Proposal: Regulations to ensure scrambling accuraccy

[biscuit]

This is not a problem that regulations can solve. There is already a picture of the cube state on the scramble sheet. If the cube goes out and it does not match that picture, than the scrambler was lazy. Period.

There simply needs to be a concerted effort on the part of competition organizers and staff to use more experienced scramblers, and to remind anyone scrambling to double- and triple-check each scramble against the picture on the sheet.

Well you have to remember that not only is it there job to correctly scramble the cube but also make sure the flow of the competition continues. If they check evey face then they won't be able to scramble fast enough to make sure there is always a scrambled puzzle waiting. This is especially the case here as the other scrambler waltzed off. So if we should be blaming any one then the organizer/delegate is at fault for not making sure there was enough scramlers. Even if you have Feliks Mats and Collin scrambling every comp there will still be mis-scrambles though. I say that if there are enough volunteers then having a scramble checker whose job it is to make sure the scrambler got it right is a good idea. This should not/can not be in the regs but I don't see why not something could e added to the guidelines. I also like the idea of a judge having the scramble to check against but again they need to be ready immediately as the runners will be calling the competitor as they bring the cube so we would have to change it where the judge calls the competitor slowing down the comp. This also creates a liability issue as now more people know the scramble and could (I don't know how) share the scramble with a friend. I dunno it's a tricky situation

 

[cubernya]

I don't think else suggested in this thread currently sounds practical. Probably the most realistic is to use laptop/smartphone cameras.
I'd be very interested if someone could demonstrate a system that worked under less-than-ideal lighting conditions, with any color scheme, preferably on multiple puzzles, doesn't interfere with running competitions in practice, allows multiple scramblers to work efficiently with fewer devices, and ideally also doesn't require a human to identify the correct scramble to use (but also doesn't waste a lot of time scanning, or the use of fancy technology prone to breaking).

Couldn't we use something along the lines of Cube Explorer's scanner, but modifying it so that it would check it against patterns, not the colors themselves. This could (theoretically) be implemented in less-than-ideal conditions (albeit with lesser accuracy), and could even return what scramble number it is (to make sure you did the right one)

 

[Meep]

Do you have the money for this?
Maybe at big competitions, but not every one.

This little thing, although slow, costed less than a Speedstacks display:

That said, having used it at a competition, it definitely couldn't replace human scramblers. It heavily traded off speed for reliability and simplicity.

Would it be possible to have something similar to the 'cube solving robot' that we could bring to competitions to scramble cubes in under 5 seconds per cube? 0 mistakes guaranteed.

I heard that the faster, multi-armed ones (that would be able to execute a scramble in ~5 seconds) would freak out/explode the cube if you put different sized 3x3s in - definitely not 0 mistakes guaranteed.

I do think that a camera checker would be the way to go. badmephisto made this 5 years ago, and it seems reasonably fast/robust regardless of lighting/camera quality and settings. Seeing things that computer vision can do nowadays, a much faster/reliable one sounds very doable.

 

[Phinagin]

I think that having judges check over the scrambles before giving them to the competitors id s very good idea, as a last measure.

 

[Dene]

This little thing, although slow, costed less than a Speedstacks display:

Awww it's so cute

Someone just need to put a cute face on it so it's like wall-e

But if a competition had like 10 of those things going at once, and a couple of people double checking scrambles and replacing cubes, it might work ok.

 

[joshsailscga]

I think that having judges check over the scrambles before giving them to the competitors is a very good idea, as a last measure.

I disagree with this; as biscuit mentioned before, this would just waste more time in comps. Also, in my mind, having scramble sheets at the judge's tables would present even bigger problems than misscrambles.

 

[Kian]

I think that having judges check over the scrambles before giving them to the competitors id s very good idea, as a last measure.

I know this sounds like a nice idea, but I assure you this is absolutely not feasible.

 

[Jimmy Liu]

Implementing scramble checkers and scrambler signing system are both good ways to prevent mis-scrambles, but after some practice, it seemed that that they were not perfect.

What I'm focusing on is how we deal with this kind of situation after they happened. Maybe we could receive a backup scramble before the round ends or before the competition ends. Otherwise, if we find mis-scrambles after competition then we should get DNF.

How could we encourage people to be honest on this? Repeated scrambles is annoying, too.

 

[Noahaha]

I'm going to go ahead and argue that the current system is ok:

There are two things we're worried about:

1. Cheating
2. Accidental unfairness

1. Yes, it is possible to cheat by being in cahoots with the scrambler, but guess what: there are countless ways to cheat. There's no use in trying to eliminate one potential source of cheating when there are countless easier ways to cheat if you want to. We're all just going to have to accept that we live in an honor system.

2. Sure, it's accidentally unfair if the scrambler gets it wrong, but consider this: let's say there's an accidental mishap during the solve that gets caught like, for example, if the scrambler leaves off the last move of the scramble. It could be a lot of other things as well like timer malfunction or outside interference. Either way, the correct procedure, assuming that the mishap was not the competitor's fault, is to give the competitor a NEW SCRAMBLE. Surely no one will argue that a new scramble is significantly more fair than a mistake scramble, right? Let's say we want to act on the fact that Feliks's cube was mis-scrambled... what do we do? Well, we wish that we could give him another attempt to replace that one. On that attempt, we give him one of the extra scrambles*. How is that any less fair than him receiving the mistaken scramble? And don't say "well, the mistaken scramble was super easy" because for all we know Feliks would have gotten a 5.66 on the extra scramble.

*NOTE: We cannot just give Feliks the correct scramble because there is a non-trivial relationship between the mis-scramble that is one move off and the correct scramble.

There you have it... drastically changing the regs will not drastically change either of the two issues we're worried about.

Someone tell me why I'm wrong.

 

[moralsh]

I also said this in the WR thread:

Have 5 cubes scrambled, named 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Check the scrambles against this cubes. You can check all faces in very little time and spot any difference easyly.

 

[Laura O]

I also said this in the WR thread:

Have 5 cubes scrambled, named 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Check the scrambles against this cubes. You can check all faces in very little time and spot any difference easyly.

Although this might be helpful, it's only a method how you can make scramble checking easier.
It does not solve the problem that a scrambler isn't checking properly and that a scramble is used twice (e.g. 2nd scramble for the 3rd solve again).

 

[biscuit]

I'm going to go ahead and argue that the current system is ok:

There are two things we're worried about:

1. Cheating
2. Accidental unfairness

1. Yes, it is possible to cheat by being in cahoots with the scrambler, but guess what: there are countless ways to cheat. There's no use in trying to eliminate one potential source of cheating when there are countless easier ways to cheat if you want to. We're all just going to have to accept that we live in an honor system.

2. Sure, it's accidentally unfair if the scrambler gets it wrong, but consider this: let's say there's an accidental mishap during the solve that gets caught like, for example, if the scrambler leaves off the last move of the scramble. It could be a lot of other things as well like timer malfunction or outside interference. Either way, the correct procedure, assuming that the mishap was not the competitor's fault, is to give the competitor a NEW SCRAMBLE. Surely no one will argue that a new scramble is significantly more fair than a mistake scramble, right? Let's say we want to act on the fact that Feliks's cube was mis-scrambled... what do we do? Well, we wish that we could give him another attempt to replace that one. On that attempt, we give him one of the extra scrambles*. How is that any less fair than him receiving the mistaken scramble? And don't say "well, the mistaken scramble was super easy" because for all we know Feliks would have gotten a 5.66 on the extra scramble.

*NOTE: We cannot just give Feliks the correct scramble because there is a non-trivial relationship between the mis-scramble that is one move off and the correct scramble.

There you have it... drastically changing the regs will not drastically change either of the two issues we're worried about.

Someone tell me why I'm wrong.

That's why we need procedures BEFORE it leaves the scrambling area. If it wouldn't be so expensive and time consuming I am all for the robot scramblers. Ohh and I propose a new reg that if Meep doesn't bring that scrambling device to each and every comp he goes to he should be banned for life

 

[SpicyOranges]

At the very least, we should probably always double or triple check scrambles when someone like Feliks is going to solve it

Yeah, I always check, but if it's someone really fast at the event, then I make sure several times that it is correct

 

[BaMiao]

I know this is slightly off topic, but I think we should also discuss the way we deal with mis-scramble situations when they do come up. While it's a good idea to reduce the occurrence of these situations, I don't think it's reasonable to expect to eliminate them entirely. That being said, here are my thoughts:

Everyone agrees that the best course of action in the recent situation would have been to identify the mis-scramble and allow an alternate solve. Had that happened, Faz would almost assuredly not have the WR today. In light of that fact, what incentive does the competitor have to ensure the correctness of the scramble? If you suddenly find yourself in the same situation, the "smart" thing to do would be to just keep quiet about any mis-scrambles and risk the WRC giving you a DNF. By following the "correct" procedure, you forfeit any chance at the record.

Here is my proposition: It should be the responsibility of the delegate to check the accuracy of all scrambles used in a NR/CR/WR during the competition. This is done either by using any available video evidence, or by having the competitor attempt a reconstruction if no video evidence exists. It is up to the delegate's discretion whether or not the competitor is physically capable of performing the reconstructed solve in the time of record. Refusal on the part of the competitor to comply results in a DNF. If a mis-scramble is found, an additional solve is attempted. Any additional solves can be performed at any point in the day of the competition (doesn't have to take place before the start of the next event, so there should be ample time to check all scrambles).

I know that mis-scrambles happen in non-record solves, but we don't have time to check every scramble, and it's the records we care about the most. This proposal removes responsibility from the competitor, and places it on the delegate, where there are (theoretically) no conflicts of interest. This also ensures that these situations are taken care of the day of the competition and spares the WRC from having to make controversial decisions. Thoughts?

 

[tseitsei]

Here is my proposition: It should be the responsibility of the delegate to check the accuracy of all scrambles used in a NR/CR/WR during the competition. This is done either by using any available video evidence, or by having the competitor attempt a reconstruction if no video evidence exists. It is up to the delegate's discretion whether or not the competitor is physically capable of performing the reconstructed solve in the time of record. Refusal on the part of the competitor to comply results in a DNF. If a mis-scramble is found, an additional solve is attempted. Any additional solves can be performed at any point in the day of the competition (doesn't have to take place before the start of the next event, so there should be ample time to check all scrambles).

I have some solves that I couldn't reconstruct even immediately after the solve. Sometimes I can't even remember what OLL case I just did, let alone what F2L-pairs and in what order... So that's IMO not really a good idea to demand reconstruction.

Also how much time would you give the competitor? If long enough is given the competitor can obviously just try many different solves using his solving method on the normal scramble and choose one that gives an easy solution and claim he used that. Even if he in reality had completely different scramble...

 

[BaMiao]

Martin Telesforo was asked to do a reconstruction, so it is already the de-facto way to deal with record-breaking solves that weren't filmed. I think the reconstruction should be performed in the presence of the delegate, and the number of attempts set at the delegate's discretion. My proposal is aimed at giving the delegate and competitor the best chance of resolving issues during the day of the competition, so the WRC doesn't have to deal with these situations after it's too late to manage it properly. If the competitor is not satisfied with the delegate's handling, s/he is still free to bring it up with the WRC afterward.

Besides, I imagine pretty much all record solves will be on film. People have complained when film has been used to disqualify attempts, so maybe it's good to give some incentive to have people film their solves.

 

[tseitsei]

Martin Telesforo was asked to do a reconstruction, so it is already the de-facto way to deal with record-breaking solves that weren't filmed. I think the reconstruction should be performed in the presence of the delegate, and the number of attempts set at the delegate's discretion. My proposal is aimed at giving the delegate and competitor the best chance of resolving issues during the day of the competition, so the WRC doesn't have to deal with these situations after it's too late to manage it properly. If the competitor is not satisfied with the delegate's handling, s/he is still free to bring it up with the WRC afterward.

Besides, I imagine pretty much all record solves will be on film. People have complained when film has been used to disqualify attempts, so maybe it's good to give some incentive to have people film their solves.

I still find it unfair that if I set a record and am unable to reconstruct the solve it will be DNFed. That kind of thing can happen (at least for me) because solving process is mostly automatic thing... Also Telesforo was just a bad bad troll and not a serious wr incident...

 

[BaMiao]

I still find it unfair that if I set a record and am unable to reconstruct the solve it will be DNFed. That kind of thing can happen (at least for me) because solving process is mostly automatic thing... Also Telesforo was just a bad bad troll and not a serious wr incident...

Maybe we can say that being unable to reconstruct isn't an automatic DNF, but it should still be the delegate's responsibility to get as much information as possible the day of the competition. The current status quo is for the WRC to handle it after it is too late, and the WRC has already shown that they will ask for a reconstruction. My proposal just moves that request to the day of the competition, so that it is still possible for the competitor to get a new solve if it is needed.

And I know that what Telesforo did was different from our hypothetical scenario. However, imagine a scenario where someone gets a mis-scramble that ends up being easy, and he gets a world record time with it. To an outside viewer, that looks exactly the same as the Telesforo incident, and the response should be exactly the same. If Martin had said "I can't seem to reconstruct the solve I had, so I think I must have been given a mis-scramble", no one would have doubted him. In that situation, it would be better to give the competitor a chance to check the scramble and get another solve, rather than getting a DNF after it's already too late.

 

[Julian]

Everyone agrees that the best course of action in the recent situation would have been to identify the mis-scramble and allow an alternate solve. Had that happened, Faz would almost assuredly not have the WR today.

I don't think you can make this presumption. I'm not sure I agree, actually.

 

[Kit Clement]

Maybe we can say that being unable to reconstruct isn't an automatic DNF, but it should still be the delegate's responsibility to get as much information as possible the day of the competition. The current status quo is for the WRC to handle it after it is too late, and the WRC has already shown that they will ask for a reconstruction. My proposal just moves that request to the day of the competition, so that it is still possible for the competitor to get a new solve if it is needed.

And I know that what Telesforo did was different from our hypothetical scenario. However, imagine a scenario where someone gets a mis-scramble that ends up being easy, and he gets a world record time with it. To an outside viewer, that looks exactly the same as the Telesforo incident, and the response should be exactly the same. If Martin had said "I can't seem to reconstruct the solve I had, so I think I must have been given a mis-scramble", no one would have doubted him. In that situation, it would be better to give the competitor a chance to check the scramble and get another solve, rather than getting a DNF after it's already too late.

WRC has no input in these decisions.