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

[kcl]

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)?

In a case like the first or second, sure. But honestly when it doesn't change the solve itself at all?

 

[Bindedsa]

In a case like the first or second, sure. But honestly when it doesn't change the solve itself at all?

How do you judge when the solve is changed? With the 3x3 NAR, Lucas got a 6.72, His 3rd best single, when the scramble was done on the wrong orientation. I do not think he should have the time DNFed, but the solve was certainly not normal.

 

[kinch2002]

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.

You're both not taking what I said about assuming it was not reviewed until after the competition seriously enough. Of course 'It would never happen', but I'm posing the question of what if it did? You can't make a regulation that supposedly covers everything when it is based on an assumption certain things are too unlikely to happen. You can change A1 to 3 moves (or 5 moves on a pyraminx/6 moves on a skewb etc), but the intended difference between A1 and A2 is that the scramble is less than the move filter limit.

If people want to allow some mis-scrambled solves, where is the line? Or is there no line? That is my point about the scrambling part of it.

 

[tseitsei]

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)?

A1. Obviously this would be caught in competition because ANYONE scrambling can see it is only 1 move away and looks nothing like it should be. So it wouldn't really be an issue in the first place. If it did tough that would be the same problem than with B2. really and I don't have a good solution for this.

A2. I don't know what should be done with this actually because it would be unfair for the competitor to DNF this. HOWEVER it would be unfair to get such a lol-scramble with 15-move solution also. I have no answer to this. The best way is obviously to make sure these kind of things don't happen in comps, but that might not be always possible...

A3. If the wrong scramble and the solve was just a normal looking scramble and not some cross/f2l-skip I think it would be most fair to accept the solve. But it is quite impossible to determine when the scramble has been "too easy"... If the wrong scramble was something insanely lucky then again I don't know what we should do here (See my previous answer A2.)...

A4. Yes it should be allowed. But it is quite impossible to determine when the scramble has been "too easy"...


B1. Obviously DNFed. It doesn't really matter if it is an accident or not you still have to follow regulations and at least you can't gain any advantage by breaking them.

B2. Obviously DNFed. It doesn't really matter if it is an accident or not. You still have to follow regulations and it is completely in your own hands if you follow them or not. If you do a mistake in speedsolve it will cost you some time, making a mistake in following regulations should cost you some time: +2 or DNF. Besides how/who will determine if someone gets any advantage by breaking some regulation(s)?

B3. If we have clear evidence it was deliberate violation of regulations (Also known as cheating) then we should do 2 things IMO: 1. DNF the solve obviously. 2. Ban the competitor for some period of time. Cheating should not be accepted in any situation.

B4. If we have clear evidence it was deliberate violation of regulations (Also known as cheating) then we should do 2 things IMO: 1. DNF the solve obviously. 2. Ban the competitor for some period of time. Cheating should not be accepted in any situation.

If people want to allow some mis-scrambled solves, where is the line? Or is there no line? That is my point about the scrambling part of it.

This is the problem and the important question. Sadly I have no answer to that.

I think that allowing misscrambles in ALL scenarios is unfair (F2L-skip and unbeatable WR or something like that is obviously quite unfair), but also DNFing them all is also unfair (DNFing someones solve on a scramble that is like any other normal scramble and not giving him a new attempt is unfair to me. Because it is not the competitors fault and there is no way he can prevent this in any way)

 

[Carrot]

My view on this:
If people film their solves and something "fishy/good" happens, they can/should analyze it DURING the competition, if a violation has been made by a judge/scrambler and it is caught DURING the competition, the delegate is allowed to give the competitor an extra attempt. If a WR/CR/other is broken I see NO reason why a scrambler wouldn't scramble any puzzles near them and make the competitor verify it was the correct scramble (at least for all smaller puzzles).

 

[stoic]

I will probably post here once I'm happy with my thoughts...

Seriously dude, this is the internet.
How dare you be so reasonable.

 

[tseitsei]

If a WR/CR/other is broken I see NO reason why a scrambler wouldn't scramble any puzzles near them and make the competitor verify it was the correct scramble (at least for all smaller puzzles).

Maybe regulations should actually demand this to be done to all WR/CR/NR solves?

Then again someone could still get misscrambles and get lucky with them if he doesn't break any records but IMO WR/CR/NR solves matter much more than some random dudes personal bests...

EDIT: nevermind not a good idea. Then every WR/CR/NR solve should be filmed...

 

[sneaklyfox]

How do you judge when the solve is changed? With the 3x3 NAR, Lucas got a 6.72, His 3rd best single, when the scramble was done on the wrong orientation. I do not think he should have the time DNFed, but the solve was certainly not normal.

For a case like this (same with things like one-move miscramble) I think it should not be DNF'ed as an official record, but it could be in some way not counted (like a DNF) for that competition only. You could say he got an unfair advantage over other competitors because maybe other people at the same competition would also have a chance at good times with the same scramble and this would affect ranking at that competition.

 

[Bindedsa]

For a case like this (same with things like one-move miscramble) I think it should not be DNF'ed as an official record, but it could be in some way not counted (like a DNF) for that competition only. You could say he got an unfair advantage over other competitors because maybe other people at the same competition would also have a chance at good times with the same scramble and this would affect ranking at that competition.

Couldn't you make the same argument for people who had a timer dysfunction and had to use an extra scramble?

Also completely unrelated, our cubes solved this year is almost identical, though I think you count OH and BLD, while I don't.

Edit: Nevermind, I thought mine was 28k not 29k.

 

[Mr Cubism]

If someone solves a misscrambled 4x4 and gets double parity, then he should have an extra solve afterwards because he had an "unlucky" scramble?

 

[sneaklyfox]

Couldn't you make the same argument for people who had a timer dysfunction and had to use an extra scramble?

Also completely unrelated, our cubes solved this year is almost identical, though I think you count OH and BLD, while I don't.

Edit: Nevermind, I thought mine was 28k not 29k.

Oh, you're right. I didn't think of that.

I have done almost no BLD solves this year and not much OH solves either. But anyway, I guess I have spent a lot more time doing 3x3 solves though you have more solves because you are faster than me.

 

[Stefan]

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

That should maybe be done anyway (I only say maybe because I don't know how big the problem is). There were some ideas, like someone suggested adding a scramble checker person between scramblers and runners/judges. Another idea to allow rudimentary checking for the judge (or even the competitor, as the visible information doesn't give away much, at least for 3x3 upwards):

 

[Ollie]

That should maybe be done anyway (I only say maybe because I don't know how big the problem is). There were some ideas, like someone suggested adding a scramble checker person between scramblers and runners/judges. Another idea to allow rudimentary checking for the judge (or even the competitor, as the visible information doesn't give away much, at least for 3x3 upwards):

http://i58.tinypic.com/oh6d1h.jpg

The cover would need one more slot around where the D layer would be, in case an accidental D/D'/D2 move by the scrambler creates a block or easy face or something? But yeah, nice

edit: D/D'/D2 would apply to 3x3x3+, accidental U/U'/U2 moves plus a rotation on 2x2x2 could give a 'false positive' which is obviously less likely, but you get the idea

 

[obelisk477]

The way I envision having a scramble checker would be this: there are scramblers and runners/judges like normal, except in between there would be the checker. The runner gives the cube to the checker WITHOUT the score sheet. The checker has the layout on a sheet in front of him, and either confirms or rejects the scramble. If the latter, he fixes the scramble one more time, and as he would not know whose cube it was (apart from custom logos or whatever), it would keep things objective.

The biggest argument against this I think would be the extra time required, but even then I don't think it would take that long. For one round, if the checker gets used to seeing the scrambles over and over, the checking could be done quickly since they would be used to seeing various blocks and patterns etc.

 

[Carrot]

The cover would need one more slot around where the D layer would be, in case an accidental D/D'/D2 move by the scrambler creates a block or easy face or something? But yeah, nice

The purpose of his proposal is not to make 100% sure that the cube is scrambled correctly, but to make it easy to spot obvious scrambling mistakes without giving away too much information abouth the scramble.

 

[GuRoux]

how are you suppose to scramble a cube if there is japanese color scheme or some randomly made color scheme?

 

[obelisk477]

how are you suppose to scramble a cube if there is japanese color scheme or some randomly made color scheme?

Via this regulation

 

[GuRoux]

Via this regulation

thanks.

 

[Ollie]

The purpose of his proposal is not to make 100% sure that the cube is scrambled correctly, but to make it easy to spot obvious scrambling mistakes without giving away too much information abouth the scramble.

Wasn't the main issue that discovering misscrambles using video evidence has lead to DNFs? So we should be ensuring as close to 100% accuracy as possible on scrambles to avoid giving unfair advantages or vice versa?

 

[Torch]

What would people think of having a third box on the scoresheet for the scrambler to sign? It would let us know who scrambled for each attempt, and be a way of reminding the scramblers that they're responsible for correctly scrambling.