

Erik said:


> She just pointed out the fact that we already have people responsible for checking scrambled cubes: scramblers. Maybe we should focus on scramblers doing their job instead of 'patching'.
> 
> Also: I still haven't seen any indication as to how big this 'problem' is.



Obviously it is a problem. There have been several recent noteworthy incidents with scrambling mistakes. 

Also, at every competition I've been to I've seen the issue of someone getting the same scramble twice (or so claimed). And I'm 99% sure we only catch a small number of the mistakes that are made, which means there is probably a reasonable amount of mis-scrambling going on. 

Yes, technically it is the responsibility of the scrambler to check it. But that's the way the regulations are currently written, not necessarily the best way. 

I get it, more layers of bureaucracy sucks. And many people that scramble are perfectly reliable for doing what they should be doing properly. But ultimately what everyone wants is for there to be no issues. Perhaps this could be a good way to resolve any issues. Certainly better than filming every solve >.<


----------



## ~Adam~ (Sep 19, 2014)

Erik said:


> My prediction is: if you put a scramble-checker on the job, he will not find any wrong scrambles since the scramblers don't want to look like fools.





cube-o-holic said:


> Most of the time there is more than 1 scrambler. Couldn't one check the scrambles for the other/s? It would take a little longer but you wouldn't need an extra person.



So my idea is likely to work in the same way? Every time you finish scrambling a puzzle, check another and place in cube cover?


----------



## Erik (Sep 19, 2014)

cube-o-holic said:


> So my idea is likely to work in the same way? Every time you finish scrambling a puzzle, check another and place in cube cover?



If I understand correctly, this is what I do when I am scrambling together with a beginner or with someone I am not sure of how good they are at scrambling. If they finish a scramble about the same time as I do, I quickly glance at their cube. Of course I can't check all of their scrambles since I can only check when I just finished scrambling a cube myself, but it certainly helps and motivates the co-scrambler to check themselves and scramble carefully. Encouraging this is a much better way of dealing with this 'problem' than having extra people to check the scramble.



Dene said:


> Obviously it is a problem. There have been several recent noteworthy incidents with scrambling mistakes.


Why don't you list all cases so we have a clear base to start from in the first place?



> Yes, technically it is the responsibility of the scrambler to check it. But that's the way the regulations are currently written, not necessarily the best way.



You are suggesting that the writing of the current regs don't make it clear that the scrambler is responsible for scrambling right here. I disagree. How would you change the writing though?



> I get it, more layers of bureaucracy sucks. And many people that scramble are perfectly reliable for doing what they should be doing properly. But ultimately what everyone wants is for there to be no issues. Perhaps this could be a good way to resolve any issues. Certainly better than filming every solve >.<



I think we are jumping to conclusions and not-thought-through-proposals without fully exploring the cause and magnitute of the problem *and* the possible ways to solve this. There are many other, way more practical ways like I described above to encourage scramblers to take responsibility and actually do their 'job'. We really don't need a scrambler-police for that.

Also: the good thing is, is that events where scrambles are a big influence (2x2, Pyraminx, Skewb), the scrambles are very short so the risk of misscrambling is smaller than at 7x7 (where the scramble barely matters).



> Also, at every competition I've been to I've seen the issue of someone getting the same scramble twice (or so claimed). And I'm 99% sure we only catch a small number of the mistakes that are made, which means there is probably a reasonable amount of mis-scrambling going on.



Your claim is vastly exaggerated, but yes of course there are cases that are not noticed. There are numerous other things that probably didn't get noticed (like wrong delegate/judge decisions). Incidents happen. That's inevitable without WCA-provided staff for all posts.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 19, 2014)

Erik said:


> We really don't need a scrambler-police for that.


PIT-boss, not scrambler police 
And your examples pretty much prove that we do need that, but that in reality you, as a scrambler, perform both roles and that works. But you (and I) are not at every competition so a formal PIT-boss would be a good idea.
For bigcubes we don't really need the PIT-boss because we don't require correct scrambles.



> _Yes, technically it is the responsibility of the scrambler to check it. But that's the way the regulations are currently written, not necessarily the best way._



I think that Dene meant that the regulations are perfectly clear about this being the responsibility of the scrambler, but that this could change to be done in a better way (PIT-BOSS!)


----------



## Stefan (Sep 19, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> Actually I didn't know how to write it, so I used logic:
> I knew pit bull had LL
> I knew pit boss had SS
> so logic said that pit should have TT



Ok, thanks. I btw had googled "pit boss" but only saw an odd TV show about rescuing pit bulls . Only now I scrolled down enough to see the casino meaning I guess you were referring to.



Erik said:


> My prediction is: if you put a scramble-checker on the job, he will not find any wrong scrambles





Erik said:


> Maybe we should focus on scramblers doing their job



Did you just say that a scrambler-checker would be a way to make scramblers do their job and then said we should find a way of make scramblers do their job?

Also, I'd really go away from "scramble-checker" or even your "scrambler-police", given all the suggestions what that person can do in addition to scramble-checking. "Pit boss" sounds cool but isn't very telling, but I think "scramble-manager" would be a good name. And less "intimidating", if that's why you call it "police" (although I wouldn't mind my scrambling being checked, I know I'm just human and make mistakes and I'd prefer to have them detected and fixed instead of used (that's one reason I try to always show the code I used for statistics I posted, so that others can potentially find and point out errors in it)).

Also, by _"glancing at your co-scrambler's cube"_, you're already playing "scrambler-police". So are you for or against it? And in case it's not clear: it doesn't necessarily need to be a job strictly defined and required by the regulations. The regulations also don't talk about "runners" but some competitions do have them (A2d even talks about judges taking puzzles from the scramblers, which kinda sounds like there shouldn't be intermediate people like runners).


----------



## Dene (Sep 19, 2014)

Erik said:


> If I understand correctly, this is what I do when I am scrambling together with a beginner or with someone I am not sure of how good they are at scrambling. If they finish a scramble about the same time as I do, I quickly glance at their cube. Of course I can't check all of their scrambles since I can only check when I just finished scrambling a cube myself, but it certainly helps and motivates the co-scrambler to check themselves and scramble carefully. Encouraging this is a much better way of dealing with this 'problem' than having extra people to check the scramble.
> 
> 
> Why don't you list all cases so we have a clear base to start from in the first place?
> ...



I want to clarify: my vision of having a Pit Boss is that it would be an optional role, not a compulsory role added to the regulations (just like a runner). I suspect a lot of your opposition to the idea stems from the concern that it would be mandatory (I could be wrong, just thought I would say).

Obviously the best thing would be for every scrambler to get it right every time (or catch their own mistakes). But in the real world, mistakes happen... You ask for some examples:
1) The revelation of Rowe getting a repeat scramble in 3bld which was the WR at the time, and only came to light when he admitted to it.
2) The Telesforo incident, which would have been avoided with a scramble checker.
3) This repeat scramble incident (I guess a lot of people don't know about it, but delegates might remember).
4) The Lucas Etter incident.

And I don't think my claim is exaggerated. I can think of many instances at competitions in Australia when someone comes up to me saying they've got the same scramble. And this sort of honestly can't be expected the majority of the time. Also, if I were to get the same scramble on, for example, 5x5, I quite possibly wouldn't notice (being CN, something completely different might catch my eye for centres). Even for 3x3 I might not notice if there isn't an obvious pattern to go to.


AvG and Mr. Pochmann answered the rest for me.


----------



## Erik (Sep 19, 2014)

Stefan said:


> Did you just say that a scrambler-checker would be a way to make scramblers do their job and then said we should find a way of make scramblers do their job?



In short: yes, but the extra scrambler-checker is not the right solution to achieve this goal. I am saying that we should get people to do their job with the personell we have instead of 'hiring' an *extra* person to achieve that goal.



> Also, I'd really go away from "scramble-checker" or even your "scrambler-police", given all the suggestions what that person can do in addition to scramble-checking.



Ok, does it really matter that much? ... You can call them 'executive process managers' as well for all I care  The thing is we already have pitt bosses in a way: scramblers.



> Also, by _"glancing at your co-scrambler's cube"_, you're already playing "scrambler-police". So are you for or against it?



As stated before, I am pro motivating people to do their job, but against having *extra* people surveilancing. That's the key difference: making things work the way they are (and are ment to be) without implementing extra regulations or expanding the staff. If that doesn't work you can always resort to other options.

@ Dene: thanks for the examples. Even though there are only 4. I only remember one incident among my competitions which had to do with records at Lemgo Open 2010: Niklas Spies received a wrong scramble at Pyraminx, and did a world record on it. After trying to reconstruct the solve we found out it was scrambled wrong.

Btw. I don't recognize your "100% of competitions had scrambling issues", that's why I said your claim is vastly exaggerated. Maybe scramblers scramble better in Europe? Sure, stuff happens but not at every competition.

@ AvG: I don't get why you sound so psyched about the term "Pitt-Boss" other than that it sounds fancy.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Sep 19, 2014)

Erik said:


> I am saying that we should get people to do their job with the personell we have instead of 'hiring' an *extra* person to achieve that goal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Even the best people make mistakes. Surely an extra person would help both the inexperienced(so we can stop them from scrambling) and the experienced(who might be tired and accidentally scramble incorrectly.)


----------



## Laura O (Sep 19, 2014)

Erik said:


> She just pointed out the fact that we already have people responsible for checking scrambled cubes: scramblers. Maybe we should focus on scramblers doing their job instead of 'patching'.



Exactly this.

There was a situation at one of recent competitions where I scrambled 2x2 together with a young boy. He was really eager to do this and rushed through the scrambles. Right after I had told him to calm down a bit, the delegate came to us and told us that there were two competitors who got the first scramble twice. After this there were no further complaints, so I believe it helps to remind people to do their work properly.

Furthermore it helps to chose the scramblers wisely. I wouldn't let a random person do this job just because he wants to. There are always competitors coming to the table "I want to scramble, can I scramble, please let me scramble..." although they don't know how to do this (e.g. someone asked me why there were only 7 scrambles on the scrambling sheet while there were 20 competitors in the round...). And I have seen delegates who actually don't care who is scrambling as long as there is anyone doing it.



> Also: I still haven't seen any indication as to how big this 'problem' is.



Yes, I am waiting for this as well.
I have done probably 900 solves this year and there were only 2 cases where I got a scramble twice. Of course, I don't know how many cubes were scrambled just wrong and this is just my experience, but I would consider this as an indicator that this isn't such a big problem (at least around here).


----------



## XTowncuber (Sep 19, 2014)

Akash Rupela's 6.91 on a misscramble 
Heribertus Ariando's 7.53 on a misscramble

2 more examples where a scramble checker could have been useful.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Sep 19, 2014)

I'm pretty amazed people have had such a hard time checking the scambles to see if it's correct.
I've always been able to check the sheet. The only time it's difficult to keep up is when there is an event like 2x2 and 20+ cubes.


----------



## DrKorbin (Sep 20, 2014)

Erik said:


> My prediction is: if you put a scramble-checker on the job, he will not find any wrong scrambles since the scramblers don't want to look like fools.



My 2 cents: once upon a time I was a scrambler-checker for Clock (I guess this was the only time we used scrambler-checkers). Scramblers knew that I checked them, despite that they still made errors (I found about 5 misscrambles).


----------



## Tim Major (Sep 21, 2014)

Dene said:


> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1175 This repeat scramble incident (I guess a lot of people don't know about it, but delegates might remember).



http://i.imgur.com/8Z3GseA.jpg

This is an especially unfortunate incident. His 5th solve was DNF'd due to his honesty, but if you look at first place, obviously the 5th scramble was easy also! He lost 2 NRs, first place, and that average would've been over 2 seconds faster than his current official average.

For the people arguing that the current system is fine, I think this case is the best argument for the current system not working. 

I think having a scramble checker who has to sign every scramble would work. It only takes 5 seconds max to check and sign, less time that a lot of scramblers. It may not completely solve the problem due to human error, but it'd vastly reduce it.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Sep 21, 2014)

Mike Hughey said:


> Not true. A parent wouldn't be able to easily grasp the issue of handling nonstandard color schemes. Nonstandard color schemes make "just checking a picture" not all that easy - especially if you're worried about things like a scramble being applied with the wrong orientation.



I don't think a scramble checker would check every side to match a picture. They could just check one colour like white and make sure all the white stickers are in the right place. Or a couple sides and only one colour. You'd have to figure out for cubes that don't have a white face, but since white is always on top then the white pieces should be in the same place everytime so you don't have to worry about weird colour schemes.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 21, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> http://i.imgur.com/8Z3GseA.jpg
> 
> This is an especially unfortunate incident. His 5th solve was DNF'd due to his honesty, but if you look at first place, obviously the 5th scramble was easy also! He lost 2 NRs, first place, and that average would've been over 2 seconds faster than his current official average.
> 
> ...


It seems that quite a few NR and even WR have been because/despite wrong scrambles. It also seems that it is almost always the honest people that suffer. This is exactly the opposite of how it should be.
It has happened a few times to me that I received a scramble (let's say the 3rd) and during inspection I found out that it was the same as the previous one that I solved. I notify the judge, the judge asks the delegate what to do. My scramble is checked, but turns out to be the 3rd scramble anyway, so I get a DNF without ever touching the cube, just because I suspected a misscramble...and then it turned out later that I did get the same scramble, but it was my 2nd attempt that received the 3rd scramble. None of this is my fault, but I am the one that suffers from it. Now I just keep my mouth shut, do the solve, and AFTERWARDS I contact the delegate.
It has also happened that during inspection I notify the judge about a probable duplicate scramble, but it turns out the 3 edge that I inspected were exactly the same in two different scrambles. Result: DNF again
And apparently scrambling correctly IS quite hard, because for a long time I heard people say "YES, CORRECT" when they finally got a bigcube scrambled correctly. For practical reasons we even included the "as long as it is scrambled well" rule for bigcubes.

And of course a pit boss could make sure that "little judge 1" judges everyone, and not just his friend or Feliks/Mats. And so many other things that happen at the scramble table that really shouldn't happen there


----------



## dougthecube (Oct 20, 2014)

I think that if there were some WRs that clearly should be made DNFs because of video footage that was not allowed to be used then this would lose the integrity of WRs as a whole because of the fact that certain WRs would not be respected for this reason, and when WRs are not respected then a lot of the credibility of the community as a whole would be lost.


----------



## Noahaha (Oct 20, 2014)

Noahaha said:


> I don't know if this has been suggested before:
> 
> If you set a record and get it on camera, you would be able to get it reviewed at the competition by the delegate. That way if a resolve is necessary, you definitely won't lose a record for it.



I was a little disappointed that no one discussed this. I think it would solve most of the problems we have right now.

Just to be clear, this would only be an option if you get a National, Continental or World Record.


----------



## kcl (Oct 20, 2014)

Noahaha said:


> I was a little disappointed that no one discussed this. I think it would solve most of the problems we have right now.
> 
> Just to be clear, this would only be an option if you get a National, Continental or World Record.



So you'd be at an advantage to not film your solves?


----------



## Petro Leum (Oct 20, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> So you'd be at an advantage to not film your solves?



but thats pretty much what we have right now, dont you agree? noahs idea would just take some frustration out of the equation by avoiding that the record will be overturned WAY AFTER the competition. with his proposal, the competitor would get an extra solve (if necessary) right at the competition or a DNF/+2 even before the WR/CR/NR Hype. i feel like that's a good compromise.


----------



## kcl (Oct 20, 2014)

Petro Leum said:


> but thats pretty much what we have right now, dont you agree? noahs idea would just take some frustration out of the equation by avoiding that the record will be overturned WAY AFTER the competition. with his proposal, the competitor would get an extra solve (if necessary) right at the competition or a DNF/+2 even before the WR/CR/NR Hype. i feel like that's a good compromise.



That's true, I suppose this could help deal with misscrambles.


----------



## frogmanson (Oct 20, 2014)

Idea: If you set some sort of record, you get an extra sixth solve that isn't accounted for in the average, but if one solve in the average is found to be a DNF for some reason, then that extra solve can be used instead of the DNF solve in the calculation of the average (at the discretion of the WCA board). Sort of an advantage over other cubers, though, but it's no different from getting an extra solve if the DNF were found during the competition. This extra solve wouldn't be entered into the database or count for anything unless some sort of retroactive action were taken to cause the record-setting average to be DNF'd. The extra solve would be a floating solve used only as a contingency. 

EDIT: By 'DNF' I mean some sort of misscramble situation or any other type of situation that would have elicited an extra solve in the first place.


----------



## Dane man (Oct 20, 2014)

frogmanson said:


> Idea: If you set some sort of record, you get an extra sixth solve that isn't accounted for in the average, but if one solve in the average is found to be a DNF for some reason, then that extra solve can be used instead of the DNF solve in the calculation of the average (at the discretion of the WCA board). Sort of an advantage over other cubers, though, but it's no different from getting an extra solve if the DNF were found during the competition. This extra solve wouldn't be entered into the database or count for anything unless some sort of retroactive action were taken to cause the record-setting average to be DNF'd.
> 
> EDIT: By 'DNF' I mean some sort of misscramble situation or any other type of situation that would have elicited an extra solve in the first place.


That actually makes a lot of sense, but one difficulty with it will be in the time necessary to accommodate that. It would work best with smaller puzzles whose scrambles and solves can be done quickly and efficiently, but the higher order cubes, and more complex puzzle would not be as easy to implement this with.

Despite this, I think this is actually a pretty decent idea.


----------



## tseitsei (Oct 20, 2014)

frogmanson said:


> Idea: If you set some sort of record, you get an extra sixth solve that isn't accounted for in the average, but if one solve in the average is found to be a DNF for some reason, then that extra solve can be used instead of the DNF solve in the calculation of the average (at the discretion of the WCA board). Sort of an advantage over other cubers, though, but it's no different from getting an extra solve if the DNF were found during the competition. This extra solve wouldn't be entered into the database or count for anything unless some sort of retroactive action were taken to cause the record-setting average to be DNF'd. The extra solve would be a floating solve used only as a contingency.
> 
> EDIT: By 'DNF' I mean some sort of misscramble situation or any other type of situation that would have elicited an extra solve in the first place.



I like this idea.


----------



## antoineccantin (Oct 20, 2014)

frogmanson said:


> Idea: If you set some sort of record, you get an extra sixth solve that isn't accounted for in the average, but if one solve in the average is found to be a DNF for some reason, then that extra solve can be used instead of the DNF solve in the calculation of the average (at the discretion of the WCA board). Sort of an advantage over other cubers, though, but it's no different from getting an extra solve if the DNF were found during the competition. This extra solve wouldn't be entered into the database or count for anything unless some sort of retroactive action were taken to cause the record-setting average to be DNF'd. The extra solve would be a floating solve used only as a contingency.
> 
> EDIT: By 'DNF' I mean some sort of misscramble situation or any other type of situation that would have elicited an extra solve in the first place.



What if you set a sub-WR single in the last one? Would it count? And could you intentionally DNF the worst solve of the first 5 (by scribbling on the scorecard or something), to get a better average?


----------



## cubernya (Oct 20, 2014)

antoineccantin said:


> What if you set a sub-WR single in the last one? Would it count? And could you intentionally DNF the worst solve of the first 5 (by scribbling on the scorecard or something), to get a better average?



Doing an intentional DNF would do nothing, since the sixth solve doesn't count unless a solve is DNFed because of a misscramble (not competitor error)


----------



## Randomno (Oct 20, 2014)

I think I posted here before, but I've basically been thinking...

If somebody beat the 3x3 single, and it was filmed, then people watching would check for any errors. And say it was a misscramble: the record would be changed to a DNF. But if this suggested did become official, then that time would become the new OWR, but everyone would know the solve was a misscramble. If that misscramble happened to make the scramble state have the cross and two F2L slots done, that would change the solve time drastically.

If a 3x3 single WR was set but NOT filmed, it may have been a misscramble too, but no one would know.


----------



## cashis (Oct 21, 2014)

has it been mentioned that maybe all wca solves should be videoed for the sake of consistency?


----------



## RageCuber (Oct 21, 2014)

cashis said:


> has it been mentioned that maybe all wca solves should be videoed for the sake of consistency?



that doesn't sound possible to me. just think about it, that would mean the WCA would need 
extra money to make sure there are enough cameras for every solve station of every event in the world.
Unless you wanted to narrow it down to like people who have gotten sub-10 or sub-9 averages in the past (3x3).
and even then it would take hours of watching footage after every comp (especially at comps like worlds, nationals etc.)
all that to say, yes its been said in this thread that that would not be a good idea.
EDIT- theZcuber your profile pic is a sick joke XD


----------



## frogmanson (Oct 21, 2014)

antoineccantin said:


> What if you set a sub-WR single in the last one? Would it count? And could you intentionally DNF the worst solve of the first 5 (by scribbling on the scorecard or something), to get a better average?



If a WR were set with the sixth solve then it would not count, at least for my idea. The sixth solve may or may not be used (up to the powers-that-be who DNF averages after the competition's end), and it can only be used if something like video evidence retroactively DNF'd the average due to a misscramble or something. The reason for the sixth solve isn't necessarily there to ever even use that solve for the calculation of the average, but in the case that the WCA does decide one solve in a record-setting average is to be DNF'd then the sixth solve offers an additional alternative action that the WCA can choose if it wants to. The sixth solve will not be entered into the database for any reason even if it is a WR or improves the average, because that would be unfair to the other competitors since it would be an extra solve. It is only there because once the competition ends, an additional solve is impossible. Think of the sixth solve as an insurance policy that can only be used if and only if an unusual circumstance occurs.


----------



## dougthecube (Oct 21, 2014)

It was decided that would be too hard


----------



## cashis (Oct 21, 2014)

honestly I like the sixth solve idea, but I think it should count for wr single and should be recorded on the website


----------

