# Competitor requested orientation



## Kirjava (May 1, 2012)

The cube is always in the correct orientation for him to pick up.

There is nothing in the regulations regarding this, should there be?

EDIT: for clarification, this post was originally a response to the (excellent) BLD WR video seen here.


----------



## RTh (May 1, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> The cube is always in the correct orientation for him to pick up.
> 
> There is nothing in the regulations regarding this, should there be?


I think there should be something like ''in BLD the cube should be positioned as the cuber requests''. There's no need to lose even more time in rotating the cube, it could affect the cuber's concentration.


----------



## Kirjava (May 1, 2012)

RTh said:


> I think there should be something like ''in BLD the cube should be positioned as the cuber requests''. There's no need to lose even more time in rotating the cube, it could affect the cuber's concentration.


 
This is a terrible idea - cube isn't fully randomised and if the judge gets it wrong does the competitor get another attempt?

Better to leave it as it is and overlook if the cube keeps happening to be in the correct orientation.


----------



## Julian (May 1, 2012)

Random orientation at the end of BLD scrambles?


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 1, 2012)

I think the cube should be provided in an undetermined orientation. It should definitely NOT be possible for a competitor to claim the cube was in the wrong orientation and be able to get a new scramble.

It would be nice if we tried to provide the cube in a random orientation, but that might be impractical. We could have the scrambler toss the cube in the air after scrambling and before placing it with the competitor's scorecard, but I'm not sure it's really necessary.


----------



## qqwref (May 1, 2012)

It would be trivial to add a random orientation after each scramble. The question is, is it worth the effort? And if we do randomize it, do we penalize a judge/scrambler who puts it in the wrong orientation by accident (or in a deliberate attempt to help a particular competitor)? Would we consider a cube in the wrong orientation as scrambled incorrectly?

Personally, I think it'd be best if the competitor could specify a particular orientation - perhaps it'd be listed on their score sheet - and their judge would place the cube in that orientation when they put it in front of the competitor, without the competitor being able to see the cube. That might be fairer for everyone, especially since that fraction of a second of reorientation can definitely make a difference. I don't know if this is practical, though.


----------



## Kirjava (May 1, 2012)

I don't think specifying orientation is a good idea. Doesn't feel like the cube is 'randomised'.

Could I specify the that the WBR corner starts at UFR? I like to think of centres as just another piece.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 1, 2012)

I personally think it's a really bad option to allow the competitor to specify a particular orientation. The problem I have is that I think having competitors able to claim a bad scramble because of orientation is a much worse issue than any issue associated with fairness due to reorienting. As soon as you have people able to claim a bad scramble because of orientation, all kinds of possibilities open up for unfairly taking advantage of it - for instance, you see that the cube is oriented wrong, and you noticed that people around you were getting fast times, so you don't complain and take the misorientation; but on the other hand, if people were getting bad times around you, you claim a bad scramble and get a new scramble, with a better chance at a good one. That would be more unfair than any issue of reorienting advantages. With undetermined orientation (which is how I think it should be treated now, according to the rules), since different people use different orientations, it's basically randomized as to whether your particular orientation is to your advantage or not. I think that's as fair as it can be.

I've always considered orienting the cube to be part of BLD solving anyway; with big cubes BLD, reorienting the cube well is actually an important skill in the solve.

By the way, if a competitor asked me to orient a cube a particular way for BLD at a competition I was delegating, I would say no, that's not allowed. If that's an incorrect ruling on my part, I'd like someone to inform me of it, but that is how I would currently do things.


----------



## Julian (May 1, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> I don't think specifying orientation is a good idea. Doesn't feel like the cube is 'randomised'.
> 
> Could I specify the that the WBR corner starts at UFR? I like to think of centres as just another piece.


Well put. That's why I think having a random orientation at the end of scrambles is a good idea. As it stands, the majority of the time the cube is in WG, which I'd say is unfair. And if we standardize an orientation, that eliminates randomness, as Kir explained. I think that a random orientation is the only fair solution.

Sorry if that was redundant.


----------



## Kirjava (May 1, 2012)

Mike Hughey said:


> By the way, if a competitor asked me to orient a cube a particular way for BLD at a competition I was delegating, I would say no, that's not allowed. If that's an incorrect ruling on my part, I'd like someone to inform me of it, but that is how I would currently do things.


 
The regulations say nothing on this and need to be addressed.

I've been asked what orientation I want my cube to be in at a competition. Seems a similar sort of thing to scramblers at worlds 2003 asking what cross colour people used.


----------



## That70sShowDude (May 1, 2012)

Julian said:


> Random orientation at the end of BLD scrambles?


 
I already thought it was done like this. My bld solves in comp seem to always be in a random orientation.


----------



## A Leman (May 1, 2012)

Mike Hughey said:


> We could have the scrambler toss the cube in the air after scrambling and before placing it with the competitor's scorecard, but I'm not sure it's really necessary.



This suggestion is more than a little scary. Would you just expect the person throwing your cube in the air to not drop it and turn it into abstract floor art?


qqwref said:


> Personally, I think it'd be best if the competitor could specify a particular orientation - perhaps it'd be listed on their score sheet - and their judge would place the cube in that orientation when they put it in front of the competitor, without the competitor being able to see the cube. That might be fairer for everyone, especially since that fraction of a second of reorientation can definitely make a difference. I don't know if this is practical, though.


This sounds like a reasonable solution


----------



## Kirjava (May 1, 2012)

I can't believe that some people agree with being able to request centres to be in a specific place.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 1, 2012)

I actually would prefer that all cubes are given to the competitor in scramble orientation. I'm so used to orienting to my orientation from WG (scramble standard) that I would get onfused if it was already in that orientation. Also then, it makes it easier on the scramblers/judges/whoever


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 1, 2012)

A Leman said:


> This sounds like a reasonable solution (allowing the competitor to specify an orientation)


I don't think it's reasonable because if the judge places the cube wrong, it's implied that the competitor would be able to ask for another scramble. That causes far more problems than anything we do today.

Judges often have trouble getting what they're doing now right; I believe asking judges to always get the orientation right would be asking too much of a judge. Also, saying that they would place the cube in that orientation without the competitor being able to see the cube might be a challenge to make sure happens - judges can tend to be sloppy about things when they're in a hurry.


----------



## kinch2002 (May 1, 2012)

I haven't looked through this discussion in detail, but for what it's worth, here are my initial opinions

[22:35] <@Kirjava> kinch2002: baby,
[22:35] <@Kirjava> where do you stand on the scramble orientation thing
[22:36] <kinch2002> the what?
[22:37] <@Kirjava> look at endri's wr thred
[22:38] <kinch2002> hasn't this been discussed before?
[22:38] <kinch2002> anyway, afaik the rules don't forbid it
[22:38] <kinch2002> so if i were superfast at 3bld i'd probably request my orientation every solve
[22:39] <kinch2002> adding a rotation to the scramble is not going to work
[22:39] <kinch2002> and requesting orientation should be banned imo


----------



## Kirjava (May 1, 2012)

moar 


23:40 < kinch2002> but as I said, i'm happy to do it for now as the rules don't forbid it
23:42 <@Kirjava> kinch2002: cool, you agree with me on every point about it
23:43 < kinch2002> so you gonna request for a corner to be in a certain place at WSMO?
23:43 <@Kirjava> no
23:43 <@Kirjava> why the **** would I do that
23:43 <@Kirjava> 
23:43 <@Kirjava> hm
23:44 < kinch2002> to make a point
23:44 <@Kirjava> kinch2002: can I request orientation for 3x3x3speed?
23:44 < kinch2002> same as bld, so yes
23:44 <@Kirjava> s'funny
23:44 <@Kirjava> if he'd've used white top green front I probably wouldn't've noticed what was happening
23:45 <@Kirjava> and the issue wouldn't've come up
23:46 <+RobertY> can't the cuber just request the orientation, just before the judge sets the cube down?
23:47 <@Kirjava> no
23:47 <@Kirjava> because then the cube would not be truly randomised
23:48 <+cubizh> what if the judge doesnt want to comply or messes up the orientation anyway
23:49 < eido_> I wish I could request that judges place my sq1 in the right orientation
23:49 <+RobertY> the thing is..
23:49 <+RobertY> we measure memo+excution time
23:49 < eido_> nothing's more annoying than being given a backwards square-1
23:49 <+RobertY> reorientation isn't really part of that
23:49 < kinch2002> but at the moment you can do this...
23:50 < kinch2002> for sq-1 as well
23:50 <+RobertY> for sq-1 I really don't care
23:50 <@Kirjava> RobertY: what the ****
23:50 <+RobertY> as long as I can memo the cubeshape
23:50 <@Kirjava> saying "orientation isn't a part of that" is just the same as
23:50 <+RobertY> then I start the solve almost immediately
23:51 <@Kirjava> "picking up the cube isn't a part of that"
23:51 < eido_> RobertY: true, I usually inspect about 3 seconds
23:51 <+RobertY> Kirjava: good point
23:51 <@Kirjava> ***** I always make good points
23:51 < eido_> but I hate having to flip the cube and worry about accidentally doing a move
23:51 <+RobertY> haha
23:51 < kinch2002> you're allowed to accidentally do a move
23:51 < kinch2002> as long as you undo it
23:51 <+RobertY> I remember once in UK open 2010
23:51 <+MLSTRM> kinch2002: yeah i saw. dunno what to do lol
23:52 <+RobertY> I started my sq1 with the sq1 upsidedown by accident
23:52 <+RobertY> WHY ISN'T IT TURNING PROPERLY
23:52 <+RobertY> OH...
23:52 < kinch2002> that's fine
23:52 <+MLSTRM> yeah
23:52 <+RobertY> Kirjava: fair enough
23:52 <+RobertY> let's leave it
23:53 <@Kirjava> I don't knw what to do really
23:53 < kinch2002> just tell him he'll eventually have a place. whatever it takes 
23:53 <@Kirjava> you ca't enforce random orientation
23:53 <@Kirjava> and you can't allow people to request an orientation
23:53 <+RobertY> Kirjava: oh but another thing
23:53 <+RobertY> the cube might be correctly orientated
23:53 <+RobertY> whereas
23:53 <+RobertY> you pick up the cube every single time
23:54 <+Mollerz> Yeah ****ing BLD
23:54 <+Mollerz> I take half a second to orient the cube
23:54 <+Mollerz> And MBLD is worst
23:54 <@Kirjava> half a second oh wow
23:54 <+Mollerz> Especially with lots of cubes
23:55 <+RobertY> Kirjava: do you get what I'm saying?
23:55 <@Kirjava> yes
23:55 <@Kirjava> but I don't see how ti changes anything
23:56 <@Kirjava> the concept of "orientation" is not something WCA needs to care about
23:56 <@Kirjava> cube needs to be randomised
23:56 <@Kirjava> the less arbitrary definitions of things in the regulations the better
23:56 <@Kirjava> centres are just another piece
23:56 <@Kirjava> who says that orientation of **** is based on centres
23:58 <+RobertY> oh fair point
23:59 <+RobertY> mike has a good argument
23:59 <+RobertY> comparing it to bigcubes
23:59 <+RobertY> yah ok
23:59 <+RobertY> let's leave it...
Day changed to 02 Mai 2012
00:00 <@Kirjava> oya
00:00 <@Kirjava> bigcubes
00:00 <@Kirjava> pwn
00:02 < kinch2002> i want my 4bld given to me with the maximum white centres on D
00:02 <@Kirjava> olol
00:03 <+RobertY> I should switch to yellow top
00:03 <+RobertY> because cubes are likely to be place with white on top
00:03 <@Kirjava> at uk comps at least..
00:03 <+RobertY> then judge turns it upside down and you lift cover
00:03 <+RobertY> 
00:03 <@Kirjava> kinch2002: can I ask for the biggest block to be put at UF?


----------



## Marcell (May 1, 2012)

In general, I agree that the current state, where the regulations don't say anything about this issue, is not optimal. However, I'm not sure what the optimal solution would be. Providing the cube with the scrambling orientaiton seems valid at first sight, but it does mean that someone who has learned to blindsolve with e.g. BY oriention is kind of negatively discriminated in all their blindfolded solves to someone who does it with WG. If we were to decide that the cube should be put down with a random orientation, I'm not sure there's a need for the scrambler to toss it in the air - in the process of bringing the cube from the scrambling table to the stage and putting it down there it kind of ends up being randomly oriented anyway - but having the cube correctly oriented can cut off seconds from the result, which is of great importance at solves around 30 seconds, and I don't see why we should disadvance the competitors by forbidding this.
Mike, I don't really agree with you. First, reorienting is only part of the 4BLD event (regarding official events), it's hardly an issue in 5BLD - it's a specific phenomenon in the 3BLD event, and has to be evaluated as such. (Assuming everyone does 3BLD with a fixed orientation and not moving the centers, which I think is pretty realistic.) And I don't think it's such a burden to the judges having to put down the cube with a certain orientation on the competitors request. Doesn't seem like a hard task to me. And there must be a sheet on the table for the solving part anyway, the judge could easily use that to block the competitors view while doing it. And if they know they put down the cube in the requested way, the competitor can't call for a new scramble on grounds of a wrong orientation... 
In my opinion, we should provide the right to the competitors to ask the judge to orient the scrambled cube in a certain way.

Kirjava:
-centers are certainly not just another piece in 3bld.
-I don't get what you mean by the cube is less randomised when put down with a requested orientation.
-the fact that bld has no inspection phase makes the question completely separate from 3x3 speedsolving or sq-1 or whatever that does.

--should we maybe open a new topic for this discussion?


----------



## Kirjava (May 1, 2012)

A mod should split this thread here.

Asking for a specific orientation in 3BLD is like asking for a 4BLD scramble to be oriented with the face with most white centres on D.

Does this mean that I can request that in 3speed the biggest block is placed at UF?



Marcell said:


> -centers are certainly not just another piece in 3bld.



Of course they are. Your definition of orientation is arbitrary. You could define orientation by a single corner instead.



Marcell said:


> -I don't get what you mean by the cube is less randomised when put down with a requested orientation.



The centres are not random. This is less randomised than fully randomised. Fully randomised cube state is what we want.



Marcell said:


> -the fact that bld has no inspection phase makes the question completely separate from 3x3 speedsolving or sq-1 or whatever that does.


 
I don't think it does, but even if it does this has no bearing on the legitimacy of your argument.


----------



## Marcell (May 1, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Asking for a specific orientation in 3BLD is like asking for a 4BLD scramble to be oriented with the face with most white centres on D.


 
No, it isn't. The latter would be asking the judge to make a decision based on the current scramble. The former is independent from it.


----------



## Kirjava (May 1, 2012)

I didn't say it was exactly the same, it's very similar though.

It's _exactly the same as_ asking for the WhiteGreen edge to be placed at UF.


----------



## DrKorbin (May 1, 2012)

Let's just use void cubes for 3x3 bld.


PS:


Kirjava said:


> The centres are not random. This is less randomised than fully randomised. Fully randomised cube state is what we want.


Looking at scrambles, I see U, F, R, B, L, D moves and I don't see x, y, z, M, S, E moves. Therefore, when scrambler scrambles a cube, it's centers are not randomized, white center is still on top, green on front. Therefore fully randomised state including centers is not exactly what _we_ want.

I prefer that a competitor would be able to request for certain orientation for 3x3 bld.


----------



## Marcell (May 1, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Your definition of orientation is arbitrary.



It's based on the way we solve the cube blindfolded. If everyone was color-neutral in BLD, this woulnd't even be an issue. 
Your further arguments are based on your statement that centres are not to be treated differently, which I still don't accept.

(The thing is, it's 0:41 here and I badly need to finish a paper for school tomorrow - well, today. So I might leace the conversation now, but will catch up later. I'm looking forward to discuss the matter in details.)


----------



## Kirjava (May 1, 2012)

Marcell said:


> It's based on the way we solve the cube blindfolded. If everyone was color-neutral in BLD, this woulnd't even be an issue.


 
You cannot make rules based on what systems are popular. *Rules must be method independent.*


----------



## Noahaha (May 1, 2012)

Wouldn't the existence of a single color neutral BLDer make this an unfair rule?


----------



## aronpm (May 1, 2012)

I don't think that competitors should be allowed to request a particular orientation. If the competitor gets the wrong orientation, which could happen a lot, they are disadvantaged compared to everyone else. I do not think that the cube should be given in a particular orientation such as white-green, as this discriminates against every other orientation which is not fair. I think the orientation should be random, so that each competitor has the same chance of getting the cube in their solving orientation.


----------



## Kirjava (May 1, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> Wouldn't the existence of a single color neutral BLDer make this an unfair rule?


 
No, if that would make any difference on the matter the existance of that person would only have to be theoretical.


----------



## Noahaha (May 1, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> No, if that would make any difference on the matter the existance of that person would only have to be theoretical.


 
That's what I meant lol.


----------



## Cubenovice (May 1, 2012)

When I scramble (d at Zune open) I always put the cube in the cup in WCA orientation.
When I judge I typically put a finger on the cube and flip the cup over.

If others scramble/ judge the same way as I do this does not give a random orientation: white would alway be facing down...

So how do you go about for "providing the cube to the competitor in a random postion"?

ninja'd by brest...


----------



## Marcell (May 2, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> You cannot make rules based on what systems are popular. *Rules must be method independent.*


 
Making it bold doesn't make it more right. We all (or: mostly) use a speedsolving system, in which inspecting the cube before starting the solve gives us a great advantage. Thus, we are given 15 seconds of inspection time before starting the solve. If someone doesn't want to use this time, it's their decision. But it's certainly different to speedsolve without inspection - that's why we have (or used to have) a separate uwr category for this.
And we all (or: mostly) use a blindcubing system, in which picking up the cube with the right orientation gives us an advantage (of some time, that's importance is determined by our blindcubing abilities). Thus, we could just as well be given the right to have the cube oriented for us.
I think looking at the cube before starting the solve in speedsolving could just as well be regarded as 'part of the solve' and included in the solving time as orienting the cube in blindcubing is.


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2012)

Marcell said:


> Making it bold doesn't make it more right.


 
But that *is* a general requirement for regulations. You won't be able to convince the WRC otherwise.


----------



## Marcell (May 2, 2012)

Have you read my post?
What I'm saying is the demond that the regulations should be method-independent doesn't mean they cannot reflect the way we solve the cube. It's that they should accomodate the common features of our different cube solving techniques and methods, and not be biased below that.


----------



## qqwref (May 2, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> Looking at scrambles, I see U, F, R, B, L, D moves and I don't see x, y, z, M, S, E moves. Therefore, when scrambler scrambles a cube, it's centers are not randomized, white center is still on top, green on front.


This is a good point. Currently, scrambles are designed to randomize the pieces with respect to the centers - thus this gives a random position, but a fixed orientation (relative to the centers). So asking for a particular orientation is not equivalent to asking for a particular edge in UF, or asking for the best block on top, or any other of Kirjava's somewhat silly suggestions. If you ask for, say, white top orange front, all you are asking is for the judge to do a y' while they bring the cube from the scrambling table to your mat. 

Also, for everyone who's asking for the orientation to be randomized: should it be different for every person (throw cube in air), or the same for everyone (orientation included in scramble)? And if we do the latter, wouldn't a judge giving a competitor the cube in the wrong orientation count as a misscramble?

I'd like to agree that because BLD is completely no-inspection (negative inspection, even, since the competitor has to remove the cover after starting the timer) it does indeed matter how the cube is placed. Here's an example that would have a more obvious effect on time: if you are not color-neutral, do a no-inspection 3x3 avg12 without changing from the scramble orientation, and then do another with a random orientation. Anyway, this in sharp contrast to speedsolving events, where there is always plenty of time to use any orientation you like, without actually affecting the time that gets recorded. The orientation definitely matters in BLD.


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2012)

qqwref said:


> This is a good point. Currently, scrambles are designed to randomize the pieces with respect to the centers - thus this gives a random position, but a fixed orientation (relative to the centers).


 
I would say that this is the fault of the scrambles.


I think Gilles Roux said it best;

"It's not a matter of "orientation" (strange concept), it's a matter of knowing where some pieces are located."


----------



## DrKorbin (May 2, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> "It's not a matter of "orientation" (strange concept), it's a matter of knowing where some pieces are located."


But until scrambles do not include x, y, z, M, S, E moves, they don't scramble centers, so should we consider center as a piece really?
And if someday scrambles have such moves, then it will be the task of a judge to put the cube in the right orientation, in concordance with scramble. So why not to do it now?


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2012)

I don't think scrambles should affect the status of centres as a piece or not.

Maybe it's time scrambles had rotations at the end, akin to scrambling pyra tips. It doesn't matter for 3x3x3 speed because we never cared about reorienting, but it's becoming an issue in BLD, and maybe it's time we fixed our scrambles to truly randomise the cube.

As for it being in the wrong orientation from how it was scrambled, it's fine as long as it is random.


----------



## Bob (May 2, 2012)

It would be stupid to allow competitors to request a certain orientation. There are too many issues with this. If the judge or scrambler accidentally gives it in a different position, what happens? What if they just didn't like the scramble and said it was in the wrong orientation and ask for a new scramble? Many judges wouldn't know any better. There are factors at the beginning of the solve that are already not uniform. Random orientation would be better, but I still don't think it's necessary.

I'd be more concerned about the covers used in BLD at the start of the solve. Somebody who has to move a scorecard placed on their cube will take a different amount of time as somebody who has to move a sheet of paper or somebody who has to remove a box. If we're concerned about people getting an advantage/disadvantage by the orientation, I think that a uniform cover would be just as (or more) important.


----------



## Sa967St (May 2, 2012)

I personally think it's alright to request a certain orientation, but it's not other people's responsibility to make sure it remains in that orientation by the time it gets placed in front of the solver. This way, it's possible (if the scrambler and judge are careful) to have the orientation wanted, but if it's off then it's no one's fault. 

In competitions that I've scrambled for BLD, if I knew the solver's orientation I've usually made sure it got placed the right way when I put the cover over it, since there was nothing in the regulations saying I couldn't. Now that this is being brought up, I think this should still be allowed.


----------



## cubernya (May 2, 2012)

Sa967St said:


> I personally think it's alright to request a certain orientation, but it's not other people's responsibility to make sure it remains in that orientation by the time it gets placed in front of the solver. This way, it's possible (if the scrambler and judge are careful) to have the orientation wanted, but if it's off then it's no one's fault.
> 
> In competitions that I've scrambled for BLD, if I knew the solver's orientation I've usually made sure it got placed the right way when I put the cover over it, since there was nothing in the regulations saying I couldn't. Now that this is being brought up, I think this should still be allowed.


 
I completely agree. I think it should be allowed, but not required by any means.


----------



## DrKorbin (May 2, 2012)

But if it is allowed and not required then the solve time depends on maliciousness of the judge.


----------



## Sa967St (May 2, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> But if it is allowed and not required then the solve time depends on maliciousness of the judge.


I don't see a problem with that. It seems more reasonable than having to settle on the random rotations idea. 
Besides, you can request a certain judge.


----------



## qqwref (May 2, 2012)

Yeah, and we don't want judges being able to hinder (or help) competitors, since they should be impartial. We need a procedure we can agree on for everyone, which is fair but also doesn't let people request rescrambles too easily.


----------



## Escher (May 2, 2012)

I really don't see a problem with the way we currently do things, by that I mean, scramble WG as top/front, pick up cube, put down at table, competitor starts solve.
If you happen to get a judge that doesn't mess the cube around much or you happen to sit near the scrambling table so there is less chance of a reorientation 'problem', then so be it. 

Pre-orienting is indeed defining the position of some cubies - what happens if it's suddenly popular to choose the orientation that has the easiest cycles/most pieces solved, and solve centre parity last?

The 'problem' people perceive is simply due to being biased towards one of the 24 different orientations - too bad.

The current way is completely 'fair' until people start intentionally affecting factors.


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2012)

Escher said:


> what happens if it's suddenly popular to choose the orientation that has the easiest cycles/most pieces solved, and solve centre parity last?


 
I hadn't even realised that it's possible for a judge to do this for someone and remain within the regs.

This whole thing is absurdly broken.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 2, 2012)

If the judge is allowed to choose an orientation based on the judge's knowledge of the state of the puzzle, this is a big problem even with non-BLD events. Imagine there is a really easy 2x2x2 solve because it's Sune to solve. If a judge wants to help the competitor, he could be sure to place the cube in the most common orientation for executing Sune. Now even a 15-second 2x2x2 solver is that much more likely to get a sub-2 solve. (My daughter Rebecca, for instance, might not recognize Sune unless it was placed in the right direction for her.) But even more seriously than this - a judge could place the cube in a direction according to a predetermined set of rules in agreement with a competitor which clues the competitor in on the best possible way to solve it.

It's true this is broken - we need a rule that makes it unacceptable for a judge to look at the scramble before it is uncovered for the competitor.


----------



## Bob (May 2, 2012)

Well, the scrambler really should be covering the cubes at the scrambling table. There is no reason for the judge to be looking at it. or adjusting its orientation.


----------



## Sa967St (May 2, 2012)

Mike Hughey said:


> It's true this is broken - we need a rule that makes it unacceptable for a judge to look at the scramble before it is uncovered for the competitor.


To clarify my posts, I meant that if requested the judge (if he wants) can ensure that the cube stays in the same orientation from the time it gets placed on the table to the time it gets placed in front of the solved. At Canadian competitions, the judges don't see the scrambled cubes beforehand because we have runners who carry the covered cubes to them.


----------



## Dene (May 2, 2012)

In response to your comment Bob:
A2d) When taking the puzzle from the scrambler, the judge does a quick general inspection of thorough scrambling of the puzzle. In case of doubt the judge contacts the scrambler for a detailed check.

Personally, I am 100% against competitors requesting puzzles to be placed in a particular orientation (even though, like eido, I would love to request this for sq1). If a competitor asked during a competition that I was delegating I would deny their request, citing a lack of regulation for or against. I don't believe it is in the spirit of the competition to be able to request a particular orientation. I also see no need to scramble into a particular orientation, or at least not with the "casual" way competitions are run at the moment. If in the future competitions become considerably more stringent then having orientation included in scrambles would work, but as things are now it just wouldn't work in the vast majority of competitions (scramblers doing it wrong, judges changing things, competitors complaining, etc.). I see no problem with the way things _should be_ done now, where a cube is scrambled, taken to the table, and put down in whatever orientation it happens to be in. As long as there is no deliberate manhandling of the puzzle to give an advantage or disadvantage to a particular competitor, things should be fine.


EDIT: this paragraph makes horrible reading, but I can't be bothered to fix it up so deal with it


----------



## Jaycee (May 2, 2012)

I've never been to a comp before so I don't know how scorecards work (as in who has them and when), so this idea may be complete rubbish.

How about if the judge has the score card beforehand, the orientation (like YO, WG, etc ) can be written somewhere on the card by the competitor so the judge will know to place the cube in that orientation?


----------



## Noahaha (May 2, 2012)

Jaycee said:


> I've never been to a comp before so I don't know how scorecards work (as in who has them and when), so this idea may be complete rubbish.
> 
> How about if the judge has the score card beforehand, the orientation (like YO, WG, etc ) can be written somewhere on the card by the competitor so the judge will know to place the cube in that orientation?


 
That just takes us back to the original argument, but that's probably how it would work if such a system were allowed.


----------



## Ranzha (May 2, 2012)

I personally don't view the centres as pieces (and as someone already mentioned, scrambles don't affect centre orientation).
Why is it that we foresee potential problems and label them as absolute? Sure, people aren't necessarily trustworthy all the time, but judges should be chosen based on trustworthiness and credibility. This summer if I have the opportunity to host an unofficial competition and hold BLD, I'll try implementing this system and I'll report back the results. This gives the notion a chance without official times coming into play.


----------



## LarsN (May 2, 2012)

The judge arrives with the puzzle and places it on the table.

Competitor: "I would like the puzzle oriented with yellow on top and orange in the back."
Judge checks under the cover and orients the cube if necessary: "yellow top, orange back. Go."

Easy to do, problem solved. It could be noted that asking for orientation of the cube is the competitors responsibility and you do not get a new solve if the orientation is not as requested. And of course it should be noted that we are talking about center orientation, which means it would be allowed for 5x5x5bld as well. But not 4x4x4bld since there are no fixed centers. For multi you could note it on the score sheet.

I suspect it would be like when the rules for inspecting OH changed to allow the use of both hands. Some people refused to do it, but I guess now it's just a normal thing.


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2012)

LarsN said:


> Easy to do, problem solved.


 
The problem of the competitor knowing the location of certain stickers before seeing the puzzle still exists.


----------



## DrKorbin (May 2, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> The problem of the competitor knowing the location of certain stickers before seeing the puzzle still exists.



Is it really a problem? You can do nothing with the cube if the only thing you know is the position of centers.


----------



## LarsN (May 2, 2012)

I think the problem is really not about knowing the location of the center stickers. The problem is that some competitors get an advantage because the judge agrees to orient the cube in a certain way.

It's really up to WCA to decide if it's a problem, but I would guess that fairness is a big priority for them. I think my suggestion would provide a fair solution. And I think it would be more easy to provide an orientation, compared to making sure that the orientation is not known to the competitior. (again I am talking about centers defining the orientation)


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2012)

LarsN said:


> I think the problem is really not about knowing the location of the center stickers. The problem is that some competitors get an advantage because the judge agrees to orient the cube in a certain way.



You seem to be under the illusion that only things you disagree with are a problem.



LarsN said:


> I think it would be more easy to provide an orientation, compared to making sure that the orientation is not known to the competitior


 
I think it would be the other way around, go figure.


----------



## yoinneroid (May 2, 2012)

Isn't getting a the cube in the desired orientation is like a skip in speedsolving? I don't know why i think this way, but this is just how I see it


----------



## keyan (May 2, 2012)

LarsN said:


> Easy to do, problem solved.


Not so easy when the competitor and judge don't speak the same language. 

The actual easy thing to do is acknowledge that random is fair.


----------



## Goosly (May 2, 2012)

keyan said:


> The actual easy thing to do is acknowledge that random is fair.


 
Random is fair, but not easy.
You would need to add a random orientation to the cube at the end of the scramble, the cubes should be placed it the right orientation on the scramble table, ánd the judge must place it in the right orientation on the table. It's hard to check if all of these were done correctly.


----------



## Godmil (May 2, 2012)

Wow, this is a tricky one. Well done to Kirjava for identifying the issue. 
I think maybe the simplest solution is to just specify that the judge should not deliberatly orient the cube. Less work for the judge, the competitor can't be guaranteed any orientation so has no cause for complaint, no additions to the scrambling method (x,y,z turns would be tricky to keep exact from scrambler to competitor). etc. I mean there isn't a set position judges put cubes on the table at the moment is there? All they'd need to do is put it down as is and not care about how its oriented.


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2012)

Goosly said:


> Random is fair, but not easy.
> You would need to add a random orientation to the cube at the end of the scramble, the cubes should be placed it the right orientation on the scramble table



These are both very easy to do.



Goosly said:


> ánd the judge must place it in the right orientation on the table.


 
This is not required.



Goosly said:


> It's hard to check if all of these were done correctly.



It is very very easy to add a random orientation to the scramble.



Godmil said:


> (x,y,z turns would be tricky to keep exact from scrambler to competitor)


 
Like I said, it doesn't need to be kept the same. As long as it is not influenced by the judge it will remain random.


----------



## tseitsei (May 2, 2012)

Why not make it so that the cube is always at predetermined orientation (let's say standard WCA scrambling orientation white on top and green in front)?
That would be an easy solution and I think quite a fair one, since you know what orientation the cube will be in, you can rotate it to your solving orientation VERY quickly...
And if you don't want to waste that time you can always learn to solve the cube white on top and green in front.

Just my opinion. It might be stupid one, but I think it makes some sense...


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2012)

Nah, that's unfair.


----------



## Godmil (May 2, 2012)

But if you add the x,y,z to the scramble, and it doesn't end up that way on the table, wouldn't the competitor not have something to moan about... like say the scramble came out with a common orientation and in most cases the cubes were put out for a round in the exact same way, but one persons got turned round... then later everyone is saying wasn't it lucky that the scramble was already in this orientation and that one guy goes... hang on, that's not what it was like for me.
Better to not keep a record of what the orientation should be, and just leave the competitors aware that there is no set orientation.


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2012)

Godmil said:


> Better to not keep a record of what the orientation should be, and just leave the competitors aware that there is no set orientation.


 
There *will* be no set orientation. The rotations are just added to ensure the orientation the cube gets to the competitor in doesn't become predictable.


----------



## Godmil (May 2, 2012)

Just to be clear, you think the best solution would be to 1) add rotations to the scrambles and 2) for the judge to not specifically orient the cube.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 2, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Nah, that's unfair.


 
Would you care to elaborate?
Since it would be standardised for all competitors, it is fair. If anything, having random orientation is more unfair because people are used to having cubes given to them in *standard orientation as defined by the scrambling rules set by the WCA*.


----------



## Godmil (May 2, 2012)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> people are used to having cubes given to them in *standard orientation as defined by the scrambling rules set by the WCA*.



Are they? I've never been to a comp, but I didn't think that position was always given.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (May 2, 2012)

For what it's worth, I vote for always WCA scramble orientation. No confusion about which orientation should be used (either solver specified or scramble specified), no worry about the judge messing with a specified random orientation for that scramble without even realising. The judge sits the cube down, ensuring white top/green front. It's standardised, thus fair, and probably the easiest fair system to implement.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 2, 2012)

Godmil said:


> Are they? I've never been to a comp, but I didn't think that position was always given.


 
It's supposed to, just not very well enforced.


----------



## aronpm (May 2, 2012)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> For what it's worth, I vote for always WCA scramble orientation. No confusion about which orientation should be used (either solver specified or scramble specified), no worry about the judge messing with a specified random orientation for that scramble without even realising. The judge sits the cube down, ensuring white top/green front. It's standardised, thus fair, and probably the easiest fair system to implement.


 
It's not fair. It discriminates against people who don't use white-green as their colour scheme.


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2012)

Godmil said:


> Just to be clear, you think the best solution would be to 1) add rotations to the scrambles and 2) for the judge to not specifically orient the cube.



Yes, unless I or someone else can think of a fairer way to enforce randomness.



MaeLSTRoM said:


> Would you care to elaborate?
> Since it would be standardised for all competitors, it is fair. If anything, having random orientation is more unfair because people are used to having cubes given to them in *standard orientation as defined by the scrambling rules set by the WCA*.



Some competitors would have to rotate and some would not have to. This is unfair.


----------



## tseitsei (May 2, 2012)

> It's not fair. It discriminates against people who don't use white-green as their colour scheme.



By same logic:

Putting the cube on the table discriminates against people who use DF as their buffer opposed to those who use UF as their buffer. 
Because DF users must pick the cube up before they can see where the first piece goes, while UF users can see it instantly...
So the cube should be floating in mid-air to make it completely fair, but that would be quite hard to do so we just put the cube on the table.
So maybe we could also just make life easier for everyone and just use standard orientation?


----------



## aronpm (May 2, 2012)

tseitsei said:


> By same logic:
> 
> Putting the cube on the table discriminates against people who use DF as their buffer opposed to those who use UF as their buffer.
> Because DF users must pick the cube up before they can see where the first piece goes, while UF users can see it instantly...
> ...



Just because one thing is 'unfair' (I disagree with what you said) does not justify other things to be unfair also.


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2012)

tseitsei said:


> Putting the cube on the table discriminates against people who use DF as their buffer opposed to those who use UF as their buffer.
> Because DF users must pick the cube up before they can see where the first piece goes, while UF users can see it instantly...
> So the cube should be floating in mid-air to make it completely fair, but that would be quite hard to do so we just put the cube on the table.



How is that the same logic? You cannot make a cube float in the air, but you can randomise it's orientation.

Using your twisted logic people who use DF have an advantage because you have to lift the cover off the cube and you will see the FD sticker before the FU sticker.



tseitsei said:


> So maybe we could also just make life easier for everyone and just use standard orientation?


 
Easy is not our main objective. Fairness and correct procedure come before ease.


----------



## DrKorbin (May 2, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Some competitors would have to rotate and some would not have to. This is unfair.



In 3x3, if a competitor is color-neutral, he can pick up a cube and make a cross without rotations, and if he is not, then he have to rotate before he starts. Is this fair?


----------



## mariano.aquino (May 2, 2012)

Even though the cube has to be randomly scrambled, every cuber gets THE SAME state of "randomness". If you want to implement random orientation, you have to add rotations to the official scramble, and ensure every judge places the cube in the correct position. That is, for example, round 1, every one gets orange on top, blue on front. otherwise, that new random randomness would be unfair.
Now, on both cases (pre-orienting or not pre-orienting the cube) we should train our judges to place a cube in a determined orientation, and standardize this procedure, along with the covering device someone else mentioned before.


----------



## Godmil (May 2, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> In 3x3, if a competitor is color-neutral, he can pick up a cube and make a cross without rotations, and if he is not, then he have to rotate before he starts. Is this fair?


 
I'm pretty sure colour netural people don't make a cross on whatever side is face down regardless of what colour it is. In 3x3 everyone has plenty of time to inspect the cube and orient it the way they want before the solve, so it's different enough to not be an issue.

It's interesting that the covering device is also being seen as an issue. Standardisation would be good here too for fairness. Those old videos of Haiyan where he just flicks off the cover in a fraction of a second, seems more advantageous than when people have to pick up boxes.


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> In 3x3, if a competitor is color-neutral, he can pick up a cube and make a cross without rotations, and if he is not, then he have to rotate before he starts. Is this fair?



Yeah, that's fair.



mariano.aquino said:


> Even though the cube has to be randomly scrambled, every cuber gets THE SAME state of "randomness". If you want to implement random orientation, you have to add rotations to the official scramble, and ensure every judge places the cube in the correct position. That is, for example, round 1, every one gets orange on top, blue on front. otherwise, that new random randomness would be unfair.



I don't believe it would be unfair. So people may get different orientations, people in different groups get entirely different scrambles.

I've competed in an event where I was the only person doing the set of scrambles I was doing before.

This is a bit of a problem, but I think it is a minor one and overall a muuuch better solution than allowing competitors to specify where certain stickers should be for themselves. 

The problem can be resolved by ensuring the judge places it in a predefined orientation - which has the same problems as any solution offered that wishes competitors to choose their orientation.


----------



## qqwref (May 2, 2012)

LarsN said:


> Competitor: "I would like the puzzle oriented with yellow on top and orange in the back."
> Judge checks under the cover and orients the cube if necessary: "yellow top, orange back. Go."
> 
> Easy to do, problem solved. It could be noted that asking for orientation of the cube is the competitors responsibility and you do not get a new solve if the orientation is not as requested.


I like this procedure.



Kirjava said:


> The problem of the competitor knowing the location of certain stickers before seeing the puzzle still exists.


The stickers they know about give them no information about which of the 43252003274489856000 positions the puzzle is in, so that's not a problem at all. (Note: we know orientation is not part of the cube position, because the competitor is allowed to freely reorient the cube without having the blindfold on, and because the orientation at the end is not factored into whether the cube is judged to be solved or not.)



Godmil said:


> I think maybe the simplest solution is to just specify that the judge should not deliberatly orient the cube.


It sounds like it makes sense, but the technicalities are a little trickier. If the judge does deliberately orient the cube, how could we catch them? How would this affect the competitor's result (we don't want a judge to be able to ruin a competitor)? How would we punish a judge for not modifying this rule?



Kirjava said:


> The problem can be resolved by ensuring the judge places it in a predefined orientation


Didn't you just say white-U/green-F was unfair? (And what do we do if it's in the wrong orientation?)

I think we need a situation where it is the same for all competitors. However that ends up, it'll be fair; the current situation isn't fair because competitors who are friendly with the judges can get a cube in their orientation.


----------



## mariano.aquino (May 2, 2012)

If you cannot make it fair for everybody through making it more complex (developing a way to create random orientations that does not depend on each judge), then make it fair by extending that benefit to everybody, and let each cuber decide the orientation. Making it fair is more important than making it "completely" scrambled in my opinion, in this sole matter. I embrace larsN procedure a well.


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2012)

qqwref said:


> The stickers they know about give them no information about which of the 43252003274489856000 positions the puzzle is in, so that's not a problem at all.



You could say that knowing where the white blue red corner is gives them no information about which of the 43252003274489856000 positions the puzzle is in.

The stickers they know about tell them where the centre pieces are on the puzzle.



qqwref said:


> Didn't you just say white-U/green-F was unfair? (And what do we do if it's in the wrong orientation?)


 
No. The kind of predefined orientation I'm talking about is a randomly generated one. If it's in a different orientation from the randomly generated one, we do nothing unless the judge is seen to have intentionally influenced it.

The cube changes orientation randomly anyway in certain conditions, I'd see the rotations given at the end of scrambles as something akin to a random seed more than anything else.


----------



## jeff081692 (May 2, 2012)

How about making a new scramble system that includes moves like M and such which scrambles the center orientation. You could always scramble with white on top and green on front and then have the judge note which orientation the scramble ends on to give to the competitor. I'm sure things can go wrong with this too but it was just a thought I had. Sorry if this was already mentioned.


----------



## mariano.aquino (May 2, 2012)

What about letting cube explorer use slice moves to generate scrambles (U,F,R,B,L,B,u,f,r,b,l,d) ? Then, just take notice of the final orientation, and place it like that.
You HAVE to make sure every puzzle is placed the correct way, since there lies part of the fairness we're seeking

EDIT: simultaneous post, dismiss first part


----------



## Ickathu (May 2, 2012)

jeff081692 said:


> How about making a new scramble system that includes moves like M and such which scrambles the center orientation. You could always scramble with white on top and green on front and then have the judge note which orientation the scramble ends on to give to the competitor. I'm sure things can go wrong with this too but it was just a thought I had. Sorry if this was already mentioned.



http://www.worldcubeassociation.org...yobwrg&multi=on&cubori=on&subbutton=Scramble!

The official WCA scrambler can do that. Just check the little box that says "Cube Orient"
If the judge accidently puts it down wrong... Oh well... Reorientation takes <0.5 seconds.


----------



## jeff081692 (May 2, 2012)

Ickathu said:


> http://www.worldcubeassociation.org...yobwrg&multi=on&cubori=on&subbutton=Scramble!
> 
> The official WCA scrambler can do that. Just check the little box that says "Cube Orient"
> If the judge accidently puts it down wrong... Oh well... Reorientation takes <0.5 seconds.


 
Oh I see. I was sure it would be easy to make if not already done. So the questions is do we make it the standard for BLD or not?


----------



## mariano.aquino (May 2, 2012)

If we use this feature, we could as well use it for every category.

Regarding the "-0.5s" , before marcell's, there was less than 0.5s difference among top3 blders..


----------



## Benjamins (May 2, 2012)

> So maybe we could also just make life easier for everyone and just use standard orientation?


We can´t have standard orientation because everyone can use his own color scheme with maybe no green or white in it.


----------



## qqwref (May 2, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> You could say that knowing where the white blue red corner is gives them no information about which of the 43252003274489856000 positions the puzzle is in.


This is true - it does give them no information. However, it would require the judge to carefully look at the scramble, which they shouldn't really be doing.


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2012)

qqwref said:


> it would require the judge to carefully look at the scramble


 
Are you saying that you have to be careful when looking at corners but not centres?

The difference in care taken is minimal at best. Come on man, that's a really weak argument.


----------



## qqwref (May 2, 2012)

I'm basically saying that a judge can give a cube to a competitor with white-U/green-F without ever uncovering the cube, assuming the scramblers did their job. In order to put a specific corner on the top they need to uncover the cube and look at the scramble.


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2012)

The comparison is against a requested orientation, not a set orientation.


----------



## DrKorbin (May 2, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> The comparison is against a requested orientation, not a set orientation.


So you're asking what to do if someone appears with a brand new method of blind solving, which involves floating centers and one fixed corner?
If the point is to make equal chances for all (including necessity for rotation or not), then why not to allow him to put that damn corner wherever he chooses? It still gives him zero information about the whole scramble, but restrains him from rotation.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 2, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> So you're asking what to do if someone appears with a brand new method of blind solving, which involves floating centers and one fixed corner?


That would not be a brand new method. I could go do a solve that way right now by simply applying my normal 5x5x5 BLD method to the 3x3x3.

Edit: So I tried it and got one of the bad cases, where I had to do a slice move to correct for center parity. And even then, as my first try, I got a 3:15.95 success. (Fixed white-orange-green corner at DBL - that's what I usually use for 2x2x2 BLD.)
(By the way, if I could preorient my 2x2x2 BLD scrambles with white-orange-green corner at DBL, that would probably shave 2 seconds off my average 2x2x2 BLD solves for the weekly competition - it often takes me way too long to find that corner.)



DrKorbin said:


> If the point is to make equal chances for all (including necessity for rotation or not), then why not to allow him to put that damn corner wherever he chooses? It still gives him zero information about the whole scramble, but restrains him from rotation.


I might really request that my DFl wing be placed as I want for 4x4x4 BLD if we allow arbitrary rotation - I hate solving that wing. If I could do that, I'd check to see if centers look reasonable, and if so, go without reorienting, knowing I get to skip that wing.

I'm amazed and a little disturbed that I pretty much completely agree with all that Kirjava has said on this thread.


----------



## Alejandro (May 2, 2012)

Well, in my opinion I totally disagree to ask the judge for the correct orientation, 
memorizing the cube is closely linked with the identication of it, when a cuber reaches certain level of memorization, 
memorization becomes full identification of the cube, with full identification of the cube 
I mean quickly recognize the orientation and quickly see the cycles to be resolved, 
If we were allowed to choose the orientation, that would be an advantage, we would be skipping a step for free, and not because of our skills
to skip it. 
I think that would make it boring 3x3 bld event, I think it's fun to 3x3 bld because we know absolutely nothing about the cube
(not even orientation). Summary, orient the cube I consider part of the memo, One should not skip any step.
Sorry for my english.


----------



## DrKorbin (May 2, 2012)

Mike Hughey said:


> I might really request that my DFl wing be placed as I want for 4x4x4 BLD if we allow arbitrary rotation - I hate solving that wing. If I could do that, I'd check to see if centers look reasonable, and if so, go without reorienting, knowing I get to skip that wing.


I understand your point, but you would still spend some time checking for reasonable centers, so you can put this edge there during your normal bld.
If it would be an issue, I would suggest to give an opportunity for choosing only for 3x3x3 bld.



Alejandro said:


> I think that would make it boring 3x3 bld event, I think it's fun to 3x3 bld because we know absolutely nothing about the cube
> (not even orientation).


Every time I do a bld at home, I know that the cube is in WG-orientation, because I've just scrambled it. And bld is not boring for me at all.


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> I understand your point, but you would still spend some time checking for reasonable centers, so you can put this edge there during your normal bld.
> If it would be an issue, I would suggest to give an opportunity for choosing only for 3x3x3 bld..


 
The same problem applies to 3BLD.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 2, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> Every time I do a bld at home, I know that the cube is in WG-orientation, because I've just scrambled it.


I don't, because I always toss the cube in the air before covering it. I want to know that it's in random orientation, like I expect to get it in competition.

I don't know if I often get cubes in competition in the standard WG-orientation, because it's not the orientation I use, and competition solves are such a small percentage of my total solves that I've never noticed. Now that this discussion has occurred, I'll probably be paying attention to how I get them in competition in the future. That'll probably cost me another second - gee, thanks.  (Actually, I'll probably try to only pay attention during speedsolves, where it doesn't make as big a difference.)


----------



## mariano.aquino (May 2, 2012)

Does anybody know what the odds are the wca implements such modification, based on 10-20 people's opinion...?
What would be the next step...?


----------



## Lofty (May 2, 2012)

I agree with Kirjava. 
I don't think it will be too much trouble to add a random rotation to the end of scrambles. The scramblers cover the cubes before giving it to the judges anyway so the scrambler will just set the correct center on top and the judges will just be instructed to always present the cube with a certain side of the score card facing the competitor. I don't think it's a huge deal but just for the sake of being completely random and fair I think it should be presented in a random orientation. 
But I also think Bob is right. I've never been at a competition where we actually use a box to cover the cube. Always just a score card. We also may need to standardize the cover of the cube as BLD times become so close.


----------



## Ickathu (May 2, 2012)

Maybe start always using the random orientation feature on WCA. For everything, not just BLD. Even puzzles where it doesn't really matter (2x2,4x4,6x6).
Off topic: What orientation are you supposed to scramble pyraminx in?


----------



## cubernya (May 2, 2012)

You can't use the random orientation on the WCA site for any 3x3 event, since you're supposed to use Cube Explorer to generate scrambles


----------



## shelley (May 3, 2012)

We had a discussion about this in an email thread a while ago. When one competitor requests and receives a particular orientation he gets an unfair advantage over the competitor who doesn't think to ask or whose judge doesn't offer the choice. A regulation on orientation is too difficult to enforce consistently across all competitions, and it's simpler to consider finding your starting orientation part of your solve, just as finding and hitting the timer while blindfolded at the end is part of your solve.


----------



## Julian (May 3, 2012)

shelley said:


> We had a discussion about this in an email thread a while ago. When one competitor requests and receives a particular orientation he gets an unfair advantage over the competitor who doesn't think to ask or whose judge doesn't offer the choice. A regulation on orientation is too difficult to enforce consistently across all competitions, and it's simpler to consider finding your starting orientation part of your solve, just as finding and hitting the timer while blindfolded at the end is part of your solve.


If that's the case, that's fine, but competitors shouldn't be allowed to request an orientation.


----------



## Bob (May 3, 2012)

Julian said:


> If that's the case, that's fine, but competitors shouldn't be allowed to request an orientation.


 
I expect that will be made explicit in the newest set of regulations.


----------



## Dene (May 3, 2012)

Woot, that's exactly what I wanted to happen <3 . Yay for practical thinking.


----------



## qqwref (May 3, 2012)

If the choice is "competitors cannot request an orientation", that's fine, but we should still decide how the cube should be oriented when given to the competitor. Do we choose a set orientation (either WCA standard or random) and require the judge to transport the cube as is, or do we let the judge use any orientation?


----------



## riffz (May 3, 2012)

I agree with pretty much everything Kirjava said in this thread. To provide my reasoning would be redundant.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 3, 2012)

qqwref said:


> If the choice is "competitors cannot request an orientation", that's fine, but we should still decide how the cube should be oriented when given to the competitor. Do we choose a set orientation (either WCA standard or random) and require the judge to transport the cube as is, or do we let the judge use any orientation?


 
I agree that this is an important question. If we leave the regulations alone, it could be interpreted that a judge is allowed to orient the cube any way they want. If a judge were in collaboration with a competitor, that would allow the judge to develop a system with the competitor to give the competitor a clue about how to solve the scramble based on the chosen orientation. We need to make sure the judge is not allowed to look at the scramble and reorient based on it. Note that this is potentially even quite important on speedsolves, not just BLD solves. For really fast puzzles like 2x2x2, it could be very important indeed.

And I do like the idea of adding an orient to the initial scramble; that way there's not accidental favoritism towards a certain position of the centers when the competitor gets it. I think we should apply the orientation when scrambling, but not require that the orientation be preserved by the judge or runner when bringing it to the competitor. Under no circumstances should a scramble be able to be claimed to be a bad scramble because it got reoriented by accident on the way to the competitor.


----------



## LarsN (May 3, 2012)

Mike Hughey said:


> I think we should apply the orientation when scrambling, but not require that the orientation be preserved by the judge or runner when bringing it to the competitor. Under no circumstances should a scramble be able to be claimed to be a bad scramble because it got reoriented by accident on the way to the competitor.


 
I agree with this. All the competitions I have been to have had boxes to cover the cubes. Which means that even though the scrambler didn't change the orientation, using the box will rotate the cube by x2 or possible z2. It will be near impossible for the runner to keep the original orientation without looking at the cube.


----------



## Erik (May 3, 2012)

This asks for a nice quote from Tyson:


> Conveniently, being in the position that I was, this became the official WCA color scheme. Since the color in front was pretty much arbitrary, no one really complained. Only a few people, perhaps only one other person out there, really knew the story to this, and I remember him making the comment, "Tyson's own personal color scheme." It's true... the WCA color scheme is my own personal color scheme. It's how I solve my cubes blindfolded, and it's how I displayed my cubes on my desk and on my bookshelf in college. And now, it's how the world scrambles its cubes.



(http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ng-orientation&p=486263&viewfull=1#post486263)

Of course I'm very much against a requested orientation. The competitor and judge shouldn't have anything to do with how the cube is manipulated. By going with Tyson's quite my guess is that it was the purpose that the cube ended up with W/G on the table in the end. Practically this doesn't happen all the time. If using cups: 
1. cube in cup W/G
2. cube to table (might flip)
3. turn cup upside down to release cube(yellow on top with any random colour on front)

In reality the normal procedure causes a more or less random orientation. Personally I don't really care about the orientation after I put a scrambled cube in a cup, after all a scramble should be random. 
A requested or set orientation fails, if any, already for logistical reasons. Current procedure normally causes quite some randomness. Some extra clarification of the scrambling chapter should make clear the cube should be put in the cup (or w/e) in a random orientation.

Of course, if you dont want to spend time orienting, you should just learn to BLD with any orientation


----------



## blah (May 3, 2012)

On a more personal level, I think it just comes down to what you believe contributes to the "integrity" of a solve. I'm leaving "integrity" in quotes because we all know what it is (subjectively) and it's stupid to ask for a formal definition.

I'm genuinely shocked to find that there are top blindsolvers who don't consider the whole "random" aspect as part of this integrity. I've been doing the toss-it-in-the-air pre-solve ritual since I started blindsolving, long before I've been to a competition, long before I became aware of the WCA regulations. I personally feel extremely uneasy about having _any_ knowledge of the cube before seeing it; it's like I'm cheating the blindcubing gods.

I certainly hope we can all agree that there is *some* form of "cheating the blindcubing gods" taking place when we have any knowledge of the state of the cube before seeing it. If we can establish this as a common consensus, then I think it's reasonable to say that requesting *anything*, other than having your cube placed in front of you, is merely a cheap act with the intention of shaving maybe a second off your time.


----------



## Vincents (May 3, 2012)

A2e. Just a note for myself and the WRC.

This is by no means a finished document, by the way. If/when we release a new official scrambler, we may start to consider orientation as part of the scramble. Stay tuned.


----------



## qqwref (May 3, 2012)

Erik said:


> If using cups:
> 1. cube in cup W/G
> 2. cube to table (might flip)
> 3. turn cup upside down to release cube(yellow on top with any random colour on front)


It's been a while since I went to a competition, but here's how we did it:
- when a scrambler finishes with a cube, they put it on top of the correct scoresheet and cover it
- a runner notices a cube is covered (meaning it's been scrambled) and brings it to a judge
- the judge places it in front of their competitor without ever seeing the scramble
In this case, unless someone dropped the cube, it was pretty much guaranteed that the top color was the same. I don't think the procedure prevented y-axis rotations, though.


----------



## Erik (May 3, 2012)

qqwref said:


> - the judge places it in front of their competitor without ever seeing the scramble


Against regulations.

The last 20-ish competitions I went to were all done the way I described it. Putting the sheet under the cup makes it harder for the judge to pick it up, thus the scoresheet is put on top of it.
Point is, there is no rules about how to do this procedure. I don't think it would be a good thing to put this procedure into details in the regs either. 
Result: randomness. 
Randomness = good.


----------



## mariano.aquino (May 3, 2012)

There's this thing that still bothers me. Aren't we supposed to have all the same scramble? because that's supposed to be fair. Now, if we add rotations to the scramble, but then the judge does not place the cube on the correct orientation, that judge would be adding a rotation, and thus modifying the scramble. Besides, each judge would be modifying the scramble in different ways (probably), so each competitor will not end with the same "newly-defined" scramble, and that's openly and clearly not fair.


----------



## Kirjava (May 3, 2012)

The competitors receive the cubes with the same scramble. 

Them being in a different 'orientation' is a minor issue, and allowing something that most people consider borderline cheating is not a solution to it.


----------



## mariano.aquino (May 3, 2012)

if orientation was a minor issue, we wouldn't be discussing here. If a judge "accidentally" leaves someone's cube oriented in a way that benefits him, and someone else's cube in a way which does not, how could we control that?


----------



## Kirjava (May 3, 2012)

mariano.aquino said:


> if orientation was a minor issue, we wouldn't be discussing here.



The issue I referenced and the broader issue of orientation on the whole are two different issues. 



mariano.aquino said:


> If a judge "accidentally" leaves someone's cube oriented in a way that benefits him, and someone else's cube in a way which does not, how could we control that?


 
Judges can help assist people solving in different ways. We stop them by having rules against it and taking action if they are found to break them.


----------



## Vincents (May 3, 2012)

The runner, just as the judge physically sitting at the timing station, is also considered another judge, and is subject to the same regulations that all judges are subject to (e.g. he must have competed already, etc.). Runners do take a look at the scrambled cube/scoresheet beforehand (otherwise, how would they know who to give the cube to?).

Everyone receives the same scramble; that is, everyone gets the same arrangement of pieces. The orientation of the cube does not matter because we do not require you to finish the cube in a certain orientation.

(Up until/after) this point, randomness of starting orientation is still the way to go. Whether we specify that as a part of regulations is another debate entirely. If a judge is intentionally aiding a competitor in some way, that's also another debate entirely.


----------



## Bob (May 3, 2012)

Vincents said:


> *The runner, just as the judge physically sitting at the timing station, is also considered another judge, and is subject to the same regulations that all judges are subject to (e.g. he must have competed already, etc.). Runners do take a look at the scrambled cube*/scoresheet beforehand (otherwise, how would they know who to give the cube to?).
> 
> Everyone receives the same scramble; that is, everyone gets the same arrangement of pieces. The orientation of the cube does not matter because we do not require you to finish the cube in a certain orientation.
> 
> (Up until/after) this point, randomness of starting orientation is still the way to go. Whether we specify that as a part of regulations is another debate entirely. If a judge is intentionally aiding a competitor in some way, that's also another debate entirely.


 
Which regulation states this?


----------



## Vincents (May 3, 2012)

Bob said:


> Which regulation states this?


 
There isn't one. It's up to each organizer what kind of system they want to run (e.g. at Cal Day, we experimented with a system where each judge also acted as a scrambler for their station).

Because they are handling scrambled cubes and results, it makes sense to treat them as judges as well. You could effectively consider each competitor having two judges: one who brings the cube over and checks it, but then switches off with another one who times it. (By the way, the switching of judges while a competitor is going is another point that we are looking at for 2012 Regs, as it is not currently addressed).


----------



## Bob (May 3, 2012)

Vincents said:


> There isn't one. It's up to each organizer what kind of system they want to run (e.g. at Cal Day, we experimented with a system where each judge also acted as a scrambler for their station).
> 
> Because they are handling scrambled cubes and results, it makes sense to treat them as judges as well. You could effectively consider each competitor having two judges: one who brings the cube over and checks it, but then switches off with another one who times it. (By the way, the switching of judges while a competitor is going is another point that we are looking at for 2012 Regs, as it is not currently addressed).


 
When I use runners, they do not have to look at the cubes. If the cubes are covered, there's no reason why the runner HAS TO have competed already or be in a different group. They probably SHOULD, but I don't deem it necessary.


----------



## Vincents (May 3, 2012)

Bob said:


> When I use runners, they do not have to look at the cubes. If the cubes are covered, there's no reason why the runner HAS TO have competed already or be in a different group. They probably SHOULD, but I don't deem it necessary.


 
That's fine; in that case, to explicitly fulfill the letter of the regulations, the judge at each station will need to quickly inspect the cube prior to inspection. All we basically do is change the responsibilities of the runner and station judge.


----------



## Bob (May 3, 2012)

Yeah...though I don't agree with the regulation that the judge should inspect the cube. What are they looking for? It's not as if they are going to compare the scramble with the scramble document. The only thing they might perhaps notice is that the cube was not scrambled at all, in which they would just bring it back to be scrambled. If runners follow proper protocol (that is, when they bring cubes back to the scrambling table, they bring them back uncovered), then this situation will be avoided.



> A2d) When taking the puzzle from the scrambler, the judge does a quick general inspection of thorough scrambling of the puzzle. In case of doubt the judge contacts the scrambler for a detailed check.



This is just silly. How is thorough scrambling defined? But now we're getting off topic.


----------



## Vincents (May 3, 2012)

Bob said:


> Yeah...though I don't agree with the regulation that the judge should inspect the cube. What are they looking for? It's not as if they are going to compare the scramble with the scramble document. The only thing they might perhaps notice is that the cube was not scrambled at all, in which they would just bring it back to be scrambled. If runners follow proper protocol (that is, when they bring cubes back to the scrambling table, they bring them back uncovered), then this situation will be avoided.
> 
> 
> 
> This is just silly. How is thorough scrambling defined? But now we're getting off topic.



I'm just going to share with you the running doc. But yes, you're basically making sure the cube is scrambled, and that there isn't something horrendously wrong.


----------

