Świerklany Open 2011 4 WRs

[Tao Yu]

When will they be sure whether to count it or not ?

I think they should ban the competitors of 6x6 and 7x7 in this comp at the next comp they go to. This way I think it is fair.
I think the WR must stay. WRs aren't physical possesions and shouldn't be treated that way. They are a record of the limits of abilty in the same conditions as everyone else . This is why I think what is above should be done.
Since the above makes the conditions the same I think they should stay.

 

[Kirjava]

I think they should ban the competitors of 6x6 and 7x7 in this comp at the next comp they go to. This way I think it is fair.
I think the WR must stay. WRs aren't physical possesions and shouldn't be treated that way. They are a record of the limits of abilty in the same conditions as everyone else . This is why I think what is above should be done.
Since the above makes the conditions the same I think they should stay.

Wants same conditions for everyone.

Requests exceptions for certain people.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

When will they be sure whether to count it or not ?

I think they should ban the competitors of 6x6 and 7x7 in this comp at the next comp they go to. This way I think it is fair.
I think the WR must stay. WRs aren't physical possesions and shouldn't be treated that way. They are a record of the limits of abilty in the same conditions as everyone else . This is why I think what is above should be done.
Since the above makes the conditions the same I think they should stay.

Just no.
The WR will be accepted or not, but that is in the hands of the WCA.
The competitors should not be banned because they did nothing wrong, if anything the organisers should be reprimanded.
WR's can be taken away if necessary, look at the recent Sebastian Pino Castello incident.

tl;dr: Just No, seriously, No.

 

[Tao Yu]

No but Sebastian cheated.
I said only banned for one comp. If next time they get a round then the get 3 rounds, one extra. They would have gotten 2 rounds of the 2nd round didn't occur
So banning them at their next comp means they get a total of 2 rounds as they would have if not for the extra round.

 

[Vincents]

No but Sebastian cheated.
I said only banned for one comp. If next time they get a round then the get 3 rounds, one extra. They would have gotten 2 rounds of the 2nd round didn't occur
So banning them at their next comp means they get a total of 2 rounds as they would have if not for the extra round.

Rounds are not created equal though; no matter how much we want them to be...

 

[r_517]

there aren't any faults with the competitors. they shouldn't be banned. They didn't cheat, they didn't manipulate the competition process.
if the second round shouldn't exist, then the results shouldn't be valid either. i think this had happened before (correct me if my memory serves me wrong)

however i'm interested in who modified the competitor list. if this guy intentionally added an extra competitor who actually didn't compete in that event, i would call that "manipulating the competition" and this guy deserves some penalty.

 

[aaronb]

•9r2) All competitors of an event who are not directly qualified for the first round of the event, must compete in the qualification round of the event.

Wojciech Fydrych wasn't registered, so had to of been in a qualification round, for him to be allowed in the first round, which, correct me if I'm wrong, there wasn't. Unless being a host of an event make you qualified in an event, then his times in 6x6 shouldn't count, meaning there were only 7 competitors and the record doesn't count. But I think if I interpreted this rule wrong, and he was allowed to compete in a round, then the record should count.

Basically, I believe, it comes down to if Wojciech Fydrych was allowed to compete, making there 8 competitors.

EDIT: Well actually, after reading qqwref;s post I believe it comes down to when Wojciech Fydrych was added to the results, if he decided to take DNF's for the first round, before the second round I think it should count.

 

[qqwref]

My personal opinion: this case is not the same as one where 100 3x3 rounds are held. The reason is that having 100 rounds is always disallowed, but having two rounds is allowed whenever the event is popular enough to deserve it. The event was already very close to the limit, so this is not a case of a total disregard of the rules to get more attempts. Remember that this situation is one where there was one person short of the WCA regulation to have two rounds, and then one person was added later on to satisfy the regulation. Ethically I see no difference between this and adding the extra person *before* having a second round - which has happened multiple times before. I remember a situation a while ago where only one person (who was world-class) wanted to compete in a BLD event, and the rules at the time required at least two people in every event, so someone else agreed to take a DNF rather than prevent the top cuber from a record attempt that he otherwise deserved.

IMO the rule that requires a specific number of people to have attempted an event is already arbitrary and a bit silly. I don't like how the luck of whether a random stranger decides to drop out of an event (or a random stranger shows up and decides to try an event) can affect whether someone else gets one round or two, and even though being able to add a DNF-only cuber to an event violates the spirit of the regulations, I think it's actually more fair in the end.

•9r2) All competitors of an event who are not directly qualified for the first round of the event, must compete in the qualification round of the event.

But I think if I interpreted this rule wrong, and he was allowed to compete in a round, then the record should count.

You did interpret the rule wrong. If there is no requirement to participate in the first round, then there is no qualification round, and anyone can compete. In fact, this is the case in almost all competitions - only the very largest competitions have qualifications for the first round, and even then it is only done to save time.

 

[Tao Yu]

I see that the problem is that nobody knows what the penalty should be as it was not stated in the regulations, and who should be punished.
If it was not the competitors fault they why should they be stripped of a WR? The rule never said the penalty was to DNS or DNF all the solves?
Also by banning I mean 6x6 and 7x7 only. And its probably as fair as it can be as they get the amount of rounds as they should.
There should be a penalty to the people who organised the comp as they were to blame.

Anyway I think rule 9m3) should have some penalty, be it what I said or something different. As Vincent said this is still not fully fair .

 

[Kirjava]

IMO the rule that requires a specific number of people to have attempted an event is already arbitrary and a bit silly. I don't like how the luck of whether a random stranger decides to drop out of an event (or a random stranger shows up and decides to try an event) can affect whether someone else gets one round or two, and even though being able to add a DNF-only cuber to an event violates the spirit of the regulations, I think it's actually more fair in the end.

I agree with this. However, I don't agree with ignoring regulations that you dislike.

 

[TMOY]

Also by banning I mean 6x6 and 7x7 only. And its probably as fair as it can be as they get the amount of rounds as they should.

Sorry but the idea is still plain silly.

- As already stated above, there's no reason to punish anybody who did nothing wrong.
- Competitions can be very different from each other, and this kind of ban may result in a much harsher punishment than just deleting the faulty round (what if Miichal's next competition was Worlds ?)
- Next competition may not be the same for everybody. Do you expect all competition organizers to dig into the results of all previous competitions for deciding whether John Doe should be banned or not of a given event ?

 

[r_517]

My personal opinion: this case is not the same as one where 100 3x3 rounds are held. The reason is that having 100 rounds is always disallowed, but having two rounds is allowed whenever the event is popular enough to deserve it. The event was already very close to the limit, so this is not a case of a total disregard of the rules to get more attempts.......

Adding some people before the second round to create a second round is not against the existing rule (though I don't like the way of it.); but adding a person after the whole competition was over, is ridiculous.

btw i suggest that nobody should be allowed to add an event for themselves after the competition begins, neither should the delegate be able to add or remove an extra round once the event begins, unless every one of the competitor involved in that event agrees.
(i had seen several times some former WR holder demanded a second round, and caused a lot of trouble to others)

 

[Mike Hughey]

My question is: do we actually know that a person was actually added after the round was finished? We know that the person showed up later in live results, and that they had DNF solves. But these were live results, not official results. It's entirely possible the scoresheet was simply not entered by accident, and the person competed along with everyone else. It seems unreasonable to me that people are speculating that the results should be tossed out when we don't even know what happened.

Was anyone there at the competition who knows what actually happened?

 

[qqwref]

I agree with this. However, I don't agree with ignoring regulations that you dislike.

I don't see adding competitors as ignoring a regulation - it is a loophole that goes against the intent the rule, but satisfies the words of it.

- Competitions can be very different from each other, and this kind of ban may result in a much harsher punishment than just deleting the faulty round (what if Miichal's next competition was Worlds ?)

This is an interesting point. One possible option would be to not let the people compete in the *first* round of whatever their next competition is, but advance them to the next round if there is one. Since any very large and important competition will have multiple rounds of 6x6x6, I don't think this would take away anything but the attempt itself.

but adding a person after the whole competition was over, is ridiculous.

Maybe - but a DNF is a DNF, so I don't think adding someone during the competition (without having them do solves) is much different from adding them after (again, without having them do solves). So it might be a bit silly, but it's not really wrong to do it.

neither should the delegate be able to add or remove an extra round once the event begins, unless every one of the competitor involved in that event agrees.

So wait, if the delegate decides that a round needs to be cut because of time constraints, this is only allowed if everyone who would be in that round agrees to give up their solves? (Also: if there is extra time and the delegate wants to add another round, does this mean many competitors must all agree on which one to add, or else none can be added? For instance, if half the competitors from 3BLD would rather have an extra 3BLD round and the other half would rather have another 3OH round, does this mean we can't do either one?) And should we try to contact competitors who have left the competition because they are done with their solves, in order to get their opinion?

 

[Kirjava]

I don't see adding competitors as ignoring a regulation - it is a loophole that goes against the intent the rule, but satisfies the words of it.

I didn't say it was

 

[r_517]

Was anyone there at the competition who knows what actually happened?

This is what I want to express. Though I highly doubt that the one who appears neither in 5x5's nor 6x6's registration list would decide to give himself 3 DNF/DNS's in 6x6. Anyway that's just guessing. I hope the board is investigating it.

I don't think adding someone during the competition (without having them do solves) is much different from adding them after (again, without having them do solves).

That's why I suggest "nobody should be allowed to add an event for themselves after the competition begins"

So wait, if the delegate decides that a round needs to be cut because of time constraints, this is only allowed if everyone who would be in that round agrees to give up their solves......

Well I can change the object to "everyone who progressed to the (potential) next round (under the progression regulation which is made before the competition)".
It's silly to ask someone who has left the venue, but it's also unfair to them to add another round without informing them. For example, if there are 10 competitors in 4x4, only 1 round is set in the timetable, you ranked the 4th and leave the venue. Isn't it unfair to you if the delegate suddenly announce that another round will be added? (Well this might not be the best suggestion, but I've seen several times that other competitors missed their train/flight because a WR holder demands a second round.)

 

[Vincents]

I keep seeing people argue that the competitors should not be punished for the mistakes of the competition organizer because it's not their fault.

Aren't all competitors supposed to know the WCA regulations? It's a requirement (that's rarely checked) to attend every competition. If there were only 7 people in a Round 1, Round 2/Finals would never have existed in the first place, and any competitor who actually read the regulations (which are there for a reason. We don't just cherry-pick what we like. That's what discussion on new/modified regulations every year is for) would know that every single one of his/her solves could be nullified post-competition. Just because someone set some sort of record in the round-that-never-should-have-existed-if-there-were-only-7-people-in-the-first-round does not make that solve "special" and "worthy of inclusion by ignoring regulations", because that solve never should have taken place.

Of course since there were apparently 8 competitors, this might all be a moot point.

 

[r_517]

I keep seeing people argue that the competitors should not be punished for the mistakes of the competition organizer because it's not their fault.

i assume by saying "punished" you only mean the results should be invalid.

 

[qqwref]

That's why I suggest "nobody should be allowed to add an event for themselves after the competition begins"

Oh, you meant "nobody should be allowed to participate in an event that they didn't sign up for before the competition". I still don't agree with this. because I think it's unfair to competitors who sign up very early, as compared to people who sign up very late (or even at the competition right before it starts) who would then be more sure of what they will want to compete in. If this rule was in place, I think people would just end up signing up for more events than they really want to do, just in case, and that could be difficult for organizers.

Well I can change the object to "everyone who progressed to the (potential) next round (under the progression regulation which is made before the competition)".

Do we need to decide and publish a progression regulation before the competition then? In my experience the exact round cutoffs are often decided during the competition, to try to do as many solves as possible without running over time. It generally depends on what times people get, and that's hard to predict.

Aren't all competitors supposed to know the WCA regulations? [...] If there were only 7 people in a Round 1, Round 2/Finals would never have existed in the first place, and any competitor who actually read the regulations [...] would know that every single one of his/her solves could be nullified post-competition.

Wait, are you saying it should be the responsibility of competitors - not the organizer - to personally check that there have been enough people in a round to allow for the next one? If the organizer hasn't released the round's results to the competitors before the next round starts, how do you propose this be done? Should competitors keep track of the number of people doing solves in a round?

 

[r_517]

Do we need to decide and publish a progression regulation before the competition then? In my experience the exact round cutoffs are often decided during the competition, to try to do as many solves as possible without running over time. It generally depends on what times people get, and that's hard to predict.

My fault. "before the round" instead of "before the competition".

According to regulation 9p2) "Either the best x competitors proceed to the next round, or all competitors who beat a specific result (announced before the round)."