Proposal: Video Evidence Should NOT be used to overturn official records

[Kit Clement]

It wasn't until the beginning of 2013 that it was changed to the current version:

lol, thanks for that -- I thought that changed in 2012.

 

[Lucas Garron]

Video evidence was recently used to overturn a NR in Square 1 by Kunaal Parekh when he accidently nudged one side during the inspection.

I remember that someone originally stated that the misalignment was (2, 0), which would definitely be a DNF.

After watching the video, I told the Board that the solve appeared fine. The most consistent way to interpret the Regulations for Square-1 is that 45 degrees are allowed. 10f+ is a non-normative explanation, doesn't quite make as much sense for Square-1.

I haven't followed that topic, and I don't know why the result is still DNF. In any case, I've poked the Board about it.

It's been a few weeks, and I haven't seen anything official from the WCA stating their policy on using video.

The Board has used video to support decisisions for many years. As Sarah states, 11f states that video is fair game.
Originally, video evidence wasn't allowed at the competition itself (only by the Board). Tyson told me that the intention was to protect Delegates from competitors who might make frequent or frivolous requests if they think a video shows a mistake in their favor (when they should be disputing that at the end of the solve).

So, basically, the argument boils down to: is it more important to treat every cuber as fairly as possible or to get the call right as often as possible?

This is a double-edged sword. If you let a competitor keep an unfair mistake in their favor, this disadvantages those that they were competing against. The most fair thing is to apply the Regulations as consistently as possible given the available information.

But no reply ever came, not to agree with us and remove the DNF penalty, not to give an explanation why our arguments were not valid based on the current regulations, and not even to let us know that they were considering our arguments. The fact that neither reply came after this much time makes it appear (note I am not saying it is the case, but appearances are important) that the board intended to let the case simply be forgotten with time, as people would get tired of arguing about it eventually.

I think you overestimate the deliberateness of their intentions. I get the feeling that they're mostly too busy, and this just didn't get handled.





The proposal to require a video for every NR is not a good idea for several reasons, but the main on is that it is completely impractical – especially in some parts of the world that we need to encourage as much as possible.

However, using video evidence has been very useful, as in the very high-profile 2008 case of cheating. Kunaal didn't do it intentionally, and it was a fairly minor violation (whic, as I've stated, shouldn't be a DNF), but to be fair to everyone the Regulations should be applied when rules are broken, unless there's an especially good case for otherwise. I don't believe this has a signficant chilling effect on people posting videos of their solves.

Requiring competitors to bring their own cameras is unfair and unwieldy. Refusing to acknowledge records just because someone didn't film it is unfair.
After all, this is exactly what the judge is for. We still don't have an answer for what to do if the judge makes a mistake, but this is an important problem.

We've considered trying to get cheap cameras to film every solve at Nationals, but it's not actually that cheap, and it would take organizers too much time to set it up and run it – much less make sure everything is always filming as intended. We have enough trouble with Stackmat timers, and those are core to every speedsolve.



The way I see it, DeeDubb is upset about the handling of Kunaal's case, and trying to offer preposterous proposals to daw attention to it.
I believe that there is no reason to change the WCA's video policy right now. It seems that people who have been more familiar with cases of video evidence also agree with this.

 

[Deleted member 19792]

Yes. It should. Why shouldn't it? Then everyone can cheat and get away with it with noob 9 year old judges that don't notice anything

 

[Tim Major]

I can't think of a single person who is near record level who wouldn't have someone at an organized event willing to film them. The equipment required to organize an event is also costly, but still required. The idea that it's possible for someone who is at NR/CR/WR level would not have access to someone willing to film them doesn't seem like a feasible hypothetical situation to me.

I wish people would be willing to film me, I have to force them, most of my OcR average is missing (and it was 10th in the world at the time, not a really slow CR or anything).

Most of the time, the only people filming CRs or w/e are filming because the person solving organised it. Jay got top 5 or so in the world in 2x2 and probably only his Mum filmed!

 

[brian724080]

I didn't know Riley was filming my Skewb solve. In fact, I have been known to perform much worse (see: BASC 3 Flagj 2014 Skewb Round 1) when I try recording myself because sometimes I can't shake the pressure of the camera during solves. Therefore, it is a legitimate concern that competitors who don't want that pressure should be able to have it, especially when filming would not be required for every solve in the database.

This is also true for me. I'd be much more nervous about making mistakes knowing that there will always be video footage around.

 

[qqwref]

Videotaping all solves is impossible, and it shouldn't even be considered.

Several years ago I had an idea about how to videotape all solves at a competition. This was in California, so organizers have more extra money than in some places, but it may still be viable depending on equipment.

Basically the idea is to get a camera of some sort for each timer station (opposite from the competitor). It sounds expensive, but it looks like you can get a pretty good camcorder for ~$200 and a cheap-ass one for under $50, so it's on the order of the cost of stackmat+timer+display. The cameras would be filming whenever someone is solving at that station, so barring equipment malfunction every stackmat solve would be on video. Alternatively, we could equip all active (i.e. judging a current attempt) judges with a GoPro, at about the same cost.

These cameras would be part of the set of equipment an organizer brings to competitions (scoresheets, timers, displays), and thus mostly a fixed cost. However, it could also be a way to make some money at each competition to help offset the cost of the cameras themselves. Once you have all videos, have someone keep track of what person or event is in each one. Then, after the competition, you can charge people for the official videos - maybe something like $5 for access to all of a specific person's solves (mostly this would be for your own solves), or $10 for access to every solve.

A side benefit of this is that parents/friends of competitors would not have to bring a camera and spend time filming just to get a record of the official solves. And of course every WR, CR, and even NR would be on video.

EDIT:

I can't think of a single person who is near record level who wouldn't have someone at an organized event willing to film them. The equipment required to organize an event is also costly, but still required. The idea that it's possible for someone who is at NR/CR/WR level would not have access to someone willing to film them doesn't seem like a feasible hypothetical situation to me.

I've had four CRs and two WRs (in 4 different events total) and I think only the 7x7x7 stuff was on film (and not with good enough quality to tell what moves I was doing). In fact I can only think of a handful of instances in my competition career where I was filmed without explicitly bringing someone to film me (which I only did once).

 

[Noahaha]

I wish people would be willing to film me, I have to force them, most of my OcR average is missing (and it was 10th in the world at the time, not a really slow CR or anything).

Most of the time, the only people filming CRs or w/e are filming because the person solving organised it. Jay got top 5 or so in the world in 2x2 and probably only his Mum filmed!

I don't know what it's like in other parts of the world, but at the comps I've gone to, the understanding is that everyone arranges for their own solves to be filmed, and it's a little strange if someone films your solves without you knowing.

 

[BillyRain]

Several years ago I had an idea about how to videotape all solves at a competition. This was in California, so organizers have more extra money than in some places, but it may still be viable depending on equipment.

Basically the idea is to get a camera of some sort for each timer station (opposite from the competitor). It sounds expensive, but it looks like you can get a pretty good camcorder for ~$200 and a cheap-ass one for under $50, so it's on the order of the cost of stackmat+timer+display. The cameras would be filming whenever someone is solving at that station, so barring equipment malfunction every stackmat solve would be on video. Alternatively, we could equip all active (i.e. judging a current attempt) judges with a GoPro, at about the same cost.

These cameras would be part of the set of equipment an organizer brings to competitions (scoresheets, timers, displays), and thus mostly a fixed cost. However, it could also be a way to make some money at each competition to help offset the cost of the cameras themselves. Once you have all videos, have someone keep track of what person or event is in each one. Then, after the competition, you can charge people for the official videos - maybe something like $5 for access to all of a specific person's solves (mostly this would be for your own solves), or $10 for access to every solve.

A side benefit of this is that parents/friends of competitors would not have to bring a camera and spend time filming just to get a record of the official solves. And of course every WR, CR, and even NR would be on video.

EDIT:

I've had four CRs and two WRs (in 4 different events total) and I think only the 7x7x7 stuff was on film (and not with good enough quality to tell what moves I was doing). In fact I can only think of a handful of instances in my competition career where I was filmed without explicitly bringing someone to film me (which I only did once).

Coming from an organiser who likes to use technology at his comps more than others, this would be an absolute and epic nightmare.

Keeping track of if the cameras are running and educating new judges to ensure they are working would be chaos. Also, if they are > $50 cameras then the resulting videos would not be of very good quality at all. Also we would have to have them maybe clipped to the stackmat displays so the angle would only show hands/puzzle so it would miss any reactions and what not that people love to see after a good solve.

Also it's just one more set of equipment to make sure they all have friggin batteries or are all charged in time for when they are needed. Then if one breaks you have the issue that solves completed on that station would not be documented (yes we could have spares but it still doesn't make it any more feasible).

You'd also need to create a system in order to track which solve was who's.. Most judging systems have random competitiors at random stations throughout their averages so it would be a nightmare to collate all of the footage after a comp. Also I really don't think anybody would want to pay money for a bad quality/angled video.

Yes, in an ideal world we would have cameras on every solving station to film every solve. It would be great, but it's just not practical. Maybe when technology moves on in the future and there are different solutions then it could be doable. But right now, if this regulation were to be bought in in one country, it would have to be enforced in all and I can't see many cubing organisations forking out for ~20 cameras.

 

[cubizh]

I think adding surveillance to all solves doesn't really follow the spirit of the WCA, which aims for people from all over the world to have fun together in a friendly atmosphere, help each other and behave sportsmanlike, not to mention the complete infeasability in certain remote parts of the world. See the following table:

Spoiler: All countries with at least one WCA competition

[TABLE="class:grid,align:left]
[TR][TD] Argentina [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Australia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Austria [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Belarus [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Belgium [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Bosnia and Herzegovina [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Brazil [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Canada [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Chile [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] China [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Colombia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Croatia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Czech Republic [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Denmark [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Dominican Republic [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Estonia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Finland [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] France [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Georgia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Germany [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Greece [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Guatemala [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Hong Kong [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Hungary [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Iceland [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] India [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Indonesia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Iran [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Ireland [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Israel [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Italy [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Japan [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Jordan [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Korea [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Latvia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Lithuania [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Macau [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Malaysia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Mexico [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Mongolia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Netherlands [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] New Zealand [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Norway [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Peru [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Philippines [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Poland [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Portugal [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Romania [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Russia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Serbia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Singapore [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Slovakia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Slovenia [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] South Africa [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Spain [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Sweden [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Switzerland [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Taiwan [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Thailand [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Turkey [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Ukraine [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] United Arab Emirates [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] United Kingdom [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] USA [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Venezuela [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Vietnam [/TD][/TR]
[/TABLE]

Analysing the places where WCA competitions have taken place (and extrapolating to where more competitions will take place in the future), there are places where the standard of living are many many miles away to what you can have in richer countries in Europe or North America. I'm sure anyone will agree even a simple camera may not be a simple commodity in all of these countries.
In certain places of the world the price for a proper venue alone, added to the price of the necessary equipment to hold a competition *is* a big toll to organizers and delegates and can in certain circumstances prevent them to have more competitions, or in better conditions. Adding cameras to these costs and ensuring everyone has the same conditions of being filmed, with maintenance/handling associated to this fixed costs is something that, to me, seems quite impractical.

Having said that, I think qqwref's idea is interesting.

A stackmat camera module with a miniSD card that would attach to the competition display with adjustable orientation that would autorecord whenever a button was pushed (like the reset button of the stackmat before a solve) and end a few seconds after the timer was stopped would be interesting to see.

Someone with connections should propose that to speed stacks people for the 4.0 timers/displays.

I can see that as an optional bonus for competitors/organizers/delegates that would get them for their competitions helping people who want to reconstruct their solves and have a close-up of their competition, but it should not have to be mandatory, as it would be an immense work to track everything down properly and an associated extra cost.

Again, sorry for repeating myself, but people should be more concerned in the fairness of their own results and less worried about this. The issue that raised this debate uncovered a flaw in the regulations regarding Square-1, that should be addressed, but I think that's it.

 

[DeeDubb]

This will be my last post in this thread. I want to say thank you to everyone who considered my ideas and gave good counterarguments in a polite manner. It is nice to have open discussions like this without them degenerating. I appreciate it.

My thoughts now after reading what everyone had to say:

This is an issue of fairness vs. accuracy of records. I feel that fairness in judging outweighs the accuracy issues that may come from not using video evidence. However, the community voted, and responded, and they don't feel that way.

I offered two ideas: Either don't allow any video evidence to be used, or require video of every NR/CR/WR solve (because that's where the video support is most important to catch cheaters). Both of these would add an element of fairness (though the second one may be considered unfair, because it only applies to very fast solvers).

The main counterargument to the first idea is that there would be no way to overturn something obvious, such as the BLD record holder who peeked under his blindfold. Without video, you would have no recourse either, and it's not a good system to depend on the possibility of someone filming as a failsafe, so if someone can cheat without video, then they should be able to cheat with video too. Most people disagree with this, and that's where we just have to agree to disagree.

The main counterargument to the second idea is practicality issues. There were legit issues revolving around availability of cameras, legality issues, technical issues, and how to score unfilmed record solves. These are the ones that swayed me the most. I concede that my second idea would not work in the current cubing world. Hopefully it's something that becomes a possibility in the future.

Since my second proposal will not work, I must stick to my first one that no video evidence should be used. The majority of the community disagrees with me, and that's fine. At least it was discussed.

A few final responses to people:

Here's why parents of young competitors might not prefer that option:
There is no photo release that competitors/spectators or their legal guardians are required to sign in order to allow for the filming of competitors/spectators.

This is actually one of the strongest counterarguments I've seen against videoing every solve. I didn't consider this at all. It would be tough to force parents to sign photo releases.

Why should we force someone to be filmed under these circumstances? This is not the NBA or NFL, these are Rubik's cube competitions. Should we require giant spotlights so everyone can see the "top contenders" better? Of course not. Saying that Alex would just "have to deal with it" is quite arrogant and not understanding of the pressure he faces even without cameras. Let's keep the WCA competing environment friendly without added pressures, please.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying here. I was saying he would just have to deal with the pressure of cameras the same way he already has to deal with the pressure of a judge, the event, and the audience. It would be an additional pressure, but one that would just have to be dealt with in order to reap the benefits of having every record film solved. There are, however, other arguments that I've seen that really show why filming every solve would be quite impractical.

The way I see it, DeeDubb is upset about the handling of Kunaal's case, and trying to offer preposterous proposals to daw attention to it.
I believe that there is no reason to change the WCA's video policy right now. It seems that people who have been more familiar with cases of video evidence also agree with this.

Thanks for the very well thought out post, it helped me a lot. I just want to address the ending here about my motivations for this thread. The Kunaal case didn't upset me. I have no personal relationship with Kunaal, and therefore have no dog in this fight. I simply saw something that I considered to be a fairness issue, and I still do. I presented some ideas that seemed practical to me to hear reasons why they may not be. I still don't feel like anything I said was preposterous, but I appreciate people offering issues that I didn't consider when I made my proposals.

 

[Petro Leum]

i think the best solution for this problem is better judging. i suggest encouraging judges to pay attention by various means, for example, along with the standard stopwatches and pens, have proper judging equipment at the competitions.

 

[BillyRain]

i think the best solution for this problem is better judging. i suggest encouraging judges to pay attention by various means, for example, along with the standard stopwatches and pens, have proper judging equipment at the competitions.

LOL I think the whistle is a little unnecessary but I've always thought we should probably take a leaf out of the stackers book and use the cards.

 

[Hari]

The DNF has been overturned and the NR now stands https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/events.php?eventId=sq1&regionId=India&years=&show=100%2BPersons&single=Single

 

[Villyer]

The DNF has been overturned and the NR now stands https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/events.php?eventId=sq1®ionId=India&years=&show=100%2BPersons&single=Single

Was there an explanation given for why it was overturned?

 

[Cubeologist]

My answer would have been yes if the WCA was doing the filming. But whereas they would be using other competitors' videos to do this, I would imagine that Mats and Feliks would be under a lot more scrutiny than I would. And that doesn't seem fair.

 

[Ollie]

Was there an explanation given for why it was overturned?

Yes, but I assume it's been moved to the other thread

 

[antoineccantin]

My answer would have been yes if the WCA was doing the filming. But whereas they would be using other competitors' videos to do this, I would imagine that Mats and Feliks would be under a lot more scrutiny than I would. And that doesn't seem fair.

Yes, but I assume it's been moved to the other thread

See the previous page.

 

[kinch2002]

I'm resurrecting this thread for discussion about how to approach retroactive video evidence, as it seems people want to continue it.

Ideally, all solves that do not follow regulations should not be valid. To start allowing solves that were e.g. scrambled wrong, would surely create the need for a very grey line? Here are some situations to think about. In all cases, I am assuming the mistake was noticed using a video after the end of the competition.
A1. If a 2x2 was scrambled wrong and a 1 move solve was done should it be allowed?
A2. If a 3x3 was scrambled wrong and a 15 move sub4 solve was done should it be allowed?
A3. What if that solve was in the WC final and would cause them to drop from 1st to 4th if DNFed?
A4. If a 3x3 was scrambled wrong and a normal solve by an average cuber was done, should it be allowed?
Clearly drawing a line somewhere is not easy at all.

An alternative is to find a new competition process such that mis-scrambles do not happen.

Aside from those situations which are not the competitor's fault, we have:
B1. Regulation violations that are the competitor's fault, were accidental, and (at least) might have given an advantage
B2. Regulation violations that are the competitor's fault, were accidental, and did not give an advantage
B3. Regulation violations that are the competitors fault, were deliberate, and (at least) might have given an advantage
B4. Regulation violations that are the competitors fault, were deliberate, and did not give an advantage
If they should be treated differently, then distinguishing between the 4 cases is something the Board or WDC would do.
But what should the decision be for each (and why)?

 

[guysensei1]

A1. If a 2x2 was scrambled wrong and a 1 move solve was done should it be allowed?

2x2 scrambles are filtered. 1 move solves would be called out immediately. Even if it wasn't noticed (BJ people in charge), it should be a DNF as, again, 2x2 scrambles should require 4 or more moves to solve.

 

[ryanj92]

2x2 scrambles are filtered. 1 move solves would be called out immediately. Even if it wasn't noticed (BJ people in charge), it should be a DNF as, again, 2x2 scrambles should require 4 or more moves to solve.

Good point - I don't think 2x2x2 is a great example to use, as 4-5 move solutions are more often that not easily replicable, so if someone gets a scramble with a 4-5 move solution (within scramble filtering limits), it's fairly easy to tell if the cube was misscrambled or not, by checking if such a solution actually exists on the scramble
I think the general case of A2 still stands, though.

This whole video evidence thing is something I've been thinking about for a while - I will probably post here once I'm happy with my thoughts...