Sebastián Pino Castillo Clock WRs Invalid

[Aleksandr]

Especially not at sea!


On topic - when did cubing get so serious? If we competed for booze, birds and fast cars I could understand. But for a weekend away with other cubers?

I think you are right!

 

[MTGjumper]

There are more "regular" scrambles than there are "nice" scrambles.

 

[ElectricDoodie]

There are more "regular" scrambles than there are "nice" scrambles.

Ah, point taken. That makes more sense.
I was more of "trying to understand" what tehmaxice was saying, and was asking if it was it. I added some parts that I believed, to make it more understandable, but now I see that it was wrong. I'll go delete it, now.

So, I'm guessing that what tehmaxice is saying, is that it should be removed from the case, on the grounds that just because it's very unlikely, it's not impossible.

 

[rubikaz]

You should stop the discussion about how lucky the scrambles were because Sebastian Pino affirms that the scrambles were manipulated:

http://www.cuberos.cl/foro/viewtopic.php?p=28888#p28888

He have said several things:

1.- The scrambles were manipulated.
2.- He did not manipulate the scrambles.
3.- He provided some scrambles and someone changed the scrambles.
4.- Maybe they changed the scrambles in order to blame Sebastian later.

 

[Tyson]

You should stop the discussion about how lucky the scrambles were because Sebastian Pino affirms that the scrambles were manipulated:

http://www.cuberos.cl/foro/viewtopic.php?p=28888#p28888

He have said several things:

1.- The scrambles were manipulated.
2.- He did not manipulate the scrambles.
3.- He provided some scrambles and someone changed the scrambles.
4.- Maybe they changed the scrambles in order to blame Sebastian later.

And if all these little things that are said just happen to be true, then we have pretty much the biggest fail of a delegate ever. Though I will say, the original explanation is far far more simple.

 

[moogra]

You should stop the discussion about how lucky the scrambles were because Sebastian Pino affirms that the scrambles were manipulated:

http://www.cuberos.cl/foro/viewtopic.php?p=28888#p28888

He have said several things:

1.- The scrambles were manipulated.
2.- He did not manipulate the scrambles.
3.- He provided some scrambles and someone changed the scrambles.
4.- Maybe they changed the scrambles in order to blame Sebastian later.

I thought he knew that his clocks weren't scrambled properly. However, this doesn't make sense as the only way he'd know while solving the clock that they were not scrambled properly was by knowing the scrambles beforehand. Still, he could be telling the truth about not manipulating the scrambles, but because he knew the scrambles were wrong, he must have known they were manipulated sometime before he began to be timed officially.

 

[superti]

i tell one history
one day. one person.... we can say him "X". practice clock, and find a few scrambles very very easy (5-6-10-)and he save in a file. Before, he see, scrambler wca code, and modify it... then, when him run sacrambler modificated, load automatically the scrambles saved. when he press F5, then scrambles easy , take turns
he, prove it in one competition, and it works... he got WR single.... in 2º attemp.
more days Later, he try again... He run de scrambler modificated, and retouch they ,in his house, and save the scrambles into pendrive
in the next competition, the organizers, are going to obtain the scrambles for the clock round, in wca oficial page pressing F5
SR X, forced to put his pendrive in PC, and showed they . his scrambles (jpg)
his girl friend scramble his clock... and he obtain de WR avg.. magically, some scramble repeat . 1º attemp


another history
There is a conspiracy in chile, to catch him.


sorry, for my english

 

[Godmil]

Sadly this will illustrate how in the future Delegates will not be able to compete.
There is a phrase I heard recently that I liked: "The illusion of impropriety is as damaging as impropriety itself."
If someone has the means and the motive to cheat, it's not unreasonable to suspect them of cheating.
So unfortunatly, not at the moment, but definitely in the future, Delegates shouldn't be competing in event's that they're delegating over... or it will damage the reputation of the whole WCA.

 

[Stefan]

one person.... we can say him "X"

Oh, so you're *that* uncertain about your fantasy story that you don't dare to say the real name?

his girl friend scramble his clock

What does that have to do with anything? Grasping at straws much?

 

[Dene]

Oh, so you're *that* uncertain about your fantasy story that you don't dare to say the real name?

His name is X mang, keep up.

 

[goatseforever]

So has the FBI contacted anyone about this yet?

 

[Godmil]

So has the FBI contacted anyone about this yet?

Don't be rediculous, why would the FBI be investigating it!

It's clearly outside of the US, so it would be the CIA.
(Don't know if they are doing an investigation yet)

 

[Mike Hughey]

Sadly this will illustrate how in the future Delegates will not be able to compete.
There is a phrase I heard recently that I liked: "The illusion of impropriety is as damaging as impropriety itself."
If someone has the means and the motive to cheat, it's not unreasonable to suspect them of cheating.
So unfortunatly, not at the moment, but definitely in the future, Delegates shouldn't be competing in event's that they're delegating over... or it will damage the reputation of the whole WCA.

This would obviously be a somewhat better solution, but it would certainly cut back heavily on the number of competitions we could have. At big competitions, they could be paid, perhaps even adequately to warrant doing the job. But at local competitions, being a delegate would be even more a labor of love than it already is. If I couldn't compete, I might still be willing to be delegate at competitions within 25 miles of Indianapolis, but I probably wouldn't be willing to go any further as a delegate, ever.

The other thing is, this still doesn't completely solve the problem. A delegate could still cheat to the benefit of another competitor. Or perhaps two delegates could collude, agreeing to cheat for each other at two different competitions. Since this is possible, you're still stuck with an absolute need to be able to trust the delegates.

 

[Godmil]

You're right on all points, however I'd have to add that cheating for someone else's benefit would have to be a little less likely.

 

[uberCuber]

You're right on all points, however I'd have to add that cheating for someone else's benefit would have to be a little less likely.

I don't think it's any less likely when you could get the other person to cheat for you in return

 

[Stefan]

I don't think it's any less likely when you could get the other person to cheat for you in return

You don't think two cheaters, who also have to know about each other, are less likely than one? And how do they get to know about each other and their willingness to cheat? I mean, you can't just walk around asking people whether they want to cheat with you.

 

[Pedro]

You don't think two cheaters, who also have to know about each other, are less likely than one? And how do they get to know about each other and their willingness to cheat? I mean, you can't just walk around asking people whether they want to cheat with you.

You just make an arrangement with your friend beforehand, each one gets one event (or 2 or whatever), with the help of the other one.

 

[RyanReese09]

What if the other person doesn't want to cheat, and you already told him you want to cheat?

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

You just make an arrangement with your friend beforehand, each one gets one event (or 2 or whatever), with the help of the other one.

What are the chances that the first delegate you ask is a cheater? If you ask one faithful delegate, you're screwed over.

 

[Stefan]

You just make an arrangement with your friend beforehand, each one gets one event (or 2 or whatever), with the help of the other one.

But again: what is more likely?

1) You're a cheater.
2) You're a cheater and you have a friend willing to cheat with you and you know it.

Unless those two additional conditions have 100% probability, scenario 1) is more likely.

Besides, this is about delegates, so your cheat-buddy even needs to be a delegate.