[WR] Feliks Zemdegs 3x3 OH single 6.88

[Ranzha]

That was also illegal.

Please identify the regulation that allows the WCA Board to dismiss consideration of (and directly contradict) the WCA Regulations in their rulings. I can't seem to find it.


Edit: The only thing I can find is this:
8f) If WCA Regulations are not correctly observed during a competition, the WCA Board may disqualify affected attempts.

It doesn't say anywhere that the Board can accept attempts that directly violate regulations. That would be a dumb regulation anyway.

The Board has more power than the Regulations. That's the gist of it.

What is wrong with the idea that competitors should generally not suffer due to factors out of their control?

 

[mDiPalma]

Why should the competitor have to suffer from a procedural error? This is my biggest qualm.


You raise a fair point. However, why should Feliks suffer for something out of his control?

Feliks should suffer because the WCA didn't operate correctly. If someone hits your car on the roadway, it's 0% your fault, but you are still inconvenienced for the time being. Insurance claims exist to decrease the negative impact of the accident.

Think of it this way, the scrambler/delegates car hit Faz's car, so the WCA (Delegate/Scrambler's insurance company) should pay for the damages to Faz's average. That is, award him another attempt on a legitimate replacement scramble (which exist for exactly this purpose).

If the WCA doesn't provide another attempt, it's like an insurance company refusing to pay out claims, which is illegal (and immoral, in most cases).

In what way exactly was this ruling illegal? This isn't quite clear to me, and I'd like if we can clarify this.

From page 28 in this thread. "Using a non random-state generated scramble violates 1c3a, 1c3b, 1c8, 4b (the most important one), 4f (also important) and 4g."

How would you propose to do this? You can't just say "we need more regs"

We don't need more regs. We need Delegates/volunteers/officials to actually consider the regulations AS THEY ARE WRITTEN.




==========================

The Board has more power than the Regulations. That's the gist of it.

What is wrong with the idea that competitors should generally not suffer due to factors out of their control?

That's not written anyway. If it's not written, I can't read it. I'm required to read and understand the regulations before I attend competitions.

 

[Ranzha]

Feliks should suffer because the WCA didn't operate correctly. If someone hits your car on the roadway, it's 0% your fault, but you are still inconvenienced for the time being. Insurance claims exist to decrease the negative impact of the accident.

I strongly disagree with this.

If the WCA doesn't provide another attempt, it's like an insurance company refusing to pay out claims, which is illegal (and immoral, in most cases).

Why do you say "the WCA" as if it's one governing entity? By competing, we are all members of the WCA.
I do agree the the Delegate should have had Feliks get another attempt. As Natán said in the thread on the WCA forum, it's a learning experience. Inconvenient as it may be for everyone, the decision has been made.
This isn't to say the decision couldn't change, but given what was available (video evidence, misscramble checking program) and what wasn't available (an prompt enough additional solve, a prompt enough reconstruction), I still think that Feliks should not suffer due to this error.

From page 28 in this thread. "Using a non random-state generated scramble violates 1c3a, 1c3b, 1c8, 4b (the most important one), 4f (also important) and 4g."

All right, this stuff is pretty good.
4b, 4f, and 4g really hit the mark.

We don't need more regs. We need Delegates/volunteers/officials to actually consider the regulations AS THEY ARE WRITTEN.

We could need more regs. However, I agree with the second statement.

That's not written anyway. If it's not written, I can't read it. I'm required to read and understand the regulations before I attend competitions.

I'm not sure what this is referring to.

 

[Ninja Storm]

Here's a hypothetical situation that could offer alternative perspective on an issue like this. As a disclaimer, I personally believe that Feliks' solve should stand, as it wasn't his fault that the scramble was wrong.

Suppose Pascal So(I picked a person in the top1000 whose PB average was from 2009) goes to a competition and gets a 3x3 average that's similar to the following:

4.93 15.57 13.00 12.62 13.83

We later find out that the 4.93 was a miscramble, and the error was similar to the error that Feliks had. There were no malicious intentions, but the resulting scramble was not given to any other competitor, had the same optimal movecount, and both the original scramble and the miscramble were considered to be good scrambles.

What would you do? Would this stand?

 

[Petro Leum]

I don't believe in saying unnecessarily rude things, period. Have at it with speaking your mind, but don't be rude about it in such a positive community

i think you're mistaking rudeness with criticism.

 

[mDiPalma]

I strongly disagree with this.
I still think that Feliks should not suffer due to this error.

I agree. Felik's shouldn't SUFFER or BENEFIT due to this error. It was a mistake. It was never supposed to happen.

Giving him a DNF after the fact surely would make him suffer. But letting him have the WR would make him benefit off of something that should never have happened.

And think about Haixin Yang (dude with the 8.27 previous OH WR), who only got to keep his WR for a week. Is it fair to HIM that Faz stole the record on an illegal mis-scramble? Not really...


All things considered, no matter if this solve is DNF or 6.88 WR, somebody is going to suffer.

The question is, is "legal suffering" better than "illegal suffering"? In my opinion, it's the less of two evils. And that's why I think this 6.88 should be assigned a DNF.

I'm not sure what this is referring to.

I believe there is no written regulation that gives the Board permission to dismiss regulations in their rulings.

 

[SpeedCubeReview]

And think about Haixin Yang (dude with the 8.27 previous OH WR), who only got to keep his WR for a week. Is it fair to HIM that Faz stole the record on an illegal mis-scramble? Not really...

The question is, is "legal suffering" better than "illegal suffering"? In my opinion, it's the less of two evils. And that's why I think this 6.88 should be assigned a DNF.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word suffering or illegal. No matter what the scramble was it was not the one that Haixin Yang had and therefore was not "stolen" nor illegal." You might not like the fact Feliks had a faster official solve but it is not "illegal." Having it count as an official solve does not benefit Feliks, it just is. If anyone is "suffering" from someone solving a cube fast at a competition than they need to rethink their priorities as to why they are speed solving in the first place.

 

[Ranzha]

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word suffering or illegal. No matter what the scramble was it was not the one that Haixin Yang had and therefore was not "stolen" nor illegal." You might not like the fact Feliks had a faster official solve but it is not "illegal." Having it count as an official solve does not benefit Feliks, it just is. If anyone is "suffering" from someone solving a cube fast at a competition than they need to rethink their priorities as to why they are speed solving in the first place.

Feliks' misscramble is technically illegal though, by Regulation 4b.

 

[SpeedCubeReview]

Feliks' misscramble is technically illegal though, by Regulation 4b.

Again, that is not what illegal means.
il·le·gal
i(l)ˈlēɡəl/
adjective
1.
contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.

 

[Ranzha]

Again, that is not what illegal means.
il·le·gal
i(l)ˈlēɡəl/
adjective
1.
contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.

For the second time in this thread, what are you even on?

The WCA Regulations act like laws, so guide and govern official competitions.
Feliks received a puzzle that was not scrambled with a computer-generated sequence. Therefore, the scramble applied to Feliks' puzzle was illegal.

The relationship between that scramble and Haixin's is irrelevant.

 

[mDiPalma]

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word suffering or illegal. No matter what the scramble was it was not the one that Haixin Yang had and therefore was not "stolen" nor illegal." You might not like the fact Feliks had a faster official solve but it is not "illegal."

Haixin's scramble was legal. Faz's scramble was in explicit violation of numerous regulations (see above). In that sense, Faz's attempt was illegal.

What if you were taking a math test in school (no calculators allowed), and somebody else in the classroom was individually permitted to use a calculator? Wouldn't you feel cheated? I sure would.

What if you were looking for a parking space at the store and the only available spaces are marked "Handicapped" ? So you drive a block away, park in another parking lot, and walk to the store. When you get to the lot, you see somebody parked in the Handicapped spot without a "Handicapped" tag. Assuming this guy doesn't get a ticket, wouldn't you feel cheated?

Having it count as an official solve does not benefit Feliks, it just is.

Don't be silly; having a 6.88 WR DOES benefit Feliks. If Faz didn't care about getting good solves, he wouldn't bother spending money to compete at competitions. He would just go to hang out.

If you could pick between having a 6.88 OH WR and a 15 second single, which would you choose?

If anyone is "suffering" from someone solving a cube fast at a competition than they need to rethink their priorities as to why they are speed solving in the first place.

We aren't talking about physical suffering. We are talking about suffering as some loss or disadvantage.

a) Faz would SUFFER if this solve was changed to DNF.

b) The community would SUFFER if the WCA Board sets illegal precedents.

c) Haixin would SUFFER if his WR was replaced by some illegal mis-scramble.

 

[SpeedCubeReview]

For the second time in this thread, what are you even on?

The WCA Regulations act like laws, so guide and govern official competitions.
Feliks received a puzzle that was not scrambled with a computer-generated sequence. Therefore, the scramble applied to Feliks' puzzle was illegal.

The relationship between that scramble and Haixin's is irrelevant.

And the WCA has said the scramble is acceptable, by your terms it is not "illegal" since they have allowed it. Using the term illegal in an incorrect manner does nothing to help the sport. No one is "suffering" because of this and like I said before if anyone is "suffering" they need to reevaluate why they do this. If you do not agree with the WCA than you can make your own list of records and who should have them.

The end goal of competitions and the cubing world in general should not be to get a record, but to enjoy being part of this community.

 

[mDiPalma]

And the WCA has said the scramble is acceptable, by your terms it is not "illegal" since they have allowed it. Using the term illegal in an incorrect manner does nothing to help the sport.

Was the solve illegal or legal between when Feliks stopped the timer and the when WCA Board released their ruling?

We understand the WCA's ruling is final, but we are arguing about the VALIDITY of that decision.

We believe that the regulations serve as a governing document for WCA Board decisions (much like the US Constitution acts as a compass for legal actions in America), and I am claiming that the WCA should not have make the decision that they did, because it violates the structural documents.

If the US Congress passed a law that required citizens to quarter troops in their house (violation of amendment 3), you would be questioning the Congress's reasoning. In the same way, we are questioning the WCA Board.

 

[cubernya]

8f) If WCA Regulations are not correctly observed during a competition, the WCA Board may disqualify affected attempts.

It doesn't say anywhere that the Board can accept attempts that directly violate regulations. That would be a dumb regulation anyway.

It says so right there in the regulation you just quoted. "the WCA Board may disqualify affected attempts". "May" follows RFC 2119 (as per the regulations), meaning it gives them the option to do so; they are not required to do so.

Also, regulation 4b does not specify a penalty for not following that specific reg, therefore there is none.

 

[theROUXbiksCube]

It says so right there in the regulation you just quoted. "the WCA Board may disqualify affected attempts". "May" follows RFC 2119 (as per the regulations), meaning it gives them the option to do so; they are not required to do so.

Also, regulation 4b does not specify a penalty for not following that specific reg, therefore there is none.

4g) After scrambling a puzzle, the scrambler must verify that he has scrambled the puzzle correctly. If the puzzle state is wrong, he must correct it (e.g. by solving the puzzle and applying the scramble sequence again).

 

[cubernya]

4g) After scrambling a puzzle, the scrambler must verify that he has scrambled the puzzle correctly. If the puzzle state is wrong, he must correct it (e.g. by solving the puzzle and applying the scramble sequence again).

And do you see a penalty attached to that regulation?

 

[Bindedsa]

4g) After scrambling a puzzle, the scrambler must verify that he has scrambled the puzzle correctly. If the puzzle state is wrong, he must correct it (e.g. by solving the puzzle and applying the scramble sequence again).

That still does not specify a penalty.

 

[SpeedCubeReview]

It seems that the goal of some on here who believe the solve shouldn't be allowed (which is completely acceptable) is to convince others why. The problem is that everyone knows the issues, and has a different opinion on if it is ok or not. While some see the solve as just as random of a scramble, other seems to say that Feliks had a huge advantage like "having a calculator for a test while others don't" (honestly, that is a ridiculous comparison).

Saying "I don't agree with the WCA's choice" is acceptable. Saying that someone cheated or did something illegal is just plain silly and outright offensive to scramblers and solvers who have put years or time/effort into making cubing into as professional of a sport as possible.

 

[mDiPalma]

It says so right there in the regulation you just quoted. "the WCA Board may disqualify affected attempts". "May" follows RFC 2119 (as per the regulations), meaning it gives them the option to do so; they are not required to do so.

Also, regulation 4b does not specify a penalty for not following that specific reg, therefore there is none.

The regulation says they can DISQUALIFY attempts that are BAD if they WANT.

It doesn't say anywhere that they can ACCEPT attempts that are ILLEGAL and OUGHT TO BE DISQUALIFIED.

That's what I'm looking for. Somewhere that is says ~ "the Board has the final say" , and ~ "it doesn't matter what the regulations say".

That still does not specify a penalty.

All the violations for regulations in article 1 involve the word "must."

As well as 4b and 4g, etc.

Puzzles must be scrambled using computer-generated random scramble sequences.

the scrambler must verify that he has scrambled the puzzle correctly. If the puzzle state is wrong, he must correct it

According to RFC 2119, "1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification."


Why does there need to be a penalty written if it is EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED?

 

[Bindedsa]

]must[/B] verify that he has scrambled the puzzle correctly. If the puzzle state is wrong, he must correct it

According to RFC 2119, "1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification."


Why does there need to be a penalty written if it is EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED?

I would agree with you that this is grounds to DNF all missscrambles, but that fact that they don't is the problem. If they are saying you don't really have to the regs she be updated to reflect that.