[WR] Kabyanil Talukdar 3BLD 27.63 mean

[Hari]

1. Of course it should be a WR, it's not his fault.

2. It's a 2nd guy beating a WR in average that two days earlier I didn't even know that he exists. It's not good xD

lol, do you mean Kaijun was the first?

 

[Julian]

Slightly related: If Kabyanil had DNFed the last solve and the judge forgot about the paper shield, would he still be awarded with an extra attempt? Because I'm thinking it would be a case of: "Well guys, he got a DNF anyway so it doesn't matter"

Wow, yeah, you're absolutely right.

I couldn't understand the second point. What is not good in this?

He's just saying it's not good that he doesn't know about WR-level people.

 

[aashritspidey]

lol, do you mean Kaijun was the first?

Obviously not you lol. Probably kaijun

 

[Maskow]

I couldn't understand the second point. What is not good in this?

I meant: Not good for me

lol, do you mean Kaijun was the first?

Yep ;]

 

[Hari]

Obviously not you lol. Probably kaijun

Since when did I come close to WR avg? Looks like I was right anyway.

Yep ;]

Oh and I hope to be the third then

 

[qqwref]

What I find rather strange is that, I believe the judge is Yuhei Takagi, someone who specializes in BLD events. It would seem odd that an "expert" in this field could make such a mistake.

I really don't like this.

Whether Yuhei was deliberately making this mistake or not, the fact is: the rules have created a situation where a mistake by the judge can disqualify a competitor's solve, regardless of the competitor's actions; the judge could plausibly gain something from DNFing this solve; and the judge has made that mistake during the solve. The concern is more that this CAN happen than that it DID happen. Sure, this time Kabyanil got a resolve and got a pretty decent solve to replace it (although he lost the WR mean, which is huge). But maybe next time the replacement solve is a DNF and the competitor doesn't even get a mean, or the mistake is only noticed after the competition and the WCA DNFs the solve retroactively, which they have already shown they will not hesitate to do.

This is a major conflict-of-interest problem and it really can only be fixed by changing the regulations or the way such incidents are dealt with on a WCA-wide scale. As it stands, any judge who has something to gain from hurting the competitor's times can choose to have a solve replaced or disqualified. But competitors typically do not choose their own judges, so nobody can guarantee a judge that is friendly or will not occasionally make such a "mistake". I can easily imagine a situation where a fast BLDsolver with a few enemies finds it hard to get a good official solve, because of something other than their own skill...

 

[IRNjuggle28]

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...-1-71-2x2-avg5&p=908100&viewfull=1#post908100

Jay, here is your reaction to Chris Olson's more inspection in WR avg. I wonder why have you changed your mind. At that time too, it was the judge's fault and here too, then why should that stand and this not. Both were potential WRs.

That's not comparable at all. Regardless of whether the judge screwed up or not, a competitor overinspecting is mostly the competitor's fault even if they aren't told "12 seconds." People do have a sense of time. The judge forgetting the paper is not the competitor's fault at all. The competitor has a blindfold on; how are they supposed to know the paper isn't there?

 

[rishidoshi]

I guess the resolve was a good safety measure taken by the delegates... just in case the main solve gets scrapped later on which would deprive him of a mean.
Legit talent is clearly visible. That should be looked at. You can't plug each and every gap in the rule. Here's where discretion of the wise matters and I feel the WCA is good at it.
Let's hope for the best.

 

[Ollie]

2i) While competing, competitors must not use electronics or audio equipment (e.g. cell phones, MP3 players, dictaphones, additional lighting).
2i1) Competitors may use certain non-electronic aids that do not give the competitor an unfair advantage, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate. This includes:
2i1a) Medical/physical aids worn by the competitor (etc. glasses, wrist brace, hearing aids).
2i1b) Earplugs and earmuffs (but not electronic noise-cancelling headphones).

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I just wanted to clarify what the status is on this regulation. What he was wearing on his head is 'electronic' and technically not a set of earmuffs but they're not plugged in (I only raise this as I'm fairly sure I've been told I couldn't do this.)

 

[ChickenWrap]

I think this is bull****. It isn't the competitors fault at all...he had a blindfold on, how could he have known the paper wasn't there? There is absolutely no consistency here, as many competitors in similar situations got DNFs. It is frustrating to know that no matter how good you get, a judge can swoop in and **** you over.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I just wanted to clarify what the status is on this regulation. What he was wearing on his head is 'electronic' and technically not a set of earmuffs but they're not plugged in (I only raise this as I'm fairly sure I've been told I couldn't do this.)

I've used 3.5m jack headphones for BLD before, and I've always placed the lead and connector on the table so the judge can see it's not connected. I was only confronted about it once ever, and that was at worlds, because the judge didn't see the end of the cable and thought they were plugged in, but once I showed they weren't I was allowed to continue using them.

 

[Torch]

What would your thoughts be if the times on the disqualified solve and the resolve had been the reverse of what they actually were? That is, if he had not broken the WR, then had a solve DQed, then did a resolve that was faster than the disqualified solve? Would your opinion change?

 

[ChickenWrap]

What would your thoughts be if the times on the disqualified solve and the resolve had been the reverse of what they actually were? That is, if he had not broken the WR, then had a solve DQed, then did a resolve that was faster than the disqualified solve? Would your opinion change?

The real issue here is a lack of consistency. If things like this are DNF'ed for one person, it needs to be the same for everyone. If it is a re-solve, then that needs to be consistent across the board.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

Thoughts from IRC

(7:16:32 PM) RobertY: kinch2002: have you read about Kabyanil's disallowed 3BLD mean WR?
(7:20:24 PM) tomasmu: say wat?
(7:23:54 PM) RobertY: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...nil-Talukdar-3BLD-25-78-single-and-28-57-mean
(7:23:55 PM) RobertY: brb
(7:24:10 PM) MLSTRM: mean was WR but judge ****ed up so resolve -> slower time -> not WR
(7:24:25 PM) MLSTRM: and by judge ****ed up
(7:24:26 PM) MLSTRM: I mean
(7:24:30 PM) MLSTRM: they didn't hold the paper up
(7:27:43 PM) tomasmu: naw
(7:27:57 PM) Mollerz: Wouldn't the angle of his head be enough to prove he couldn't peek
(7:28:32 PM) Lid: if where Kabyanil, I'd refuse to redo & let WCA decide
(7:28:56 PM) MLSTRM: honestly
(7:29:00 PM) MLSTRM: I think taking the resolve is wise
(7:29:06 PM) MLSTRM: because they can re-instate the time
(7:29:12 PM) MLSTRM: but if not he still has a good time/mean
(7:29:18 PM) MLSTRM: as opposed to retroactive DNF
(7:29:26 PM) Mollerz: Ues
(7:29:27 PM) MLSTRM: which is more detrimental to the result
(7:29:30 PM) Mollerz: Yesyesyes
(7:29:34 PM) Mollerz: People are missing that point
(7:29:36 PM) MLSTRM: yeah
(7:29:38 PM) Mollerz: I was waiting for someone to bring it up
(7:29:39 PM) MLSTRM: thats why resolves exist
(7:29:53 PM) Lid: if u can do then, then ok, i could redo in that case
(7:31:17 PM) MLSTRM: like
(7:31:22 PM) MLSTRM: if there's an issue with something
(7:31:30 PM) MLSTRM: then the resolves should be given almost "too easily"
(7:31:35 PM) MLSTRM: so that things can be fixed later
(7:31:39 PM) MLSTRM: instead of DNfs
(7:32:13 PM) tomasmu: yeah, resolve "just in case" is something i have thought about
(7:33:36 PM) tomasmu: and i would be so pissed
(7:33:45 PM) tomasmu: i wouldn't even know that the judge didn't hold the paper
(7:34:03 PM) tomasmu: "DNF? really? why? he did WHAT?"

TL;DR yeah it sucks that other people have been DNF'd, but the resolve exists exactly for this situation, and giving them out is the best solution so that counter-arguments can be presented to the board/delegate and then reversed, any solve is better than a retroactive DNF.

 

[AlexMaass]

How to troll someone in comp

step 1: Judge for blindfolded
step 2: On one solve purposefully forget to hold up the paper
step 3: Get solve DNF-ed

I definitely think that the judge didn't do this on purpose of course

 

[Kit Clement]

I guess the resolve was a good safety measure taken by the delegates... just in case the main solve gets scrapped later on which would deprive him of a mean.
Legit talent is clearly visible. That should be looked at. You can't plug each and every gap in the rule. Here's where discretion of the wise matters and I feel the WCA is good at it.
Let's hope for the best.

I echo these sentiments -- let's save our emotions regarding this incident until a decision has been made by the board.

I don't know if we can have written regulations to cover all situations like these. If anyone has suggestions, I'm willing to listen.

 

[kinch2002]

"Why doesn't the regs cover this?" "Why doesn't the regs cover that?" We hear this a lot
And yes, it's because of what rishidoshi said: It's impossible to plug every gap. That's why investigation committees exist in EVERY competitive sport/activity in the world. If the biggest sports in the world can't write watertight regulations, then we can't expect the WCA to have them
It will not be possible to even write down a consistent way of dealing with things like this - there will be gaps in the gapfiller!

 

[tseitsei]

I echo these sentiments -- let's save our emotions regarding this incident until a decision has been made by the board.

I don't know if we can have written regulations to cover all situations like these. If anyone has suggestions, I'm willing to listen.

As long as this (video ) stays valid then this should be WR obviously.

As said by others before CONSISTENCY and EQUALITY are the most important points here.

Regulations and rules can't cover every possible case but WCA needs to be consistent with it's decisions. So if Angel Lim's 29.77 stays valid this needs to be WR also.
And I think it should stay but I can understand if it is DNFed BUT I can't understand is this is DNFed and the other solve I linked here isn't...

 

[Kit Clement]

As long as this (video ) stays valid then this should be WR obviously.

As said by others before CONSISTENCY and EQUALITY are the most important points here.

Regulations and rules can't cover every possible case but WCA needs to be consistent with it's decisions. So if Angel Lim's 29.77 stays valid this needs to be WR also.
And I think it should stay but I can understand if it is DNFed BUT I can't understand is this is DNFed and the other solve I linked here isn't...

Based on the public evidence, I totally agree -- if Angel Lim's solve is valid, I can't see how the first solve could be disqualified. There could me more potentially significant information that's not public yet though, and that will come up in the delegate report. That's why I say we should just let the process take care of things for now.

 

[Thatoneguy2]

Ya I agree with pretty much everyone here, most of us seem to think that it should be a WR and something that is not even the solvers fault should not influence the solves.

At least he still got he NR I guess.