# Regarding Team Blindfolded and Eventhood



## Ranzha (Oct 22, 2014)

Hello everyone.
I would like to begin working to propose Rubik's Cube: Team Blindfolded as an official event.
This thread is not meant as a proposal, but as a place for discussion about what issues currently exist with Team Blindfolded solving, how to solve these issues, and how to go about integrating Team Blindfolded into the WCA Regulations.

For those of you who don't know what the Team Blindfolded event is, it essentially involves a team of two cubers solving a cube. One of these competitors is blindfolded and can make moves on the puzzle (the "solver"). The other competitor is not blindfolded and cannot touch the puzzle (the "caller"). The pair of competitors must communicate to solve the cube.

Team Blindfolded has been a fun unofficial event for years, and proposals for its eventhood date back almost five years. However, with the decision to simplify the Regulations in 2012, discussion about Team Blindfolded's eventhood stopped cold.

*To reopen discussion, I ask the following questions and submit the following issues:* (Please quote this message when submitting your answers!)
1) _Popularity._ Would you compete in Team Blindfolded if it were to become an event?
2) _Inspection and Starting the Solve._ Should this phase exist in Team Blindfolded solving? If so, what should the procedure be like for it and starting the solve?
3) _Blindfold Shielding._ How can we ensure the competitors are able to communicate while the judge holds a shield in front of the blindfolded competitor?
4) _Eavesdropping._ How can we ensure competitors cannot cheat via eavesdropping? The 1.5m regulation and the low noise-level regulation may not be enough.
5) _Event format._ What event formats should be used? Should Team Blindfolded be added under 9b1, 9b2, or 9b3?
6) _Timing penalties._ How should timing penalties be implemented? Should they be the same as in Articles 10 and A, or as in Articles 10 and B, or differently?
7) _Fixed/Variable Roles._ Should the role each competitor takes (i.e. caller, solver) be considered in record-keeping? Should the competitors be allowed to switch roles between attempts in a round? Between rounds?
8) _WCA Database Integration._ How should we incorporate results from Team Blindfolded in the WCA database? How should the results look on the records page, ranking pages, competition webpages, and competitor results pages?

If people come up with more issues to Team Blindfolded, I'll try my best to post relevant information here in the OP.

*My ideas for tackling these questions/issues:*

1) Popularity
I would definitely compete in Team Blindfolded if it were an official event, as long as I am able to do it with Nathaniel.

2) Inspection and Starting the Solve
The inspection phase should exist and should follow the procedure in A3 with the following addenda (aside from rewriting "the competitor" as "the competing team" and "he" to "its" where applicable):
X3b) The judge prepares the timer by turning it on and resetting if necessary. *The judge places an opaque object in front of the solver.* Separately, the judge also prepares a stopwatch for timing inspection.
X3c) The solver may pick up the puzzle during inspection.
X3c1) The solver must not apply moves during inspection. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).
X3c4) (new regulation) The caller must not touch the puzzle during inspection. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).
X3c5) (new regulation) The competing team may communicate during inspection.
For starting the solve, I suggest that the solver be required to start the timer (for sake of consistency).

3) Blindfold Shielding
This is the toughest issue to contend with, in my opinion. By the letter of the regulation, if we require the solver to hold the puzzle above/behind his head, outside his field of vision, no additional work is required by the judge by B4c since this "[ensures] that there is an opaque object between the competitor's face and the puzzle while the competitor is solving." I consider this to be the least intrusive solution to this issue. Can anyone suggest how such a solution would be worded for the Regulations? ("Above his head" is not enough)

4) Eavesdropping
Many people bring this issue up again and again. I think that as long as competitors maintain a low and reasonable volume, this shouldn't be an issue. It was never an issue during unofficial competition, and I think that if judges are aware of the competing team during their solve, very few problems could arise.

5) Event format
9b1 (Avg 5, or Best of X where X is 1, 2, or 3).

6) Timing penalties
Same as in Articles 10 and A.

7) Fixed/Variable Roles
I don't mind either way if competitors would be allowed to change roles.
If competitors are not allowed to change roles at any time during the competition:

Teams register and denote which competitor is the caller and which competitor is the solver.
The WCA Database can include the roles of competitors.
The WCA Database could distinguish between the case where Competitor A is solver and the case where Competitor B is solver.
If competitors are allowed to change roles only between rounds of a competition:

Upon bringing a puzzle to be scrambled, the competing team must denote which competitor is the solver and which competitor is the caller.
The WCA Database can include the roles of competitors.
The WCA Database could distinguish between the case where Competitor A is solver and the case where Competitor B is solver.
If competitors are allowed to change roles at any time during the competition:

The WCA Database should not include the roles of competitors.
The WCA Database should not distinguish between the case where Competitor A is solver and the case where Competitor B is solver.

This noted, I would prefer competitors be allowed to change roles at any time, though this does not need to be the case.

8) WCA Database Integration
This really boils down to whether or not we want to consider collecting results about the roles of competitors, which would only be practical if competitors were disallowed from changing roles between attempts of rounds. However, the most practical option is for us not to care about collecting such data.

If we wish to distinguish Caller: Competitor A, Solver: Competitor B; from Caller: Competitor B, Solver: Competitor A


Spoiler



Records page:

```
Rubik's Cube: Team Blindfolded
Single:      m:ss.xy    Competitor A (caller) &      Smerbia            Competition Name
                        Competitor B (solver)        Waffletopia
                        Competitor B (caller) &      Waffletopia        Competition Name
                        Competitor A (solver)        Smerbia
Average:     m:ss.xy    Competitor A (caller) &      Smerbia            Competition Name    time1    time2    time3    time4    time5
                        Competitor B (solver)        Waffletopia
                        Competitor B (caller) &      Waffletopia        Competition Name    time1    time2    time3    time4    time5
                        Competitor A (solver)        Smerbia
```
where the text background colour change occurs between teams, not between competitors.

Rankings pages would be done in much the same way.

Competitor pages:
Competitor A:

```
Current Personal Records:
Rubik's Cube: Team Blindfolded    NR CR WR m:ss.xy    m:ss.xy WR CR NR
(notice now nothing was different from how it's currently done)

History of X Records:
Event                            Single    Average    Competition         Round    Result Details
Rubik's Cube: Team Blindfolded   m:ss.xy              Competition Name    Final    Caller with Competitor B
                                           m:ss.xy    Competition Name    Final    Solver with Competitor B    time1    time2    time3    time4    time5

History:
Rubik's Cube: Team Blindfolded
Competition         Round    Place    Role    Teammate        Best         Average         Result Details
Competition Name    Final    1        Caller  Competitor B    m:ss.xy      m:ss.xy         time1    time2    time3    time4    time5
Competition Name    Final    1        Solver  Competitor B    m:ss.xy      m:ss.xy         time1    time2    time3    time4    time5
```
"Competitor B" would be hyperlinked to Competitor B's official results page.



If we *don't* wish to distinguish Caller: Competitor A, Solver: Competitor B; from Caller: Competitor B, Solver: Competitor A


Spoiler



Records page:

```
Rubik's Cube: Team Blindfolded
Single:      m:ss.xy    Competitor A &      Smerbia         Competition Name
                        Competitor B        Waffletopia
                        Competitor C &      Cascadia        Competition Name
                        Competitor D        Cascadia        
Average:     m:ss.xy    Competitor A &      Smerbia         Competition Name    time1    time2    time3    time4    time5
                        Competitor B        Waffletopia
                        Competitor C &      Cascadia        Competition Name    time1    time2    time3    time4    time5
                        Competitor D        Cascadia
```
where the text background colour change occurs between teams, not between competitors.

Rankings pages would be done in much the same way.

Competitor pages:
Competitor A:

```
Current Personal Records:
Rubik's Cube: Team Blindfolded    NR CR WR m:ss.xy    m:ss.xy WR CR NR
(notice now nothing was different from how it's currently done)

History of X Records:
Event                            Single    Average    Competition         Round    Result Details
Rubik's Cube: Team Blindfolded   m:ss.xy              Competition Name    Final    with Competitor B
                                           m:ss.xy    Competition Name    Final    with Competitor B    time1    time2    time3    time4    time5

History:
Rubik's Cube: Team Blindfolded
Competition         Round    Place    Teammate        Best         Average         Result Details
Competition Name    Final    1        Competitor B    m:ss.xy      m:ss.xy         time1    time2    time3    time4    time5
Competition Name    Final    1        Competitor C    m:ss.xy      m:ss.xy         time1    time2    time3    time4    time5
```
"Competitor B" would be hyperlinked to Competitor B's official results page, et al.



Discuss!


----------



## TheDubDubJr (Oct 22, 2014)

Ranzha said:


> Hello everyone.
> I would like to begin working to propose Rubik's Cube: Team Blindfolded as an official event.
> 
> 1) _Popularity._ Would you compete in Team Blindfolded if it were to become an event?
> ...




*1)* Yes I would definitely compete in Team Blindfolded.
*2)* I think inspection should remain consistent with other speedsolving events with 15seconds, but I do not think there should be a rule against the caller touching the cube during inspection. The solver also should be blindfolded before the judge starts the inspection and the solver should be the one starting and stopping the timer.
*3)* Like other Blindfolded events, we should have a judge shielding the solver (in front of the face/blindfold) and I do not think this will create too much trouble for the caller.
*4)* This might be tricky, I think the main thing is to make sure there is stagnation and that no team goes at the exact same time to prevent another team to obtain calling information from another. Also that the calling/noise is not too high.
*5)* When I personally think of Team Blindfold, I imagine it being in the same category as normal BLD so I think 9b3b is good so the event is Mo3 and Best of X.
*6)* Penalties should definitely be included and remain consistent between all events, but I think having 1-move as being +2 or DNF works either way.
*7)* I think the role that each competitor takes should be recorded in the WCA results but I do not think that there should be separate records for each. Also I wouldn't think it would be too hard for the judge to mark who was solver and caller. I think that the caller and solver should be able to switch in the middle of the round.
*8)* I am very impressed with all of the examples you brought and would be happy if those results layouts were used. If this becomes a very serious discussion for addition for the WCA, the Delegates should be able to find a good/efficient/practical way to incorporate results that work best for them.

I think this would be the most different event if added because of it being a multiple person event. That would also make it the harder to make regulations appropriate to ensure consistency and no cheating.


----------



## suushiemaniac (Oct 22, 2014)

Ranzha said:


> 1) _Popularity._ Would you compete in Team Blindfolded if it were to become an event?
> 2) _Inspection and Starting the Solve._ Should this phase exist in Team Blindfolded solving? If so, what should the procedure be like for it and starting the solve?
> 3) _Blindfold Shielding._ How can we ensure the competitors are able to communicate while the judge holds a shield in front of the blindfolded competitor?
> 4) _Eavesdropping._ How can we ensure competitors cannot cheat via eavesdropping? The 1.5m regulation and the low noise-level regulation may not be enough.
> ...



I definitely would. The fact that the proposal/initiative stood for 5 years underlines the popularity imo.
Inspection with the Solver holding the puzzle and rotating (x, y, z) it following the callers announcements. Timer has to be started after a maximum of 15 seconds as usual.
Shielding is definitely needed but there is no suitable variant I can think of right now. Maybe use the caller as shielding standing between the (also standing) solver and the puzzle?
Everyone solves the cube somewhat differently/approaches a given scramble differently, and even if two teams use an identical solution, the chances they are using different codes is relatively high. When using raw notation, I find that it's nearly impossible for the solver to evaluate at which point in the solve to use the looped audio bits of notation.
Ao5 or Bo1/2/3 with soft- and hardcuts respectively. That's 9b1.
10 and A. Although it's called "Team _Blindfolded_" I find that it resembles speedsolving more closely than BLD solving.
Fixed, definitely. When two persons practice together, in most of the cases one person specializes in calling and the other in solving. At least that's my experience. Thus switching roles during a round or between rounds would result in a completely different team, in a manner of speaking, and should not be allowed.
Records page: One team achieves the best time in the world, which then gets listed as single/average time respectively along with Name: Caller, Name: Solver
Rankings page: Rank the results in a similar format to the records page
Personal results: In the PB summary list the best time ever achieved in a team as a caller, and the best result achieved as solver. If one of either doesn't exist, it doesn't get listed.


----------



## RageCuber (Oct 22, 2014)

Ranzha said:


> Hello everyone.
> I would like to begin working to propose Rubik's Cube: Team Blindfolded as an official event.
> This thread is not meant as a proposal, but as a place for discussion about what issues currently exist with Team Blindfolded solving, how to solve these issues, and how to go about integrating Team Blindfolded into the WCA Regulations.
> 
> ...


Sorry about last post, its deleted now.
1) Yes I would.
2) inspection for the caller should be allowed.
3)not sure. maybe the caller can be sitting while the solver is standing, or work it out with the delagate/judge for special cases.
4)make sure there are only a couple teams solving at a time, and all waiting to solve would be at the other side of the room/or a different room.
5)9b1
6)regular penalties + a penalty for calling too loud, or loud enough for other competitors to hear.
7)I think switching roles should be required in one out of the five solves for the sake of consistency.
8) Like regular records, but with both peoples names.

extras i think should be included:
1) if one of the competitors doesn't show up to the solve station in time, the person who did show up would not be penalized with a dnf.
2)the caller should be allowed to pick up the cube to inscpect.
3) they should allow walk-ins, because not many people will be able to plan that with another cuber before the comp.
so the event would be more popular if people could just ask someone at the comp if they want to partner for team blind.


----------



## Genius4Jesus (Oct 23, 2014)

Ranzha said:


> 1) _Popularity._ Would you compete in Team Blindfolded if it were to become an event?
> 2) _Inspection and Starting the Solve._ Should this phase exist in Team Blindfolded solving? If so, what should the procedure be like for it and starting the solve?
> 3) _Blindfold Shielding._ How can we ensure the competitors are able to communicate while the judge holds a shield in front of the blindfolded competitor?
> 4) _Eavesdropping._ How can we ensure competitors cannot cheat via eavesdropping? The 1.5m regulation and the low noise-level regulation may not be enough.
> ...



*1)* I would definitely compete in Team BLD! 
*2)* I think the inspection should be 15 seconds. 
But, some other small things I think should be part of the inspection for Team BLD: 
-The judge would ask, "are you ready?" Then, both the caller and solver would have to respond. 
-Only the solver may touch the puzzle during inspection (seeing as only the solver touches it for the solving stage).
*3)* I think shielding as in normal BLD is fine. Even if it is a "distraction" it will just be a part of solving in comp.
*4)* This may be difficult to deal with, but I think scrambles should be given in a different order for each team. This would work something like, having a max of _x_ teams go per heat. Then, hopefully no team would get their scrambles in the same order at the same time. This would minimize the possibility of eavesdropping. (Side note: the score cards say what order the scrambles come in for each team.) Also, most of the "good" teams (which people would want to cheat off) would most likely use a code system that would be difficult to interpret. So, eavesdropping may not be much of a problem at all. 
*5)* I think Team BLD should be put in with the other BLD events. And Team BLD should be recognized under "Best of X" and "Mean of 3".
*6)* I think penalties should be as normal. With the exception of, if the caller touches the puzzle at any time, it is a DNF.
*7)* I think it does not matter who does the calling and who does the solving (meaning they can switch whenever). But, it should be recorded in the WCA database.
*8)* N/A.


----------



## dougthecube (Oct 23, 2014)

Perhaps the caller could be allowed to hold the cube during inspection?


----------



## TinaTheAwesome (Oct 23, 2014)

1) Team-blind would be a very fun event and I would definitely compete in it!
2) I think the caller should be allotted a 15-second inspection and be allowed to touch the cube during that time but not once the solver has started the timer or during the solve.
3) Well this may be tricky but I think both individuals could be seated. The solver would be seated in front of the timer and the caller seated next to him or her. This way the caller can see around the blindfold shield. 
4) Everyone solves cubes differently so I honestly don't think this would be a problem but I like what Genius4Jesus said about giving each team the scrambles in different orders. It might turn into a logistical nightmare but I still think it could be done if you're really concerned about eavesdropping. 
6) Penalties should remain the same with a few new ones added for special cases that apply only to team-blind such as the caller touching the cube during the solve.
7) I think that the caller/solver should be allowed to switch roles if they choose and the result should be recorded the same for both under team-blindfolded. I don't think it is necessary to record who called and who solved. 
8) It should be recorded just like every other event with both individuals names listed. 

One question I have is how would team-blind work if someone is deaf? I realize this isn't a super important issue at this point but I'm just curious. My boyfriend is deaf and we have tried team-blind before. It's sort of difficult but still doable for us if I am the one solving and he is the one calling. However we mainly use sign language to communicate with each other which means that I either have to touch/hold his hand or he has to touch/hold mine during the solve. Would that be allowed?


----------



## Ranzha (Oct 23, 2014)

TinaTheAwesome said:


> One question I have is how would team-blind work if someone is deaf? I realize this isn't a super important issue at this point but I'm just curious. My boyfriend is deaf and we have tried team-blind before. It's sort of difficult but still doable for us if I am the one solving and he is the one calling. However we mainly use sign language to communicate with each other which means that I either have to touch/hold his hand or he has to touch/hold mine during the solve. Would that be allowed?



I want to make clear that the proposed regulations would include a regulation to be read like A5a:

X5a) While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competitors must not communicate with anyone other than his teammate or his judge. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).


----------



## kcl (Oct 23, 2014)

To avoid issues with logistics with giving scrambles in a different order, would it be possible to give each scramble a letter (first one A, second one B, etc) and then assign each team a letter order? That would allow for plenty of teams (120), and may solve the issue of evesdropping.


----------



## blade740 (Oct 23, 2014)

There's one issue that I think needs to be considered - starting the timer. Other blindfold events involve starting the timer with the blindfold off, but with this event that would not be the case. You have to make sure solvers can reliably start a stackmat without looking, as well as somehow prevent "false starts" - setting off the timer early when setting the cube down from inspection. I feel that this could be a big issue for some solvers, especially if the judge is not able to see the timer and warn the solvers. 

That said, I'm all for this event. Everyone loves team BLD, it's insanely popular and a lot of fun. Obstructing the solver's view of the cube is an issue, but I like the idea of holding the cube above your head - not required, but as an optional alternative to judge-held covers (and music stands, etc). I think we should come up with several solutions and allow competitors to choose.


----------



## Erik (Oct 23, 2014)

As you probably know I am a big supporter of Team Blind. 
Reasons for this are:
- the team/social-aspect (which is not represented in any other event)
- the ease new people can start doing it
- the creativity you need to come up with a good communication system

The one and only issue with this event could be:
An odd number of competitors, so one competitor doesn't have a teammate.

1. Definitely yes
2. Yes. There are several ways you can implement it (imho it's not that big of a problem if the caller would be able to pick up the cube for inspection) which all would work fine.
3. I am not a fan of holding the cube above or behind my head while I am solving. I organized and competed in Team Blind many times and never had a problem with the judge holding a piece of paper. You can either:
- have the judge standing on the other side of the table (so the caller can walk behind the solver to see different sides of the cube) 
- or hold the piece of paper from either the left or right side, after which the caller sits or stands on the other (which I prefer).
4. I agree this should not be a problem at all unless someone starts yelling moves. After the cross phase (assuming CFOP) other competitors wouldn't benifit from hearing moves anyway. Besides, I find it way more efficient to use codes for a number of moves rather than calling out every single move.
5. An average of 5 is very feasible. It's fast to scramble and relatively fast to solve as well so it should be a fast event. Also keep in mind: you have half the number of competitors at Team Blind since you work in teams.
6. Doesn't need commenting.
7/8. This is another point which can be implemented any way you want and would still leave you with an executable event. My personal preference is that roles don't get tracked at all (probably the easiest to implement): you treat the event like any other event and every single competitor gets a time behind his/her name. This way you could theoretically do without any database changes whatsoever (of course teammates would always share the same ranking). The only thing that would need fixing is that the numbers 2 wouldn't get place 3.
Example of this without any changes
1. Ranzha 40.20 avg
1. Erik 40.20 avg
*3.* AvG 42.21 avg 
*3.* Ron 42.21 avg

Example with changes
1. Ranzha 40.20 avg
1. Jonh Doe 40.20 avg
*2*. AvG 42.21 avg 
*2.* Ron 42.21 avg


----------



## DGCubes (Oct 23, 2014)

Ranzha said:


> Hello everyone.
> I would like to begin working to propose Rubik's Cube: Team Blindfolded as an official event.
> This thread is not meant as a proposal, but as a place for discussion about what issues currently exist with Team Blindfolded solving, how to solve these issues, and how to go about integrating Team Blindfolded into the WCA Regulations.
> 
> ...



1) I would definitely compete in team blind.
2) Inspection should allow the caller to talk to the solver, but only the solver can touch the cube.
3) A paper can be held close to the solver's face, so the caller can still see.
4) We could just prepare ahead of time more scrambles than usual so there are very few repeats.
5) 9b2; Mean of 3.
6) 10 and B
7) No switching roles within one competition, but yes switching roles between competitions.
8) On the rankings page, where the person's PB and name is normally shown, show the teams PB and names. Instead of: "Ranking" "Name" "Time"	"Country" "Comp", it would be: "Ranking" Caller: "Name 1", Solver: "Name 2" "Time" "Country" "Comp" 
If they switch roles, they have different results.


----------



## JasonDL13 (Oct 23, 2014)

Ranzha said:


> *To reopen discussion, I ask the following questions and submit the following issues:* (Please quote this message when submitting your answers!)
> 1) _Popularity._ Would you compete in Team Blindfolded if it were to become an event?
> 2) _Inspection and Starting the Solve._ Should this phase exist in Team Blindfolded solving? If so, what should the procedure be like for it and starting the solve?
> 3) _Blindfold Shielding._ How can we ensure the competitors are able to communicate while the judge holds a shield in front of the blindfolded competitor?
> ...



1. If I had a partner I would
2. Yes, my opinion on this is that the caller would pickup the cube, inspect it, then give it to the solver, in any orientation, the starter would then put the cube in a preferred place and start the timer. The caller is allowed to call things before the solve starts (during inspection).
3. I honestly don't see a problem with this. Just hold the paper close to callers face. But I don't know: Maybe there is a problem and I can't see it
4. We're screwed on this one. But eavesdropping isn't a huge issue. Maybe after the solve people will explain the calls and what they do.
5. 9b3
6. Yes, the solver can still miss the last turn whilst throwing the cube on the table. Same reason why +2 is in MBLD and other BLD events.
7. Yes in all
8. Let say Jason was the caller, and noasJ was the solver. It would look like this: *noasJ / Jason*. So basically Caller/Solver format.

Thanks for the high quality post ^^


----------



## dougthecube (Oct 23, 2014)

I think one issue comes in Registration and pairing. I think that people should be able to either Register in pairs before the competition or people can just register individually and then pairs could be made on the day. If people were to make pairs on the day but register beforehand this would be good because then it would be easier to record the times as each person could simply get their time and maybe, if we find it necessary, on the database it can say whether you were a caller or a solver. I understand that this could be done if people were registering as pairs but i think that if people register individually and then make pairs at the comp would be more simple. People could agree beforehand who they want to be with and then on the day say i am going with this person.

Also if someone is not able to make a pair beforehand, registering individually and then making a pair on the day means that you dont have to know somebody at the competition to compete in the event.


----------



## STOCKY7 (Oct 23, 2014)

Ranzha said:


> Hello everyone.
> I would like to begin working to propose Rubik's Cube: Team Blindfolded as an official event.
> 
> *To reopen discussion, I ask the following questions and submit the following issues:* (Please quote this message when submitting your answers!)
> ...



1) Yes definitely. I think it would bring something new to cubing, and maybe pique interest in normal BLD in general.

2) *I'm not sure about the inspection bit. I can imagine, that two very good BLD cubers with the same memo scheme, would just absolutely dominate otherwise.
A cube can EASILY be memoed and the memo conveyed within 15seconds, so that the solver could therefore do the solve without any assistance from the caller during the sovling stage. This would effectively be a normal BLD solve without the inspection included in the final time.
*
3)use a music stand with paper like at worlds for multi-bld. This would mean that the judge would not get in the way of the caller trying to move around to get a better angle of the puzzle.

4) This could be a very big issue if people start using the BLD method I talked about in point 2. I don't know how this could be controlled.

5) no clue

6) no clue

7) I agree with what _Suushiemanic_ said before. A role-reversal would give the effect of a totally different team. So I think, role reversal shouldn't be allowed

8) I can imagine it would be tricky, but hopefully the database wouldn't have to be changed to much to accomodate this event.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Oct 24, 2014)

Ranzha said:


> Hello everyone.
> *To reopen discussion, I ask the following questions and submit the following issues:* (Please quote this message when submitting your answers!)
> 1) _Popularity._ Would you compete in Team Blindfolded if it were to become an event?
> 2) _Inspection and Starting the Solve._ Should this phase exist in Team Blindfolded solving? If so, what should the procedure be like for it and starting the solve?
> ...


*1)* Yes!
*2)* I think there should be the normal 15 seconds. Judge waits until blindfold is on and they're both ready, removes cover from cube. Caller is allowed to touch the cube and begin calling during inspection. Solver can only rotate during inspection.
*3)* The shield won't get in the way I think. Just hold it relatively close to the face. The caller can also sit on the other side of the table.
*4)* Have teams start at slightly different times (you only need like 10 seconds), and at least 2m between them with a low noise level. That should be enough.
*5)* Ao5 with the best average being the winner of the competition, or mo3 with the best single being the winner. I wouldn't mind either way. An ao5 is doable because it can be pretty fast. Mo3 is just consistent with other BLD events.
*6)* Same as normal.
*7)* I think you should be allowed to switch roles between solves and rounds.
*8)* What Erik said. But I don't know how to deal with someone in multiple teams. Like Feliks and Jay got a 10.99, and Feliks and Tim got an 11.00, the rankings could look like:
1. Feliks Zemdegs 10.99
1. Jayden McNeill 10.99
2. Tim Major 11.00
3. Rami Sbahi 12.00
3. Jacob Hutnyk 12.00

Otherwise you could have the same person showing up dozens of times in the top 100 which seems weird to me. But this way is also confusing because it looks like Tim wasn't even in a team. So yeah I don't really like my own suggestion, but it's an idea.

On the user page, it just shows your time like any other event.

Edit: About the people being able to memo the cube and convey the memo during inspection, leading to a regular BLD solve execution:
Top BLDers generally execute about 15 seconds on a decent solve. The UWRs for team BLD are pretty much the same (and would get faster if it was official). I'd consider it just a different approach to the event. Although it does make it seem less different and exciting.
If it really is an issue no inspection would probably be the best option.


----------



## tx789 (Oct 24, 2014)

I think the rankings should list who is called and who is solver. With caller up top of something. So if one was in multiple teams or swapped position you'd know. I also think your on should be list as caller and as solver apart. So you have your caller on and solver pb.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 25, 2014)

Did anyone notice this was topic number 50000? :O


----------



## Ranzha (Oct 25, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Did anyone notice this was topic number 50000? :O



I did! Wooo!

(Will edit this post post-BASC 4 with relevant info)


----------



## biscuit (Jan 6, 2015)

STOCKY7 said:


> 2) *I'm not sure about the inspection bit. I can imagine, that two very good BLD cubers with the same memo scheme, would just absolutely dominate otherwise.
> A cube can EASILY be memoed and the memo conveyed within 15seconds, so that the solver could therefore do the solve without any assistance from the caller during the sovling stage. This would effectively be a normal BLD solve without the inspection included in the final time.
> *



If only the caller is allowed to inspect but could not communicate until the timer is started then there is no problem. Otherwise I don't see this as a feasible event. As long as inspection is run how I said it I think this could easily become a popular event. I don't know anyone else who speed solves so I could not practice or anything but if I did I might compete


----------

