# Proposal Regarding BLD Orientation



## IRNjuggle28 (Jan 16, 2015)

I think blindsolvers should know the orientation of their cube before they uncover it. Having to take a second or so to recognize the orientation of the puzzle and flip the cube over is not part of the "puzzle" of blindsolving the way memoing and solving is, and I think orienting the puzzle should not be an obstacle competitors face during official solves. I think various changes are worth a discussion. 

*1. Current system (random orientation)*
As stated earlier, it slows competitors down without adding anything to what's required conceptually to solve a cube blindfolded.
*2. Have the judges or scramblers set cubes in the scrambling orientation (white top, green front) before BLD solves.*
This will probably lower solve times, as competitors will know exactly how to reorient the puzzle before even looking at it. It's more "standard" than random orientation, and doesn't detract from the way solves are executed.
*3. Allow competitors to request an orientation. *
The advantage of 3 is that it lowers solve time without affecting the difficulty of the puzzle in a negative way. Comps with BLD could ask the preferred orientation of the competitor as part of the process of signing up for the comp. The sheet that judges write their solve times on could have a note made of what orientation the competitor prefers. I'm guessing some of you will think it's a logistical nightmare, but it seems workable to me.
*4. Have the cubes be scrambled in the cuber's solving orientation, as well as being left in the solving orientation after scrambling.*
This would make competitors have more similar solves; not sure if that's a positive or a negative. The obvious downside to this is that the competitors wouldn't be getting puzzles that are different permutations. 

In my opinion, 2 and 3 are both good ideas, and 1 and 4 are both terrible. 3 seems ideal; 2 seems easier to instate. 
*EDIT: many people have spoken out against 3, so let's keep the discussion to number 2 from now on.* I think it's clear that 3 will not become part of the regs, so let's not discuss it further.

I've been planning to make a thread proposing this for a while, but decided to go ahead and do it right now after reading about the Marcin Zalewski incident. These changes would prevent cheating in the future in addition to allowing faster solves. 

Thoughts?


----------



## stoic (Jan 16, 2015)

Would the same apply to say white cross CFOP sighted solves?


----------



## moralsh (Jan 16, 2015)

I don't agree, to be able to reorient the cube in the shortest possible time is part of the skill needed (as it is picking the cube fast in 2x2). Requesting the judge to set the cube to a standard orientation is also problematic, he could forget it and need an extra scramble.

Requesting orientation is also problematic, you have to uncover the cube to check the orientation on the table and the competitor could peep something while you do it.

Just leave it the way it is, is easier for the organization and is the same for everybody.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jan 16, 2015)

ellwd said:


> Would the same apply to say white cross CFOP sighted solves?


I'd be fine with that, but it seems unnecessary. The goal of this change is to save solving time, and inspection doesn't count as part of your time in sighted solves.


moralsh said:


> Requesting the judge to set the cube to a standard orientation is also problematic, he could forget it and need an extra scramble.


You could say the same about requiring the cube be scrambled with white top/green front. Scramblers can (and do) forget that also. Perhaps number 3 is too difficult, but I don't think number 2 is. Do you really think it's too difficult a task to put the cube in a particular orientation before it's uncovered?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jan 16, 2015)

I don't see the problem with the current system. It's all about efficiency of getting competitors on a station and leaving the station as fast as possible. The current system is not for solvers benefit, it is for the organizer to stay on time and on task. 

If you were an organizer on the tight schedule, like really tight, would you rather spend 30 seconds making sure the orientation is preferable to the solver (3), spend some time with the scramblers who have to change orientation to a preferred orientation (4), spend some time making sure white is on top and green is on front post scramble, or cost a competitor 0.25 seconds to turn to his orientation (1).


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jan 16, 2015)

waffle=ijm said:


> If you were an organizer on the tight schedule, like really tight, would you rather spend 30 seconds making sure the orientation is preferable to the solver (3), spend some time with the scramblers who have to change orientation to a preferred orientation (4), spend some time making sure white is on top and green is on front post scramble, or cost a competitor 0.25 seconds to turn to his orientation (1).


I'm already clear on the fact that #4 is terrible, and perhaps #3 isn't pragmatic enough to work well. But I don't think #2 would take even close to 30 seconds extra. More like 3 extra seconds. It would supersede a reg that makes cheating way too easy as well as improving the quality of official BLD solves, and the extra time it requires really is minimal.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jan 16, 2015)

I wouldn't mind 2 at all. always having it arrive green front white top. This would cause a big shift for a lot of speed blinders to get them accustomed to it, but it would get rid of an unnecessary obstacle. That being said, I don't think the current system is broken either.


----------



## Tim Major (Jan 16, 2015)

Pros: It would remove luck.

Cons: There would be a lot of errors needing resolves due to wrong orientation, and it would slow judging/running down a lot. 
It would give competitors post-change a big advantage.


----------



## Laura O (Jan 16, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I've been planning to make a thread proposing this for a while, but decided to go ahead and do it right now after reading about the Marcin Zalewski incident. These changes would prevent cheating in the future in addition to allowing faster solves.



So in order to prevent cheating you want to allow cheating?
That's just crazy.


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 16, 2015)

Current system is good. Orienting the puzzle is just part of the solve. 

What I think is the problem here with suggestions 2&3 is that iy would probably cause many people to demand extra solves just because their cube was oriented an y rotation wrongly... and that is not good. Also added problem for 2 is that it would favor those who solve green front and white up. And added problem for 3 is extra work it causes to organizers (+ an increased chance for wrong orientation by scrambler/judge because it is differen for most people)

Tl;dr I dont like these ideas. Dont fix it if it isnt broken. you'll just end up actually making the situation worse than it was...


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 16, 2015)

At this point, there is no practical way to ensure that every competitor gets their desired orientation. The current system is fair (everyone knows they're getting a random orientation), without requiring special effort on the organizer's part.

In particular:
- it's consistent across all BLD attempts everywhere (fairness),
- it doesn't force the organizer to handle special requests and/or transport puzzles carefully (would waste time),
- it doesn't give the competitor a way to ask for an extra scramble (opportunistic cheating), and
- it doesn't require re-scrambles (would waste time).

Given these benefits, I don't expect that there are sufficiently good arguments for doing anything else.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jan 16, 2015)

Laura O said:


> So in order to prevent cheating you want to allow cheating?
> That's just crazy.


Look up the definition of "cheating," please. I'm proposing that the regs require a standard orientation, in which case, the competitor knowing their cube has white top/green front before they uncover it is not cheating because the regulations permit it.

I can understand thinking that what I've proposed is a bad idea, but it's quite obvious I'm not advocating cheating.


Lucas Garron said:


> At this point, there is no practical way to ensure that every competitor gets their desired orientation.


OK, then let's forget the idea of personalized orientation. White top/green front it is. 


Lucas Garron said:


> - it's consistent across all BLD attempts everywhere (fairness)


So is white top/green front. 


Lucas Garron said:


> it doesn't force the organizer to *handle special requests* and/or transport puzzles carefully (would waste time)


White top/green front also doesn't require special requests--it's standard and would be the same for all solvers. 

I don't see that this requires careful transport of puzzles. All it requires is that the judge spends two seconds orienting the cube before letting the competitor start the solve.


Lucas Garron said:


> it doesn't give the competitor a way to ask for an extra scramble (opportunistic cheating), and it doesn't require re-scrambles (would waste time).


You seem to be anticipating this being screwed up by judges much more than I am. Orienting the cube seems very easy, and like something that judges wouldn't have trouble doing consistently and quickly. Re-scrambles seem unlikely to be neccesary often.

Most people seem to be against this idea, and I'm fine with letting go of it if it really is a bad idea, but most of the concerns about efficiency really do seem trivial to me. Although, most of the people who have spoken out against it have more experience with comps than I do, so maybe you're right and I just lack the experience to know that.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jan 16, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I don't see that this requires careful transport of puzzles. All it requires is that the judge spends two seconds orienting the cube before letting the competitor start the solve.



You see this isn't cool man. In that two seconds of an uncovered cube, how much information do you think experienced solvers can take. 



IRNjuggle28 said:


> You seem to be anticipating this being screwed up by judges much more than I am. Orienting the cube seems very easy, and like something that judges wouldn't have trouble doing consistently and quickly. Re-scrambles seem unlikely to be neccesary often.



You completely overestimate the capabilities of judges.


----------



## Dene (Jan 16, 2015)

I suggest a different proposal. We should have inspection time in 3bld just as we do in other events. I propose 5 seconds; just enough time to orient the puzzle to the competitor's liking.

Pros: competitors can start the timer with the cube in the orientation they want
Cons: none; this is foolproof


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 16, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> You seem to be anticipating this being screwed up by judges much more than I am.


Yes.


----------



## Julian (Jan 17, 2015)

Absolutely disagree. The competitor shouldn't know anything about the cube before the timer is started.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 17, 2015)

I just wanna say I support this, since I don't think many others do. The solve is about memorizing and then executing, and having to reorient the cube only exists because of organization/regulation choices, not as a fundamental or historical part of the event. Of course, for 4BLD and perhaps even 5BLD, having a fixed orientation is unnecessary (in 4BLD you wouldn't even notice if the cube was misoriented).



Tim Major said:


> Cons: There would be a lot of errors needing resolves due to wrong orientation, and it would slow judging/running down a lot.


I don't know about a LOT of errors, or a lot of slowdown. In the competitions I've been to cubes are generally covered with cubical covers that do a pretty good job of keeping the same side on bottom and preventing the cube from turning accidentally. If you label the side of the container that should be facing the competitor, then the orientation can be pretty much fixed. (And if the orientation is on the scorecard, even a dropped cube can be correctly oriented.)

It would be nice to have a regulation saying essentially "scramblers/judges will try to give competitor their preferred orientation, but competitor may not request a resolve if the orientation is incorrect". However, I think this would make it too easy for staff to disadvantage a competitor they don't like, and I don't trust staff more than I trust competitors, since after all they are just unpaid volunteers from the competition. 



Tim Major said:


> It would give competitors post-change a big advantage.


Reorienting the cube is maybe 2 or 3 seconds, and only the very best people would even notice that - having to do even one fewer alg in a solve should save much more than that for most people.



Julian said:


> Absolutely disagree. The competitor shouldn't know anything about the cube before the timer is started.


They don't know anything about the *scramble*, which is what's important. Even with random orientation the competitor knows a lot about the cube - the 6 colors, the layout of those colors, the plastic color, the cube brand, the friction, the amount of corner-cutting, the feel of the puzzle...


----------



## Stefan (Jan 17, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> [The current system] slows competitors down without adding anything to what's required conceptually to* solve a cube blindfolded*.



We don't just solve, we speedsolve. Orienting the cube doesn't make it harder to solve, but it does take time and some skill to do fast. Just because it's trivial, doesn't mean it's not part of what you have to do. The last turn in a 3x3 speedsolve is also trivial, and yet pretty much everybody agrees that missing the last turn needs to be punished (+2 or DNF).


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 17, 2015)

Aw man, I thought we'd been over this


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 17, 2015)

Before, orientation not part in scramble, but arbitrary orientation was still in the regs. In practice, this was done with the thought that placing the cube in the cover and having it flipped over will be arbitrary enough. Turns out that this did not get enforced widely, and was being misinterpreted. Either we could have consistent orientations, which would take a significant amount of time for organizers/runners/judges to maintain, and mistakes would likely be made widely, or we could make random orientations, which is more consistent with the arbitrary orientation in the regs previously, and easy to enforce consistently through scrambles. While it may take a split second more for world class cubers, it is easily the most fair among current competitors and older records.


----------



## Yichen (Jan 17, 2015)

I do not really agree with the ideas in the main post. 

However, I do feel that the current regulation is not fair enough.
For example, suppose we have two blindfold competitors starting their memorisation using the same orientation, say white on top and green in front. Person A receives the scrambled cube placed with white on top and green in front, but person B receives the cube with other orientations. In this case, person A surely has an advantage over person B.

For blindfolded events, since there is no inspection period, the orientation of the cube has to be considered as part of the scramble. So different orientation actually means different scrambles for the competitors which is definitely not fair.

Here is my proposal:

Force same orientation for all competitors for each same scramble. This does not mean that the cube has to be placed 'white on top and green in front' or something for all scrambles. Basically the competitors would not know the orientations of the cube, but since the orientation for all competitors are the same, this would be fair. However, I have to admit that this is hard practically.

My second idea is deleted as I realise from the the replies that it would not really work.


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 17, 2015)

Yichen said:


> 2. Add inspection period. But this is also a bit complicated. If the inspection period is 5s, it is quite hard for the judge to control it. As in I expect that the top cubers would make full use of these 5s to memorise as much as possible, which may lead them in exceeding the limits. Then I have this crazy idea which seem to reduce the problem. Basically the inspection period is redefined as follows:
> 
> 
> the competitor puts his hands on the timer
> ...



Oh. God. Please. No.

Any kind of inspection period completely ruins BLD... Memorization needs to be part of the solve time obviously. And I think dividing the memo in 2 parts (inspection and the rest after that) is just stupid. Please don't do this.


----------



## Goosly (Jan 17, 2015)

Yichen said:


> 2. Add inspection period. But this is also a bit complicated. If the inspection period is 5s, it is quite hard for the judge to control it. As in I expect that the top cubers would make full use of these 5s to memorise as much as possible, which may lead them in exceeding the limits. Then I have this crazy idea which seem to reduce the problem. Basically the inspection period is redefined as follows:
> 
> 
> the competitor puts his hands on the timer
> ...



So everyone will just get times that are 5 seconds faster than in the current system. What is the point of that?


----------



## Noahaha (Jan 17, 2015)

Most things worthy of saying have been said already, but I want to also point out that requested orientations are only fair under the assumption that everyone has a fixed orientation. Whether or not there are color-neutral BLD solvers, it doesn't seem right to base a regulation off of a feature of a particular system of solving, no matter how prevalent that system is.


----------



## Ollie (Jan 17, 2015)

Having a specific orientation when you learn to solve BLD is a choice - no need to change the regulations to accommodate this poor method choice.

But on a serious note, I'd argue that it's possible to glean information about a scramble while you're reorienting, especially for 3BLD. For instance, if a scramble is x2 y' from my preferred orientation, but I notice a couple of solved pieces while I'm reorienting, I can approximate how many targets I'm likely to get. Just to use another example - say I notice one solved edge while I'm reorienting, and I realize I only have 10 edge targets when I begin memo, I can progress to corners much more swiftly *since I found the solved edge during reorientation, and not by searching the cube after I memorized my targets*.

tl;dr - reorientation isn't always bad for a solve

edit: damn it Noah, ninja'd


----------



## Bindedsa (Jan 17, 2015)

Yichen said:


> Force same orientation for all competitors for each same scramble. This does not mean that the cube has to be placed 'white on top and green in front' or something for all scrambles. Basically the competitors would not know the orientations of the cube, but since the orientation for all competitors are the same, this would be fair. However, I have to admit that this is hard practically.


I don't see how this would solve any issues? If anything it would make it even easier to cheat because instead of needing a delegate you could just look at another competitor's cube to know the orientation of a scramble. Anyway, this change would only mean that competitions are slightly more fair between competitors in the same group at the same comp and this isn't really an issue right now.



Yichen said:


> 2. Add inspection period. But this is also a bit complicated. If the inspection period is 5s, it is quite hard for the judge to control it. As in I expect that the top cubers would make full use of these 5s to memorise as much as possible, which may lead them in exceeding the limits. Then I have this crazy idea which seem to reduce the problem. Basically the inspection period is redefined as follows:
> 
> the competitor puts his hands on the timer
> the competitor removes the cover from the puzzle after starting the timer
> ...


What?! How does this even change anything? It still means one competitor would have an advantage if his/her cube was oriented preferably and he can get more memo done in his/her 5 seconds. Why not just allow 10 moves during inspection with 3x3? This is basically the same thing.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jan 17, 2015)

Yichen said:


> 1. Force same orientation for all competitors for each same scramble. This does not mean that the cube has to be placed 'white on top and green in front' or something for all scrambles. Basically the competitors would not know the orientations of the cube, but since the orientation for all competitors are the same, this would be fair. However, I have to admit that this is hard practically.
> 
> 2. Add inspection period.


1 seems like a good idea that's too difficult practically to work, as you said. I think 2 is a very bad idea, though. As others have said, it allows competitors to have part of their memo time not count.


Noahaha said:


> Most things worthy of saying have been said already, but I want to also point out that requested orientations are only fair under the assumption that everyone has a fixed orientation. Whether or not there are color-neutral BLD solvers, it doesn't seem right to base a regulation off of a feature of a particular system of solving, no matter how prevalent that system is.


Fair point. People have almost all been against competitors requesting orientations, so I think we should stop discussing it, as it clearly is not the best option. What are your thoughts about white top/green front orientation? 


Ollie said:


> tl;dr - reorientation isn't always bad for a solve


I think this is the first solid argument in favor of random orientation that doesn't concern the logistics and efficiency of orienting the cube before the solve, so thanks for that. 

In hindsight, I should've added a poll to this. Noah or Lucas, could you do that, please? I'd like it to include the first three options listed in the OP: random orientation, white top/green front orientation, and competitor requested orientation.


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 17, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> What are your thoughts about white top/green front orientation?



Not good because it would favor those who solve white top green front...


----------



## DrKorbin (Jan 17, 2015)

Reorienting of the cube is not the part of puzzle memorization and puzzle solving. Let's allow judge to reorient it.
Lifting the puzzle cover is not the part of memorization and solving. Let's ask judge to lift the cover.
Putting the blindfold on is not the part of memorization and solving. Let's ask the judge to put the blindfold.

Umm, yeah. There are things that have nothing to do with memorization and execution, yet they are parts of the attempt, and reorientation is one of them.
I don't see problems with the current situation and do see them if competitors start to request an orientation.


----------



## Erik (Jan 20, 2015)

Is this still being discussed? We have regulations for this now to ensure a specific (but random) orientation for each scramble.



> Reorienting of the cube is not the part of puzzle memorization and puzzle *solving*


Yes it is??

I honestly can't understand any reason in allowing a requested orientation. Sure 99.9% of all cubers treat the centres like fixed points, but there are also methods which regard centres to be pieces that have to be solved. Allowing the judge to solve the first 6 pieces for you doesn't make any sense. Maybe my fixed point is the DBL corner so I'll request that one to be put down then, so I always have one corner solved? I'll ask my judge to solve my pyraminx tips as well then. After all they are also trivial and way too easy to solve ;-)

Regs should stay method neutral.


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 20, 2015)

Erik said:


> Is this still being discussed? We have regulations for this now to ensure a specific (but random) orientation for each scramble.
> 
> 
> Yes it is??
> ...



+1 I completely agree


----------



## Berd (Jan 20, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> +1 I completely agree


Seems like the conclusion.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jan 22, 2015)

Great. Lock the thread.


----------

