# [WCA Regulations 2012] Proposed New Event: Team BLD



## Vincents (Dec 7, 2011)

Hi everyone,

*Before I get to my main point, I'm going to open by paraphrasing Lucas: This discussion is meant to be serious and useful. Posts construed as silly, inane, or similar will be moderated and dealt with harshly. Please post both constructively and respectfully.*

One of the new events proposed for 2012 is Team BLD. Team BLD is an event of some popularity, run mostly unofficially at various competitions around the United States from my first-hand knowledge, and possibly in other places around the world.

What we'd like to do is codify a nice set of regulations that will allow us to induct it as an official WCA event.

I'll be taking a much deeper look at this soon. Currently, it is dead and Finals week for me, so I'm opening this discussion up to the general community for preliminary ideas and suggestions. I'll take another look at this thread in 1.5-2 weeks to see what kind of ideas have been thrown around.

Basically, what I'm hoping to accomplish by the end of the calendar year is a *cohesive, bullet-proof set of regulations for Team BLD. I'm talking about something so tight even Stefan can't pick it apart. These regulations can, and will, then be field tested at the Berkeley Winter competition (and possibly others, if organizers are interested).*

Some initial issues to consider (this list is not inclusive of all the issues that need to be addressed):
- How are "competitors" determined? Are they treated as a team?
- Are there defined roles on the team (e.g. a caller and an executor), at least in a capacity that the WCA would need information on?
- How will this be stored in the database? How will this show up on competitor pages?
- Actual event regulations. Who can touch the cube and when? Inspection?
- Event format.
- Penalties.
- Dispute resolution.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 7, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> Search other threads on this topic and fix all the things wrong with holding Team BLD. Noone else has come up with a decent answer yet.


 
You should at least link to the threads that you're talking about. Coming up with a decent answer is what this thread is about, and your post was rather unconstructive.

One issue I have with this is that I get the impression that most people would like to have Skewb before Team BLD, Skewb will also be much easier to implement and I can't see WCA wanting to add two events this year.


----------



## Sa967St (Dec 7, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> Search other threads on this topic and fix all the things wrong with holding Team BLD.


Some stuff:
-the judge holding the paper
-the solver being able to point at pieces
-the solver being able to talk
-surrounding noise level


One big issue I see with having Team BLD officially is that since someone is calling out things about the cube, it can give hints to others who can listen, making it easy to cheat if you aren't the first to compete. However if many teams were to go at once in the same room then that would also be an issue (concentration, hearing (the caller, and other callers), etc.).


----------



## Sa967St (Dec 7, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> If Person1 goes and partners with multiple people and all are ranked fast, would that person1 also get the other top spots? Or would individual ranking be in effect? Such as Person1:1:00, Person2:1:00, and they would be ranked the same?


I suggest having separate ranks for the two roles. If it were separated into two lists of records, there wouldn't be any issues with competing with multiple partners, or switching roles in different competitions.
On your WCA profile under "Current Personal Records", it'd be nice if it displayed your best calling time on one line, and your best solving time on another line, (with your partner(s)'(s) name in brackets?), instead of having one line with your best Team BLD time.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 7, 2011)

The team BLD event would be a great team event to add. Completely different to all other events, and new skills are involved to become fast. Ny thoughts;

1. Solver wears face mask, tested by the judge. Anything completely obscuring vision.
2. Caller must be behind or beside the solver.
3. Judge opposite solver so as not to interfere.

Only problem I see is noise. Everyone calling "Right join" at different times could be problematic to other teams.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 7, 2011)

Sa967St said:


> I suggest having separate ranks for the two roles. If it were separated into two lists of records, there wouldn't be any issues with competing with multiple partners, or switching roles in different competitions.
> On your WCA profile under "Current Personal Records", it'd be nice if it displayed your best calling time on one line, and your best solving time on another line, (with your partner(s)'(s) name in brackets?), instead of having one line with your best Team BLD time.



So basically we would have two separate events in the database, except that each entry in one is paired with one from the other?

I'm actually in favor keeping a single PB for an event. The fastest team blind solve you've done is simply the fastest you've participated in. Not the most complete, but we already throw away some information like +2 data. Everybody gets a single entry like before, with two entries of the same time for each of two people. That also leaves the issue of how to encode the association (mostly from a technical aspect), though.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 7, 2011)

Vincents said:


> I'm talking about something so tight even Stefan can't pick it apart.



Mmmhh, a challenge.



Vincents said:


> - How are "competitors" determined? Are they treated as a team?
> - Are there defined roles on the team (e.g. a caller and an executor), at least in a capacity that the WCA would need information on?
> - How will this be stored in the database? How will this show up on competitor pages?



I'd prefer to show who did what, but only show one line on the person pages. It's one event.



Sa967St said:


> Some stuff:
> -the judge holding the paper
> -the solver being able to point at pieces
> -the solver being able to talk



What's wrong with these?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 7, 2011)

Can the caller touch the solver?


----------



## Sa967St (Dec 7, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Sa967St said:
> 
> 
> > Some stuff:
> ...


If the judge were to hold a paper in front of the solver, or if there were some sort of stand blocking his/her view, it may make it difficult the caller to see. Something like this has potential though. 

For the other two points, it's just about whether Team BLD should be one-way communication or two-way communication. If it ideally *should* be one-way (just the caller telling the solver what to do) there isn't much preventing the solver by communicating by pointing at pieces or making hand signals. I imagine that the judge would have to be extra cautious to make sure they're following the regulations if the solver isn't allowed to talk and things..


----------



## Erik (Dec 7, 2011)

To complete the introduction, there has been a discussion in 2010 about Team BLD becoming an official event on the WCA Forum here: http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=830&sid=928a902877991d90e182c27823996272

Many competitions have had team BLD as an unofficial event over the past 2 years (the discussion at the WCA forum started January 2010) without problems (I probably have done it about 10 times in competition already). It turned out that holding the sheet of paper is *not* hindering the callers view of the cube and thus is not a problem for the regulations. The event has proven itself to be fun, fast, easy to organize and not causing problems during execution.

The main idea is the following: 
_'a team consists of 2 people: a solver and a caller. The solver is not allowed to see anything and is thus wearing a blindfold. The caller is not allowed to touch the cube. By communication the team has to solve the cube.'_

Other (easy) answers to all asked questions here:

*- judge holding the paper:* no problem, caller and judge stand on right and left side of the solver and thus don't hinder each other. In practice the caller can look under the sheet of paper without being troubled in any way.
*- solver being able to point at pieces:* no problem, the solver can communicate too. In my definition of team BLD the key is the 2 restrictions of not touching and not seeing.
*- surrounding noise level:* hardly a problem, the caller stands a few centimeters away from the solvers' ear so unless there is LOUD music...
*- database idea:* I have proposed this before, rankings are still individual which should also make the personal profile pages easy to maintain. http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...t-ideas-(Poll)&p=663449&viewfull=1#post663449
"I imagine the wca rankings as follows:

[person] [partner] [time]
1. Joel Arnaud 40.20
1. Arnaud Joel 40.20 
..
..
5. Stefan Arnaud 45.87 

This way rankings are still individual. Important you understand number 5. Stefans best time is with Arnaud although Arnauds best result is with Joel."

*Regulations: *
Summary of regulations:
- A team consists of 2 people, a solver and a caller
- The solver has to wear a blindfold and is not allowed to see the cube (penalty DNF)
- The caller is not allowed to touch the cube in any part of the solve (penalty DNF)
- The team can communicate in any way they like as long as other people are not disturbed
- There is a normal inspection time of 15 seconds where the solver can pick up the cube and the caller can inspect the cube
- Additionally to the blindfold, the judge holds a sheet of paper between the solver and the cube. Practically the judges stands on one side of the solver and the caller on the other side, to prevent hinder.
- The normal regulations apply for inspection, during the solve and stopping the solve.


----------



## MostEd (Dec 7, 2011)

All is great, except inspection

itd be extra calling to call rotations during the inspection

how about caller inspects then places and the executioner than stackmats the cub etc...


----------



## Erik (Dec 7, 2011)

MostEd what is the problem you see? During inspection the team can communicate so that the solver rotates the cube and the caller tells the solver how to solve the cross or sth.


----------



## MostEd (Dec 7, 2011)

Erik said:


> MostEd what is the problem you see? During inspection the team can communicate so that the solver rotates the cube and the caller tells the solver how to solve the cross or sth.


 
well its always easier to plan cross/block holding the cube in the callers hands, because i've had problems doing a teambld during inspection i had to take the cube and plan, thn i set it down and we solved(i called)


----------



## SoulSeeker (Dec 7, 2011)

what about this way at 2:14 - 2:30 or is it to personal..


----------



## RyanReese09 (Dec 7, 2011)

Hmm I've thought about the ranking for a bit at work and I'm leaning towardsEriks idea. I had thought about there being two listings you can be ranked for (the total ti,e being the time in the rankings)...the two listings are for solver and caller. If you are caller and you get 40s...you get that time. And if you get 50 as solver you get that ranking. Just rambling the idea here and I'm not condoning it.

We have to make sure the regulations are clear about what the caller can and cannot touch. For example, touching the solvers hands would basically enable the caller to regularly solve it, with some infringement.

@mods, its not a good idea to delete posts here. It makes several valid points go away and gives confusion for the thread when people see deleted posts referenced. Just edit the posts to delete the off topic.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Dec 7, 2011)

I think the problem with the ranking system is that do people get the highest one possible, or the lowest?


----------



## Erik (Dec 7, 2011)

Ryan: the caller touching the solver would generally not be a problem. Think about cool systems where a tap on the right shoulder would mean a RUR' trick and the left shoulder would be L'U'L! But ya I agree with you that touching the hands would be a bit too much, so, I guess that is a good boundary. Its easy to determine the different between hand and arm.

Maelstrom: I think its quite logical that you get the highest score? Like in my example, Arnaud would have a best time of 40 seconds while Stefan only has a best time of 45 seconds.

Soulseeker: that is very original! Personally I don't like it if this would be allowed, but I can't find a reason to *not* allow it.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Dec 7, 2011)

Erik said:


> Ryan: the caller touching the solver would generally not be a problem. Think about cool systems where a tap on the right shoulder would mean a RUR' trick and the left shoulder would be L'U'L! But ya I agree with you that touching the hands would be a bit too much, so, I guess that is a good boundary. Its easy to determine the different between hand and arm.
> 
> Maelstrom: I think its quite logical that you get the highest score? Like in my example, Arnaud would have a best time of 40 seconds while Stefan only has a best time of 45 seconds.
> 
> Soulseeker: that is very original! Personally I don't like it if this would be allowed, but I can't find a reason to *not* allow it.



Yeah I agree, i was just trying to work out this bit that ryan posted:


> If you are caller and you get 40s...you get that time. And if you get 50 as solver you get that ranking.


----------



## collinbxyz (Dec 7, 2011)

Erik said:


> Soulseeker: that is very original! Personally I don't like it if this would be allowed, but I can't find a reason to *not* allow it.


 
Should you be allowed to do this in any way you want? For example, you'd be able to do SoulSeeker's "_method_", or any other way you'd prefer. Or should we have a standard method that everyone must follow?


----------



## Pedro (Dec 7, 2011)

Erik said:


> (...)
> - Additionally to the blindfold, the judge holds a sheet of paper between the solver and the cube. Practically the judges stands on one side of the solver and the caller on the other side, to prevent hinder.



What if I'm the caller and want/need to move to the other side of the solver, to see the cube better?
Judge would have to move too, which can make things complicated.


----------



## PandaCuber (Dec 7, 2011)

I think it would be better if the judge brought a black sheet of paper and he/she puts it under the blindfold, that way there is no problem with the caller and the paper.


----------



## Erik (Dec 7, 2011)

Pedro, I am very sure that saying y is faster than walking to the other side of the solver...


----------



## RyanReese09 (Dec 7, 2011)

Erik said:


> Pedro, I am very sure that saying y is faster than walking to the other side of the solver...


 No offense but that doesn't quite address the issue. I agree with you that it is faster to do y or whatever, but are we going to force them to do this instead of moving around?


MaeLSTRoM said:


> Yeah I agree, i was just trying to work out this bit that ryan posted:


 Yeeah I really just posted that part to see if people could expand upon the idea. I could come up with nothing but perhaps someone had a cool idea 


Erik said:


> Ryan: the caller touching the solver would generally not be a problem. Think about cool systems where a tap on the right shoulder would mean a RUR' trick and the left shoulder would be L'U'L! But ya I agree with you that touching the hands would be a bit too much, so, I guess that is a good boundary. Its easy to determine the different between hand and arm.
> 
> Maelstrom: I think its quite logical that you get the highest score? Like in my example, Arnaud would have a best time of 40 seconds while Stefan only has a best time of 45 seconds.
> 
> Soulseeker: that is very original! Personally I don't like it if this would be allowed, but I can't find a reason to *not* allow it.


 Heh I was actually thinking about touching people to signify moves. That would be very cool and would avoid awkward tongue-tying moments where you're trying to spit out words.

And as an added bonus it would remove noise as a possible issue, which I doubt would even happen (a lot of people would have to be loud...I can comfortably talk to my judges when I'm about to solve/after I've solved, and others are talking all around.)


----------



## Cheese11 (Dec 7, 2011)

Erik said:


> Pedro, I am very sure that saying y is faster than walking to the other side of the solver...


 
What if you are doing Roux? Which doesn't use rotations?


----------



## TMOY (Dec 7, 2011)

Cheese11 said:


> What if you are doing Roux? Which doesn't use rotations?


The fact that rotations are not needed in a Roux solve doesn't imply that they are forbidden.


----------



## SoulSeeker (Dec 7, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> Heh I was actually thinking about touching people to signify moves. That would be very cool and would avoid awkward tongue-tying moments where you're trying to spit out words.
> 
> And as an added bonus it would remove noise as a possible issue, which I doubt would even happen (a lot of people would have to be loud...I can comfortably talk to my judges when I'm about to solve/after I've solved, and others are talking all around.)


 
this could lead to a complete touch oriented way of solving. for example right shoulder is U left shoulder is U' Right arm is R right forearm R' right shoulderblade is right insert etc etc.. i dunno if this would be practical but maybe with a lot of training.. 

and even though it is not the originally intended way of "teambld" it still is a valid one. as erik said, the restictions are not seeing the cube by one person and not touching the cube by the other person.


----------



## Erik (Dec 7, 2011)

Isn't that the beauty of it? You can come up with so many original ways to communicate!


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Dec 7, 2011)

I would merely like to say that this thread makes me so happy. I've been waiting for this event to be proposed. But I was also wondering about how to post the records.... but it seems like you guys are figuring that out, so I guess I'll leave it be...

Anyway, again, I'm very happy about this thread. I will definitely participate. If it's done in competitions by April, we will definitely try to have it added to the Cornell Spring competition.


----------



## amostay2004 (Dec 7, 2011)

I think if this were made official, there will eventually be a standardized method to communicate that everyone uses. That will make it easier for people to switch partners all the time.


----------



## whauk (Dec 7, 2011)

this has already been done more than two years ago so the idea is not that new: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fog9nY3aDNM

i dont like the idea of having every achieved time twice in the rankings. that would definitely lead to some confusion. (also considering noobs taking a look into the database) i believe its very easy to take out the second half of the results. you could arrange the names alphabetically to decide between the results. ("1. stefan arnaud" will be thrown out and "1. arnaud stefan" should stay)

the judge should still never prevent the caller to take a certain view on the cube. but i also dont know a solution to this problem.

also i think the caller should be allowed to touch the cube during inspection. just because it is much easier then  (imagine the blind person dont finding the cube when inspection time already started)


----------



## hcfong (Dec 7, 2011)

In terms of what the caller is allowed to say to the solver, do you think there should be any limits to the information he can give? For example, should the caller only be allowed to call out separate moves, like R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F', or should it be okay to just say "T-perm!"


----------



## Ilkyoo Choi (Dec 7, 2011)

Vincents said:


> These regulations can, and will, then be field tested at the Berkeley Winter competition (and possibly others, if organizers are interested).[/B]


 
I do not see Berkeley Winter announced yet. When will this be? 

I am willing to host team BLD in the competitions in Korea that I am hosting. The two competitions in 2012 are fairly early in the year, namely January 7th and January 15th, but if there are solid regulations by then I am willing to host the events.


----------



## Hippolyte!!! (Dec 7, 2011)

Erik said:


> Pedro, I am very sure that saying y is faster than walking to the other side of the solver...


I'm not this sure... I practice often team blind with Antoine Piau, and we often move around the solver. And like Ryan said, it can't be a reason to forbidd.


hcfong said:


> In terms of what the caller is allowed to say to the solver, do you think there should be any limits to the information he can give? For example, should the caller only be allowed to call out separate moves, like R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F', or should it be okay to just say "T-perm!"


Of course he could said as short as he can, and he must if he want to go fast.

And there is a other point you doesn't spoke about, thats about the instructions during the inspection. We always wait the stack beginning to start telling instructions. During the inspection, the caller just repear the cross, or what he can, and memorize it until the starting. What do you think about this way? (sorry for my english)


----------



## Erik (Dec 7, 2011)

Pedro and others: You do need the judge to be there, standing on one side of the solver is the position he/she is hindering the least. If you are smart (just do a y rotation) you can work around this without letting it be a problem in the first place. If you know a better way please write it here.
You can ask the judge to be left or right whatever you like and just deal with it. What is not clear to me is what your opinion about team BLD is? Do you like it or dont you like it? Do you think this 'problem' (imho not a real problem) is so troublesome it makes team BLD impossible?


----------



## Julian (Dec 7, 2011)

Why would we forbid the caller from touching the cube during inspection?

On the judge getting in the way: if the team provides their own black paper, the judge moves aside, otherwise, the team deals with the judge?

On the WCA database: I think on individual profiles it should just say the best time, and the partner's name (and maybe the roles). On the leaderboard I'm not sure, what if someone got good times with 3 different people, would all 3 results show?

I, personally, am very enthusiastic about teamBLD as an event  I hope it becomes one someday.



Hippolyte!!! said:


> And there is a other point you doesn't spoke about, thats about the instructions during the inspection. We always wait the stack beginning to start telling instructions. During the inspection, the caller just repear the cross, or what he can, and memorize it until the starting. What do you think about this way? (sorry for my english)


No, it should definitely be that the team is given 15 seconds inspection to plan whatever they want.


----------



## RNewms27 (Dec 7, 2011)

Though team bld does not fit well with the current categories, If it were to be established, there definitely should be caller and solver categories. They are completely different positions.


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 7, 2011)

I have a problem with this that I don't think has been addressed yet. A good ranking requires 2 people. I see a big disadvantage for people who don't have any fast friends - I'd be really annoyed if I was in that position. Also, it will get annoying when all the noobs are begging the pros to be their partner (sorry if I cause offense by the way I phrased this post - I'm trying to get the point across).

If it does get made official, I propose that on someone's profile it is placed in a separate list to the other events at the top of the page. In other sports, you'd generally consider 'doubles' events differently to 'singles' events.


----------



## Dene (Dec 7, 2011)

kinch2002 said:


> I have a problem with this that I don't think has been addressed yet. A good ranking requires 2 people. I see a big disadvantage for people who don't have any fast friends - I'd be really annoyed if I was in that position. Also, it will get annoying when all the noobs are begging the pros to be their partner (sorry if I cause offense by the way I phrased this post - I'm trying to get the point across).


 
Heh it's funny, I've seen you around the forums tons, and I spent a fair amount of time talking to you at WCs, but I never realised you were you until just now  .

To respond to your point, I don't see how there is any problem. If you can't find a good partner then that is too bad. You don't have to pair with anyone if you don't want to. So no issues.


My own view: I am against teamBLD. I can't see any single issue that would outright screw this event up, making it impossible to regulate, but I still believe that it wouldn't be long before some really big problems arise, and the event would have to be removed. I agree that it would be impossible to regulate the sound, and other competitors would be able to hear things that would give them an advantage that others don't have. This is clearly creating unfair solving conditions between competitors. I'll think about this more when I'm less tired, but I mainly wanted to make my stance clear seeing as there don't seem to be any people objecting to it.


----------



## blakedacuber (Dec 7, 2011)

just something aswell.... would you be allowed to compete in as many different teams as you want or must you have the same partner for each year?


----------



## RyanReese09 (Dec 8, 2011)

Right now I'm for team bld, but I would NOT like it to become official until everything is worked out. Undercooked chicken is dangerous!

Daniel, that's a very good point about noobs and their friends. However I don't believe great speed is needed here. For the most part, all the solutions will be burst turning for the most part...for most people. Unless they have great lookahead (hard due to solvers hands in way)

I may have missed this, but why can't the judge just sit on one side of the table, and the people be on the other side?


----------



## Bryan (Dec 8, 2011)

blakedacuber said:


> just something aswell.... would you be allowed to compete in as many different teams as you want or must you have the same partner for each year?



Why would you limit it to a year? I'm sure some competitors only get together at a single competition (imagine the teams that could only be done at Worlds).

Right now I think some people who say we don't have any issue with TeamBLD is because it's unofficial. People are much less worried about it. Once it's official though, we don't want something where someone is complaining that the judge is getting in the way.

Another thing we should note in the regulations is that competitors aren't going to be guaranteed a corner of a table or anything. While most competitions probably only have two stations per table, we don't want competitors always assuming they'll have that and complain if they are at a competition where both competitors had to stay behind the table. 

The executor should be able to communicate with the caller. It's TeamBLD, not TeamBLD&Dumb

I would say having some sort of hood for this would be worthwhile. It's going to avoid having the whole cardboard issue and trying to shove in another judge.

Roles should be noted separately. I can do TeamBLD with a 5-year-old if they're calling, but I can't do it if she's executing.


----------



## collinbxyz (Dec 8, 2011)

Should delegates and/or organizers bring the "hoods" or whatever we decide works the best? I'm pretty sure they can make the Stefan-blindfolds really easily, and let competitors use those. 

I don't think the noise will be that big of a deal, and you should be able to clearly hear the difference between your caller's voice and other competitor's voices, if you're really close. As for cheating by hearing what other's are doing, we could do different scrambles for each team. Or, more preferably, the same scrambles for each team, but in different orders from the others.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Dec 8, 2011)

Expanding upon collins idea, or rather clarifying. Depending on the number of tables provided, a certain amount of people can go at one time. Make groups out of these people until everyone is accounted for. Give each station a different scramble. However, each group gets the same scrambled. Its the scrambles inside the group that get distributed. If that makes sense.


----------



## Pedro (Dec 8, 2011)

I'm not saying it would be a huge problem to have the judge on one side of the solver, I'm just saying sometimes quickly moving around could be better than calling a y or y'.

Blindfolds could be like Stefan's idea (I actually had an improvement idea, but didn't have the time to actually test it), so there's no need for holding the paper.

And I agree that the ranking may get a little messy, but solver and caller should be noted. Maybe have a ranking which says:
Pos _ Solver _ Caller _ Time
1._____A______B_____20
2._____B______C_____21
3._____C______A_____22

And then A's record page would show:

Team blindfolded
Solver * 20
Caller [C] 22*


----------



## Dene (Dec 8, 2011)

collinbxyz said:


> As for cheating by hearing what other's are doing, we could do different scrambles for each team. Or, more preferably, the same scrambles for each team, but in different orders from the others.





RyanReese09 said:


> Expanding upon collins idea, or rather clarifying. Depending on the number of tables provided, a certain amount of people can go at one time. Make groups out of these people until everyone is accounted for. Give each station a different scramble. However, each group gets the same scrambled. Its the scrambles inside the group that get distributed. If that makes sense.


 
As a delegate that has to organise and print scrambles, and as the person that always takes control at competitions to make everything happen, my response to that is a big "HELL NO". You have no idea the administrative difficulties this would cause if you are actually seriously proposing it. It's just so difficult and cumbersome. The potential for cheating by listening in on other groups will have to be solved another way.


----------



## Hippolyte!!! (Dec 8, 2011)

Pedro said:


> I'm not saying it would be a huge problem to have the judge on one side of the solver, I'm just saying sometimes quickly moving around could be better than calling a y or y'.


I agree, and I'm for team blind (or I don't read all, because it isn't easy to me).

I think about an other problem (easy to solve, but wich must be discuss):
For all event, 8 competitors are needed to have 2 rounds, and 16 for 3.
But team blind would be the first official event to implies 2 persons, so are we speaking about 16 persons or 16 team?
Because 16 team means 32 people, wich is pretty impossible to get at many competitions. But I'm also agree with the fact wu can't reaso in terms of persones, because 4 team isn't enough to get 2 rounds.
So I suggest an intermediate number; something like 6 team for 2 rounds, 10 for 3 (it isn't the double, but I think it's more realistic).


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Dec 8, 2011)

I like how you are going with this. You have a "plan" ready and have thought this up.
I hope this goes through, Team BLD is fun.


----------



## jskyler91 (Dec 8, 2011)

Bryan said:


> Why would you limit it to a year? I'm sure some competitors only get together at a single competition (imagine the teams that could only be done at Worlds).
> 
> Right now I think some people who say we don't have any issue with TeamBLD is because it's unofficial. People are much less worried about it. Once it's official though, we don't want something where someone is complaining that the judge is getting in the way.
> 
> ...



I agree to all of these terms.



RyanReese09 said:


> Expanding upon collins idea, or rather clarifying. Depending on the number of tables provided, a certain amount of people can go at one time. Make groups out of these people until everyone is accounted for. Give each station a different scramble. However, each group gets the same scrambled. Its the scrambles inside the group that get distributed. If that makes sense.


 
Sounds like a complete nightmare coming from someone who has helped run events before. 

My personal opinion on this event is as follows:

Team BLD as an Event: Yes

Role of Each participant: 1 solver and 1 caller. 

The Solver:

Must be blindfolded Stefan style at all times during the solve (penalty DNF) and may speak/ gesture freely to the caller. They cannot touch the cube until the timer starts (Penalty DNF) and must follow the commands of their caller (not some other caller, Penalty unknown) 

The Caller 

May only touch the cube during inspection and may use any verbal or physical means to communicate with the solvers assuming they do not: 

1.Touch the cube after the timer has started
2.Touch the hand of the solver at any time or
3.Leave their designated range i.e. likely opposite of the judger. 

Role of Judger:

Must stay on the opposite side of the competitors and cannot make any verbal or physical interactions with the competitors except to call 8,12 and 15 second marks.

Results Listings:

This event should be run as two separate events combined, this will make it extremely easy to keep track of each persons role and results in that role. For example, one person's personal best page might read as such:

John :

3x3 TeamBLD Caller: Best Single: 30 Seconds, Best Average: 40 Seconds
3x3 Team BLD Solver: Best Single: 26 Seconds Best Average: 32 Seconds

In the database the best times will be marked in a conjoined way such that the team members will be listed by their times as follows:

C- Caller
S- Solver

Top 100 Listings:

1. 15 seconds- C- Stefan, S- John
2. 17 seconds- C- Shelly, S-Jordan
3. 19 seconds- C- Jake, S- Jill
...

I also think that each team member's role should be considered independently in the top times listings, for instance, lets say Stefan and John have the world record with Stefan as caller and John as solver; and they also have the second place time with John as caller and Stefan as solver as follows:

top 100

1. 15 seconds, C- Stefan, S-John
2. 16 seconds, C-John, S- Stefan

In the event this occurs, I think the teams should be treated as separate entities and awarded both first and second place. This will make sure that each person gets their creds.


----------



## da25centz (Dec 8, 2011)

jskyler91 said:


> I agree to all of these terms.


 
I think the solver should also be able to touch the cube during inspection. At least for me, the best way for the solver to know where the cube is after they start the timer is by putting it down themselves. After the caller is done with inspection, they put it in the solvers hands in the orientation they want. Then the solver will put it down on the table and move their hands to the timer.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 8, 2011)

A while ago I proposed regs.
They're here. Silly Google Docs screwed up my formatting.
Added some important things. The proposal itself doesn't go into explicit detail as to some procedures (for instance, "The judge must not interfere with communication between the caller and solver."), so here's the best place to discuss.

I am pro-Tubbo.
In regard to physical contact between solver and caller, by all means!


Spoiler







Go to 4:23.
Yes, I have a Nathaniel on my back. Problem?


The facemaskpaperthing would serve as best form of blindfold safeguarding. Additionally, it'd allow for the judge to both judge and to not be an interference.
As far as the communication between teams, there's a reg against that. But the regulation of this should be more trust-based than anything, unfortunately. It's never been a problem with Nathaniel and me, considering our Tubbo system is unorthodox to say the least.

That's all from me for now.

EDIT: Guess not.
Concerning who gets to hold for inspection, I do think now that what da25centz posted is the best method of inspecting. But I won't edit my regs for now, seeing as that people have yet to read.


----------



## Erik (Dec 8, 2011)

Dene: so basically you are saying 'I am against this. Not because there are big problems now, but there will probably be big issues in the future and I have no idea which problems this will be'? 

May I ask on what you base this, if you don't see concrete problems how can you be so sure there will be some? 
Also: all events we have now were not (and are not) problem-free, it takes some time before you discover the problems. To get familiar with these problems there has been numerous times team BLD was held unofficially. So far, after serious testing, we did not discover anything major. (the only thing you addressed was sound levels, which are not a problem, if you can't hear each other from 15 cm away there must be some serious loud music around...)

Other ways of blindfolding: There has already be numerous attempts to make suggestions to use different kinds of blindfolds for the normal BLD event. Up till now this didn't lead to any change. 
With the means we have now (normal blindfold+paper) it has been proven that the blindfolds and the sheet of paper are *not causing problems*. We can also start off the event with the blindfold+paper and later on, when the blindfolds change of the normal BLD events we can change it in Team BLD too. Of course anything like swimming goggles etc would be nicer, but the lack of this is not a significant problem to let the event be impossible to run.

Database organisation: There are 2 ways described now. My way with one ranking, or simply 2 rankings (one for caller and one for solver). Either system could work I think, maybe the WCA board can decide on which they like best.

Who is allowed to touch the puzzle during inspection: Either the caller or the solver can pick up the cube during inspection. Both systems were used in competitions I have been to where the event was held. Both systems work, so again I would say the WCA board can maybe decide on which they like best. For the nature of the event it doesn't make any significant difference.

Ranza: those are some good regs to start with. The thing we discussed here before about the caller not being allowed to touch the solvers' hands is maybe a thing to be added here. In the WCA regs we have now, things like feet solving only have extra regulations on top of the normal ones. So the scrambling and penalty rules are not repeated again. You could probably shorten the regs you have by cutting out the scrambling, timing, or the penalties. I would also suggest that your 'e' section is not only restricted to verbal notes, since we kind agreed in the discussion here that touching each other is ok too.


----------



## TMOY (Dec 8, 2011)

Hippolyte!!! said:


> For all event, 8 competitors are needed to have 2 rounds, and 16 for 3.
> But team blind would be the first official event to implies 2 persons, so are we speaking about 16 persons or 16 team?
> Because 16 team means 32 people, wich is pretty impossible to get at many competitions. But I'm also agree with the fact wu can't reaso in terms of persones, because 4 team isn't enough to get 2 rounds.
> So I suggest an intermediate number; something like 6 team for 2 rounds, 10 for 3 (it isn't the double, but I think it's more realistic).



Do you really want to put 3 rounds of team BLD at every competition ? 8 teams for 2 rounds and 16 for 3 seems fine to me, finding 8 teams is not that hard given that everybody who knows how to solve a 3^3 can compete in the event.


----------



## Cheese11 (Dec 8, 2011)

Erik said:


> Other ways of blindfolding: There has already be numerous attempts to make suggestions to use different kinds of blindfolds for the normal BLD event. Up till now this didn't lead to any change.
> With the means we have now (normal blindfold+paper) it has been proven that the blindfolds and the sheet of paper are *not causing problems*. We can also start off the event with the blindfold+paper and later on, when the blindfolds change of the normal BLD events we can change it in Team BLD too. Of course anything like swimming goggles etc would be nicer, but the lack of this is not a significant problem to let the event be impossible to run.


 
Could you just put a hoodie on backwards? Thats what my friend and I do when we do Team Blind with eachother at school. If not, I like the swimming googles thing, you could just spraypaint them black.


----------



## da25centz (Dec 8, 2011)

Cheese11 said:


> Could you just put a hoodie on backwards? Thats what my friend and I do when we do Team Blind with eachother at school. If not, I like the swimming googles thing, you could just spraypaint them black.


 
I think that since the judge has to provide paper to hold between the solver and the cube for normal BLD (correct?), we can just put that paper under a normal blindfold. The main problem with this for normal bld is being able to put it on quickly, but since the blindfold does not have to be put on during the time limit, I do not think it is a problem. This gets the judge out of the way so that the caller may lean to either side of the solver during the solve.


----------



## Dene (Dec 9, 2011)

Erik said:


> Dene: so basically you are saying 'I am against this. Not because there are big problems now, but there will probably be big issues in the future and I have no idea which problems this will be'?
> 
> May I ask on what you base this, if you don't see concrete problems how can you be so sure there will be some?
> Also: all events we have now were not (and are not) problem-free, it takes some time before you discover the problems. To get familiar with these problems there has been numerous times team BLD was held unofficially. So far, after serious testing, we did not discover anything major. (the only thing you addressed was sound levels, which are not a problem, if you can't hear each other from 15 cm away there must be some serious loud music around...)


 
Well, pretty much, yes that is what I'm saying, for now  . I think I pointed out before (and if I didn't, forgive me and allow me to point it out now) that there is a significant issue with cheating that needs to be addressed. Namely, fellow competitors would be able to listen in on instructions given by other teams. Now whether or not a significant advantage could be gained by this is open to debate, but because this is the first event ever that would almost always involve speaking to communicate (I guess it's not necessary to speak, but it seems to be the most efficient way) there could be a lot of unique issues that arise as a result of it.

Another issue I see is sound control. There is no doubt that there are going to be some very loud people doing the calling, and that could create some major disruptions and annoyance for others at the competition. It doesn't seem realistic that this could be controlled in a reasonable and consistent way.

Along with this is how do you restrict a caller from communicating with other solvers? Say, for example, Tim Major was particularly adept at calling for both Feliks Zemdegs and Aron Puddy-Mathew, so he pairs with Feliks, and Aron happens to end up in the seat next to him with Josh Evely "calling" for him, but not really doing anything, while Tim Major calls for both. There would be no way to prevent this from happening, and although it seems unlikely it is a problem with no foreseeable solution that is realistic within the bounds of the way competitions are currently organised and structured.

I have run out of time to think of other problems, but I will come up with more when I feel like it. I'd be interested to hear what people think about what I have come up with.


----------



## da25centz (Dec 9, 2011)

Dene said:


> Well, pretty much, yes that is what I'm saying, for now  . I think I pointed out before (and if I didn't, forgive me and allow me to point it out now) that there is a significant issue with cheating that needs to be addressed. Namely, fellow competitors would be able to listen in on instructions given by other teams. Now whether or not a significant advantage could be gained by this is open to debate, but because this is the first event ever that would almost always involve speaking to communicate (I guess it's not necessary to speak, but it seems to be the most efficient way) there could be a lot of unique issues that arise as a result of it.
> 
> Another issue I see is sound control. There is no doubt that there are going to be some very loud people doing the calling, and that could create some major disruptions and annoyance for others at the competition. It doesn't seem realistic that this could be controlled in a reasonable and consistent way.
> 
> ...


 
Possibly giving the scrambles to the teams in a different order for each team?


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 9, 2011)

Erik said:


> Ranza: those are some good regs to start with. The thing we discussed here before about the caller not being allowed to touch the solvers' hands is maybe a thing to be added here. In the WCA regs we have now, things like feet solving only have extra regulations on top of the normal ones. So the scrambling and penalty rules are not repeated again. You could probably shorten the regs you have by cutting out the scrambling, timing, or the penalties. I would also suggest that your 'e' section is not only restricted to verbal notes, since we kind agreed in the discussion here that touching each other is ok too.


 
I'm reformatting the regs entirely and you can view them now at -tinyurl.com/ranzhastbldregs
Revised that 'e' section and shortened the regs.
Reordered the labels, and now in a viewable and downloadable .pdf to retain the formatting I worked so very hard on.

~R


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Dec 9, 2011)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> I'm reformatting the regs entirely and you can view them now at -tinyurl.com/ranzhastbldregs
> Revised that 'e' section and shortened the regs.
> Reordered the labels, and now in a viewable and downloadable .pdf to retain the formatting I worked so very hard on.
> 
> ~R



That looks really good, I just have 1 comment.
Isn't Average of 5 a bit long to run, considering a large number of people take quite a few minutes (comparable to 6x6 times). I personally think Mean of 3 would be better, so that it also fits with normal BLD/longer time events.


----------



## Erik (Dec 9, 2011)

> Dene: so basically you are saying 'I am against this. Not because there are big problems now, but there will probably be big issues in the future and I have no idea which problems this will be'?





Dene said:


> Well, pretty much, yes that is what I'm saying, for now  .



No need to say more to this, I rest my case.


----------



## Dene (Dec 9, 2011)

da25centz said:


> Possibly giving the scrambles to the teams in a different order for each team?


 
This was mentioned earlier, and I pointed out the impracticalities of it. Read up to see that discussion.



Erik said:


> No need to say more to this, I rest my case.


 
Even though I then went to give reasons? I mean, it's hard for me to pass too much judgement as I have never witnessed an attempt to perform team BLD under any sort of unofficial conditions. At this stage I'm forced to sit back and imagine what it would be like.


----------



## SoulSeeker (Dec 9, 2011)

Dene said:


> Another issue I see is sound control. There is no doubt that there are going to be some very loud people doing the calling, and that could create some major disruptions and annoyance for others at the competition. It doesn't seem realistic that this could be controlled in a reasonable and consistent way.


i really dont get what your problem is with the sound level. don't you talk to other people at competitions? how come you dont feel annoyed by 50-100 people in a room talking to each other but 5 teams talking for an event is a major prolem to you? as erik pointed out the two persons are centimetres away from each other, so there is no need to shout the commands. maybe i just miss something.. if so please tell me.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 9, 2011)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> That looks really good, I just have 1 comment.


I disagree. Not only would a lot of the wording/organization have to be simplified and corrected, it also doesn't cover the right things. It's still very far from Stefan-proof.


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 9, 2011)

Erik said:


> [person] [partner] [time]
> 1. Joel Arnaud 40.20
> 1. Arnaud Joel 40.20
> ..
> ...


 
I think we should consider one aspect of TeamBLD if it is to be introduced. I propose the regulation:
*"Any person competing in a round of TeamBLD may do so exactly once per round.*

If 10 people show up to a competition, there are 45 possible Teams for the Team BLD event. What if all 10 people wanted to compete "Round Robin" style and do a solve with every other person who wants to compete in the TeamBLD event? Do we want to let someone like Ian Winokur (who is very adept at team BLD with lots of different people) compete in the Team BLD round potentially up to 9 times in the same round? I only use Ian as an example here because he would be one of those people who would easily have the rapport with 9 different people to possibly be able to do this.

For all other WCA events, competitors are only allowed to compete in any round of any given event exactly once. To clarify, if the round is an "average of 5" then a competitor may compete in this round *exactly once* would mean that s/he would get to solve the puzzle five times *exactly once*. There is no event where a competitor would be permitted, after solving 5 times, to again solve the puzzle 5 times *a second time* in the same round. I think the restriction that a competitor be allowed to compete in a round of an event *exactly once* should stay the same for TeamBLD for the following reason:

If 50 people decided to compete in the TeamBLD event at a very large competition, and people are allowed to compete more than once, then where do we draw the line? Allowing the competitors to choose to do a "Round Robin" style event where every person does a TeamBLD solve with every other person present would mean that that event would need to allow for 1,225 solves at a timer for that round of TeamBLD. Time-wise this would be approximately equivalent to 245 competitors competing in the first round of 3x3x3 at a large competition.

Surely this intentionally exaggerated example shows that some line has to be drawn somewhere for a maximum number of times a person can compete as a member of a team in any given round of the TeamBLD event. I propose that this maximum number be set at exactly once per round, same as for every other WCA event. This avoids problems for the TeamBLD event needing a really significant amount of time set aside by the organizers so that every person may compete as many times as the regulations allow them to. If every competitor is allowed to compete exactly once in that round, then this makes it much easier for organizers to project how much time the round will take, and would make it much more likely for this event to be included officially. This is my opinion.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 9, 2011)

One team BLD partner per comp. If you registered with whoever, and that person breaks their arm after the first solve, bad luck.
I had a 22 with Faz (iirc) and a 30 with Cameron. So obviously I could go with both and potentially get podium twice. What happens, 1 foot on each podium? No, it should definitely be only one partner per compeition.


----------



## Dene (Dec 9, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> stuff


 
Or you could just point out that if someone were to compete more than once in the same round they would be getting the same scrambles, which obviously would be unfair. Otherwise the delegate would be required to print of another set of scrambles, potentially up to obscene amounts of scrambles, which is definitely unacceptable.


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 9, 2011)

Dene said:


> Or you could just point out that if someone were to compete more than once in the same round they would be getting the same scrambles, which obviously would be unfair. Otherwise the delegate would be required to print of another set of scrambles, potentially up to obscene amounts of scrambles, which is definitely unacceptable.


 
Good point, I hadn't considered that. Also, your argument is the most valid for why competitors should be restricted to only being able to compete one time per round of TeamBLD.


----------



## Florian (Dec 9, 2011)

I think for this event it's bad to have a judge holding the paper because it can be pretty disturbing. 
We should find a better solution for that like a bag which we put over the head of the solver.
Regulations:
-Only the solver can touch the cube during solving time 
-Only the caller can touch the cube during inspection time 
-Only the caller can talk
-The solver starts and stops the timer 
-The stay the same during one competition
-Caller and Solver can switch during one Round/Competition
-The format should be Best of 3


----------



## Dene (Dec 9, 2011)

SoulSeeker said:


> i really dont get what your problem is with the sound level. don't you talk to other people at competitions? how come you dont feel annoyed by 50-100 people in a room talking to each other but 5 teams talking for an event is a major prolem to you? as erik pointed out the two persons are centimetres away from each other, so there is no need to shout the commands. maybe i just miss something.. if so please tell me.


 
Here is my problem illustrated:

I am an anonymous competitor. I feel like being a ******, so I compete in teamBLD as a caller and yell out as loud as I can. There is no regulation saying that I can't, and I can claim that it's necessary to my communication. 

Sure, that illustration is exaggerated, but there is nothing stopping a particularly enthusiastic caller from getting excited and starting to yell out "T PERM! T PERM! GO GO GO!!"


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 9, 2011)

Dene said:


> There is no regulation saying that I can't


 
2g, 2k4.

Aren't you supposed to be a delegate?


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 9, 2011)

Dene said:


> Here is my problem illustrated:
> 
> stuff


 
There is another, related, issue that may need to be dealt with here:

There are two teams, Team A and Team B. CallerA is the caller for team A. SolverB is the solver for team B (etc.)

Now, Team A happens to have the world record in the Team BLD event. Knowing this, Team B sits next to Team A during this event. Not only that but SolverB knows all of the codes and terminology used by CallerA.

So while CallerB calls out fake commands to SolverB, SolverB is actually listening to and following the commands of CallerA, and will thus finish potentially sooner than SolverA if SolverB can execute the last command more quickly than SolverA.

What is to be done to avoid this situation, or is it unnecessary to try to go above and beyond to avoid this? Other than two teams finishing at nearly the same time, I see no reasonably easy way to detect if such a thing has occurred.


----------



## SoulSeeker (Dec 10, 2011)

@dene yeah probably but (i don't know about that but i assume it..) there aren't regulations about other stuff like for example celebrating after blindsolves or in general the noiselevel in any blind-rounds which usually should be quieter than normal rounds. but even without regulations its not the biggest issue as far as i can tell..
i can see your point of view but i still think its not valid because without the necessary "respect" for other competitors in general any competition would be just .. uhm.. senseless (i demand 3rounds bld..)


----------



## Bryan (Dec 10, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> 2g, 2k4.
> 
> Aren't you supposed to be a delegate?



He's pointing out that this would be the first event that requires the competitor to speak. It's hard to regulate how loud someone speaks, especially if they're excited.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 10, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> There is another, related, issue that may need to be dealt with here:
> 
> There are two teams, Team A and Team B. CallerA is the caller for team A. SolverB is the solver for team B (etc.)
> 
> ...


 
Interesting. Not all callers can be followed that way, but certainly Chester can - at least until OLL/PLL (and often even then), he just calls out individual moves - nothing to really know. And he's one of the best callers ever, using that method. It would make sense for others to sit next to him, one on either side, and just have their callers stay quiet, assuming the solver could keep up with Chester's solver.

However, that brings up a possible solution: stagger the starts. Don't allow more than one person to start at the same time in proximity to each other. You could think of it like lanes at a bowling alley - you can't start if someone next to you is starting at the same time - you must wait your turn. Then it shouldn't be possible to catch up and start following the other caller. Unless, however, the person solving has a really good memory and can memorize everything the caller says. If that's possible, then look out - you could have someone simply listen to a previous solve, then execute the entire solve from memory. I don't know how feasible this is, but if it were possible for someone to do that, I would think a fast solver would probably be looking at world record times.

@Kirjava: it occurs to me that rule 2g is terribly ambiguous and needs rewriting anyway, but it is especially so for team BLD. Since in regular speedsolves competitors are allowed to talk to the judges, and the judges may respond, this is clearly "talking near those competing". But I do think rule 2k4 applies pretty well here.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 10, 2011)

Florian said:


> I think for this event it's bad to have a judge holding the paper because it can be pretty disturbing.
> We should find a better solution for that like a bag which we put over the head of the solver.
> Regulations:
> -Only the solver can touch the cube during solving time
> ...


 
I don't like any of these regulations sorry Florian. Why can't the solver speak? If someone says T-perm, can't you say "huh?" Or work out cases talking to each other.
The world record will undoubtedly be sub 20. Organisers are allowed to make cut offs. 2 minutes is twice as long as anyone would need. I can sub 1 team bld just saying moves, no codes. Why make this mean of 3 when 5x5 is average of 5?
Inspection, the caller should be allowed to, then pass to the solver to rotate and place down. Otherwise the solver could knock the cube or pick it up wrong.
About the caller and solver switching, Florian calling, Cameron executing should be a different team from Cameron calling, Florian calling. If a fast cuber makes a final but their friend didn't, they can't swap so the friend is in.

Edit: Every time I'm solving, and the caller tells me the cross, I repeat it to make sure I heard it right. And if they say R-perm, I use weird R-perms so I touch the cube and ask where the block is.


----------



## Dene (Dec 10, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> more stuff


 
Good boy Chris, you repeated exactly the problem I brought up about 17 hours ago  . For reference I said:



> Along with this is how do you restrict a caller from communicating with other solvers? Say, for example, Tim Major was particularly adept at calling for both Feliks Zemdegs and Aron Puddy-Mathew, so he pairs with Feliks, and Aron happens to end up in the seat next to him with Josh Evely "calling" for him, but not really doing anything, while Tim Major calls for both. There would be no way to prevent this from happening, and although it seems unlikely it is a problem with no foreseeable solution that is realistic within the bounds of the way competitions are currently organised and structured.





Kirjava said:


> 2g, 2k4.
> 
> Aren't you supposed to be a delegate?


 
2g obviously doesn't apply. It's talking about competitors waiting in the competitors area, not about competitors that are competing.
2k4 is vague and certainly could not be applied in a consistent manner across competitions the way things are stated at the moment. And as Bryan helpfully pointed out, how can you apply an old regulation, intended to regulate completely different circumstances, to a new event that creates contradictory circumstances? An entirely new set of regulations would be necessary.


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 10, 2011)

Dene said:


> Good boy Chris, you repeated exactly the problem I brought up about 17 hours ago  . For reference I said:


 
I'll go with --ninja'd-- on this one to try to save face


----------



## Erik (Dec 12, 2011)

Chris:
this rankings was an example of the world rankings, not the rankings for one competition. Of course that rule is very necessary! You are totally right about that. I thought it was obvious what I ment, but looks like I wasn't clear enough 

People listening to other competitors that are solving: that's a clear form of cheating, its as bad as trying to find out what the scramble is of a round by watching other people solve. Especially in normal BLD events this is a thing you have to pay attention to as a judge/delegate. Luckily in a typical competition room there is always the buzzing of people talking to each other. The fact that (I mention this for the 3rd time now) you are only centimers away should make it possible to keep your voice down to a level that it would be really hard for a team at a different table listen to what they are saying (not impossible). I'd say at least harder than watching someone else's cube during the memoing part of a BLD solve.

Looking at a BLD scramble while someone is memoing or listening to another team calling during team-BLD should give you a nice at-least-one-year-long-ban from WCA competitions.


----------



## EeeeeWarne (Dec 12, 2011)

How would you determine someone who is watching and listening to a Team BLD solve to gain an advantage from someone who is watching and listening to size up the competition and to go into their solve know "x and y go 45.67 seconds, so we have to beat that". Or, in another case watching and listening to see how their friends are doing? Supporting your friends is part of being a friend...right?

The simplest way to stop other competitors from getting an advantage is to speak quietly. The people who shout commands are putting themselves at a disadvantage...and you wouldn't do that...right?

Cubers can be quiet. Who runs around shouting during BLD?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 12, 2011)

EeeeeWarne said:


> The people who shout commands are putting themselves at a disadvantage


 
It's not that they disadvance themselves, it's that they allow other people to cheat.


----------



## LarsN (Dec 12, 2011)

Thinking out of the box; an obvious, but potentially unfair solution, is to give people different scrambles. Or differentiate the order of the scrambles.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Dec 12, 2011)

LarsN said:


> Thinking out of the box; an obvious, but potentially unfair solution, is to give people different scrambles. Or differentiate the order of the scrambles.


 
This has been already been brought up in this thread, and has been declined as a easily feasible solution. It just becomes somewhat of an administration nightmare.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 14, 2011)

Closing this thread. Please see this post.


----------

