[WCA Regulations 2012] Proposed New Event: Team BLD

Status
Not open for further replies.
just something aswell.... would you be allowed to compete in as many different teams as you want or must you have the same partner for each year?

Why would you limit it to a year? I'm sure some competitors only get together at a single competition (imagine the teams that could only be done at Worlds).

Right now I think some people who say we don't have any issue with TeamBLD is because it's unofficial. People are much less worried about it. Once it's official though, we don't want something where someone is complaining that the judge is getting in the way.

Another thing we should note in the regulations is that competitors aren't going to be guaranteed a corner of a table or anything. While most competitions probably only have two stations per table, we don't want competitors always assuming they'll have that and complain if they are at a competition where both competitors had to stay behind the table.

The executor should be able to communicate with the caller. It's TeamBLD, not TeamBLD&Dumb

I would say having some sort of hood for this would be worthwhile. It's going to avoid having the whole cardboard issue and trying to shove in another judge.

Roles should be noted separately. I can do TeamBLD with a 5-year-old if they're calling, but I can't do it if she's executing.
 
Should delegates and/or organizers bring the "hoods" or whatever we decide works the best? I'm pretty sure they can make the Stefan-blindfolds really easily, and let competitors use those.

I don't think the noise will be that big of a deal, and you should be able to clearly hear the difference between your caller's voice and other competitor's voices, if you're really close. As for cheating by hearing what other's are doing, we could do different scrambles for each team. Or, more preferably, the same scrambles for each team, but in different orders from the others.
 
Expanding upon collins idea, or rather clarifying. Depending on the number of tables provided, a certain amount of people can go at one time. Make groups out of these people until everyone is accounted for. Give each station a different scramble. However, each group gets the same scrambled. Its the scrambles inside the group that get distributed. If that makes sense.
 
I'm not saying it would be a huge problem to have the judge on one side of the solver, I'm just saying sometimes quickly moving around could be better than calling a y or y'.

Blindfolds could be like Stefan's idea (I actually had an improvement idea, but didn't have the time to actually test it), so there's no need for holding the paper.

And I agree that the ranking may get a little messy, but solver and caller should be noted. Maybe have a ranking which says:
Pos _ Solver _ Caller _ Time
1._____A______B_____20
2._____B______C_____21
3._____C______A_____22

And then A's record page would show:

Team blindfolded
Solver 20
Caller [C] 22
 
As for cheating by hearing what other's are doing, we could do different scrambles for each team. Or, more preferably, the same scrambles for each team, but in different orders from the others.

Expanding upon collins idea, or rather clarifying. Depending on the number of tables provided, a certain amount of people can go at one time. Make groups out of these people until everyone is accounted for. Give each station a different scramble. However, each group gets the same scrambled. Its the scrambles inside the group that get distributed. If that makes sense.

As a delegate that has to organise and print scrambles, and as the person that always takes control at competitions to make everything happen, my response to that is a big "HELL NO". You have no idea the administrative difficulties this would cause if you are actually seriously proposing it. It's just so difficult and cumbersome. The potential for cheating by listening in on other groups will have to be solved another way.
 
Pedro said:
I'm not saying it would be a huge problem to have the judge on one side of the solver, I'm just saying sometimes quickly moving around could be better than calling a y or y'.
I agree, and I'm for team blind (or I don't read all, because it isn't easy to me;)).

I think about an other problem (easy to solve, but wich must be discuss):
For all event, 8 competitors are needed to have 2 rounds, and 16 for 3.
But team blind would be the first official event to implies 2 persons, so are we speaking about 16 persons or 16 team?
Because 16 team means 32 people, wich is pretty impossible to get at many competitions. But I'm also agree with the fact wu can't reaso in terms of persones, because 4 team isn't enough to get 2 rounds.
So I suggest an intermediate number; something like 6 team for 2 rounds, 10 for 3 (it isn't the double, but I think it's more realistic).
 
Why would you limit it to a year? I'm sure some competitors only get together at a single competition (imagine the teams that could only be done at Worlds).

Right now I think some people who say we don't have any issue with TeamBLD is because it's unofficial. People are much less worried about it. Once it's official though, we don't want something where someone is complaining that the judge is getting in the way.

Another thing we should note in the regulations is that competitors aren't going to be guaranteed a corner of a table or anything. While most competitions probably only have two stations per table, we don't want competitors always assuming they'll have that and complain if they are at a competition where both competitors had to stay behind the table.

The executor should be able to communicate with the caller. It's TeamBLD, not TeamBLD&Dumb

I would say having some sort of hood for this would be worthwhile. It's going to avoid having the whole cardboard issue and trying to shove in another judge.

Roles should be noted separately. I can do TeamBLD with a 5-year-old if they're calling, but I can't do it if she's executing.

I agree to all of these terms.

Expanding upon collins idea, or rather clarifying. Depending on the number of tables provided, a certain amount of people can go at one time. Make groups out of these people until everyone is accounted for. Give each station a different scramble. However, each group gets the same scrambled. Its the scrambles inside the group that get distributed. If that makes sense.

Sounds like a complete nightmare coming from someone who has helped run events before.

My personal opinion on this event is as follows:

Team BLD as an Event: Yes

Role of Each participant: 1 solver and 1 caller.

The Solver:

Must be blindfolded Stefan style at all times during the solve (penalty DNF) and may speak/ gesture freely to the caller. They cannot touch the cube until the timer starts (Penalty DNF) and must follow the commands of their caller (not some other caller, Penalty unknown)

The Caller

May only touch the cube during inspection and may use any verbal or physical means to communicate with the solvers assuming they do not:

1.Touch the cube after the timer has started
2.Touch the hand of the solver at any time or
3.Leave their designated range i.e. likely opposite of the judger.

Role of Judger:

Must stay on the opposite side of the competitors and cannot make any verbal or physical interactions with the competitors except to call 8,12 and 15 second marks.

Results Listings:

This event should be run as two separate events combined, this will make it extremely easy to keep track of each persons role and results in that role. For example, one person's personal best page might read as such:

John :

3x3 TeamBLD Caller: Best Single: 30 Seconds, Best Average: 40 Seconds
3x3 Team BLD Solver: Best Single: 26 Seconds Best Average: 32 Seconds

In the database the best times will be marked in a conjoined way such that the team members will be listed by their times as follows:

C- Caller
S- Solver

Top 100 Listings:

1. 15 seconds- C- Stefan, S- John
2. 17 seconds- C- Shelly, S-Jordan
3. 19 seconds- C- Jake, S- Jill
...

I also think that each team member's role should be considered independently in the top times listings, for instance, lets say Stefan and John have the world record with Stefan as caller and John as solver; and they also have the second place time with John as caller and Stefan as solver as follows:

top 100

1. 15 seconds, C- Stefan, S-John
2. 16 seconds, C-John, S- Stefan

In the event this occurs, I think the teams should be treated as separate entities and awarded both first and second place. This will make sure that each person gets their creds.
 
Last edited:
I agree to all of these terms.

I think the solver should also be able to touch the cube during inspection. At least for me, the best way for the solver to know where the cube is after they start the timer is by putting it down themselves. After the caller is done with inspection, they put it in the solvers hands in the orientation they want. Then the solver will put it down on the table and move their hands to the timer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A while ago I proposed regs.
They're here. Silly Google Docs screwed up my formatting.
Added some important things. The proposal itself doesn't go into explicit detail as to some procedures (for instance, "The judge must not interfere with communication between the caller and solver."), so here's the best place to discuss.

I am pro-Tubbo.
In regard to physical contact between solver and caller, by all means!
Go to 4:23.
Yes, I have a Nathaniel on my back. Problem?
The facemaskpaperthing would serve as best form of blindfold safeguarding. Additionally, it'd allow for the judge to both judge and to not be an interference.
As far as the communication between teams, there's a reg against that. But the regulation of this should be more trust-based than anything, unfortunately. It's never been a problem with Nathaniel and me, considering our Tubbo system is unorthodox to say the least.

That's all from me for now.

EDIT: Guess not.
Concerning who gets to hold for inspection, I do think now that what da25centz posted is the best method of inspecting. But I won't edit my regs for now, seeing as that people have yet to read.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dene: so basically you are saying 'I am against this. Not because there are big problems now, but there will probably be big issues in the future and I have no idea which problems this will be'?

May I ask on what you base this, if you don't see concrete problems how can you be so sure there will be some?
Also: all events we have now were not (and are not) problem-free, it takes some time before you discover the problems. To get familiar with these problems there has been numerous times team BLD was held unofficially. So far, after serious testing, we did not discover anything major. (the only thing you addressed was sound levels, which are not a problem, if you can't hear each other from 15 cm away there must be some serious loud music around...)

Other ways of blindfolding: There has already be numerous attempts to make suggestions to use different kinds of blindfolds for the normal BLD event. Up till now this didn't lead to any change.
With the means we have now (normal blindfold+paper) it has been proven that the blindfolds and the sheet of paper are not causing problems. We can also start off the event with the blindfold+paper and later on, when the blindfolds change of the normal BLD events we can change it in Team BLD too. Of course anything like swimming goggles etc would be nicer, but the lack of this is not a significant problem to let the event be impossible to run.

Database organisation: There are 2 ways described now. My way with one ranking, or simply 2 rankings (one for caller and one for solver). Either system could work I think, maybe the WCA board can decide on which they like best.

Who is allowed to touch the puzzle during inspection: Either the caller or the solver can pick up the cube during inspection. Both systems were used in competitions I have been to where the event was held. Both systems work, so again I would say the WCA board can maybe decide on which they like best. For the nature of the event it doesn't make any significant difference.

Ranza: those are some good regs to start with. The thing we discussed here before about the caller not being allowed to touch the solvers' hands is maybe a thing to be added here. In the WCA regs we have now, things like feet solving only have extra regulations on top of the normal ones. So the scrambling and penalty rules are not repeated again. You could probably shorten the regs you have by cutting out the scrambling, timing, or the penalties. I would also suggest that your 'e' section is not only restricted to verbal notes, since we kind agreed in the discussion here that touching each other is ok too.
 
Last edited:
For all event, 8 competitors are needed to have 2 rounds, and 16 for 3.
But team blind would be the first official event to implies 2 persons, so are we speaking about 16 persons or 16 team?
Because 16 team means 32 people, wich is pretty impossible to get at many competitions. But I'm also agree with the fact wu can't reaso in terms of persones, because 4 team isn't enough to get 2 rounds.
So I suggest an intermediate number; something like 6 team for 2 rounds, 10 for 3 (it isn't the double, but I think it's more realistic).

Do you really want to put 3 rounds of team BLD at every competition ? 8 teams for 2 rounds and 16 for 3 seems fine to me, finding 8 teams is not that hard given that everybody who knows how to solve a 3^3 can compete in the event.
 
Other ways of blindfolding: There has already be numerous attempts to make suggestions to use different kinds of blindfolds for the normal BLD event. Up till now this didn't lead to any change.
With the means we have now (normal blindfold+paper) it has been proven that the blindfolds and the sheet of paper are not causing problems. We can also start off the event with the blindfold+paper and later on, when the blindfolds change of the normal BLD events we can change it in Team BLD too. Of course anything like swimming goggles etc would be nicer, but the lack of this is not a significant problem to let the event be impossible to run.

Could you just put a hoodie on backwards? Thats what my friend and I do when we do Team Blind with eachother at school. If not, I like the swimming googles thing, you could just spraypaint them black.
 
Could you just put a hoodie on backwards? Thats what my friend and I do when we do Team Blind with eachother at school. If not, I like the swimming googles thing, you could just spraypaint them black.

I think that since the judge has to provide paper to hold between the solver and the cube for normal BLD (correct?), we can just put that paper under a normal blindfold. The main problem with this for normal bld is being able to put it on quickly, but since the blindfold does not have to be put on during the time limit, I do not think it is a problem. This gets the judge out of the way so that the caller may lean to either side of the solver during the solve.
 
Dene: so basically you are saying 'I am against this. Not because there are big problems now, but there will probably be big issues in the future and I have no idea which problems this will be'?

May I ask on what you base this, if you don't see concrete problems how can you be so sure there will be some?
Also: all events we have now were not (and are not) problem-free, it takes some time before you discover the problems. To get familiar with these problems there has been numerous times team BLD was held unofficially. So far, after serious testing, we did not discover anything major. (the only thing you addressed was sound levels, which are not a problem, if you can't hear each other from 15 cm away there must be some serious loud music around...)

Well, pretty much, yes that is what I'm saying, for now :p . I think I pointed out before (and if I didn't, forgive me and allow me to point it out now) that there is a significant issue with cheating that needs to be addressed. Namely, fellow competitors would be able to listen in on instructions given by other teams. Now whether or not a significant advantage could be gained by this is open to debate, but because this is the first event ever that would almost always involve speaking to communicate (I guess it's not necessary to speak, but it seems to be the most efficient way) there could be a lot of unique issues that arise as a result of it.

Another issue I see is sound control. There is no doubt that there are going to be some very loud people doing the calling, and that could create some major disruptions and annoyance for others at the competition. It doesn't seem realistic that this could be controlled in a reasonable and consistent way.

Along with this is how do you restrict a caller from communicating with other solvers? Say, for example, Tim Major was particularly adept at calling for both Feliks Zemdegs and Aron Puddy-Mathew, so he pairs with Feliks, and Aron happens to end up in the seat next to him with Josh Evely "calling" for him, but not really doing anything, while Tim Major calls for both. There would be no way to prevent this from happening, and although it seems unlikely it is a problem with no foreseeable solution that is realistic within the bounds of the way competitions are currently organised and structured.

I have run out of time to think of other problems, but I will come up with more when I feel like it. I'd be interested to hear what people think about what I have come up with.
 
Last edited:
Well, pretty much, yes that is what I'm saying, for now :p . I think I pointed out before (and if I didn't, forgive me and allow me to point it out now) that there is a significant issue with cheating that needs to be addressed. Namely, fellow competitors would be able to listen in on instructions given by other teams. Now whether or not a significant advantage could be gained by this is open to debate, but because this is the first event ever that would almost always involve speaking to communicate (I guess it's not necessary to speak, but it seems to be the most efficient way) there could be a lot of unique issues that arise as a result of it.

Another issue I see is sound control. There is no doubt that there are going to be some very loud people doing the calling, and that could create some major disruptions and annoyance for others at the competition. It doesn't seem realistic that this could be controlled in a reasonable and consistent way.

Along with this is how do you restrict a caller from communicating with other solvers? Say, for example, Tim Major was particularly adept at calling for both Feliks Zemdegs and Aron Puddy-Mathew, so he pairs with Feliks, and Aron happens to end up in the seat next to him with Josh Evely "calling" for him, but not really doing anything, while Tim Major calls for both. There would be no way to prevent this from happening, and although it seems unlikely it is a problem with no foreseeable solution that is realistic within the bounds of the way competitions are currently organised and structured.

I have run out of time to think of other problems, but I will come up with more when I feel like it. I'd be interested to hear what people think about what I have come up with.

Possibly giving the scrambles to the teams in a different order for each team?
 
Ranza: those are some good regs to start with. The thing we discussed here before about the caller not being allowed to touch the solvers' hands is maybe a thing to be added here. In the WCA regs we have now, things like feet solving only have extra regulations on top of the normal ones. So the scrambling and penalty rules are not repeated again. You could probably shorten the regs you have by cutting out the scrambling, timing, or the penalties. I would also suggest that your 'e' section is not only restricted to verbal notes, since we kind agreed in the discussion here that touching each other is ok too.

I'm reformatting the regs entirely and you can view them now at -tinyurl.com/ranzhastbldregs
Revised that 'e' section and shortened the regs.
Reordered the labels, and now in a viewable and downloadable .pdf to retain the formatting I worked so very hard on.

~R
 
I'm reformatting the regs entirely and you can view them now at -tinyurl.com/ranzhastbldregs
Revised that 'e' section and shortened the regs.
Reordered the labels, and now in a viewable and downloadable .pdf to retain the formatting I worked so very hard on.

~R

That looks really good, I just have 1 comment.
Isn't Average of 5 a bit long to run, considering a large number of people take quite a few minutes (comparable to 6x6 times). I personally think Mean of 3 would be better, so that it also fits with normal BLD/longer time events.
 
Possibly giving the scrambles to the teams in a different order for each team?

This was mentioned earlier, and I pointed out the impracticalities of it. Read up to see that discussion.

No need to say more to this, I rest my case.

Even though I then went to give reasons? I mean, it's hard for me to pass too much judgement as I have never witnessed an attempt to perform team BLD under any sort of unofficial conditions. At this stage I'm forced to sit back and imagine what it would be like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top