# Does you know who still cube anymore?



## Hadley4000 (Jun 23, 2008)

Does the speedcuber who was cought cheating at bld solving still cube?

Has anyone talked to ****** ****? Do y'all know if he has just quit cubing?


----------



## DAE_JA_VOO (Jun 23, 2008)

Who cares. He cheated. I couldn't care less how good he is/gets or what vids he posts.


----------



## Dene (Jun 23, 2008)

I hope he is still cubing. Krazy Kuti is still awesome (I don't really hold a grudge against him. Of course I am morally obligated to disapprove of his cheating, but the money is really the big issue, as it is of actual value (whereas "sentimental" value means crap, really)).


----------



## joey (Jun 23, 2008)

There was a recent picture shown of him still cubing. Can't rememeber where it was.


----------



## andrewvo1324 (Jun 23, 2008)

I also think Kuti is an awesome cuber and speedsolver overall. I mean he is probably still better then us at Blindsolving D: without the cheating.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 23, 2008)

I saw the same picture as joey. It was on some hungarian picasa album or something  He was doing 4x4 too ...


----------



## hdskull (Jun 23, 2008)

I think he will come back and show everyone that he can do it w/o cheating. However, as we all know, he was good in most of the categories he competed in, I bet he's working harder than ever.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 23, 2008)

He's not coming back unless he returns the money he stole... that's it period.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 23, 2008)

Hmm, did the winners actually get the winner prizes by now?


----------



## pcharles93 (Jun 23, 2008)

They should have. If they didn't, it's like me killing someone and not getting thrown into a juvenile detention center, enrolled in group counseling, and not having to pay a fine, or community service.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 23, 2008)

Well, duh! But can you also answer the question?


----------



## pcharles93 (Jun 23, 2008)

No. No, I cannot answer the question, but I can answer the one you just asked.


----------



## Dene (Jun 24, 2008)

I hope he does pay the money so he can come back. He won't be very popular but I bet he can sub9 5x5x5 BLD.


----------



## genwin (Jun 24, 2008)

I think he should come back better than ever... sort of redeeming himself and getting back the respect of his competitors...


----------



## Stefan (Jun 24, 2008)

masterofthebass said:


> He's not coming back unless he returns the money he stole... that's it period.





Dene said:


> I hope he does pay the money so he can come back.


Why can't he come back without returning the money?



Dene said:


> I bet he can sub9 5x5x5 BLD.


How much?


----------



## Dene (Jun 24, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> masterofthebass said:
> 
> 
> > He's not coming back unless he returns the money he stole... that's it period.
> ...



First question: Apparently he isn't allowed to compete again until he pays it back.

Second question: I don't gamble (it's against my _religion_). I wouldn't put huge amounts of money on it though. If I were (and I could afford it) I may put $50 on it. Of course, the conditions in which it were proved would be a process of great debate.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 24, 2008)

So you're saying he can't come back before returning the money because he can't come back before returning the money? Now that was an empty answer.

Yes, it's always so easy to "bet" if you know what you "bet" about can't be tested. I believe he can't do it, otherwise he would've. Apparently full-solve cheating was the entire method so I have no idea what he's really capable of.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 24, 2008)

OK Guys... no more talk about what he can or can't do. If the Thread doesn't get back on topic, I'm just going to close it... I really don't even see why the thread is still open.


----------



## Bryan (Jun 24, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Why can't he come back without returning the money?



If you look at the WCA forum on this topic, you'll see that returning the prize money is one of the requirements.


----------



## Erik (Jun 24, 2008)

That's something apparently not all WCA members agree on. I believe Tyson thinks the ban is for 3 years and starts when he gives back the money, but Ron thinks the ban is for 3 years, has already started and will be 2 years if he gives back the money....


----------



## tim (Jun 24, 2008)

Dene said:


> Of course I am morally obligated to disapprove of his cheating, but the money is really the big issue, as it is of actual value (whereas "sentimental" value means crap, really)).



value_of(Human.new) = value_of(5000$) = 0.


----------



## joey (Jun 24, 2008)

tim said:


> value_of(Human.new) = value_of(5000$) = 0.


SyntaxError: compile error
(irb):7: syntax error, unexpected '=', expecting $end
value_of(Human.new) = value_of(5000$) = 0
^
from (irb):7
from :0


----------



## tim (Jun 24, 2008)

joey said:


> tim said:
> 
> 
> > value_of(Human.new) = value_of(5000$) = 0.
> ...



It has to be your crappy compiler. The code works fine on my machine.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 24, 2008)

tim said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > tim said:
> ...


No, Tim; I think it's just that your compiler isn't properly written to spec. Must be a Microsoft compiler.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Jun 24, 2008)

Why is everyone saying *if* he pays back the money? He stole money, obviously he has to pay it back or wouldn't something bad happen? Or was it some loophole in the WCA rules or what?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 24, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> tim said:
> 
> 
> > joey said:
> ...


"value_of[Human.new] == value_of[5000 $] == 0"
doesn't evaluate in Mathematica. Must depend on context and definitions.

(Unless you meant =, not ==, which is just a definition...)


----------



## tim (Jun 24, 2008)

```
class Object
  def value; 0; end
end

class Human
end

class Money
  def initialize(value)
    @value = value
  end
end

h = Human.new.value
m = Money.new(1000).value

p (h == m and m == 0)
```

=> true


----------



## joey (Jun 24, 2008)

```
class Object;def value;0;end;def self.const_missing(name);eval("class #{name};
def initialize(v=nil);end;end");const_get(name);end;end
p (Human.new.value==(m=Money.new(1000).value)&&m==0)
```
 => true


----------



## Dene (Jun 25, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> So you're saying he can't come back before returning the money because he can't come back before returning the money? Now that was an empty answer.
> 
> Yes, it's always so easy to "bet" if you know what you "bet" about can't be tested. I believe he can't do it, otherwise he would've. Apparently full-solve cheating was the entire method so I have no idea what he's really capable of.



First statement: Well I think Erik gave a more thorough account of the situation now.

Second statement: Of course, what I "bet" (which has been taken way out of context, might I point out) can be tested, but only if he comes back. I'm certain that if he intends to come back, he will be working extremely hard to do things genuinely just to rub it in peoples faces (of course, his method would have to be a practical one, which would still prove him to have been lying before).


----------

