Sebastián Pino Castillo Clock WRs Invalid

[demma]

(...) He was cooperative in the investigation, which to me means he admitted guilt.

That is what means to you. That sentence in the WCA report is pretty ambiguous. I can cooperate with an inestigation being inocent, just letting them search what they are looking for.
BTW I'm not defending him.

 

[RyanReese09]

Perhaps have the Board give you the scrambles, which in turn you provide to the competition.

I think it's safe to assume video happens nearly every competition for BLD, so the delegate would have to worry about if reconstruction happened, and hte scramble turned out to not be the same. It would be a lot easier to tell if the delegate was trying to cheat. It would be incentive to stay clean.

Edit-Meh idea. The delegate could still practice the scramble.

 

[trebolde4]

this is the "official" thread about this conflict:
http://www.cuberos.cl/foro/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2083
is in spanish, maybe you can use google translator.
, in the third page FranciscoG gave testimony about what he saw while organizing SSCC open, the championship in which he made the avg WR. I will try to translate this testimony.

 

[Hodari]

It seems like we might finally be getting big enough that simply placing trust in the delegates to not cheat with scrambles may no longer be enough. Perhaps we need to find a better way to handle the scrambles. The only problem is, I can't really think of a secure solution. Does anyone have any good suggestions?

For one thing, the delegate should be required to generate the scrambles(using the appropriate program) to be used in front of at least one other person who will not be competing in that event. Ideally, this should be done as close to the start time of the competition as is reasonably practical(in theory at least if a laptop is available with the scramble programs on it, this could be done immediately before each round, although allowing some extra time in case of a problem might be desired). This would ensure that in order for someone to cheat in this way, at least 3 people(the delegate, the person verifying the scrambles, and the competitor) would have to be involved and would leave as little time as possible for either of the officials to communicate with the competitor about the scramble after it is generated.

 

[kinch2002]

As most you now know, I played a part in this investigation and I have a few things to say. In case you were interested, after receiving some interesting evidence in March, I wrote to the WCA about it (and I think some Chilean cubers also did so around the same time), and the investigation was conducted by the IAC (Independent Advisory Committee), who also consulted me and some Chilean cubers during it.

My first thought is one of sorrow for the Chilean cubing community. Unfortunately the actions of one person has resulted in a great many people over there being affected. I really hope that people here don't hold this against the country as a whole. Hopefully they will move on swiftly from this and achieve great things in the cubing world in the future.

I'm afraid that at this point I'm not willing to give exact details of the evidence, or any information I got back from the IAC as I feel that it would be up to the WCA to release such details if they saw fit. But don't worry - this was an extremely thorough investigation conducted over several months, and I always had full confidence that they would reach the correct conclusion whatever that may be.

Please don't think that I have something against him and that I was trying to get him banned or anything, because that's not the way it worked. Hate is not the way to work things out. I don't know him, but from what I hear, he's generally a lovely guy. Everyone makes mistakes, and this one has cost him dearly. I hope that in 2 years he will be welcomed back to competitions with open arms.

 

[Pedro]

If he was found guilty and cooperated with the investigation, that means he assumed his mistakes, so he won't be getting any extra penalty nor the chilean cubers will be penalized.

for a standard 14-step solve, it's likely to have 2-3 steps skipped if u have a very good observation as well as very good instant judgement (and sometimes luck). i would say a 5-step skip is as lucky as a LLskip
u could never PREDICT a 6-step skip and even without flipping the clock

2-3 steps on ALL 5 solves is really really really not likely...

@Mike
Yeah, that's the hard part of being a fast-ish delegate. But I always have a couple people watching me generating the scrambles during the competition, to make sure I didn't see them before or had the chance to practice.

I also don't see a good solution for this. Having the board send scrambles to every competition seems too much work and mess. What if we manage to save time and have another round of event X? E-mail the board and hope they are able to send scrambles in time?

I say we should keep trusting the delegates, since they were chosen by a series of reasons. Of course someone could cheat, people are just like that. We used to trust competitors blindly until someone found an opening to cheat and took advantage. But we don't trust the delegates blindly. They're chosen people, not some random 12-years-old kid who's competing for the first time.

 

[toastman]

Perhaps have the Board give you the scrambles, which in turn you provide to the competition.

I think it's safe to assume video happens nearly every competition for BLD, so the delegate would have to worry about if reconstruction happened, and hte scramble turned out to not be the same. It would be a lot easier to tell if the delegate was trying to cheat. It would be incentive to stay clean.

Edit-Meh idea. The delegate could still practice the scramble.

Was thinking about something like a "Salt". I.e., generate a one-move (or 3 move, or 5 move) "pre-scramble" on the fly, using dice or software. You generate and apply this immediately before applying the "generated" scramble (and write it on the timesheet). Takes away the benefit on knowing/practicing the scramble beforehand. Down side: unless you have a computer you can't "verify" that the scrambler scrambled correctly.

Problem is with 2x2 / Pyraminx, you could unintentionally "help the solve" and accidentally give someone a "legit" scramble with a 3 move solution or something.

I was also thinking about generating scrambles in two parts, each given to (or generated by) a different person. Does not prevent collusion, and probably a nightmare to administer.

 

[Dene]

I totally believe people would do this. In fact I was wondering when a delegate would actually misuse authority to cheat. It's just too easy. Finally

How is that smile worthy? This sucks for all delegates. Brings our reputation into question. And if the trustworthiness of delegates is questionable, then the trustworthy of anyone could be called into question.

 

[kinch2002]

Remember that delegates are appointed by the WCA because they are trusted individuals. I like to think that most people appointed to said position wouldn't be taking advantage of it (although of course that has now happened). If there really is no perfect solution to the problem, then delegates who are world class in a particular event (e.g. Mike in BLD) should know what exactly what options they have in order to ensure they don't leave themselves open to accusations.

 

[qqwref]

Perhaps we need to find a better way to handle the scrambles.

How about this: the WCA board would provide all scrambles for each competition. If at least one member of the board is competing in a given competition, one of the members who isn't competing should generate them. If all members of the WCA board are competing, they should find an independent person who is trustworthy, but not competing in that competition, to generate scrambles.

I know it could be a lot of work for the board to generate as many as 5+ sets of scrambles per week, but maybe this could be fixed by having some program(s) which would generate a whole set of scrambles automatically. And they could always generate enough scrambles for the maximum possible rounds, just in case. If the scrambles were sent as a file, this wouldn't waste paper or anything, just very slightly more space.

 

[trebolde4]

Alvaro Gonzalez just post in his facebook a note that said the man who was investigating the case send a mail that said this:
"He finally confessed cheating, thus making the work easier for us. I am grateful for your support of my investigation. Thanks. "

 

[gpt_kibutz]

I think there should be changes in the WCA Regulations. Maybe the generation of the scrambles at the same instant that are being applied?

 

[Lucas Garron]

not a bad idea but not all venues have internet access, and I believe the wca scrambler is only accessible through the website.

Very beside the point. Have you been paying attention to the official scramblers used for the last 8 years? Every one of them is designed to be run offline.

Anyhow, I don't think that's the right kind of solution. Records of the scrambles are a good step towards accountability, and I think they should be preserved. I'm not sure that generating them on the fly would actually do anything except make things more complicated, and maybe even harder to hold anyone accountable for.

Just because one delegate was irresponsible doesn't mean we have change the regulations. However if the problem spreads and many delegates begin to abuse their power (unlikely imo) then a regulation change should be considered.

No.

No delegates should ever abuse their power. This is something we need to prevent, not patch. Maybe it doesn't need to be a regulation change, but this can't be a matter of "catching" people.

 

[iSolve]

When I went to my first competition, the delegate there was Michael Young. He had people who weren't competing scramble the puzzles and he was very careful to warn everyone not to look at the scrambles. I was asked to help scramble 4x4s and I didn't know how. I was going to ask Michael something about the scrambles and he was very quick to turn away and say he couldn't look at the scrambles. The only time a participant scrambled the puzzles for that event was when nobody knew how to scramble those puzzles. I'm not saying that this is a foolproof way of keeping people from cheating, but it would help. (I have been to only to one competition and I don't know how they do it in other places.)

 

[Zarxrax]

Here is an idea for scrambles:
The wca should have an online site that generates scrambles and stores them in a database after generating, and provides a code to access these scrambles in the future.
The delegate can request scrambles from the site at any time--sometimes in advance, or even right during the competition. As long as the code is preserved, anyone could check it against the site to ensure that the correct scrambles were used.

 

[Xishem]

Here is an idea for scrambles:
The wca should have an online site that generates scrambles and stores them in a database after generating, and provides a code to access these scrambles in the future.
The delegate can request scrambles from the site at any time--sometimes in advance, or even right during the competition. As long as the code is preserved, anyone could check it against the site to ensure that the correct scrambles were used.

This is something very similar to what I was going to suggest.

 

[Meep]

Similar to what Mike Hughey said, I assigned the fellow competition organizer to bring the scrambles for the events I cared about after having discussed the whole potential suspicion scenario with another delegate.

 

[cmhardw]

I love the idea of the "Salt" algorithm (where does that word come from anyway?). This would require some doing, but basically:

1) The WCA delegate generates an electronic copy of the scrambles. They would all be of the desired length, as per the current rules.

2) Someone other than the delegate, just before the beginning of the round where the scrambles are to be used, generates a short sequence of turns to applied to the beginning of each scramble in that round.

3) Both the WCA delegate scramble, and the pre-sequence, are typed into a program that is setup to then generate the image of what the puzzle will look like after applying the pre-sequence, then the scramble.

Example:
1) For the 3x3x3 round the WCA delegate generates an electronic copy of the scramble: R B' R' U2 B2 U' F' L' D' B' D U' B2 F R' L2 D2 L B L' F D2 B' F U2

2) Shortly before the round begins someone other than the delegate gives a pre-sequence: L D2 R' F U'

3) (L D2 R' F U') (R B' R' U2 B2 U' F' L' D' B' D U' B2 F R' L2 D2 L B L' F D2 B' F U2) is then typed into a scramble program which generates an image of the cube after being scrambled. This image is either printed at the venue, or the image of the cube is viewed directly off the computer screen.

Now, if we don't want this to result in 30 move scrambles, adding more time to the scramblers' job, then the WCA delegate simply generates a 20 move scramble, and the pre-sequence is set at 5 turns to make the total the same as the current 25.

Pros:

1) The WCA delegate could not prepare the scramble before hand, as doing so would be completely pointless as the pre-sequence would destroy the prepared solve state.

2) Gives an impression that the scrambles are very secure, while at the same time making them actually very secure.

Cons:

1) This would require the use of 2 computers, and also having a printer would be very nice as well. So more equipment is needed than is currently required to run a competition.

2) The "person who is not the WCA delegate" could work together with the delegate. Meaning that the person who generates the pre-sequence could inform the delegate of which pre-sequence is to be used. This could be avoided by having the scrambling program used in step #3 generate a random pre-sequence at the competition, thus avoiding the influence of another person being involved in the first place. To make this more secure the scramblers themselves would be the ones to use the program in step number 3 shortly before they begin to scramble.

3) This would require a program to be written that would allow the staff to type in the pre-sequence and the scramble that would then generate an image of the scramble. This is not necessarily a con, but it would mean more files need to be on hand for a competition to be run. Plus, someone would have to write it.

This seems like a lot of work, but it would at least make things more secure than they are now as long as the 2nd Con issue in my list is addressed properly.

Also, for the record, I am in complete agreement with Mike about generating BLD scrambles. For every competition where I have helped organize I make sure that my co-organizer generates the BLD scrambles, and that I do not see them until after I have done my official solves. I feel that having the WCA delegate see the BLD scrambles before the event would give a distinctly unfair advantage. If I even caught a passing glimpse of the 5x5x5 BLD scrambles beforehand, then I would be able to spot blocks of certain colors and would already have an idea of which re-orientation I might use. The same issue would arise with 4x4x4 BLD. I find it best to avoid this issue by simply having the co-organizer generate those scrambles, and I never see them until after that event is over.

 

[Jungleterrain]

The Chilean cubers are starting to lose my respect...

I'm Chilean.

 

[Tyson]

I love the idea of the "Salt" algorithm (where does that word come from anyway?). This would require some doing, but basically:

1) The WCA delegate generates an electronic copy of the scrambles. They would all be of the desired length, as per the current rules.

2) Someone other than the delegate, just before the beginning of the round where the scrambles are to be used, generates a short sequence of turns to applied to the beginning of each scramble in that round.

3) Both the WCA delegate scramble, and the pre-sequence, are typed into a program that is setup to then generate the image of what the puzzle will look like after applying the pre-sequence, then the scramble.

Example:
1) For the 3x3x3 round the WCA delegate generates an electronic copy of the scramble: R B' R' U2 B2 U' F' L' D' B' D U' B2 F R' L2 D2 L B L' F D2 B' F U2

2) Shortly before the round begins someone other than the delegate gives a pre-sequence: L D2 R' F U'

3) (L D2 R' F U') (R B' R' U2 B2 U' F' L' D' B' D U' B2 F R' L2 D2 L B L' F D2 B' F U2) is then typed into a scramble program which generates an image of the cube after being scrambled. This image is either printed at the venue, or the image of the cube is viewed directly off the computer screen.

Now, if we don't want this to result in 30 move scrambles, adding more time to the scramblers' job, then the WCA delegate simply generates a 20 move scramble, and the pre-sequence is set at 5 turns to make the total the same as the current 25.

Pros:

1) The WCA delegate could not prepare the scramble before hand, as doing so would be completely pointless as the pre-sequence would destroy the prepared solve state.

2) Gives an impression that the scrambles are very secure, while at the same time making them actually very secure.

Cons:

1) This would require the use of 2 computers, and also having a printer would be very nice as well. So more equipment is needed than is currently required to run a competition.

2) The "person who is not the WCA delegate" could work together with the delegate. Meaning that the person who generates the pre-sequence could inform the delegate of which pre-sequence is to be used. This could be avoided by having the scrambling program used in step #3 generate a random pre-sequence at the competition, thus avoiding the influence of another person being involved in the first place. To make this more secure the scramblers themselves would be the ones to use the program in step number 3 shortly before they begin to scramble.

3) This would require a program to be written that would allow the staff to type in the pre-sequence and the scramble that would then generate an image of the scramble. This is not necessarily a con, but it would mean more files need to be on hand for a competition to be run. Plus, someone would have to write it.

This seems like a lot of work, but it would at least make things more secure than they are now as long as the 2nd Con issue in my list is addressed properly.

Also, for the record, I am in complete agreement with Mike about generating BLD scrambles. For every competition where I have helped organize I make sure that my co-organizer generates the BLD scrambles, and that I do not see them until after I have done my official solves. I feel that having the WCA delegate see the BLD scrambles before the event would give a distinctly unfair advantage. If I even caught a passing glimpse of the 5x5x5 BLD scrambles beforehand, then I would be able to spot blocks of certain colors and would already have an idea of which re-orientation I might use. The same issue would arise with 4x4x4 BLD. I find it best to avoid this issue by simply having the co-organizer generate those scrambles, and I never see them until after that event is over.

Hi Chris,

But this doesn't really change anything. What guarantee do you have that the scrambler is going to scramble the cube according to the scramble? In that case, we would have to catch the cheating via video evidence of having it not match the scramble. Your solution would have changed some aspects of this case, but not the fundamental principles of the evidence.

You can't close every gap in the system. Eventually, there's one person you have to trust, and that person *SHOULD* be the WCA delegate.

-Tyson