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

[Ninja Storm]

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.



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.



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.

Even the best people make mistakes. Surely an extra person would help both the inexperienced(so we can stop them from scrambling) and the experienced(who might be tired and accidentally scramble incorrectly.)

 

[Laura O]

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'.

Exactly this.

There was a situation at one of recent competitions where I scrambled 2x2 together with a young boy. He was really eager to do this and rushed through the scrambles. Right after I had told him to calm down a bit, the delegate came to us and told us that there were two competitors who got the first scramble twice. After this there were no further complaints, so I believe it helps to remind people to do their work properly.

Furthermore it helps to chose the scramblers wisely. I wouldn't let a random person do this job just because he wants to. There are always competitors coming to the table "I want to scramble, can I scramble, please let me scramble..." although they don't know how to do this (e.g. someone asked me why there were only 7 scrambles on the scrambling sheet while there were 20 competitors in the round...). And I have seen delegates who actually don't care who is scrambling as long as there is anyone doing it.

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

Yes, I am waiting for this as well.
I have done probably 900 solves this year and there were only 2 cases where I got a scramble twice. Of course, I don't know how many cubes were scrambled just wrong and this is just my experience, but I would consider this as an indicator that this isn't such a big problem (at least around here).

 

[XTowncuber]

Akash Rupela's 6.91 on a misscramble
Heribertus Ariando's 7.53 on a misscramble

2 more examples where a scramble checker could have been useful.

 

[Rubiks560]

I'm pretty amazed people have had such a hard time checking the scambles to see if it's correct.
I've always been able to check the sheet. The only time it's difficult to keep up is when there is an event like 2x2 and 20+ cubes.

 

[DrKorbin]

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.

My 2 cents: once upon a time I was a scrambler-checker for Clock (I guess this was the only time we used scrambler-checkers). Scramblers knew that I checked them, despite that they still made errors (I found about 5 misscrambles).

 

[Tim Major]

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1175 This repeat scramble incident (I guess a lot of people don't know about it, but delegates might remember).

http://i.imgur.com/8Z3GseA.jpg

This is an especially unfortunate incident. His 5th solve was DNF'd due to his honesty, but if you look at first place, obviously the 5th scramble was easy also! He lost 2 NRs, first place, and that average would've been over 2 seconds faster than his current official average.

For the people arguing that the current system is fine, I think this case is the best argument for the current system not working.

I think having a scramble checker who has to sign every scramble would work. It only takes 5 seconds max to check and sign, less time that a lot of scramblers. It may not completely solve the problem due to human error, but it'd vastly reduce it.

 

[sneaklyfox]

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.

I don't think a scramble checker would check every side to match a picture. They could just check one colour like white and make sure all the white stickers are in the right place. Or a couple sides and only one colour. You'd have to figure out for cubes that don't have a white face, but since white is always on top then the white pieces should be in the same place everytime so you don't have to worry about weird colour schemes.

 

[AvGalen]

http://i.imgur.com/8Z3GseA.jpg

This is an especially unfortunate incident. His 5th solve was DNF'd due to his honesty, but if you look at first place, obviously the 5th scramble was easy also! He lost 2 NRs, first place, and that average would've been over 2 seconds faster than his current official average.

For the people arguing that the current system is fine, I think this case is the best argument for the current system not working.

I think having a scramble checker who has to sign every scramble would work. It only takes 5 seconds max to check and sign, less time that a lot of scramblers. It may not completely solve the problem due to human error, but it'd vastly reduce it.

It seems that quite a few NR and even WR have been because/despite wrong scrambles. It also seems that it is almost always the honest people that suffer. This is exactly the opposite of how it should be.
It has happened a few times to me that I received a scramble (let's say the 3rd) and during inspection I found out that it was the same as the previous one that I solved. I notify the judge, the judge asks the delegate what to do. My scramble is checked, but turns out to be the 3rd scramble anyway, so I get a DNF without ever touching the cube, just because I suspected a misscramble...and then it turned out later that I did get the same scramble, but it was my 2nd attempt that received the 3rd scramble. None of this is my fault, but I am the one that suffers from it. Now I just keep my mouth shut, do the solve, and AFTERWARDS I contact the delegate.
It has also happened that during inspection I notify the judge about a probable duplicate scramble, but it turns out the 3 edge that I inspected were exactly the same in two different scrambles. Result: DNF again
And apparently scrambling correctly IS quite hard, because for a long time I heard people say "YES, CORRECT" when they finally got a bigcube scrambled correctly. For practical reasons we even included the "as long as it is scrambled well" rule for bigcubes.

And of course a pit boss could make sure that "little judge 1" judges everyone, and not just his friend or Feliks/Mats. And so many other things that happen at the scramble table that really shouldn't happen there

 

[dougthecube]

I think that if there were some WRs that clearly should be made DNFs because of video footage that was not allowed to be used then this would lose the integrity of WRs as a whole because of the fact that certain WRs would not be respected for this reason, and when WRs are not respected then a lot of the credibility of the community as a whole would be lost.

 

[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.

I was a little disappointed that no one discussed this. I think it would solve most of the problems we have right now.

Just to be clear, this would only be an option if you get a National, Continental or World Record.

 

[kcl]

I was a little disappointed that no one discussed this. I think it would solve most of the problems we have right now.

Just to be clear, this would only be an option if you get a National, Continental or World Record.

So you'd be at an advantage to not film your solves?

 

[Petro Leum]

So you'd be at an advantage to not film your solves?

but thats pretty much what we have right now, dont you agree? noahs idea would just take some frustration out of the equation by avoiding that the record will be overturned WAY AFTER the competition. with his proposal, the competitor would get an extra solve (if necessary) right at the competition or a DNF/+2 even before the WR/CR/NR Hype. i feel like that's a good compromise.

 

[kcl]

but thats pretty much what we have right now, dont you agree? noahs idea would just take some frustration out of the equation by avoiding that the record will be overturned WAY AFTER the competition. with his proposal, the competitor would get an extra solve (if necessary) right at the competition or a DNF/+2 even before the WR/CR/NR Hype. i feel like that's a good compromise.

That's true, I suppose this could help deal with misscrambles.

 

[frogmanson]

Idea: If you set some sort of record, you get an extra sixth solve that isn't accounted for in the average, but if one solve in the average is found to be a DNF for some reason, then that extra solve can be used instead of the DNF solve in the calculation of the average (at the discretion of the WCA board). Sort of an advantage over other cubers, though, but it's no different from getting an extra solve if the DNF were found during the competition. This extra solve wouldn't be entered into the database or count for anything unless some sort of retroactive action were taken to cause the record-setting average to be DNF'd. The extra solve would be a floating solve used only as a contingency.

EDIT: By 'DNF' I mean some sort of misscramble situation or any other type of situation that would have elicited an extra solve in the first place.

 

[Dane man]

Idea: If you set some sort of record, you get an extra sixth solve that isn't accounted for in the average, but if one solve in the average is found to be a DNF for some reason, then that extra solve can be used instead of the DNF solve in the calculation of the average (at the discretion of the WCA board). Sort of an advantage over other cubers, though, but it's no different from getting an extra solve if the DNF were found during the competition. This extra solve wouldn't be entered into the database or count for anything unless some sort of retroactive action were taken to cause the record-setting average to be DNF'd.

EDIT: By 'DNF' I mean some sort of misscramble situation or any other type of situation that would have elicited an extra solve in the first place.

That actually makes a lot of sense, but one difficulty with it will be in the time necessary to accommodate that. It would work best with smaller puzzles whose scrambles and solves can be done quickly and efficiently, but the higher order cubes, and more complex puzzle would not be as easy to implement this with.

Despite this, I think this is actually a pretty decent idea.

 

[tseitsei]

Idea: If you set some sort of record, you get an extra sixth solve that isn't accounted for in the average, but if one solve in the average is found to be a DNF for some reason, then that extra solve can be used instead of the DNF solve in the calculation of the average (at the discretion of the WCA board). Sort of an advantage over other cubers, though, but it's no different from getting an extra solve if the DNF were found during the competition. This extra solve wouldn't be entered into the database or count for anything unless some sort of retroactive action were taken to cause the record-setting average to be DNF'd. The extra solve would be a floating solve used only as a contingency.

EDIT: By 'DNF' I mean some sort of misscramble situation or any other type of situation that would have elicited an extra solve in the first place.

I like this idea.

 

[antoineccantin]

Idea: If you set some sort of record, you get an extra sixth solve that isn't accounted for in the average, but if one solve in the average is found to be a DNF for some reason, then that extra solve can be used instead of the DNF solve in the calculation of the average (at the discretion of the WCA board). Sort of an advantage over other cubers, though, but it's no different from getting an extra solve if the DNF were found during the competition. This extra solve wouldn't be entered into the database or count for anything unless some sort of retroactive action were taken to cause the record-setting average to be DNF'd. The extra solve would be a floating solve used only as a contingency.

EDIT: By 'DNF' I mean some sort of misscramble situation or any other type of situation that would have elicited an extra solve in the first place.

What if you set a sub-WR single in the last one? Would it count? And could you intentionally DNF the worst solve of the first 5 (by scribbling on the scorecard or something), to get a better average?

 

[cubernya]

What if you set a sub-WR single in the last one? Would it count? And could you intentionally DNF the worst solve of the first 5 (by scribbling on the scorecard or something), to get a better average?

Doing an intentional DNF would do nothing, since the sixth solve doesn't count unless a solve is DNFed because of a misscramble (not competitor error)

 

[Randomno]

I think I posted here before, but I've basically been thinking...

If somebody beat the 3x3 single, and it was filmed, then people watching would check for any errors. And say it was a misscramble: the record would be changed to a DNF. But if this suggested did become official, then that time would become the new OWR, but everyone would know the solve was a misscramble. If that misscramble happened to make the scramble state have the cross and two F2L slots done, that would change the solve time drastically.

If a 3x3 single WR was set but NOT filmed, it may have been a misscramble too, but no one would know.

 

[cashis]

has it been mentioned that maybe all wca solves should be videoed for the sake of consistency?