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

[Noahaha]

I don't know if this has been suggested before:

If you set a record and get it on camera, you would be able to get it reviewed at the competition by the delegate. That way if a resolve is necessary, you definitely won't lose a record for it.

 

[antoineccantin]

I don't know if this has been suggested before:

If you set a record and get it on camera, you would be able to get it reviewed at the competition by the delegate. That way if a resolve is necessary, you definitely won't lose a record for it.

So does that mean you have to make a delegate watch a video of every single one of your solves during the competition to make sure you have the right scramble and you solve isn't DNFed?

Seems like a huge waste of the Delegate's time.

 

[Mr Cubism]

Let a "Cubestormer" do the scramble

 

[Noahaha]

So does that mean you have to make a delegate watch a video of every single one of your solves during the competition to make sure you have the right scramble and you solve isn't DNFed?

Seems like a huge waste of the Delegate's time.

Just for records.

Like NRs, CRs, WRs.

 

[Dene]

I'm confused by what you mean here. How is this different from what we have now? Do you mean "competitors" instead of "scramblers" in the last sentence?

hmm I'm not sure why you're confused, but if you are there might be others that are too so I'll try and re-phrase it more clearly.

If a scramble-checker system is implemented in an effective way you wouldn't have much need for extra staff. I assume in most cases there would be two scramblers (or more) for events like bigcubes or megaminx or something. At first everyone would be needed for scrambling, but once the event gets rolling along cubes won't be coming back in great heaps. As such, the extra scrambler can change to the role of scramble checker. Thus there wouldn't be an extra staff member, just a changing of roles.

Not true. A parent wouldn't be able to easily grasp the issue of handling nonstandard color schemes. Nonstandard color schemes make "just checking a picture" not all that easy - especially if you're worried about things like a scramble being applied with the wrong orientation.

Perhaps not, but it isn't much more complicated than running, which parents can definitely do

 

[Laura O]

If initials are used they are not readable in most cases, at least in Europe and because of the bad signing it's really hard to find out who it was that is signing badly (talking about the judge here). It's a chicken-egg thing

Sorry, but this is not true (at least for me).
Initials are often a lot easier to identify than scribbled names. As a scoretaker I have never seen any initials I couldn't identify directly or with the help of the competitors list.


Apart from this: we already have people who check scrambles. They are called scramblers and that's defined in 4g. I don't see a need to change this. That's just like "oh, they don't comply with the regulations, so let's change them".

 

[Erik]

Sorry, but this is not true (at least for me).
Initials are often a lot easier to identify than scribbled names. As a scoretaker I have never seen any initials I couldn't identify directly or with the help of the competitors list.

Challenge accepted! Next comp we are attending both, I will ask you to decode some

Apart from this: we already have people who check scrambles. They are called scramblers and that's defined in 4g. I don't see a need to change this. That's just like "oh, they don't comply with the regulations, so let's change them".

Nicely short and to the point

 

[XTowncuber]

Apart from this: we already have people who check scrambles. They are called scramblers and that's defined in 4g. I don't see a need to change this. That's just like "oh, they don't comply with the regulations, so let's change them".

The problem is that the scramblers have so many things to keep track of that it's really easy to forget to thoroughly check each cube. However, someone with the specific job of checking scrambles would be much more likely to consistently confirm that cubes are scrambled correctly.

Put yourself in the position of someone who has been delegated the task of checking every cube to see if it's scrambled properly. Do you really think you would let very many slip through? Maybe you are good at remembering to consistently check each cube as a scrambler, but not everyone is.

 

[Dene]

Apart from this: we already have people who check scrambles. They are called scramblers and that's defined in 4g. I don't see a need to change this. That's just like "oh, they don't comply with the regulations, so let's change them".

You're right, if we just ignore the problem it will go away... let's just wait a while, they'll all see...

 

[Stefan]

Also, by calling it a pitt boss we will surely get a volunteer for this function that might otherwise not help, right

What's a pitt?

 

[tseitsei]

What's a pitt?

A pit with extra t I suppose

 

[AvGalen]

A pit with extra t I suppose

Actually I didn't know how to write it, so I used logic:
I knew pit bull had LL
I knew pit boss had SS
so logic said that pit should have TT

That is something I really dislike about English. When you know what a word sounds like you can only guess how it is written. Colorful is full of color, but for some reason not written as colorfull

Having somebody check himself is mostly not done. Programmers and testers are normally seperated roles, as are police and judges. scramblers and "pit boss" should be seperate as well

 

[Erik]

The problem is that the scramblers have so many things to keep track of that it's really easy to forget to thoroughly check each cube. However, someone with the specific job of checking scrambles would be much more likely to consistently confirm that cubes are scrambled correctly.

Put yourself in the position of someone who has been delegated the task of checking every cube to see if it's scrambled properly. Do you really think you would let very many slip through? Maybe you are good at remembering to consistently check each cube as a scrambler, but not everyone is.

A scramblers one and only job is to scramble the cube according to the scramble. Not scrambling correctly is like not timing inspection as a judge or not checking if it's a +2. You could definitely call it lazy/irresponsible. My prediction is: if you put a scramble-checker on the job, he will not find any wrong scrambles since the scramblers don't want to look like fools.

You're right, if we just ignore the problem it will go away... let's just wait a while, they'll all see...

That's not what she said... at all...

She just pointed out the fact that we already have people responsible for checking scrambled cubes: scramblers. Maybe we should focus on scramblers doing their job instead of 'patching'.

Also: I still haven't seen any indication as to how big this 'problem' is.

 

[Dene]

She just pointed out the fact that we already have people responsible for checking scrambled cubes: scramblers. Maybe we should focus on scramblers doing their job instead of 'patching'.

Also: I still haven't seen any indication as to how big this 'problem' is.

Obviously it is a problem. There have been several recent noteworthy incidents with scrambling mistakes.

Also, at every competition I've been to I've seen the issue of someone getting the same scramble twice (or so claimed). And I'm 99% sure we only catch a small number of the mistakes that are made, which means there is probably a reasonable amount of mis-scrambling going on.

Yes, technically it is the responsibility of the scrambler to check it. But that's the way the regulations are currently written, not necessarily the best way.

I get it, more layers of bureaucracy sucks. And many people that scramble are perfectly reliable for doing what they should be doing properly. But ultimately what everyone wants is for there to be no issues. Perhaps this could be a good way to resolve any issues. Certainly better than filming every solve >.<

 

[~Adam~]

My prediction is: if you put a scramble-checker on the job, he will not find any wrong scrambles since the scramblers don't want to look like fools.

Most of the time there is more than 1 scrambler. Couldn't one check the scrambles for the other/s? It would take a little longer but you wouldn't need an extra person.

So my idea is likely to work in the same way? Every time you finish scrambling a puzzle, check another and place in cube cover?

 

[Erik]

So my idea is likely to work in the same way? Every time you finish scrambling a puzzle, check another and place in cube cover?

If I understand correctly, this is what I do when I am scrambling together with a beginner or with someone I am not sure of how good they are at scrambling. If they finish a scramble about the same time as I do, I quickly glance at their cube. Of course I can't check all of their scrambles since I can only check when I just finished scrambling a cube myself, but it certainly helps and motivates the co-scrambler to check themselves and scramble carefully. Encouraging this is a much better way of dealing with this 'problem' than having extra people to check the scramble.

Obviously it is a problem. There have been several recent noteworthy incidents with scrambling mistakes.

Why don't you list all cases so we have a clear base to start from in the first place?

Yes, technically it is the responsibility of the scrambler to check it. But that's the way the regulations are currently written, not necessarily the best way.

You are suggesting that the writing of the current regs don't make it clear that the scrambler is responsible for scrambling right here. I disagree. How would you change the writing though?

I get it, more layers of bureaucracy sucks. And many people that scramble are perfectly reliable for doing what they should be doing properly. But ultimately what everyone wants is for there to be no issues. Perhaps this could be a good way to resolve any issues. Certainly better than filming every solve >.<

I think we are jumping to conclusions and not-thought-through-proposals without fully exploring the cause and magnitute of the problem and the possible ways to solve this. There are many other, way more practical ways like I described above to encourage scramblers to take responsibility and actually do their 'job'. We really don't need a scrambler-police for that.

Also: the good thing is, is that events where scrambles are a big influence (2x2, Pyraminx, Skewb), the scrambles are very short so the risk of misscrambling is smaller than at 7x7 (where the scramble barely matters).

Also, at every competition I've been to I've seen the issue of someone getting the same scramble twice (or so claimed). And I'm 99% sure we only catch a small number of the mistakes that are made, which means there is probably a reasonable amount of mis-scrambling going on.

Your claim is vastly exaggerated, but yes of course there are cases that are not noticed. There are numerous other things that probably didn't get noticed (like wrong delegate/judge decisions). Incidents happen. That's inevitable without WCA-provided staff for all posts.

 

[AvGalen]

We really don't need a scrambler-police for that.

PIT-boss, not scrambler police
And your examples pretty much prove that we do need that, but that in reality you, as a scrambler, perform both roles and that works. But you (and I) are not at every competition so a formal PIT-boss would be a good idea.
For bigcubes we don't really need the PIT-boss because we don't require correct scrambles.

Yes, technically it is the responsibility of the scrambler to check it. But that's the way the regulations are currently written, not necessarily the best way.

I think that Dene meant that the regulations are perfectly clear about this being the responsibility of the scrambler, but that this could change to be done in a better way (PIT-BOSS!)

 

[Stefan]

Actually I didn't know how to write it, so I used logic:
I knew pit bull had LL
I knew pit boss had SS
so logic said that pit should have TT

Ok, thanks. I btw had googled "pit boss" but only saw an odd TV show about rescuing pit bulls . Only now I scrolled down enough to see the casino meaning I guess you were referring to.

My prediction is: if you put a scramble-checker on the job, he will not find any wrong scrambles

Maybe we should focus on scramblers doing their job

Did you just say that a scrambler-checker would be a way to make scramblers do their job and then said we should find a way of make scramblers do their job?

Also, I'd really go away from "scramble-checker" or even your "scrambler-police", given all the suggestions what that person can do in addition to scramble-checking. "Pit boss" sounds cool but isn't very telling, but I think "scramble-manager" would be a good name. And less "intimidating", if that's why you call it "police" (although I wouldn't mind my scrambling being checked, I know I'm just human and make mistakes and I'd prefer to have them detected and fixed instead of used (that's one reason I try to always show the code I used for statistics I posted, so that others can potentially find and point out errors in it)).

Also, by "glancing at your co-scrambler's cube", you're already playing "scrambler-police". So are you for or against it? And in case it's not clear: it doesn't necessarily need to be a job strictly defined and required by the regulations. The regulations also don't talk about "runners" but some competitions do have them (A2d even talks about judges taking puzzles from the scramblers, which kinda sounds like there shouldn't be intermediate people like runners).

 

[Dene]

If I understand correctly, this is what I do when I am scrambling together with a beginner or with someone I am not sure of how good they are at scrambling. If they finish a scramble about the same time as I do, I quickly glance at their cube. Of course I can't check all of their scrambles since I can only check when I just finished scrambling a cube myself, but it certainly helps and motivates the co-scrambler to check themselves and scramble carefully. Encouraging this is a much better way of dealing with this 'problem' than having extra people to check the scramble.


Why don't you list all cases so we have a clear base to start from in the first place?



You are suggesting that the writing of the current regs don't make it clear that the scrambler is responsible for scrambling right here. I disagree. How would you change the writing though?



I think we are jumping to conclusions and not-thought-through-proposals without fully exploring the cause and magnitute of the problem and the possible ways to solve this. There are many other, way more practical ways like I described above to encourage scramblers to take responsibility and actually do their 'job'. We really don't need a scrambler-police for that.

Also: the good thing is, is that events where scrambles are a big influence (2x2, Pyraminx, Skewb), the scrambles are very short so the risk of misscrambling is smaller than at 7x7 (where the scramble barely matters).



Your claim is vastly exaggerated, but yes of course there are cases that are not noticed. There are numerous other things that probably didn't get noticed (like wrong delegate/judge decisions). Incidents happen. That's inevitable without WCA-provided staff for all posts.

I want to clarify: my vision of having a Pit Boss is that it would be an optional role, not a compulsory role added to the regulations (just like a runner). I suspect a lot of your opposition to the idea stems from the concern that it would be mandatory (I could be wrong, just thought I would say).

Obviously the best thing would be for every scrambler to get it right every time (or catch their own mistakes). But in the real world, mistakes happen... You ask for some examples:
1) The revelation of Rowe getting a repeat scramble in 3bld which was the WR at the time, and only came to light when he admitted to it.
2) The Telesforo incident, which would have been avoided with a scramble checker.
3) This repeat scramble incident (I guess a lot of people don't know about it, but delegates might remember).
4) The Lucas Etter incident.

And I don't think my claim is exaggerated. I can think of many instances at competitions in Australia when someone comes up to me saying they've got the same scramble. And this sort of honestly can't be expected the majority of the time. Also, if I were to get the same scramble on, for example, 5x5, I quite possibly wouldn't notice (being CN, something completely different might catch my eye for centres). Even for 3x3 I might not notice if there isn't an obvious pattern to go to.


AvG and Mr. Pochmann answered the rest for me.

 

[Erik]

Did you just say that a scrambler-checker would be a way to make scramblers do their job and then said we should find a way of make scramblers do their job?

In short: yes, but the extra scrambler-checker is not the right solution to achieve this goal. I am saying that we should get people to do their job with the personell we have instead of 'hiring' an extra person to achieve that goal.

Also, I'd really go away from "scramble-checker" or even your "scrambler-police", given all the suggestions what that person can do in addition to scramble-checking.

Ok, does it really matter that much? ... You can call them 'executive process managers' as well for all I care The thing is we already have pitt bosses in a way: scramblers.

Also, by "glancing at your co-scrambler's cube", you're already playing "scrambler-police". So are you for or against it?

As stated before, I am pro motivating people to do their job, but against having extra people surveilancing. That's the key difference: making things work the way they are (and are ment to be) without implementing extra regulations or expanding the staff. If that doesn't work you can always resort to other options.

@ Dene: thanks for the examples. Even though there are only 4. I only remember one incident among my competitions which had to do with records at Lemgo Open 2010: Niklas Spies received a wrong scramble at Pyraminx, and did a world record on it. After trying to reconstruct the solve we found out it was scrambled wrong.

Btw. I don't recognize your "100% of competitions had scrambling issues", that's why I said your claim is vastly exaggerated. Maybe scramblers scramble better in Europe? Sure, stuff happens but not at every competition.

@ AvG: I don't get why you sound so psyched about the term "Pitt-Boss" other than that it sounds fancy.