[WR] Rami Sbahi - 0.58 2x2 Single and 1.55 Average
- Thread starter Coolster01
- Start date
kcl
Legend
MN does this as well. It works fine if you use smaller heats.
Ronxu
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 629
- Location
- Kirkkonummi, Finland
- WCA ID
- 2010RONK01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
You know what works even better? Using different scrambles for each heat.
CraigBouchard
Veteran
What do the regulations say about using scrambles for different heats? In theory we should all be following that. In terms of "fairness" I believe everyone should have the same scrambles, with some way of ensuring that no one discuss scrambles. As far as I am aware with how the regulations are worded, this is how it is meant to be, but with very little way of enforcing it. Most people follow the regulations and don't discuss scrambles as that is common sense and there is a regulation that can cause a DQ.
Also, anyone saying Rami is at fault here is wrong. Rami did nothing wrong. I was there for the incident and scrambled the cubes. Rami did the right thing and was not in violation of any regulations.
Also, anyone saying Rami is at fault here is wrong. Rami did nothing wrong. I was there for the incident and scrambled the cubes. Rami did the right thing and was not in violation of any regulations.
Last edited by a moderator:
Antonie faz fan
Veteran
the biggest problem is (atleast in the most parts of europe) that at small comps there aren't any people who only judge or only scramble, competitors help doing that so they will be seeing te scrambles obviously.
stoic
Premium Member
DeeDubb
Veteran
Huh? that seems clearly to be talking about the competitor's cube. Rami didn't see his own cube scrambled ahead of time.
CraigBouchard
Veteran
Yes, I agree with this. We have the same issue at the Canadian competitions. We use 2 groups of scrambles for that to minimize the changes and to keep the "fairness" I was talking about. If you need more than 2 groups to swap out the scramblers/judges you should be talking to your competitors and spectators to get them to be more involved.
To ellwd: Rami did not see his cube after I started scrambling it. Rami is one competitor I would not accuse of doing this. There are a number of other competitors that I could tell you that have been in violation of this many times and I have told many people to move over to the waiting area.
Another thing to add: You can't enforce the regulations on someone when they broke them because of another competitor. Rami did not ask about the scramble, or ask to be shown it, or purposely look at it. When a cube is shoved in front of you then you will look at it before realizing what the person said. There were 4 people at the table. 2 of them were in the second group of scrambles (for swapping judges etc.) and the other who was in the first group also redid his first solve. As I said before - anyone here accusing Rami of breaking any rules needs to leave.
To ellwd: Rami did not see his cube after I started scrambling it. Rami is one competitor I would not accuse of doing this. There are a number of other competitors that I could tell you that have been in violation of this many times and I have told many people to move over to the waiting area.
Another thing to add: You can't enforce the regulations on someone when they broke them because of another competitor. Rami did not ask about the scramble, or ask to be shown it, or purposely look at it. When a cube is shoved in front of you then you will look at it before realizing what the person said. There were 4 people at the table. 2 of them were in the second group of scrambles (for swapping judges etc.) and the other who was in the first group also redid his first solve. As I said before - anyone here accusing Rami of breaking any rules needs to leave.
Last edited:
stoic
Premium Member
Ok so I didn't do a detailed trawl of the regulations. I kinda see where you're coming from with that.
After another quick look, how about:
A3a1) The competitor is allotted a maximum of 15 seconds to inspect the puzzle and start the solve.
Not sure I agree, regulations are there to be enforced, no?
Nobody's hating on Rami, or saying he broke any rules deliberately - I'm certainly not -but you can't just shut down debate.
CraigBouchard
Veteran
If you want to take the side that the regulations should be enforced on someone whether or not the person broke them deliberately then ok, I'll go with that. That is why Rami was not given the world record. He had seen the puzzle and "broke" the rule you stated above. Beyond that there is nothing he did wrong. He came up to the delegates as soon as he knew for sure he had been shown the actual scramble. I'm not shutting down debate, I'm simply stating that Rami was given the extra scramble and not a DNF because he was not at fault. Yes, he broke the regulation above that you stated, but beyond that you got nothing. Rami isn't at fault, the other guy is. Focus the discussion on him and what to do going forward to prevent this from happening.
stoic
Premium Member
^I agree with everything in this post.
CraigBouchard
Veteran
Awesome, glad we found common ground.
DeeDubb
Veteran
I still don't think he broke that rule. The one I believe he is accused of breaking is:
Competitors in the Competitors Area must not communicate with each other about the scrambled states of the puzzles of the round in progress. Penalty: disqualification of the competitor from the event, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.
CraigBouchard
Veteran
Rami did not discuss the scramble though. The other competitor came to him and showed him. Rami told the other competitor to go away and that he can't see that along with the rest of the people at the table.
Dene
Premium Member
You don't think we should be discussing the possibility of allowing the record?
No. A regulation was violated, regardless of if it was his fault that it was.
FailCuber
Veteran
Yeah we do get same scrambles for different heats.
DeeDubb
Veteran
Regulations were violated in Feliks' OH solve as well, but it was still open to discussion, and ended up being awarded.
True, and I still dont fully agree with that either
D
Deleted member 19792
Guest
The record should not be allowed.
Feliks's Record:
Misscramble, unintentional, and no known advantage. Therefore, it was awarded.
Rami's Time:
Even though certain staff members were policing the area making sure scrambles were not discussed, a kid did go up to Rami and attempt to show him the scramble. Some people think that the kid approached Rami and said "Dude check this scramble out." -- That could have been a simple scramble from a mobile timer. But, the kid went up to Rami and said "Practice this scramble, you will get World Record!"
This makes it clear that Rami would have known of an easy scramble, which might have allowed him to tell when it would come up. This does provide some form of advantage, although he did not see the scramble.
Don't allow Rami to have the record, and prevent the kid from competing in 2x2 for six months or so.
Also, why don't we start an open discussion on whether or not different scrambles should be used for different heats?
Feliks's Record:
Misscramble, unintentional, and no known advantage. Therefore, it was awarded.
Rami's Time:
Even though certain staff members were policing the area making sure scrambles were not discussed, a kid did go up to Rami and attempt to show him the scramble. Some people think that the kid approached Rami and said "Dude check this scramble out." -- That could have been a simple scramble from a mobile timer. But, the kid went up to Rami and said "Practice this scramble, you will get World Record!"
This makes it clear that Rami would have known of an easy scramble, which might have allowed him to tell when it would come up. This does provide some form of advantage, although he did not see the scramble.
Don't allow Rami to have the record, and prevent the kid from competing in 2x2 for six months or so.
Also, why don't we start an open discussion on whether or not different scrambles should be used for different heats?
Similar threads
