[WR] Feliks Zemdegs 3x3 OH single 6.88

[mDiPalma]

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.

Exactly! Either
a)they DNF this 6.88, or
b) they accept the 6.88 WR and change all instances in the Regulations of "MUST" to "SHOULD."

:tu

 

[Torch]

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".

I think the fact that the Board can change the regulations implies that.

 

[biscuit]

So maybe there is not a reg that says the board can make any decision they want but there is no reg that says they CAN'T. As they created the regs and can modify it without the approval of any one else it is a fluid thing to them as an entity. In ancient Rome the emperor set up a bunch of rules but if he felt there should be an exception then he as the entity that created them COULD (different then would) ignore them. The laws to the emperor are fluid. There is a flaw with comparing this to a law requiring we quarter soldiers. That is a RIGHT given by the constitution to all US citizens. As members of the WCA we are guaranteed no rights by the regs. There are systems set up designed to make it difficult to change the constitution. With the regs they are designed so the board and reg committee can change them when ever and how ever they felt there is a need to. The WCA is comparable to a dictatorship with the the board as the king (or in the case of Rome empire the emperor)

TL;DR read torch's post

 

[Lchu613]

miDiPalma, I agree with your final point about the violation of regulations. I think it has to be said that the "easier scramble" argument is complete BS, as is the unnecessarily toxic poking at the WCA, but that last argument does seem to hold water.

 

[DizzypheasantZZ]

This thread proves 3 things:
1: Feliks is very honest and truthfull competitor.
2: He desrves the wr. He did everything he could to be as fair and truthfull as he could.
3: ban me if you will but I'll say it. MiDiPalma is a ****ing idiot. And should be banned IMO. He just wants to make things difficult and believe the worst about everyone. Please stop doing that. You are just being an idiot.

Lol definitely not - I think the entire debate is around whether mis-scrambled solves should be validated by the WCA. Pointing out that regulation 4g was broken in this case doesn't really help - I'm sure it is broken countless times at every competition (unintentionally, of course).

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).

I think the case-by-case basis on which they are currently handled is a reasonable solution. It is absolutely impossible to identify all, or even a small percentage of mis-scrambles, and so I disagree with simply DNFing any mis-scrambles that are recognised post competition.

Obviously we want to minimise the number of mis-scrambled cubes in competitions, and so we need to identify the causes of mis-scrambles (laziness, rushing, etc), and come up with solutions to fix them.

I'll try to force myself to stop posting

I think that the WR should be a DNF because allowing WR mis-scrambles will cause more cheating IMO. If Feliks had been cheating (no I do not believe he was), he could have assumed that he could keep the WR because of the board's decision on Akash Rupela's solve. Afterward he could tell the delegate that he had a mis-scramble. Everyone would think that he was honest and truthful when he really wasn't.

Also, I think optimal solution is not a good way to determine whether or not it should be kept. Here is an example for a BLD solve.
Original:U R2 F B R B2 R U2 L B2 R U' D' R2 F R' L' B2 U2 F2
Mis-scramble:U R2 F B R B2 R U2 L B2 R U' D' R2 F R' L B2 U2 F2

The second is the super-flip and is much easier for BLD even though the optimal solution is as long or longer than the other scramble.
What matters is the solving method.
If I would wish to cheat (I don't), I would get a mis-scramble that is beneficial for my solving method rather than one with a shorter optimal solution.

 

[cubernya]

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.

If they can disqualify attempts that are illegal, that also means they can not disqualify attempts that are bad.

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

Because if there is no penalty written, how can we enforce one? Yes, it is prohibited (I'm not disputing that), but there is no documented punishment for not following the regulation.

 

[mDiPalma]

I think the fact that the Board can change the regulations implies that.

TL;DR read torch's post

Let me ask you, what is the point of having regulations?

Is it to provide structured rules to ensure fairness and a positive environment cubing competitions?

Or is it to waste paper at competitions and bandwidth online?


If you believe the Regulations serve a functional purpose and that every regulation was deliberated on and written FOR A REASON, then you understand the problem with saying that the WCA Board can pick and choose which Regulations they want to apply to certain attempts. It's unfair, and not in the spirit of the WCA's Mission.

 

[mDiPalma]

If they can disqualify attempts that are illegal, that also means they can not disqualify attempts that are bad.

That's not how the contrapositive works.

If the attempt is illegal, then the WCA Board may disqualify it.

== The WCA may NOT disqualify attempts that are legal.

=/= The WCA Board may disqualify attempts that are illegal.

NOWHERE is it stated that the WCA may decline to apply certain regulations to certain solves, after the fact.

 

[Torch]

Let me ask you, what is the point of having regulations?

Is it to provide structured rules to ensure fairness and a positive environment cubing competitions?

Or is it to waste paper at competitions and bandwidth online?


If you believe the Regulations serve a functional purpose and that every regulation was deliberated on and written FOR A REASON, then you understand the problem with saying that the WCA Board can pick and choose which Regulations they want to apply to certain attempts. It's unfair, and not in the spirit of the WCA's Mission.

Overruling a regulation is not necessarily unfair. If following the regulations unflinchingly leads to an unfair result, then it would in fact be against the mission of the WCA to NOT overrule the regulations.

 

[cubernya]

That's not how the contrapositive works.

If the attempt is illegal, then the WCA Board may disqualify it.

== The WCA may NOT disqualify attempts that are legal.

=/= The WCA Board may disqualify attempts that are legal.

NOWHERE is it stated that the WCA may decline to apply certain regulations to certain solves, after the fact.

That is not what I am arguing. I am saying that the board can, but is not required to, disqualify illegal attempts, which is what happened here. The WCA may decline to apply certain regulations at will, due to regulation 8f, they may disqualify affected attempts, but are not required to.

 

[biscuit]

Let me ask you, what is the point of having regulations?

Is it to provide structured rules to ensure fairness and a positive environment cubing competitions?

Or is it to waste paper at competitions and bandwidth online?


If you believe the Regulations serve a functional purpose and that every regulation was deliberated on and written FOR A REASON, then you understand the problem with saying that the WCA Board can pick and choose which Regulations they want to apply to certain attempts. It's unfair, and not in the spirit of the WCA's Mission.

The point of the regs are so there can be competitions. In cases like this one where the regs can't FAIRLY decide how the decision should go the board steps in using there best judgement to make a call. I'm not saying it's a perfect system, it's not, but I am saying I think it's a GOOD system.

Another way to look at it is this. The competitors follow the regs. The delegates enforce the regs. And the board over rules the regs (and delegates) when they feel it necessary.

This being said every one is entitled to his or her own opinion. As most of you know it is nigh on impossible to convince any one they are wrong on the internet especially if you don't know them. So what we should be doing is discussing how to improve the regs (which are the guidelines to be enforced by the delegates at comps) so that mis scrambles happen less often.

 

[qqwref]

That's not how the contrapositive works.

If the attempt is illegal, then the WCA Board may disqualify it.

== The WCA may NOT disqualify attempts that are legal.

=/= The WCA Board may disqualify attempts that are illegal.

The contrapositive of "If the attempt is illegal, then the WCA Board will disqualify it" is "If the WCA Board doesn't disqualify an attempt, then it is legal." However, the original sentence has "may" and doesn't specify anything about what the WCA Board does for a legal attempt, which means that you can't reason anything - none of the four states of {legal, OK}, {legal, DQ}, {illegal, OK}, {illegal, DQ} are made impossible.

---

I certainly would like some kind of regulation that specifies that the WCA Board may overrule the regulations if it wants. The powers of the WCA Board are not really written in any obvious place. Also, it would be awesome if there were specifically written penalties whenever the regulation said "X must do Y". They must do it, or what? The only obvious penalty is an amorphous "in that case the regulations were not followed" and it seems like that is only occasionally even relevant.

 

[Pro94]

Wrong.
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1216&p=6341

Wrong.
Different case: the competitor didn't know/suspected that there was a mis-scramble. Not a valid answer.
Also here WCA explicitally says that the mis-scramble brought to an easy solution, so why Grzegorz time was DNFed? How can be estimated the easiness?

 

[cubernya]

I certainly would like some kind of regulation that specifies that the WCA Board may overrule the regulations if it wants. The powers of the WCA Board are not really written in any obvious place. Also, it would be awesome if there were specifically written penalties whenever the regulation said "X must do Y". They must do it, or what? The only obvious penalty is an amorphous "in that case the regulations were not followed" and it seems like that is only occasionally even relevant.

I could not agree more with any of this. I would even recommend that the first point (overruling a reg at will) should be put in immediately.

 

[Hssandwich]

TBH this is what I think:
Congratulations to Feliks and his OH WR solve
The Board has made their decision and we should all accept that.

 

[Ranzha]

Wrong.
Different case: the competitor didn't know/suspected that there was a mis-scramble. Not a valid answer.
Also here WCA explicitally says that the mis-scramble brought to an easy solution, so why Grzegorz time was DNFed? How can be estimated the easiness?

Did you even read the reasoning behind keeping Akash's solve?

 

[cashis]

TBH this is what I think:
Congratulations to Feliks and his OH WR solve
The Board has made their decision and we should all accept that.

kek we said this 10 pages ago

 

[AustinReed]

The Board has made their decision and we should all accept that.

Why?

For the longest time the American government prohibited women from voting, but we should just accept their decision because they made their decision.


I don't get all of this "it's the governing board so let's accept their decision" bullcrap.

 

[Stewy]

there's a difference between allowing women to vote and a guy solving a cube lol

 

[AustinReed]

there's a difference between allowing women to vote and a guy solving a cube lol

I'm not doing a direct comparison of the severity of these situations. Obviously one is more important than the other. I just want to highlight that there's no reason to just say "meh, whatever" to a governing power when they make a decision. If you want something to change, then you complain.