# Baltimore Spring 2010



## fanwuq (Feb 25, 2010)

Register here:
http://www.worldcubeassociation.org...ration+Form&competitionId=BaltimoreSpring2010

*Email me at [email protected] if you want to add BLD*

http://bpipolyhedron.homelinux.net/
Baltimore Spring 2010 Competition

The Baltimore Spring 2010 Competition will be held on April 18th 2010 in Banneker Hall at Baltimore Polytechnic Institute (www.bpi.edu).

This competition will follow all regulations of the World Cube Association (www.worldcubeassociation.org). Competitors should be familiar with these rules prior to the competition.

Bob Burton will be the WCA Delegate.

The registration fee for competitors will be $3 for each event. People who are not competing may watch for free.

Contact [email protected] with any questions about the competition. People who plan on competing should register here as soon as possible.

Events

The following events will be held:
3x3x3 Speedsolve
4x4x4 Speedsolve
2x2x2 Speedsolve
3x3x3 One-Handed
3x3x3 BLD
5x5x5 Speedsolve
Pyraminx
3x3x3 Fewest Moves
Magic

Schedule of Events

Main Stage: 10:00 AM: Registration
10:30-11:00 2x2x2 Round 1
11:00-12:00: 3x3x3 One-Handed Round 1
12:00-2:00: 3x3x3 Speedsolve Round 1
2:00-3:00: 4x4x4 Speedsolve Combined Final (Sub-2:00 for average)
3:00-3:30: Pyraminx Final
3:30-4:00: 3x3x3 One-Handed Final (Top 10 from Round 1)
4:00-4:30: Magic Final
4:30-4:45: 2x2x2 Final (Top 10 from Round 1)
3:45-4:00: 3x3x3 Final (Top 10 from Round 1)
5:00: Awards

3x3x3 Fewest Moves will occur between ~12:30 and ~2:00. If you plan to do Fewest moves, be sure to tell the scramblers that you need to be one of the first to do 3x3x3 Speed. There is no designated lunch time; we will order pizza when enough people feel hungry.

Directions

Baltimore Polytechnic Institute is located at 1400 W Cold Spring Lane, Baltimore, MD 21209.


----------



## 4Chan (Feb 25, 2010)

Edit: Oh noes, I'm going to be in Baltimore for my break between March 8-15...
I hate my life right now. 


If only I could stay in the area longer.

.-.


It's selfish, but if you could move the date by that, I would be eternally grateful. 
I'd even give you a cube!~


----------



## chris410 (Feb 25, 2010)

I will most likely attend. I will try the 2x2 (recently learned ortega so I need practice), 3x3, and pryaminx.


----------



## fanwuq (Feb 25, 2010)

4chan,
It's not possible. Sorry. March 13th is a SAT testing day.

March 20th and 21st are the only possible dates. Does anyone have a preference for one or the other?

If I really have to, I could move it to April 10th, but that means I will not be able to attend and it would be organized by others at my school.


EDIT:
Website link should work now. It contains the same basic text as the above post.


----------



## 4Chan (Feb 26, 2010)

Aw, truly a shame.
But that's how life is~


Best of luck with your competition!


----------



## BillB (Feb 26, 2010)

I'd love to go since it's been alomost a year since my last competition. I probably won't register until 2 or 3 days before though.

Bill B


----------



## Kian (Feb 26, 2010)

Hmm this isn't far at all. Either day will probably work for Kyle and I.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Feb 26, 2010)

The 21st would be the best for me sadly...but it's a lot to ask for one person.


----------



## flee135 (Feb 26, 2010)

Shoot! Finally a competition in Maryland, and now I'm busy! I'll see what I can do to make it. If I do come, is it alright if I show up for maybe a couple hours in the morning and participate in a few rounds? It'd be nice if you could get me to finish my pyraminx round (or any event, for that matter) earlier than 1:00, because I need to be in Catonsville at 1:00. I mostly just want a new pyraminx average. My current one sucks.

Er, if it counts for anything, the day that I am absolutely free for the entire day is April 3. I don't expect any changes in the date to be made though, but just in case you're taking other dates into consideration.


----------



## fanwuq (Feb 26, 2010)

Flee,

You can arrive early, do your solves on the side, then leave.


----------



## Baian Liu (Feb 26, 2010)

Both the 20th and 21st would probably work for me. Any chance for 2-day event?


----------



## Anthony (Feb 26, 2010)

flee135 said:


> I mostly just want a new pyraminx average. My current one sucks.



I love how you're referring to the NAR lol. 
Anyway..

Sub 3.68. kthxbai.


----------



## DaBear (Feb 26, 2010)

boosted....ill be there and ill be doing the 3x3 4x4 and 5x5....maybe 2x2 if i actually buy one and learn to solve it fast.....oh and 20th is best....spring break ends the 21st for me


----------



## flee135 (Feb 26, 2010)

fanwuq said:


> Flee,
> 
> You can arrive early, do your solves on the side, then leave.


Alright, this sounds _very_ nice. I'm so glad that's not a problem. I'm probably most likely coming in this case, unless something major holds me back on the day of the competition.

EDIT: So I just realized that if it's on March 21st, I can be there the whole day. That would be nice, but I guess I'm alright with the 20th as well. Also, on the 20th, I will not be able to arrive early, so if that means dropping a couple events like 4x4 or 5x5, that's fine too.



Anthony said:


> flee135 said:
> 
> 
> > I mostly just want a new pyraminx average. My current one sucks.
> ...


Yeah, the NAR average sucks. 
Your NAR single, on the other hand, will be a challenge to beat with only 5 single attempts.


----------



## NathanKearney (Feb 26, 2010)

I'm pretty sure I'll be going. It's nice to finally have a competition real close to home.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Feb 26, 2010)

Fanwuq..can you make a poll with the two different dates?


----------



## fanwuq (Feb 26, 2010)

UPDATE: We can have the venue from 9AM-3PM on March 20th. Is the schedule too rushed?

The venue is also available 10AM-5PM on March 14th.


----------



## teller (Feb 26, 2010)

I can probably make it either day...but there will probably be a snowstorm that prevents me from doing so.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Feb 26, 2010)

ooo..the 14th would be nice as well...I can pretty much make any day except the 20th lol..


----------



## DaBear (Feb 26, 2010)

14th is fine....and probably better for me seeing as i have family getting in the following weekend

also when is the 5x5 taking place?....oh and ill be bringing my friend who taught me along too


----------



## fanwuq (Feb 26, 2010)

Bob says the 14th is too early. If we do it on the 20th, we might have to cut some events. Which events should I cut? Or should we just have one round for every event?

How's April 17th or 18th?


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Feb 26, 2010)

If you cut any events/rounds of events, I may or may not go...I'm not sure it would be worth a 3.5 hour drive on my first day of spring break for a short competition.

I could probably do the 17th or 18th...we have a 4-day weekend for Patriot's Day.


----------



## fanwuq (Feb 26, 2010)

Venue is available for the whole day April 18th. I just need to see if Bob is available that day.


----------



## chris410 (Feb 27, 2010)

I suspect most would agree on changing the date in order to have more competitions. April 18th works for me (the 10th is my wedding anniversary...needless to say it does not work for me! )


----------



## Bob (Feb 28, 2010)

we'll wait on patrick jameson.


----------



## DaBear (Feb 28, 2010)

cant go if its anytime other than the days in march


----------



## DaBear (Feb 28, 2010)

bamp.....when is this going down and when will registration open?


----------



## bluecloe45 (Feb 28, 2010)

you should only have 1 round for 2x2 and drop 4x4 or 5x4


----------



## DaBear (Mar 3, 2010)

bamp


----------



## nlCuber22 (Mar 3, 2010)

DaBear said:


> bamp



What? "Bamp"?


----------



## dannyz0r (Mar 3, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> DaBear said:
> 
> 
> > bamp
> ...



Bad-ass-mini-post


----------



## DaBear (Mar 4, 2010)

dannyz0r said:


> nlCuber22 said:
> 
> 
> > DaBear said:
> ...



or just bump with the u being replaced by an a


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 5, 2010)

I updated the first post. 
I just emailed the WCA board. I hope they will approve it soon.
The competition will be April 18th, 2010.


----------



## DaBear (Mar 5, 2010)

damn.....i was really hoping for it to be march 20th...cant go now


----------



## flee135 (Mar 6, 2010)

Nice! I'm almost 100% certain that I will not have any conflicts on this day, so I will most likely be able to stay the whole day, unless some major change occurs in my schedule. Looks like I'll be able to stay the whole day!

Any chance for two rounds of pyraminx?


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 6, 2010)

Tyson or Bob will post it on Speedcubing sometime this weekend. 

Flee,
We will consider that during the competition.


----------



## flee135 (Mar 7, 2010)

fanwuq said:


> Tyson or Bob will post it on Speedcubing sometime this weekend.
> 
> Flee,
> We will consider that during the competition.



Wow, that's awesome! Thanks!


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 7, 2010)

Register here:
http://www.worldcubeassociation.org...ration+Form&competitionId=BaltimoreSpring2010


----------



## chris410 (Mar 7, 2010)

I just started learning full PLL so I will not be ready however, I plan on being there. Looking forward to it!


----------



## masterofthebass (Mar 7, 2010)

why is it so hard to get places from pittsburgh :/


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 7, 2010)

chris410 said:


> I just started learning full PLL so I will not be ready however, I plan on being there. Looking forward to it!



Don't worry about your times so much. Just go there and have fun! At my first competition, I learned a lot. It's much easier to get faster and you have a greater motivation to get faster after going to a competition.


----------



## blah (Mar 7, 2010)

What's up with this no BLD deal?


----------



## chris410 (Mar 7, 2010)

fanwuq said:


> chris410 said:
> 
> 
> > I just started learning full PLL so I will not be ready however, I plan on being there. Looking forward to it!
> ...



No worries! My first competition (Washington DC Open) the first person I saw speed solve was Rowe, I was his judge and did not know who he was. Needless to say I was pretty shocked because he solved in just over 9 seconds 10.01 (something close to that) That being said, I realize that I will never get to that level however, I do enjoy cubing and it was great fun meeting so many people, talking to some of the top cubers, and getting valuable tips in addition to pushing myself towards improving. I was impressed with how willing everyone was to help. 

Looking forward to this, thank you for putting in the effort so that we can all compete and have fun!


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 7, 2010)

blah said:


> What's up with this no BLD deal?



I considered it, but I don't know if it would fit into the schedule. Look at the schedule. How long would you expect BLD to take?


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Mar 7, 2010)

fanwuq said:


> blah said:
> 
> 
> > What's up with this no BLD deal?
> ...



Depends on what you think is a reasonable cutoff.


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 7, 2010)

Do you think it is reasonable to cut 30 min from the first round of 3x3 speed to add 3x3 BLD? Suppose we have 10 competitors doing BLD, what would be a reasonable cut off time?


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Mar 8, 2010)

fanwuq said:


> Do you think it is reasonable to cut 30 min from the first round of 3x3 speed to add 3x3 BLD? Suppose we have 10 competitors doing BLD, what would be a reasonable cut off time?



At MIT, the 3x3 first round was two hours long, so cutting 60min shouldn't even be that bad. With an hour, I don't think you'd need cutoffs.


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 8, 2010)

The venue costs $380, I will decrease registration fees when the total registration fee exceeds that amount. The more people that register, the less each individual will pay.










Swordsman Kirby said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think it is reasonable to cut 30 min from the first round of 3x3 speed to add 3x3 BLD? Suppose we have 10 competitors doing BLD, what would be a reasonable cut off time?
> ...



I hope we can get at least 40 competitors. Maybe cutting 45 min from speed for BLD seems reasonable. I'll update the website tonight.
*Email me at [email protected] if you want to add BLD*


----------



## masterofthebass (Mar 8, 2010)

I think have may have derived an ingenious scheme to be able to get there.


----------



## Dave Campbell (Mar 8, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> I think have may have derived an ingenious scheme to be able to get there.



Dan, lay off the pain meds.

I'll probably come. I'd say, though, trying to accommodate everyone's wishes for their events (adding bld, adding two rounds of pyraminx, etc) is a dangerous way to organize.


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 8, 2010)

Dave Campbell said:


> masterofthebass said:
> 
> 
> > I think have may have derived an ingenious scheme to be able to get there.
> ...



Ok, I guess I can't make everyone happy. We only have one round of pyraminx. If we are way ahead of schedule and many people are interested in pyraminx, we might add it. The chance probably isn't very high.
According to what Tim said, the change to add BLD seems reasonable. What do you think? Other than that, this schedule is final.


----------



## flee135 (Mar 8, 2010)

fanwuq said:


> Dave Campbell said:
> 
> 
> > I'll probably come. I'd say, though, trying to accommodate everyone's wishes for their events (adding bld, adding two rounds of pyraminx, etc) is a dangerous way to organize.
> ...



Yeah, yeah, I'm glad there's at least one round of pyraminx. I actually didn't think you'd take me all that seriously when I suggested another one. I'm perfectly fine with just one (unless, of course, a lot more people want that too, in which case that would be awesome!).


----------



## Bob (Mar 9, 2010)

Whoa, final sounds so permanent. It is ALWAYS subject to change.


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 10, 2010)

Registration fee reduced to $3 per event.


----------



## masterofthebass (Mar 10, 2010)

Why do all comps have rolling registration fees? To punish me? I don't see why you can't just set a flat fee based on the number of competitors to cover your costs. 45 people = $10 a person. 30 people = $15 a person. Its really annoying paying more money for this comp than I have for every nationals I've been to.


----------



## Bryan (Mar 10, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> Why do all comps have rolling registration fees? To punish me? I don't see why you can't just set a flat fee based on the number of competitors to cover your costs. 45 people = $10 a person. 30 people = $15 a person. Its really annoying paying more money for this comp than I have for every nationals I've been to.



I use rolling fees because otherwise you discourage new people from competing if you're charging them $15 to do just one round of 3x3.


----------



## Baian Liu (Mar 10, 2010)

Bryan said:


> masterofthebass said:
> 
> 
> > Why do all comps have rolling registration fees? To punish me? I don't see why you can't just set a flat fee based on the number of competitors to cover your costs. 45 people = $10 a person. 30 people = $15 a person. Its really annoying paying more money for this comp than I have for every nationals I've been to.
> ...



You encourage them to do other events though.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Mar 10, 2010)

Baian Liu said:


> Bryan said:
> 
> 
> > masterofthebass said:
> ...



Which is iffy whether that's good or not. It's good for the competitor because they get to try events they don't often practice in competition; but bad for organizers because there may be too many people competing in a lot of events.


----------



## Kian (Mar 10, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> Why do all comps have rolling registration fees? To punish me? I don't see why you can't just set a flat fee based on the number of competitors to cover your costs. 45 people = $10 a person. 30 people = $15 a person. Its really annoying paying more money for this comp than I have for every nationals I've been to.



Of note, he did say that prices will go down if enough people come.


----------



## Bryan (Mar 10, 2010)

Baian Liu said:


> Bryan said:
> 
> 
> > masterofthebass said:
> ...



Yeah, it like when my cable company would jack up the prices by $20/month and give me the golf channel. "It encourages me to watch golf." 

No, I'll pay for what I want.


----------



## masterofthebass (Mar 10, 2010)

Still, I've paid less for all 3 nationals I've been to than the $3 an event that I will have to pay for this competition. It just feels like I'm constantly being punished for doing multiple events.


----------



## Pedro (Mar 10, 2010)

One reason is to try to prevent slow people from doing way too many events and messing up the schedule.


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 10, 2010)

I originally wanted to do the competition for free. Then the school told me how much I had to pay for the venue. Sorry.
Next adjustment in price will probably be $5 for first event and $2 for each additional event if enough people register. Bring your friends!
Another alternative is refunding a portion of the fees for the competition winners.


----------



## flee135 (Mar 10, 2010)

Oh BLD was added. Could you sign me up for that?


----------



## Bob (Mar 10, 2010)

I like registration fees to discourage (slower) people from competing in certain events. For my competitions, typically the alternative is to not offer the event at all. If I have people who want to try 4x4 for the first time, and it won't cost them anything, they'll probably do it. Why not, if it's free?


----------



## masterofthebass (Mar 10, 2010)

Bob said:


> I like registration fees to discourage (slower) people from competing in certain events. For my competitions, typically the alternative is to not offer the event at all. If I have people who want to try 4x4 for the first time, and it won't cost them anything, they'll probably do it. Why not, if it's free?



Then perhaps put a more reasonable cap on registration fees. If you are competing in 5 events anyway, I don't see the reason to charge people more for it.

It could also be remedied by harsher cut-offs as well.


----------



## Bob (Mar 11, 2010)

Yeah, I believe the last time or two I capped registration at $20. I also got "yelled at" for my 5x5 cutoff being lower than the qualification time for US Nationals.


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 11, 2010)

Bob said:


> Yeah, I believe the last time or two I capped registration at $20. I also got "yelled at" for my 5x5 cutoff being lower than the qualification time for US Nationals.



Seems reasonable enough.
I'll cap the registration fee at $20.


----------



## cubesolver77 (Mar 11, 2010)

I am thinking of going i just wanna be sure of the date because if it is on sunday i cant go( Sunday April 18th? )


----------



## masterofthebass (Mar 11, 2010)

its the 18th on the WCA website, so I would definitely assume its that day.


----------



## cubesolver77 (Mar 11, 2010)

ok that sucks i wonder why he set it up on a sunday though


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 11, 2010)

cubesolver77 said:


> ok that sucks i wonder why he set it up on a sunday though



Sorry. That's the only day I could do it. Some people complain about Saturdays, some people complain about Sundays. I can't make everyone happy.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Mar 11, 2010)

fanwuq said:


> cubesolver77 said:
> 
> 
> > ok that sucks i wonder why he set it up on a sunday though
> ...


What was wrong with that Saturday?


----------



## masterofthebass (Mar 11, 2010)

in the other thread he already mentioned the venue wasn't available.


----------



## Kian (Mar 19, 2010)

Which is sweet because neither am I. And I'm a delight.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Mar 30, 2010)

Does anyone going have a spare LanLan 2x2? 

Mine's missing an internal piece and it's just terrible.
If so, that'd be great. Thanks.


----------



## bluecloe45 (Mar 31, 2010)

i do and i will trade u at the competiton, and may include a set of 2x2 tiles


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 31, 2010)

50 people registered!


----------



## flee135 (Apr 6, 2010)

Only 2 more weeks!



fanwuq said:


> 50 people registered!



Just curious, but will the $20 cap be lowered because of this, or will the cap stay at that amount?


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Apr 6, 2010)

Yay, I made travel plans. See you all there.


----------



## bluecloe45 (Apr 6, 2010)

yaya


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 6, 2010)

YES!

My dad confirmed that we can go for sure. He's making travel plans.
WOOOOOOOOOO!


----------



## Bob (Apr 6, 2010)

Is there a hotel that most people are staying at?


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Apr 6, 2010)

Dave and I are staying at the Days Inn. No idea about anyone else.


----------



## Kian (Apr 6, 2010)

Kyle and I are busy on Saturday night so we are braving the road at unspeakable hours in the morning. Should be fun.


----------



## Dave Campbell (Apr 6, 2010)

Tim Reynolds said:


> Dave and I are staying at the Days Inn. No idea about anyone else.



No one else is important, anyway. Except Justin, i suppose.



Kian said:


> Kyle and I are busy on Saturday night so we are braving the road at unspeakable hours in the morning. Should be fun.



If it has anything to do with a college sporting event, you are buying us all dinner on Sunday.


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (Apr 6, 2010)

not going


----------



## Bob (Apr 6, 2010)

Tim, could you send me the address of the Days Inn?


----------



## Dave Campbell (Apr 7, 2010)

No need to keep it a secret. Unless you are trying to hide from the high population of Burtonists in the Baltimore area.

Days Inn Baltimore West, Security Blvd.
1660 Whitehead Court
Baltimore, MD 21207 US​


----------



## Bryan (Apr 7, 2010)

Dave Campbell said:


> No need to keep it a *secret*....
> Days Inn Baltimore West, *Security *Blvd.​



Hehe


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Apr 7, 2010)

Amtrak in the morning, screw driving (not like I can, anyway).


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 14, 2010)

Just 3 more days, I'm getting pumped


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 16, 2010)

Bumpy  3 days  Anyone have an extra set of yellow stickers for a pyraminx?


----------



## flee135 (Apr 16, 2010)

Hm I was just checking the schedule for this Sunday's competition, and I did not see when 5x5 speed was going to occur. Is there any information about this?


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 16, 2010)

Yay, I'm leaving tomorrow evening! 

Anyone else staying at the Sheraton Baltimore City Center Hotel? (10min away from venue)


----------



## bluecloe45 (Apr 17, 2010)

im just driing there and back


----------



## chris410 (Apr 17, 2010)

Roughly an hour and a half from my house so I'll drive up in morning. See everyone there! I am pretty sure I will be last place in 2x2! I have not been able to practice much lately and since learning Ortega I have not solved much. Even so, I am looking forward to watching a full competition since my first one was snowed out.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 17, 2010)

Yea it's 2 hours and 15 mins from my house...still driving down that morning


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Apr 17, 2010)

On my way. Finally, I get another chance to do fewest moves...


----------



## cuBerBruce (Apr 17, 2010)

I've arrived in Baltimore @ aforementioned Days Inn.


----------



## Bob (Apr 18, 2010)

I was going to leave after the Met's game.

Top of the 16th inning, score 0-0, so I'm leaving tomorrow morning.

If I don't leave by 6:30, I risk being late. Somebody should call me in the morning around then to make sure I'm on my way. The drive is like 3 1/2 hours.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Apr 18, 2010)

Bob said:


> I was going to leave after the Met's game.
> 
> Top of the 16th inning, score 0-0, so I'm leaving tomorrow morning.
> 
> If I don't leave by 6:30, I risk being late. Somebody should call me in the morning around then to make sure I'm on my way. The drive is like 3 1/2 hours.



Oh, you're going to this? I didn't realize, since you didn't preregister.

Dave and I are also at the Days Inn (room 130). Anyone else around should stop by.


----------



## Bob (Apr 18, 2010)

Tim Reynolds said:


> Bob said:
> 
> 
> > I was going to leave after the Met's game.
> ...



Yes, I'm going smartass.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 18, 2010)

I'm at the Hampton Inn BWI. Anyone else?


----------



## Bob (Apr 18, 2010)

Who the hell puts their shortstop in to pitch?

Tim call me when you get up to make sure I'm not still in NJ


----------



## bluecloe45 (Apr 18, 2010)

i watched the game too. its a shame


----------



## Bob (Apr 18, 2010)

I'm on my way.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 18, 2010)

I'll be leaving by 9:15-9:30ish so I'll get there by 9:45. 

I like to be early.


----------



## That70sShowDude (Apr 18, 2010)

If anybody sees this that's running the competition. I just registered yesterday, but I won't be able to make it. My name is Mike Kotch, thanks.


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (Apr 18, 2010)

This thread is really getting exciting. I wish I could go, but I live in Michigan...


----------



## bluecloe45 (Apr 19, 2010)

the competion was awesome!!!


----------



## chris410 (Apr 19, 2010)

Great competition! I had fun despite not reaching my goals however, it was great fun watching Dan, Tim x 2, Kian, Kyle, Nathan, and the other fast people solve. Kian should get an award for best comic act while solving! 

Dan gets the award for best magic finish!


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 19, 2010)

chris410 said:


> Great competition! I had fun despite not reaching my goals however, it was great fun watching Dan, Tim x 2, Kian, Kyle, Nathan, and the other fast people solve. Kian should get an award for best comic act while solving!
> 
> *Dan gets the award for best magic finish!*



It was impossible to not laugh when he did that....ahaha I will never forget seeing dan turn around and chuck his magic at the wall...ahahaha


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Apr 19, 2010)

Dan's magic finish was quite shocking, yet hilarious. In one smooth motion, he stopped the timer, picked up the magic, and hurdled it at the wall, chipping off a corner of a tile.

3rd place with 12.49 average =) My finals times were 12, 12, 12, 18, <long break to calm myself down>, 12.

Christopher Phillips got a crazy 30 move FMC. It was pretty sweet, nobody really expected that.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 19, 2010)

Tim Reynolds said:


> Dan's magic finish was quite shocking, yet hilarious. In one smooth motion, he stopped the timer, picked up the magic, and hurdled it at the wall, chipping off a corner of a tile.
> 
> 3rd place with 12.49 average =) My finals times were 12, 12, 12, 18, <long break to calm myself down>, 12.
> 
> Christopher Phillips got a crazy 30 move FMC. It was pretty sweet, nobody really expected that.



I think my favorite part was looking over to see bob just lying on the floor laughing. Good job tim on the average . That FMC was pretty insane. It just came together all at once. It didnt really look like anything was happening and then BAM half of the cube was done lol.


----------



## deathbypapercutz (Apr 19, 2010)

Tim Reynolds said:


> 3rd place with 12.49 average =) My finals times were 12, 12, 12, 18, <long break to calm myself down>, 12.



TIM REYNOLDS


----------



## Bryan (Apr 19, 2010)

Tim Reynolds said:


> Dan's magic finish was quite shocking, yet hilarious. In one smooth motion, he stopped the timer, picked up the magic, and hurdled it at the wall, chipping off a corner of a tile.



So it was a DNF? 



WCA Regulations said:


> A6e) The competitor must not touch or move the puzzle until the judge has inspected the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Apr 19, 2010)

Bryan said:


> Tim Reynolds said:
> 
> 
> > Dan's magic finish was quite shocking, yet hilarious. In one smooth motion, he stopped the timer, picked up the magic, and hurdled it at the wall, chipping off a corner of a tile.
> ...



Well, that was why he chucked it at the wall--he could have gotten a really good average, but then DNFed the last solve.


----------



## jtjogobonito (Apr 19, 2010)

Rowe should have won.


----------



## Kian (Apr 19, 2010)

I remain an embarrassment.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 19, 2010)

Oh yeah and I proved myself or something like that.


----------



## jtjogobonito (Apr 19, 2010)

Kian said:


> I remain an embarrassment.



I don't see how that is relevant to the thread.


----------



## Kian (Apr 19, 2010)

jtjogobonito said:


> Kian said:
> 
> 
> > I remain an embarrassment.
> ...



Was I not throughly embarrassing today?


----------



## jtjogobonito (Apr 19, 2010)

Kian said:


> jtjogobonito said:
> 
> 
> > Kian said:
> ...



Today, yesterday, the day before, the day before that, etc.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Apr 19, 2010)

Kian said:


> I remain an embarrassment.



Did you get back already?


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 19, 2010)

Kian said:


> I remain an embarrassment.



Thank you Captain Obvious


----------



## Kian (Apr 19, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> Oh yeah and I proved myself or something like that.



Getting a single high 16 with an OLL that was the beginning of a Y perm and T Perm for PLL does not prove you average 13 seconds.



Tim Reynolds said:


> Kian said:
> 
> 
> > I remain an embarrassment.
> ...



Yes sir. Got back around 10. Less than a 3 hour drive for Kyle and I.

In all seriousness, I did have fun at the competition because of the people, but I think there are a lot of organization lessons to be learned from this competition. Among them are: Have score sheets printed beforehand; print scrambles (especially FMC sheets) with color ink so that the color scheme is not several shades of gray; have people you expect to judge in each round; run rounds in groups (heats) and use two sets of scrambles when necessary; go over the schedule beforehand so that very obvious things aren't missing; and many others.

Basically my point to those that might run another competition and to anyone else is that preparation is more than just securing a room and ordering pizza. I'm not trying to demean anybody, problems can only be rectified when they're addressed head on. I do this so that more people won't make the same mistakes. All competitions have flaws, our goal should be to reduce them.

Again, I will reiterate that I had a great time, as I always do, but I just could have done without the complete lack of order and not doing FMC just because I was afraid we would fall too far behind if we didn't have a number of people available to get through other puzzles concurrently. It's so much that I care about the event as much as it just shouldn't be necessary to do what I did, and I feel it was.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Apr 19, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> Oh yeah and I proved myself or something like that.



Sorry, but I don't see how you proved yourself...You claim to be a 13-second cuber, and your best solve was 16.xx with a really easy last layer. Get a decent 3x3 average, and you will prove yourself. Stop wasting time at competitions, and people will respect you. Other than that, since nobody cares about single solves, you didn't prove yourself today.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 19, 2010)

Kian said:


> I remain an embarrassment.





fazrulz said:


> CharlieCooper said:
> 
> 
> > fazrulz said:
> ...



Yea I noticed it on the sheet and showed it to bob and tim. Both of them just looked at the sheet like "what??" Bob was then watching his next solve on which he got a 34 or something. In any case, there wasn't really any reason or proof against him so i'm assuming that's the reason that bob gave it to him.


----------



## bluecloe45 (Apr 19, 2010)

i was 0.07 seconds away from qualifying for 2x2, boo


----------



## chris410 (Apr 19, 2010)

Kian said:


> I remain an embarrassment.



No...I get that award! Why? I DNF'd 2x2...it was my first time solving 2x2 in competition and I was distracted on my last solve (completely my fault) and ended up with a DNF. Of course, I compete because I enjoy them and it is always nice to sit and talk with other cubers. The final was fun to watch, congrats everyone!


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 19, 2010)

Kian said:


> In all seriousness, I did have fun at the competition because of the people, but I think there are a lot of organization lessons to be learned from this competition. Among them are: Have score sheets printed beforehand; print scrambles (especially FMC sheets) with color ink so that the color scheme is not several shades of gray; have people you expect to judge in each round; run rounds in groups (heats) and use two sets of scrambles when necessary; go over the schedule beforehand so that very obvious things aren't missing; and many others.
> 
> Basically my point to those that might run another competition and to anyone else is that preparation is more than just securing a room and ordering pizza. I'm not trying to demean anybody, problems can only be rectified when they're addressed head on. I do this so that more people won't make the same mistakes. All competitions have flaws, our goal should be to reduce them.
> 
> Again, I will reiterate that I had a great time, as I always do, but I just could have done without the complete lack of order and not doing FMC just because I was afraid we would fall too far behind if we didn't have a number of people available to get through other puzzles concurrently. It's so much that I care about the event as much as it just shouldn't be necessary to do what I did, and I feel it was.



1. The score sheets were printed ahead of time. Filling in everyone's names ahead of time could have helped, but we did not lose any time there.
2. I'll take the blame for the scheduling. I forgot to put 5x5 in there.
3. The WCA delegate is supposed to provide the scrambles according the the new rules. It's not my fault that Bob did not get several groups of scrambles, print them in color ahead of time, or that we did not have color ink.
4. I tried to gather people to help with judging and scrambling, but many people that I asked said that they did not want to do the work. It was also a bit disappointing that a few friends that were supposed to show up and help did not show up. I was busy most of the time; there simply wasn't a lot of people who were willing to help. The other 2 organizers did not do as much work as I expected.
5. Dave Campbell had a lot of organization experience. We should have discussed the plans at the beginning of the day. I was way to busy trying to keep everything in order myself that I did not get to talk much to the experienced people. I do thank the experienced people for helping with judging, entering data, and scrambling. Overall, we got done all the events we needed to do and things ran fairly well until people I wanted to find started to disappear on me. That's when timers started to be used inefficiently.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Apr 19, 2010)

fanwuq said:


> 1. The score sheets were printed ahead of time. Filling in everyone's names ahead of time could have helped, but we did not lose any time there.


Yes you did lose time there. When rounds were supposed to be starting, the cards were being written--that meant also I had to stop doing data entry so that the spreadsheet could be used to write cards. The reason the round started in a timely manner was that people like Dave, Bob, Kian, Dan, and I just went ahead and started rounds anyway, making our own scorecards. 


> 3. The WCA delegate is supposed to provide the scrambles according the the new rules. It's not my fault that Bob did not get several groups of scrambles, print them in color ahead of time, or that we did not have color ink.


This is the kind of thing that, regardless of whose job it is, it's your job to make sure it's done properly. You should have checked in advance that Bob was going to generate the right number of scrambles (there's no need for two groups if you have a judging staff, which many competitions do). You should have checked that they were going to be printed properly--I'm sure that, had you asked and told him you didn't have a color printer.

Basically, as the competition organizer, anything that goes wrong needs to be corrected by you, and everything that could likely go wrong and mess up the competition should be thought of in advance and made plans for. It doesn't matter whose fault something is--it ends up coming down to the organizer.


> 4. I tried to gather people to help with judging and scrambling, but many people that I asked said that they did not want to do the work. It was also a bit disappointing that a few friends that were supposed to show up and help did not show up. I was busy most of the time; there simply wasn't a lot of people who were willing to help. The other 2 organizers did not do as much work as I expected.


This is a good lesson for all organizers: non-cubers who have no reason to show up (basically, people who aren't family members or girlfriends/boyfriends) are, for the most part, horribly unreliable at showing up to judge. Hard to blame them--cubing competitions are pretty boring for non-cubers, especially judging.

Basically what it comes down to is that the competition organizer needs to know exactly what's going on and what needs to be happening. Experienced competitors shouldn't be the ones deciding when a round should start--that's the organizer's job to figure out. When a round starts, the organizer should know who's available to judge/scramble, and should ask those people to do so.

I don't mean to call you out in particular--nearly every problem I saw was something that came up at competitions like DC, Brown, Fort Lee, Captain's Cove, Cumberland Valley, etc. But I'd just like to see competition organizers be, in general, more organized and more in control of what's going on.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 19, 2010)

On my 21.xx solve the PLL took ~7.5 seconds :S
It's on video.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 19, 2010)

Tim Reynolds said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > 1. The score sheets were printed ahead of time. Filling in everyone's names ahead of time could have helped, but we did not lose any time there.
> ...



And on top of all of that while all of you were doing FMC we had to start doing 4x4 in an attempt to get the schedule back on track. Kian and I had to start otherwise we would've had a HUGE delay. Dont worry Tim...this statement isn't directed at you. As mentioned by both Kian and Tim, the organization could definitely have used some work. I tried my best to help  obviously it wasn't enough to keep everything on track. In the end though, it was fun.


----------



## JBCM627 (Apr 19, 2010)

puzzlemaster said:


> As mentioned by both Kian and Tim, the organization could definitely have used some work.


This is why I've been sending out surveys after competitions. It gives people a chance to point out things that went both poorly and well. But if you do create a survey, you definitely have to be receptive to criticism, and not try to point-counterpoint everything in your head. If you can do that, then coming up with good solutions that address issues and suggestions people come up with is really the hard part.

Somewhat related: If anyone is thinking about creating a competition survey, I'd recommend not asking multiple choice or "rating" questions. From experience, I've found that these questions don't tell me anything I didn't already know. They also seem to discourage people from answering free-response questions. I've also found about a 20-25% survey response rate to be normal.


----------



## Dene (Apr 19, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> On my 21.xx solve the PLL took ~7.5 seconds :S
> It's on video.



Do you have a point? You haven't proven anything other than the fact that you have failed, yet again, to show any proof of your claimed times.


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 19, 2010)

Tim Reynolds said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > 1. The score sheets were printed ahead of time. Filling in everyone's names ahead of time could have helped, but we did not lose any time there.
> ...



1. While it was not the conventional way to do things, what we did for the first event could have worked for everything else.
I expected to just call out that an event is starting. People will line up to write their names and put down their puzzles. The scramblers could immediately start scrambling while people write their names. They can make 4 lines at the registration table and that shouldn't take more than 3 minutes. Apparently that's not the way things work now, but it seems possible that this can become a good system.
3. There's no way I could have expected that before the competition. I'll take this into consideration next time.
4. There were 4 people in my cubing club that promised to show up and didn't. I emailed them several times in the last week. People have other things to do; I can't do anything about it.
I wanted to collect puzzles before the round starts. Dave wasn't so happy about that; he clearly liked to be in control, so I ended up judging a lot of people off to the side. While it is possible for me to become a dictator to make the events go faster, I thought it was better to give everyone more freedom. I make the event possible and help out as much as I can. People who like to control the situation can do that. People who just want to chill can do that too.

@Sagar

I think 2x2 r1 and 3OH r1 were quite satisfactory. We started to get off schedule when I went to do FMC. The other 2 organizers did not do what I told them to do...
Actually, it doesn't even matter. They had fun and nothing ever goes perfectly any way. Not a lot of things went wrong; we simply had to cut OH finals. We can always do better next time.

Thanks to everyone who has helped!

@JBCM627

The survey is a nice idea. Care to share any of your results/conclusions?


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 19, 2010)

Has anyone decided what we are going to do with Shane Rowland's 13.61 for 3x3x3 speed?


----------



## jtjogobonito (Apr 19, 2010)

Kind of off topic, but it shouldn't be. Did anyone happen to find a stackmat timer with the button covers removed?


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 19, 2010)

fanwuq said:


> Has anyone decided what we are going to do with Shane Rowland's 13.61 for 3x3x3 speed?



I'm assuming it'll stay the way it is considering there's no way to prove that he didn't get that solve.


----------



## Kian (Apr 19, 2010)

puzzlemaster said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone decided what we are going to do with Shane Rowland's 13.61 for 3x3x3 speed?
> ...



You can't prove I didn't just run a 3 minute mile, but that didn't happen either.

Basically something needs to be done because there is virtually no way that happened honestly.



jtjogobonito said:


> Kind of off topic, but it shouldn't be. Did anyone happen to find a stackmat timer with the button covers removed?



Yeah, I'm pretty sure Dave Campbell has it. His is missing, unfortunately.


----------



## joey (Apr 19, 2010)

Replace it with a DNF.


----------



## JBCM627 (Apr 19, 2010)

fanwuq said:


> The survey is a nice idea. Care to share any of your results/conclusions?


Many things were competition-specific and wouldn't be helpful. But there are some things that, in general, might be helpful... I'll ask Bryan about making them more public here sooner or later:
http://cubingusa.com/cguide.php


----------



## JackJ (Apr 19, 2010)

I completely agree with Joey. How did a 13.xy solve by Shane even make it to the score card? It was probably more like a 34.xy anyway.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 19, 2010)

Kian said:


> puzzlemaster said:
> 
> 
> > fanwuq said:
> ...



Agreed...but what can we do about it? I understand it's highly unlikely...but how can we disprove it?


----------



## Dene (Apr 20, 2010)

puzzlemaster said:


> Kian said:
> 
> 
> > puzzlemaster said:
> ...



No evidence is needed. He clearly did not genuinely get that time. How that time happened to appear on the system is an issue that does need to be resolved though.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 20, 2010)

For the record, he came over to me, picked up my cube and my Stackmat Timer, did some ridiculously easy set up handscramble, and got 13.02.


----------



## chris410 (Apr 20, 2010)

puzzlemaster said:


> Kian said:
> 
> 
> > puzzlemaster said:
> ...



Perhaps the person who judged the time can attest to the actual solve. That way, if someone wrote a time that did not take place, proper action can be taken. 

29 Shane Rowland 13.61 43.98 USA 13.61 50.63 1:38.86 34.94 46.38 

That being said, looking at the times, it appears that a typo must have been made, the time SD is far too great to indicate any potential for a 13 second solve. The fastest time of 34.94 is 21.33 second difference with none of the other times even close. To me, that appears to be highly suspect in terms of the wrong time being written down. It could have been entered incorrectly as well (maybe a 2x2 time in the 3x3 field?)

Also, I had to speak to one of the judges, I know the kid was trying to help however, reaching over during a solve is distracting so I had to literally pull him away while Dan Cohen was performing a solve and ask him to NOT crowd the table while someone is solving. While it did not seem to slow Dan at all, I know others or specifically, a beginner such as myself would be distracted. 

The event was fun, sure things could have gone better however, it was good to see people take control and help out.


----------



## CharlieCooper (Apr 20, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> For the record, he came over to me, picked up my cube and my Stackmat Timer, did some ridiculously easy set up handscramble, and got 13.02.



I heard that's what you do?

Also yeah that Shane time is absurd. Perhaps he should have been given an extra attempt and that solve DNFed if the judge wasn't looking. As it was his first solve though I suppose a judge wouldn't have noticed that it was out of character with no other times on the sheet. Having discussed this at length with Joey, somebody scrambling or judging that he knew might have helped him with this.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 20, 2010)

Dene said:


> puzzlemaster said:
> 
> 
> > Kian said:
> ...



It appeared on the system because it was the time written on the score sheet. That was what baffled us all. We were all unsure as to whether it was foul play or whether it was a legitimate solve. I personally don't think it was legitimate but can we just DNF it? 


nlCuber22 said:


> For the record, he came over to me, picked up my cube and my Stackmat Timer, did some ridiculously easy set up handscramble, and got 13.02.



Lol he can average sub 10 like that.

http://www.youtube.com/user/runnerforever22#p/u/4/DueTZKxTsfU



chris410 said:


> puzzlemaster said:
> 
> 
> > Kian said:
> ...



Yea. There should be some information the judges should be given. For example, they must stand directly behind the competitor and wait quietly till the solve is over. Something of that nature should work fine. Unless people are uncomfortable being watched like that .


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 20, 2010)

CharlieCooper said:


> nlCuber22 said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, he came over to me, picked up my cube and my Stackmat Timer, did some ridiculously easy set up handscramble, and got 13.02.
> ...



Whoops double post .

I've never seen him do that. He did however get a 17 and a 16 on cubes that I handscrambled for him.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Apr 20, 2010)

Facts: Justin Jaffray's mom was the judge. There was no transcription error. That is exactly what the card said. She confirmed he did a 13-second solve. I saw his solves after that, and they were (at least approximately) the times that were written down.


----------



## Dene (Apr 20, 2010)

puzzlemaster said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > No evidence is needed. He clearly did not genuinely get that time. How that time happened to appear on the system is an issue that does need to be resolved though.
> ...



Well then we must figure out how it appeared on the score sheet. I think we should fairly assume that the judge correctly recorded the time that was displayed on the timer at the end of the solve. Which means that something happened before the solve started which ensured Shane an easy, and false, scramble.

We can easily prove that the scramble he did was false. We can ask him how he got such a quick time, and he might say "PLL skip easy peasy". Then we can give him the real scramble and ask him to reconstruct his solve. I'm sure if he is a fixed cross solver, this should be easily done. When he cannot prove that his solution happened to be outrageously lucky we can claim that he got the wrong scramble. Therefore the result is void.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2010)

CharlieCooper said:


> nlCuber22 said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, he came over to me, picked up my cube and my Stackmat Timer, did some ridiculously easy set up handscramble, and got 13.02.
> ...




I lol'd.

Anyway, as for shane - it'll be interesting to see what happens with his results. From what I've heard some relevant information has been relayed to the correct people, but I can't imagine enough relevant info exists for proof.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 20, 2010)

Dene said:


> puzzlemaster said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...



That itself is gonna be a bit of an issue...and I guess you could do that...but then you're asking him to do it fast? How are you going to be able to verify that he's not using an optimal solver for the solution? Obviously the solve wouldnt use a method i suppose if it used an optimal solver. But it's possible for him to find an easy or fast solution...maybe re-do the solve in front of someone and if it's sub-20 then we keep the solve?


----------



## Kian (Apr 20, 2010)

He should not be given any extra attempt. If he cheated his way to the 13, he obviously doesn't deserve anything but a ban, but I understand how it puts the WCA board in an awkward place without concrete evidence. 

The judge was Justin Jaffray's mom, and the time happened, but it's assuredly his set up scramble.

Frankly even though they can't prove it, we all know it happened and the WCA is under no obligation to prove anything beyond all doubts. I would very not like to see his blatant cheating at a competition again (Read: Ban.)

Also, Christopher Phillips's 30 move FMC is suspicious, too.

Of note, it would have been super easy to cheat in either of those two situations. For FMC the judge was wandering around and not paying attention for a time and in 3x3 it was chaotic and people weren't called, they just randomly brought up their cubes, so it would have been extraordinarily easy for Shane to bring up a fake scramble and have a judge pick it up as a scramble.

Dave had me judge Shane's last three solves so that I could account for the rest of his speed, and I can. If I gave Shane a thousand solves he might never get a sub 20. A 13 is impossible.

Also, given his previous reputation it just seems so blatantly obvious what really happened that I don't see the point in ignoring who he has been in the past. This went from him being an annoyance to being a real problem.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 20, 2010)

Kian said:


> He should not be given any extra attempt. If he cheated his way to the 13, he obviously doesn't deserve anything but a ban, but I understand how it puts the WCA board in an awkward place without concrete evidence.
> 
> The judge was Justin Jaffray's mom, and the time happened, but it's assuredly his set up scramble.
> 
> ...



I pretty much agree with all of that. But how can we disprove Chris's FMC? It came together didn't it? I wasn't looking at the cube as I solved however so I'm not entirely sure as to how he did it. Anyone remember the method itself?


----------



## Kian (Apr 20, 2010)

puzzlemaster said:


> Kian said:
> 
> 
> > He should not be given any extra attempt. If he cheated his way to the 13, he obviously doesn't deserve anything but a ban, but I understand how it puts the WCA board in an awkward place without concrete evidence.
> ...



The fact that it wasn't just a cube explorer solution doesn't mean there wasn't any outside help. Normally we would just ask the solver to explain their solution, as per the regs, but given his disability it posed a problem and I'm not sure how evident it was to the Bob, etc. at the time that it was likely a solution with outside interference.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Apr 20, 2010)

puzzlemaster said:


> Kian said:
> 
> 
> > He should not be given any extra attempt. If he cheated his way to the 13, he obviously doesn't deserve anything but a ban, but I understand how it puts the WCA board in an awkward place without concrete evidence.
> ...



It was a classic, easy Petrus solve. Very FMC-like. It didn't just "come together" as lots of people who weren't really paying attention thought--it was very clear. Leading option is that it's Johannes' FMC solver.


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 20, 2010)

Tim Reynolds said:


> Leading option is that it's Johannes' FMC solver.



it wasn't.


----------



## CharlieCooper (Apr 20, 2010)

Kian said:


> He should not be given any extra attempt. If he cheated his way to the 13, he obviously doesn't deserve anything but a ban, but I understand how it puts the WCA board in an awkward place without concrete evidence.
> 
> The judge was Justin Jaffray's mom, and the time happened, but it's assuredly his set up scramble.
> 
> ...



Cheating is cheating and I totally agree with you. 

If somebody did something similar and broke the world record with a ridiculous 5 second official solve everybody would be going crazy about this. Just because it isn't a world record and his uncharacteristic solve isn't mind-blowingly fast by world standards doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken as seriously. I hope he gets a suitable punishment.


----------



## Kian (Apr 20, 2010)

puzzlemaster said:


> I'm assuming it'll stay the way it is considering there's no way to prove that he didn't get that solve.



[19:54] <Kian> but like at what point does that end?
[19:54] <Kian> what if he got a 12?
[19:54] <Kian> or a 10?
[19:54] <Kian> or a 7?
[19:54] <Kian> would we allow a 3?
[19:54] <Kian> b/c we couldn't prove otherwise?
[19:54] <Kian> obviously there is a point where reason comes in

quoted myself out of laziness.


----------



## Dene (Apr 20, 2010)

CharlieCooper said:


> I hope he gets a suitable punishment.



*If he cheated.

Don't forget that he might be innocent in all this. He may have handed in a scrambled cube, but not with the _intention_ of receiving that scramble. He may have been given a cube that was scrambled incorrectly, and is thus the scrambler's fault, technically.

Let us be careful where we place the blame.

(Note: I personally think that he cheated and should be punished appropriately).


----------



## CharlieCooper (Apr 20, 2010)

Dene said:


> CharlieCooper said:
> 
> 
> > I hope he gets a suitable punishment.
> ...



Yes, you're right, but then again if he put his cube down with the "classic Shane" scramble, then surely he would notice when he got that scramble under the cube cover. If I get the same scramble twice by accident, I say something, should he not have done the same? I agree it could be a scrambling error though, but it would have to have been a pretty great scramble for him to have got a time so much faster than his average.

Is the FMC issue guy a friend of Shane's or did I misunderstand that bit?


----------



## Kian (Apr 20, 2010)

CharlieCooper said:


> Is the FMC issue guy a friend of Shane's or did I misunderstand that bit?



He was in the same group for people, at least, that came from Gallaudet University, I believe.


----------



## chris410 (Apr 20, 2010)

Kian said:


> CharlieCooper said:
> 
> 
> > Is the FMC issue guy a friend of Shane's or did I misunderstand that bit?
> ...



Perhaps judges should have a sign in sheet with their initials that way, the WCA delegates know who each judge is according to name and initials. (I say this because some people initials are impossible to match to a name)

In addition, prior to removing a cube, the person scrambling the cube or a independent source should "OK" the cube prior to taking it to the person solving. This would at least insure that the cube is scrambled and the judges can be noted and later referenced for things such as this. 

The reason I say this is the fact that people can pretty much offer to help judge however, if someone is not familiar with cubing, they may not know better when it comes to the actual judging. For instance, what if the competitor moves pieces prior to starting the solve? ie...cross placement, F2L pairs...etc..etc... Honesty becomes a factor however, whether intentional or unintentional, people sadly do at times cheat. It's one thing to get a lucky solve however, there's a point where realistic solves come into play. 

Just a couple of thoughts...


----------



## cuBerBruce (Apr 20, 2010)

Thankfully, my 5x5 results are missing.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 20, 2010)

If he doesn't get banned now he will continue to cheat. However, he won't have as easy a time next time as I'm sure he will be watched very closely.


----------



## flee135 (Apr 20, 2010)

anyway, off the topic of Shane, is there any way we can see the scrambles? I'm only really interested in the FMC scramble (can anyone confirm if that was supposed to be an optimal scramble? I wouldn't see any other reason for a 19 move scramble) and the pyraminx scrambles.


----------



## Bob (Apr 20, 2010)

I did not try to reduce the length of the FMC scramble. It came out at 19 moves with touching the green |> to reduce its length. 19 was probably not the optimal length.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 20, 2010)

I am always nervous giving my opinions about an issue like this, but here is what I dislike about letting Shane get away with this:

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=808

Here is a competitor who cheated, but later admitted cheating, confessed, and took the time to write an apology. It seems awful that someone else who did not do such an honorable thing would get to act as if nothing happened.

I would just like to say that with regard to the forum entry above, although I certainly don't approve of the cheating, I *really* appreciate the fact that the competitor both admitted it and apologized. A good example I wish others would follow.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Apr 20, 2010)

flee135 said:


> anyway, off the topic of Shane, is there any way we can see the scrambles? I'm only really interested in the FMC scramble (can anyone confirm if that was supposed to be an optimal scramble? I wouldn't see any other reason for a 19 move scramble) and the pyraminx scrambles.





Bob said:


> I did not try to reduce the length of the FMC scramble. It came out at 19 moves with touching the green |> to reduce its length. 19 was probably not the optimal length.



I am pretty sure the Fewest Moves scramble was:
D2 L2 D2 U2 L F2 R B2 U L U L2 F' D' U L' B F' L'

I checked with Cube Explorer and it can be solved in 18 moves (and not fewer than that), so it was not an optimal scramble.


----------



## ManasijV (Apr 20, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> On my 21.xx solve the PLL took ~7.5 seconds :S
> It's on video.



Are you Austin Thielemier?


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 20, 2010)

He's Mister Crislip.


----------



## rowehessler (Apr 20, 2010)

its pathetic to set up a scramble and only get a 13. If you're going to cheat, at least be good at it.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 20, 2010)

rowehessler said:


> its pathetic to set up a scramble and only get a 13. If you're going to cheat, at least be good at it.



He still did better than faz did


----------



## Faz (Apr 20, 2010)

lol


----------



## qqwref (Apr 20, 2010)

ugh, Shane... I hope there is a really good explanation for that 13. A really good explanation. If not I am going to have to vote for a ban.

I'm really wondering about the 30 FMC too, and it would be nice to have some more info on that. It's not impossible that someone who averages 50 seconds on 3x3 will get such a good fewest moves solve, but it is hard to believe.

Good job to nlcuber for proving to the world that he is capable of a sub-30 solve (and sub-20, too!). And you're almost sub-10 at 2x2, too! I guess these results aren't too good considering you seem to claim 13.xx 3x3 averages and sub-5 2x2 averages.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 20, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Good job to nlcuber for proving to the world that he is capable of a sub-30 solve (and sub-20, too!). And you're almost sub-10 at 2x2, too! I guess these results aren't too good considering you seem to claim 13.xx 3x3 averages and sub-5 2x2 averages.



lol at my 2x2 results. 14.xx was pretty much all lockups, and I even slammed the cube down on the table and restarted the solve, it was maddening (lol) 9 was just plain bad and the 6's were normal.


----------



## joey (Apr 20, 2010)

Why did you DNF average again?


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 20, 2010)

Michael said that he was paying attention during the FMC round and that the only thing he saw was sign language communication between Shane and Christopher Philips during the first 20 minutes of FMC. He thought that Shane was explaining the rules of FMC to Chris. He did not see any cell phone usage. I'd say he isn't any less attentive than any other FMC judge. What makes the most sense is to only DNF Christopher Philips for cheating by communicating with Shane. I could not see how Chris could have possibly cheated to get the solution unless Shane told him the solution.


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 20, 2010)

fanwuq said:


> Michael said that he was paying attention during the FMC round and that the only thing he saw was sign language communication between Shane and Christopher Philips during the first 20 minutes of FMC. He thought that Shane was explaining the rules of FMC to Chris. He did not see any cell phone usage. I'd say he isn't any less attentive than any other FMC judge. What makes the most sense is to only DNF Christopher Philips for cheating by communicating with Shane. I could not see how Chris could have possibly cheated to get the solution unless Shane told him the solution.



You obviously didn't notice when he started judging 4x4 towards the end of FMC. That disqualifies him from being 'attentive'.


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 20, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > Michael said that he was paying attention during the FMC round and that the only thing he saw was sign language communication between Shane and Christopher Philips during the first 20 minutes of FMC. He thought that Shane was explaining the rules of FMC to Chris. He did not see any cell phone usage. I'd say he isn't any less attentive than any other FMC judge. What makes the most sense is to only DNF Christopher Philips for cheating by communicating with Shane. I could not see how Chris could have possibly cheated to get the solution unless Shane told him the solution.
> ...



Really? I was concentrating on my solve the whole time, so I did not see anything. I'll speak to him again later. However, from what I understand, Christopher Phillips finished before that.
Also, you think really attentive FMC judges exist? It's just that at the typical competition, people don't try to cheat and that deaf people are harder to interrogate.


----------



## Sa967St (Apr 20, 2010)

WCA regs said:


> E2)	Procedure for Fewest Moves Solving:
> ...
> E2f) The competitor must be able to give a clear explanation of the solution.



Should Christopher have competed in FMC in the first place if he's unable to give a clear explanation of his solution because of his disability?


----------



## joey (Apr 20, 2010)

I'm sure he could have been able to give a description, but did they ask?


----------



## Dave Campbell (Apr 20, 2010)

Kian said:


> jtjogobonito said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone happen to find a stackmat timer with the button covers removed?
> ...



It is true, i have a timer that fits your description. You will, however, have to come to Canada to get it back. And yes, my timer disappeared, along with my sense of security at cubing competitions. It was labelled, so it would be hard to mistake it.



Dene said:


> He may have been given a cube that was scrambled incorrectly, and is thus the scrambler's fault, technically.



I was the scrambler during this incident. I don't get 3x3 scrambles wrong very often. Granted, i could not check its accuracy due to black and white print outs. When i scramble, i am trying to just plow through, so i don't often look at the name. Therefore i cannot attest to the fact that i scrambled his cube or not for the first scramble. I can, however, assure that i did the remaining four solves.



masterofthebass said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say he isn't any less attentive than any other FMC judge.
> ...



Considering you've been to all of one competition with an FMC event prior to this one, i am not sure you are qualified to make that statement, anyway. 

I would like for Wuqiong to be more receptive to the criticism here. By trying to justify every issue brought up, you are essentially saying you don't feel anything was wrong, and as such, would be very unlikely to work to remedy these things. But believe me, there were things that were done poorly. I spoke with you after the competition about these things, and Kian outlined many of them in this thread, as well. 

Yes, you got through the events you wanted to, but i don't think that equates to victory. To put things in perspective, there were only 45 competitors in the 3x3 event, so less than 50 total i am sure. There were a total of 10, yes, 10 timing stations. With those sorts of numbers, we should have been able to have three rounds of 3x3, OH, 2x2, and virtually everyone should have been able to do 4x4 and 5x5 averages regardless of solve times. Instead, we barely got through the events listed, had to drop the OH finals, and only had 2 rounds of the main events. 



fanwuq said:


> Dave Campbell had a lot of organization experience. We should have discussed the plans at the beginning of the day.



As far as i can tell, there was next to no prep work done for this competition. When i arrived, i helped set up the timing stations and scramble stations. After that i sat down and waited, like any other competitor, for the events to start. I had no idea, at that time, that we needed to have a meeting to discuss how things were going to go the rest of the day. It was not until i started to scramble that i realized there were major issues. Specifically, when i managed to scramble every single cube in front of me (i.e. 30+) before anyone even started judging a competitor. 



fanwuq said:


> I wanted to collect puzzles before the round starts. Dave wasn't so happy about that; he clearly liked to be in control, so I ended up judging a lot of people off to the side.




I like to think i am a pretty approachable guy. I wouldn't say i like to be in control, at least not at a competition where i am neither organizer or delegate. But i have been to enough of these things to know what works and what does not. I am not certain what you are referring to here. But there were no heats. So basically, we'd have everyone come up at once to give their puzzle in. You asked me in the middle of the 2x2 round if we should start 3x3. I said no. Having that many people rush the table, trying to create their own score card, having judges coming back to the scrambling table to try and get through 2x2, etc, would have just created unnecessary havoc.

I am sorry you feel we are being unreasonable in our view of the competition. But i would like for you to realize that when you have this many experienced competitors and organizers telling you that on a whole, the organisation of the competition was a failure, you should probably take note. Lastly, there is a direct correlation between the Shane incident and the chaos that came with the lack of organisation. So there are bigger reasons why it is so important to the integrity of any competition.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2010)

So, when is he getting banned?


----------



## RyanO (Apr 20, 2010)

He's registered to "compete" at Iowa this weekend, so hopefully before then.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Apr 20, 2010)

Dave Campbell said:


> It is true, i have a timer that fits your description. You will, however, have to come to Canada to get it back. And yes, my timer disappeared, along with my sense of security at cubing competitions. It was labelled, so it would be hard to mistake it.



I have a stackmat that's not mine labeled "canadian cubing" that somehow ended in my bag.


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 20, 2010)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> Dave Campbell said:
> 
> 
> > It is true, i have a timer that fits your description. You will, however, have to come to Canada to get it back. And yes, my timer disappeared, along with my sense of security at cubing competitions. It was labelled, so it would be hard to mistake it.
> ...



THIEF!


----------



## Dave Campbell (Apr 20, 2010)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> I have a stackmat that's not mine labeled "canadian cubing" that somehow ended in my bag.



LOL TIM!! I will trade you for a stackmat with two missing buttons, how about that? At least i can get my sense of security back now.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Apr 20, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> THIEF!



Nice spelling.



Dave Campbell said:


> LOL TIM!! I will trade you for a stackmat with two missing buttons, how about that? At least i can get my sense of security back now.



Sure why not.


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 20, 2010)

Dave,

I have been receptive to your criticisms. I thank you for your suggestions. Now relax and be a bit more optimistic. A cubing competition is supposed to be fun, not an assembly line. Sure things didn't go perfectly, but it's not like I wasn't working the whole time. I also prepared everything I could think of before the competition. I think it could have been a lot worse. If Shane and his friends tried to cheat for the first time at one of your competitions, I doubt you could have done much more to fix it. I accept my errors and responsibilities and I will do better in the future. You know that people aren't so stupid that they need your bashing to know that they've done something wrong. You've made some nice suggestions, but get a better attitude. Thanks.

For the situation with scrambling 3x3 during the 2x2 round. I asked to do it at another table on the other side of the room. It could have worked. You should be more receptive of new ideas. Not everyone run things the way you want to. You were not approachable.

Edit:
Also, you only complained at the end of the competition. If you did not like the way things were going, you could have easily reported to me during the competition and I would have been able to fix it. I will accept whatever I'm accountable for, but you can't be using me as a scapegoat.


----------



## shelley (Apr 20, 2010)

Sa967St said:


> WCA regs said:
> 
> 
> > E2)	Procedure for Fewest Moves Solving:
> ...



I don't see how his disability prevents him from following that particular regulation. He's deaf, not unable to communicate.



fanwuq said:


> 1. While it was not the conventional way to do things, what we did for the first event could have worked for everything else.
> I expected to just call out that an event is starting. People will line up to write their names and put down their puzzles. The scramblers could immediately start scrambling while people write their names. They can make 4 lines at the registration table and that shouldn't take more than 3 minutes. Apparently that's not the way things work now, but it seems possible that this can become a good system.



Being receptive to new ideas is one thing, but someone with Dave's experience would know that this isn't going to work for events with more than a few competitors. 50 competitors swarming a scrambling table is just a bad idea.


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 20, 2010)

shelley said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > 1. While it was not the conventional way to do things, what we did for the first event could have worked for everything else.
> ...



There were plenty of empty tables at the other side of the room. I could have taken the scramble sheets and started to scramble there.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 20, 2010)

fanwuq said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > fanwuq said:
> ...



I could have gotten a sub 15 average...did I?


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 20, 2010)

puzzlemaster said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



No. From the beginning, I suggested 2 scrambling tables. It would have made things a lot faster. However, Dave rejected the idea 2 times. He clearly wanted to be in control. When things don't end up the way he likes, he tries to blame it on me. If he was not there, I could have taken control and ran the competition my way. I thought he was experienced and let him do his thing, then helped out as much as possible with everything else.
I guess it's my fault for taking everyone's opinion into consideration. I really could have just ignored Dave and finished everything more efficiently my own way.


----------



## deathbypapercutz (Apr 20, 2010)

Dude, fanwuq, chill out and don't take everything so personally. The people posting suggestions in this thread aren't criticizing you or blaming you for the things that went wrong (most people, anyway). They're simply making suggestions for how you might improve next time. Stop being so defensive and actually listen to what they're telling you, because in addition to being entirely unproductive, denying everything and fighting back makes you seem incredibly childish.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 20, 2010)

If the general opinion is that you aren't good at organizing, you're obviously not going to get the best results by just ignoring people with more experience/skills and doing everything yourself. I respect that you set up the competition, but different styles don't always work together, and sometimes it's a better idea to 100% listen to someone else than to do it yourself. I doubt Dave wanted to "be in control" as much as he knew that some things you were trying simply wouldn't work well, and thought he could do better.

For the record, as far as scrambling goes:
- If you have more than about ten scrambled cubes sitting on the scrambling table, you need more judges and not more scramblers. Nobody wants to wait several minutes for their first solve without their main cube, at least on 3x3.
- Don't bring everyone up at once unless "everyone" is roughly 12 or fewer people.
- One good scrambler is enough for 4x4 and 5x5, as long as the competition isn't too large. You don't need more than two for 3x3 unless you call up too many people at once.
- It's always faster to have the judges do 2x2 scrambles right there if this is possible.

As far as Shane, since Dave remembers scrambling the last four solves, I think it is possible that Shane put down a scrambled (in his special way) cube when he brought the cube up, and that this wasn't noticed in the chaos. A judge could then have picked up the cube, brought it over, and let him solve it (in 13 seconds) without the cube ever having been properly scrambled.


----------



## jtjogobonito (Apr 20, 2010)

Dave Campbell said:


> Swordsman Kirby said:
> 
> 
> > I have a stackmat that's not mine labeled "canadian cubing" that somehow ended in my bag.
> ...



Well, there goes mine 



qqwref said:


> As far as Shane, since Dave remembers scrambling the last four solves, I think it is possible that Shane put down a scrambled (in his special way) cube when he brought the cube up, and that this wasn't noticed in the chaos. A judge could then have picked up the cube, brought it over, and let him solve it (in 13 seconds) without the cube ever having been properly scrambled.



My guess is that Dave made sure that he scrambled the remaining four cubes (to make sure that they were scrambled with the official scrambles), rather than just scrambling random cubes and noting that he scrambled Shane the remaining four times.


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 20, 2010)

Thanks, qqwref. It really is just different styles not working together.

I did not ignore anyone. Dave simply assumed that everyone had his experience. He did his own thing pretty well, but did not bother to share his knowledge in a clear way. If he even gave me as much info as in your post, things could have been better.


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 20, 2010)

jtjogobonito said:


> Dave Campbell said:
> 
> 
> > Swordsman Kirby said:
> ...



He did have 3 boxes of pizza


----------



## qqwref (Apr 20, 2010)

jtjogobonito said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > As far as Shane, since Dave remembers scrambling the last four solves, I think it is possible that Shane put down a scrambled (in his special way) cube when he brought the cube up, and that this wasn't noticed in the chaos. A judge could then have picked up the cube, brought it over, and let him solve it (in 13 seconds) without the cube ever having been properly scrambled.
> ...



I'm just wondering about the first solve. None of the others are suspicious.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 21, 2010)

qqwref said:


> As far as Shane, since Dave remembers scrambling the last four solves, I think it is possible that Shane put down a scrambled (in his special way) cube when he brought the cube up, and that this wasn't noticed in the chaos. A judge could then have picked up the cube, brought it over, and let him solve it (in 13 seconds) without the cube ever having been properly scrambled.



I think it's pretty obvious that this is how it happened. It would seem a lot more suspicious to go back to the scrambling table between solves to set up an easy scramble, but on the first solve it would be very easy to rig a scramble. If Shane isn't dealt with severely it sends a message to others that they can get away with this, and honestly they probably can. I can't think of a competition I've been to where there wouldn't of been an opportunity for this kind of cheating. Scramblers can't really devote their full attention to watching if competitiors bring up a scrambled or solved cube. All Shane needed was a couple of seconds to put his "scrambled" cube under his scorecard. This was premeditated, deliberate, obvious cheating and we don't need him around.


----------



## shelley (Apr 21, 2010)

RyanO said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > As far as Shane, since Dave remembers scrambling the last four solves, I think it is possible that Shane put down a scrambled (in his special way) cube when he brought the cube up, and that this wasn't noticed in the chaos. A judge could then have picked up the cube, brought it over, and let him solve it (in 13 seconds) without the cube ever having been properly scrambled.
> ...



AdamZ tried this at a Berkeley competition once (for experimental purposes, to see if someone could actually get away with it). One of the scramblers caught him, but I can see how someone could get away with it if there was a lot of chaos at the scrambling table, or with volunteer staff who are less experienced with what's going on.

If you had enough staff to have an extra runner, you could have competitors put their cubes on their scorecards at a separate table, then have a runner bring cubes from that table to the scrambling table. This way competitors would not be approaching the scrambling table at all.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 21, 2010)

I've seen several people get solved cubes brought to them because the judges left the scorecard on top of the cube instead of putting it underneath. I feel that catching this kind of mistake would be similar to catching someone who cheats in this manner. While Adam may of gotten caught I think that you would get away with this more times than you wouldn't. Even if you did get caught you could play it off as a mental slip. If we let really obvious cheaters get away with this then we're opening up the doors for subtle cheaters to cause real problems. What if instead of a 50ish solver getting a 13 it was a 11ish solver getting sub 7? Banning Shane is the prudent action to take here.


----------



## Dave Campbell (Apr 21, 2010)

fanwuq said:


> No. From the beginning, I suggested 2 scrambling tables. It would have made things a lot faster. However, Dave rejected the idea 2 times. He clearly wanted to be in control. When things don't end up the way he likes, he tries to blame it on me. If he was not there, I could have taken control and ran the competition my way. I thought he was experienced and let him do his thing, then helped out as much as possible with everything else.
> I guess it's my fault for taking everyone's opinion into consideration. I really could have just ignored Dave and finished everything more efficiently my own way.



I am really sorry to read you feel this way, Wuqiong. I can't help but think you are misunderstanding what i have written and said to you in person. I am actually not trying to bash you, as you have suggested. I wasn't even going to post in the public form about it, but the topic was already in full flight so it made sense to me to add to it. All i wanted was to help you in a productive way. But you don't appear to be receptive of it, so i am done with that.

It also saddens me that you are, more or less, saying that i am the reason for the issues. I drove 16 hours, spent hundreds of dollars to come to this competition. I did more work at the competition than i should have had to do, and that is the gratitude i get for it all. 

The kicker here is that i was but one of about five people that stepped up and pitched in to help make the competition work, yet somehow find myself the scapegoat. And i don't say that to try and drag them under the bus with me, but to give credit to the others that also busted their humps for the sake of the competition. But that is fine. I will call it a lesson learned on my end. I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 21, 2010)

Dave Campbell said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > No. From the beginning, I suggested 2 scrambling tables. It would have made things a lot faster. However, Dave rejected the idea 2 times. He clearly wanted to be in control. When things don't end up the way he likes, he tries to blame it on me. If he was not there, I could have taken control and ran the competition my way. I thought he was experienced and let him do his thing, then helped out as much as possible with everything else.
> ...



Without you there we would've really been screwed..thanks for being there Dave.


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 21, 2010)

Dave Campbell said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > No. From the beginning, I suggested 2 scrambling tables. It would have made things a lot faster. However, Dave rejected the idea 2 times. He clearly wanted to be in control. When things don't end up the way he likes, he tries to blame it on me. If he was not there, I could have taken control and ran the competition my way. I thought he was experienced and let him do his thing, then helped out as much as possible with everything else.
> ...



See my final post after that. Qqwref made a clear conclusion. You did your part well and I did my part well. I thanked you many times for your help. We simply had different styles of running things and we should have communicated more during the competition. You are not the reason behind the problems; it's our conflicting styles of management without communication. I did learn a lot from you and this experience in general. If I would work with you again, I would have a more detailed plan and communicate with you often during the competition.
The main problem was the lack of communication. If I took complete control and told you exactly what to do, things would have been more structured. But I thought you were more experienced, so I left you to do your own thing. If you were in complete control, then you could have done even better due to your experience. There was a bit of conflict of plans. Also keep in mind that we did not have as much experience or human resources as at Canadian competitions, so there's no way you could have expected things would turn out the same way. You guys have a complete organization, a whole support team, and a clear routine. I'm sure there were things you had to tweak after your first competition. Our group is inexperienced and not as reliable to show up. Don't be so picky and just make the best out of what you have. People learn from experiences and you can't just expect everything to go your way perfectly. Also be a bit more optimistic; for most other people, the competition was not as bad as you feel it to be.
I really did listen to all your suggestions after the competition and thought about what could have been done better. I have been receptive and will take many of your ideas, but that doesn't mean that I can't share my own perspective and ideas. Thanks again for your help!



puzzlemaster said:


> Without you there we would've really been screwed..thanks for being there Dave.



Dave's a helpful guy and you were very helpful too, but don't be a kiss-up. Human beings are very flexible. We could have gotten things done one way or another.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 21, 2010)

fanwuq said:


> puzzlemaster said:
> 
> 
> > Without you there we would've really been screwed..thanks for being there Dave.
> ...



Sorry for thanking him. Getting things done isn't the same as getting things done in an organized fashion...that's the whole issue...


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 21, 2010)

puzzlemaster said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > puzzlemaster said:
> ...



:fp
There's nothing wrong with thanking him. You should have thanked him. Everyone should have thanked him.
Did you miss the whole discussion? We could have been been more organized without him. I would have stepped to take control over everything and the people just sitting around would have been ordered to do work. He helped out a lot with the scrambling and that's all.
You cannot blame a single person for the lack of organization. It was the overall lack of communication.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Apr 21, 2010)

fanwuq said:


> puzzlemaster said:
> 
> 
> > fanwuq said:
> ...



You might want to stop while you're down.


----------



## Carson (Apr 21, 2010)

I think it's time to just close this thread and move on.


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 21, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> You might want to stop while you're down.



No one realizes how much I had to sacrifice for the competition. I've lost my interest in cubing for a long time. I organized this competition because I promised my friend, who recently recovered from cancer, for 2 years that we would do it and that I wanted give back to the cubing community and just let everyone relax and have fun for a day. I competed in a few events and worked continuously the rest of the time judging, scrambling, and checking up on people. I did not want my friends or teacher to be so stressed out, so I tried to take care of as many things as I could to allow free time for others. I can say that I was one of the most efficient judges there. There were some disappointing things about the competition, but whatever, be happy with what you got and learn from the experience. No need to complain about it after the fact. It's easy to blame the organizers for everything, but sometimes things are simply out of your control, especially when you have 5 million other things to do at the same time. Maybe I could have been in more control if I didn't compete in FMC. I guess that's my main fault; it was one hour when most of the experienced cubers and I were not in charge of the situation.
I have done as much as, if not more than any other organizers of a competition this size. Most of the people were happy at the time, so I'm satisfied with that. Dave's idea of success was different; he wanted more of an assembly line to efficiently get done as many events and rounds as possible. The organizers wanted things to be more casual, while Dave wanted to have an assembly line. My trusting nature probably made it easier for people to cheat. Dave has his perspective, which I respect and that's it. I'll just accept that I can't make everyone completely happy.


----------



## Bob (Apr 21, 2010)

shelley said:


> If you had enough staff to have an extra runner, you could have competitors put their cubes on their scorecards at a separate table, then have a runner bring cubes from that table to the scrambling table. This way competitors would not be approaching the scrambling table at all.



A phenomenal idea.


----------



## Bryan (Apr 21, 2010)

fanwuq said:


> I have done as much as, if not more than any other organizers of a competition this size.



False.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 21, 2010)

RyanO said:


> I feel that catching this kind of mistake would be similar to catching someone who cheats in this manner. While Adam may of gotten caught I think that you would get away with this more times than you wouldn't.


Yeah, depends on the location. In an ideal situation (which I guess this wasn't) a good scrambler would figure out which cubes are brought up scrambled and either get the competitors to solve them or make sure the judges don't pick up those cubes. I know I would've noticed something like this (as a scrambler) at a typical California competition, but if tons of people swarm the scrambling table it can be nearly impossible to track.



Carson said:


> I think it's time to just close this thread and move on.


Strongly disagree. The organization stuff may have been worked out as well as it could, but we still need to figure out if Shane and his FMC friend were cheating, and what punishment if any would be appropriate to give out. Is it possible for the FMC solution to be published? And is it possible anyone has a video of Shane's solve?


----------



## ErikJ (Apr 21, 2010)

all you would have to do to prevent cheating with the scrambling table is check to make sure the scramble is good before calling the competitor's name.


----------



## Dene (Apr 21, 2010)

Well I have to admit this thread is full of LOLs from my perspective.

Personally, fanwuq, I also think you need to give up now. As I recall, Dave is awesome and I bet he only did what was necessary in his view. At Ohio Open, Jimmy was in complete control the whole time and Dave never had to "take command" or whatever you're claiming. Also, it's your competition; if you chose to let him take control that's your own fault. If you wanted things done your way you could have put your foot down (just like I had to at NZ Open last year when the sponsors were doing things all wrong).

(Which reminds me of the time when I was busy judging someone at Ohio Open, and Dave was at the next table judging some kid doing megaminx who went well over the 10 minute mark, and Dave was timing him using a stopwatch with a grim look on his face ).


----------



## shelley (Apr 21, 2010)

ErikJ said:


> all you would have to do to prevent cheating with the scrambling table is check to make sure the scramble is good before calling the competitor's name.



If a competitor came up with a scrambled cube and put it under instead of on top of his scorecard and nobody caught it, this wouldn't really help.

On a separate note, let all your judges know: scrambled cubes go under scorecards. Solved cubes go on top of scorecards. Very simple system which some people unfortunately haven't caught on to.


----------



## Tyson (Apr 21, 2010)

I think the location where competitors set down their cubes for the first time and where cubes are coming and going from and to the scrambling table needs to be two different locations.

Let's try to implement this in the future.


----------



## bluecloe45 (Apr 21, 2010)

Well, if he did his intentionally, that is horrible behavior. Since he is deaf, he might not have heard that you put the cube ON TOP of the score card. This is also a possiblity


----------



## Sa967St (Apr 21, 2010)

qqwref said:


> ugh, Shane... I hope there is a really good explanation for that 13. A really good explanation.


doesn't seem like it :/



facebook messaging said:


> _Sarah Strong April 20 at 10:36pm_
> Hello,
> I heard that you got a 13 second solve at Baltimore. Congratulations! That's really fast!
> Was it a lucky solve? What method do you use to solve the cube?
> ...


----------



## tsirhce1 (Apr 21, 2010)

Hello all,

I am Christopher Phillips who managed to pull a 30-move solve FMC in that competition.

I can tell you I was doing honest work when I did this event. This was my first time doing the event, and Shane was only telling me the rules as I am not experienced in various competitions yet. I've only played 2x2, 3x3, 3x3 OH, 4x4, pyraminx, and magic up til this competition.

The method I used to solve the FMC was clearly Petrus, as my speedsolves are all Petrus. I was at second, a Fridrich user but I eventually came to dislike that method and found Petrus much more efficient. Apparently, in FMC you need to be extremely efficient. So basically, block-building was the ideal strategy along with OLL and PLL. In this particular solve, I managed to skip OLL,and then did a PLL which equalled into 30 moves.

Some of you may ask why I have an average of 50 seconds speedsolving the 3x3. It is true that I could have gone lower, in fact my personal best was 30 seconds and I should have averaged 40 seconds but I did not. When I speedsolve, I try to look for optimal moves but I tend to end up missing some ideal moves due to the fact I still feel tense from being watched by a judge. My hands are not that fast either compared to most of you guys, which means I still have a lot of practice turning the cube quickly (without popping the cubies, even! Or I might need a really good cube... )

Just because I lack speed does *NOT* certify that I lack the ability to optimize my solves. I have been practicing fewest moves on my own.

If you all are wondering, Shane only showed me how to do the Fridrich method and that was where I eventually picked up on speedcubing. I came to favor Petrus much more than Fridrich.

If you guys have any question about me, or even my disability, please feel free to PM me.


----------



## Meep (Apr 21, 2010)

shelley said:


> ErikJ said:
> 
> 
> > all you would have to do to prevent cheating with the scrambling table is check to make sure the scramble is good before calling the competitor's name.
> ...



I think he meant that when the cubes are underneath, and the judge picks it up, the judge compares it with a diagram of what the scrambled cube should look like before bringing it to the competitor to solve. If they don't match, it'll be put back on top to be re-scrambled.


----------



## ErikJ (Apr 21, 2010)

Meep said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > ErikJ said:
> ...



yes.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 21, 2010)

Meep said:


> I think he meant that when the cubes are underneath, and the judge picks it up, the judge compares it with a diagram of what the scrambled cube should look like before bringing it to the competitor to solve. If they don't match, it'll be put back on top to be re-scrambled.



Hm, that's an interesting idea. It would slow down competitions a lot (especially if the scramblers make mistakes) but it would definitely prevent scenarios like this.


----------



## Kian (Apr 21, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Meep said:
> 
> 
> > I think he meant that when the cubes are underneath, and the judge picks it up, the judge compares it with a diagram of what the scrambled cube should look like before bringing it to the competitor to solve. If they don't match, it'll be put back on top to be re-scrambled.
> ...



I think the seperate area for scrambling and bringing up your cube makes more sense in that it will save more time. When you consider how many judges aren't familiar with cubes it would be take an inordinate amount of time to follow this suggestion, imo.


----------



## Anthony (Apr 21, 2010)

facebook messaging said:


> I learn from Speedcubing101.com
> You can check it out that website.



Apparently I'm the secret to his success. 



tsirhce1 said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I am Christopher Phillips who managed to pull a 30-move solve FMC in that competition.
> 
> ...



That sounds pretty legit to me, Chris. Congrats! However, I don't think we're going to get anywhere near as good an explanation for Shane's 13.
Out of curiosity, Chris, do *you* think Shane's 13 second solve was as honest as your FMC solution?


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 21, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Meep said:
> 
> 
> > I think he meant that when the cubes are underneath, and the judge picks it up, the judge compares it with a diagram of what the scrambled cube should look like before bringing it to the competitor to solve. If they don't match, it'll be put back on top to be re-scrambled.
> ...



I see a major efficiency issue here. This shouldn't be a problem on 3x3, but how often do you think there's a round of 5x5 where every single scramble is perfect?


----------



## cuBerBruce (Apr 22, 2010)

tsirhce1 said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I am Christopher Phillips who managed to pull a 30-move solve FMC in that competition.
> 
> ...


I thought the comment earlier about it being hard to believe someone at Christopher's speedsolving speed could get a 30-move solution was a bit ridiculous. I'm at about the same speed for speedsolving and I've gotten 33-34 move solutions on online FMC competitions, and as low as 24 moves with more than 1 hour allowed. It's very possible to be good at fewest moves solving without being speedy.

And it's quite possible for someone only knowing Petrus and basic last layer algs could come up with a really short solution. Consider this solution below (found by computer, I admit).

Scramble (Baltimore Spring 2010): D2 L2 D2 U2 L F2 R B2 U L U L2 F' D' U L' B F' L'
Solution:
2x2x2: R' D R' B
2x2x3: B' R B' R D2 R2 B2
Orient Edges: F2 R U' R'
F2L + LL 2x2x1: F2 U' F' U' F2
OLL + PLL skip: B L F' L' B' L F L'

The solution is 24 moves after cancellations. The 2x2x2 is temporarily broken up in expanding to a 2x2x3 (unlike traditional Petrus solving), but the 2x2x3 only takes a total of 7 moves (note the cancellations), so I don't know if it's too much of a stretch for someone to find that. The rest of the solve has nothing unusual (except a great deal of luck).


----------



## Tyson (Apr 22, 2010)

I should have put a stop to this conversation a long time ago. The public discussion of the events that happened at Baltimore unfortunately has affected the internal investigation by the WCA and the organizers.

In the future, when stuff like this happens, talk about it one-on-one with the organizers, or by a means which is invite only and not completely public.


----------



## jtjogobonito (Apr 23, 2010)

Here is some footage from the final. (Did not record this)


----------



## Kyle Barry (Apr 23, 2010)

Ha, Dan's 11.13 had 0 pairs in until about 4 seconds, then he put all 4 in in 2 seconds, and it should've been about 10.1.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Apr 23, 2010)

Wait, John, you didn't record this? Really? The kid recording looks and seems so much like you though 

Apparently I'm "the same guy from the DC open" and I'm "killer" and "insane"? Cool.

The laugh was Kristoffer, right?

I want to see my last solve, and my subsequent happiness. Not my fourth solve, though.


----------



## Dene (Apr 23, 2010)

LMAO that vid was 6 minutes of my life well spent. The commentary was hilarious.


----------



## joey (Apr 23, 2010)

Lolvideo.

also chieh lee was there, awesome!


----------



## JustinJ (Apr 24, 2010)

Sorry it took so long Tim! I don't have the first solve though :/ and sorry, the fourth is in there 






Ugh, I don't know what's with the black box.


----------



## jtjogobonito (Apr 24, 2010)

Imagine if Tim started practicing


----------



## Tyson (Apr 29, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> I am always nervous giving my opinions about an issue like this, but here is what I dislike about letting Shane get away with this:
> 
> http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=808
> 
> ...



There is no evidence to actually act unfortunately. Things will be done.


----------

