MBLD intentionally bad result by not memoing few cubes

[abunickabhi]

Example of a hypothetical situation: If someone with MBLD skill of 50+ cubes attempted 2x50 cubes for the purpose of having the most cubes attempted at once and just focused on memorizing the first 50ish so as not to DNF, does that count as an intentionally bad result?

Or to generalize it, if a competitor has PR of X points and attempts 2X cubes, do we disqualify the attempt? What if they saw each cube for atleast 5 seconds (which can be considered as a pass), while they executed only X cubes.

There are a few caveats here. I do not believe in delegate discretion here and believe there should be concrete rules for all possible situations.

What if the competitor is running out of time to execute the extra cubes, but they can attempt to execute more cubes with poor recall?

What if the competitor sorts the cubes by the scramble difficulty and only attempts the easier half?

Should 2/4 be allowed but 50/100 be disallowed since the competitor DNFed more number of cubes? Where do we draw the line?

Does the delegate ask the competitor to justify their attempt, with memo and review system explanation and time management strategy? This is similar to how competitors are requested to explain their FMC solutions when they break their PR by a big margin. An explanation of the solution and a verbal description of the thought process.

Should the competitor be only allowed to choose 10 more cubes than their PR to avoid this situation completely? If the competitor has capabilities of destroying their PR, they should do it in successively attempts increasing 10 cubes each time. I personally like this idea a lot. It does put a limit but ensures competitor does not gamble and go for the 2X cubes when they are capable of X points.

I have done a bigger attempt than my capabilities once, when I attempted 19 cubes in 2015, I memorized 10 cubes in the long term, and the rest in short term. I only executed 10 cubes, and the result of 10/19 was allowed although I intentionally did not attempt all the cubes.

What is your take on this? This discussion was originally started on sigalig's server today, I thought of formally enlisting the pros and cons and questions on SS. Also MBLD is a complex event, there are a ton of caveats to discuss and not all of them need to be addressed.

 

[Spencer131]

I do not believe in delegate discretion here and believe there should be concrete rules for all possible situations.

i wish it were possible to have concrete rules for everything, but alas

i'm not a delegate, but i would say if someone attempted 100 cubes without serious practice, it would be an intentionally poor result. like you mention, there are just so many factors to consider. what is their PR? have they practiced a lot? how long do they memo each one? there are too many variables to write down specific rules for everything. discretion is good

 

[abunickabhi]

i wish it were possible to have concrete rules for everything, but alas

i'm not a delegate, but i would say if someone attempted 100 cubes without serious practice, it would be an intentionally poor result. like you mention, there are just so many factors to consider. what is their PR? have they practiced a lot? how long do they memo each one? there are too many variables to write down specific rules for everything. discretion is good

Discretion can be non-uniform and can be abused too.

Like a delegate in country A will DNF 50/100 attempt considering it an intentional poor result,

Delegate B might not DNF a 50/100 attempt.

Although if both the delegate mention this attempt in their delegate report and ask WRC for feedback, we may reach to a universal decision.

 

[Tabe]

The idea behind the intentionally poor result regulation is to prevent the wasting of time. In the example you gave, time isn't wasted. They'd have used a hour for their attempt with their best effort so nothing is lost.

 

[ichcubegerne]

I just do not at all see how this is a problem or could become one? The only downside of people doing this is that scrambling takes longer but I dont see how that is a huge problem. If someone were to submit 80cubes just for funsies, then I get it ofc.

 

[Mike Hughey]

The idea behind the intentionally poor result regulation is to prevent the wasting of time. In the example you gave, time isn't wasted. They'd have used a hour for their attempt with their best effort so nothing is lost.

The justification here is that time would actually be lost because of the time required for staff to scramble 50 cubes that will never even be looked at (which could have a significant impact on the competition schedule). It does seem like this is at least as bad as submitting an unnecessarily long FMC solve, for instance.

 

[BVCuber13]

Should the competitor be only allowed to choose 10 more cubes than their PR to avoid this situation completely? If the competitor has capabilities of destroying their PR, they should do it in successively attempts increasing 10 cubes each time. I personally like this idea a lot. It does put a limit but ensures competitor does not gamble and go for the 2X cubes when they are capable of X points.

I somewhat like this idea, however, what if someone has a PR of 4/4 or something like that, and they don’t compete in MBLD while consistently getting better, and at home they get a PB of 25/27, or 19 points more than their PR. Should they then be able to attempt more than 14 cubes (or 10 points above their PR)? I think that would be fair.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I somewhat like this idea, however, what if someone has a PR of 4/4 or something like that, and they don’t compete in MBLD while consistently getting better, and at home they get a PB of 25/27, or 19 points more than their PR. Should they then be able to attempt more than 14 cubes (or 10 points above their PR)? I think that would be fair.

I believe this is a good argument against a limit above PR for new attempts. Some competitors rarely get to competitions due to distance or other limitations, and it seems quite unfair to shackle them by requiring proof one level at a time.