[WCA Regulations 2012] Proposed New Event: Team BLD

[SoulSeeker]

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.

i really dont get what your problem is with the sound level. don't you talk to other people at competitions? how come you dont feel annoyed by 50-100 people in a room talking to each other but 5 teams talking for an event is a major prolem to you? as erik pointed out the two persons are centimetres away from each other, so there is no need to shout the commands. maybe i just miss something.. if so please tell me.

 

[Lucas Garron]

That looks really good, I just have 1 comment.

I disagree. Not only would a lot of the wording/organization have to be simplified and corrected, it also doesn't cover the right things. It's still very far from Stefan-proof.

 

[cmhardw]

[person] [partner] [time]
1. Joel Arnaud 40.20
1. Arnaud Joel 40.20
..
..
5. Stefan Arnaud 45.87

I think we should consider one aspect of TeamBLD if it is to be introduced. I propose the regulation:
"Any person competing in a round of TeamBLD may do so exactly once per round.

If 10 people show up to a competition, there are 45 possible Teams for the Team BLD event. What if all 10 people wanted to compete "Round Robin" style and do a solve with every other person who wants to compete in the TeamBLD event? Do we want to let someone like Ian Winokur (who is very adept at team BLD with lots of different people) compete in the Team BLD round potentially up to 9 times in the same round? I only use Ian as an example here because he would be one of those people who would easily have the rapport with 9 different people to possibly be able to do this.

For all other WCA events, competitors are only allowed to compete in any round of any given event exactly once. To clarify, if the round is an "average of 5" then a competitor may compete in this round exactly once would mean that s/he would get to solve the puzzle five times exactly once. There is no event where a competitor would be permitted, after solving 5 times, to again solve the puzzle 5 times a second time in the same round. I think the restriction that a competitor be allowed to compete in a round of an event exactly once should stay the same for TeamBLD for the following reason:

If 50 people decided to compete in the TeamBLD event at a very large competition, and people are allowed to compete more than once, then where do we draw the line? Allowing the competitors to choose to do a "Round Robin" style event where every person does a TeamBLD solve with every other person present would mean that that event would need to allow for 1,225 solves at a timer for that round of TeamBLD. Time-wise this would be approximately equivalent to 245 competitors competing in the first round of 3x3x3 at a large competition.

Surely this intentionally exaggerated example shows that some line has to be drawn somewhere for a maximum number of times a person can compete as a member of a team in any given round of the TeamBLD event. I propose that this maximum number be set at exactly once per round, same as for every other WCA event. This avoids problems for the TeamBLD event needing a really significant amount of time set aside by the organizers so that every person may compete as many times as the regulations allow them to. If every competitor is allowed to compete exactly once in that round, then this makes it much easier for organizers to project how much time the round will take, and would make it much more likely for this event to be included officially. This is my opinion.

 

[Tim Major]

One team BLD partner per comp. If you registered with whoever, and that person breaks their arm after the first solve, bad luck.
I had a 22 with Faz (iirc) and a 30 with Cameron. So obviously I could go with both and potentially get podium twice. What happens, 1 foot on each podium? No, it should definitely be only one partner per compeition.

 

[Dene]

stuff

Or you could just point out that if someone were to compete more than once in the same round they would be getting the same scrambles, which obviously would be unfair. Otherwise the delegate would be required to print of another set of scrambles, potentially up to obscene amounts of scrambles, which is definitely unacceptable.

 

[cmhardw]

Or you could just point out that if someone were to compete more than once in the same round they would be getting the same scrambles, which obviously would be unfair. Otherwise the delegate would be required to print of another set of scrambles, potentially up to obscene amounts of scrambles, which is definitely unacceptable.

Good point, I hadn't considered that. Also, your argument is the most valid for why competitors should be restricted to only being able to compete one time per round of TeamBLD.

 

[Florian]

I think for this event it's bad to have a judge holding the paper because it can be pretty disturbing.
We should find a better solution for that like a bag which we put over the head of the solver.
Regulations:
-Only the solver can touch the cube during solving time
-Only the caller can touch the cube during inspection time
-Only the caller can talk
-The solver starts and stops the timer
-The stay the same during one competition
-Caller and Solver can switch during one Round/Competition
-The format should be Best of 3

 

[Dene]

i really dont get what your problem is with the sound level. don't you talk to other people at competitions? how come you dont feel annoyed by 50-100 people in a room talking to each other but 5 teams talking for an event is a major prolem to you? as erik pointed out the two persons are centimetres away from each other, so there is no need to shout the commands. maybe i just miss something.. if so please tell me.

Here is my problem illustrated:

I am an anonymous competitor. I feel like being a ******, so I compete in teamBLD as a caller and yell out as loud as I can. There is no regulation saying that I can't, and I can claim that it's necessary to my communication.

Sure, that illustration is exaggerated, but there is nothing stopping a particularly enthusiastic caller from getting excited and starting to yell out "T PERM! T PERM! GO GO GO!!"

 

[Kirjava]

There is no regulation saying that I can't

2g, 2k4.

Aren't you supposed to be a delegate?

 

[cmhardw]

Here is my problem illustrated:

stuff

There is another, related, issue that may need to be dealt with here:

There are two teams, Team A and Team B. CallerA is the caller for team A. SolverB is the solver for team B (etc.)

Now, Team A happens to have the world record in the Team BLD event. Knowing this, Team B sits next to Team A during this event. Not only that but SolverB knows all of the codes and terminology used by CallerA.

So while CallerB calls out fake commands to SolverB, SolverB is actually listening to and following the commands of CallerA, and will thus finish potentially sooner than SolverA if SolverB can execute the last command more quickly than SolverA.

What is to be done to avoid this situation, or is it unnecessary to try to go above and beyond to avoid this? Other than two teams finishing at nearly the same time, I see no reasonably easy way to detect if such a thing has occurred.

 

[SoulSeeker]

@dene yeah probably but (i don't know about that but i assume it..) there aren't regulations about other stuff like for example celebrating after blindsolves or in general the noiselevel in any blind-rounds which usually should be quieter than normal rounds. but even without regulations its not the biggest issue as far as i can tell..
i can see your point of view but i still think its not valid because without the necessary "respect" for other competitors in general any competition would be just .. uhm.. senseless (i demand 3rounds bld..)

 

[Bryan]

2g, 2k4.

Aren't you supposed to be a delegate?

He's pointing out that this would be the first event that requires the competitor to speak. It's hard to regulate how loud someone speaks, especially if they're excited.

 

[Mike Hughey]

There is another, related, issue that may need to be dealt with here:

There are two teams, Team A and Team B. CallerA is the caller for team A. SolverB is the solver for team B (etc.)

Now, Team A happens to have the world record in the Team BLD event. Knowing this, Team B sits next to Team A during this event. Not only that but SolverB knows all of the codes and terminology used by CallerA.

So while CallerB calls out fake commands to SolverB, SolverB is actually listening to and following the commands of CallerA, and will thus finish potentially sooner than SolverA if SolverB can execute the last command more quickly than SolverA.

What is to be done to avoid this situation, or is it unnecessary to try to go above and beyond to avoid this? Other than two teams finishing at nearly the same time, I see no reasonably easy way to detect if such a thing has occurred.

Interesting. Not all callers can be followed that way, but certainly Chester can - at least until OLL/PLL (and often even then), he just calls out individual moves - nothing to really know. And he's one of the best callers ever, using that method. It would make sense for others to sit next to him, one on either side, and just have their callers stay quiet, assuming the solver could keep up with Chester's solver.

However, that brings up a possible solution: stagger the starts. Don't allow more than one person to start at the same time in proximity to each other. You could think of it like lanes at a bowling alley - you can't start if someone next to you is starting at the same time - you must wait your turn. Then it shouldn't be possible to catch up and start following the other caller. Unless, however, the person solving has a really good memory and can memorize everything the caller says. If that's possible, then look out - you could have someone simply listen to a previous solve, then execute the entire solve from memory. I don't know how feasible this is, but if it were possible for someone to do that, I would think a fast solver would probably be looking at world record times.

@Kirjava: it occurs to me that rule 2g is terribly ambiguous and needs rewriting anyway, but it is especially so for team BLD. Since in regular speedsolves competitors are allowed to talk to the judges, and the judges may respond, this is clearly "talking near those competing". But I do think rule 2k4 applies pretty well here.

 

[Tim Major]

I think for this event it's bad to have a judge holding the paper because it can be pretty disturbing.
We should find a better solution for that like a bag which we put over the head of the solver.
Regulations:
-Only the solver can touch the cube during solving time
-Only the caller can touch the cube during inspection time
-Only the caller can talk
-Caller and Solver can switch during one Round/Competition
-The format should be Best of 3

I don't like any of these regulations sorry Florian. Why can't the solver speak? If someone says T-perm, can't you say "huh?" Or work out cases talking to each other.
The world record will undoubtedly be sub 20. Organisers are allowed to make cut offs. 2 minutes is twice as long as anyone would need. I can sub 1 team bld just saying moves, no codes. Why make this mean of 3 when 5x5 is average of 5?
Inspection, the caller should be allowed to, then pass to the solver to rotate and place down. Otherwise the solver could knock the cube or pick it up wrong.
About the caller and solver switching, Florian calling, Cameron executing should be a different team from Cameron calling, Florian calling. If a fast cuber makes a final but their friend didn't, they can't swap so the friend is in.

Edit: Every time I'm solving, and the caller tells me the cross, I repeat it to make sure I heard it right. And if they say R-perm, I use weird R-perms so I touch the cube and ask where the block is.

 

[Dene]

more stuff

Good boy Chris, you repeated exactly the problem I brought up about 17 hours ago . For reference I said:

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.

2g, 2k4.

Aren't you supposed to be a delegate?

2g obviously doesn't apply. It's talking about competitors waiting in the competitors area, not about competitors that are competing.
2k4 is vague and certainly could not be applied in a consistent manner across competitions the way things are stated at the moment. And as Bryan helpfully pointed out, how can you apply an old regulation, intended to regulate completely different circumstances, to a new event that creates contradictory circumstances? An entirely new set of regulations would be necessary.

 

[cmhardw]

Good boy Chris, you repeated exactly the problem I brought up about 17 hours ago . For reference I said:

I'll go with --ninja'd-- on this one to try to save face

 

[Erik]

Chris:
this rankings was an example of the world rankings, not the rankings for one competition. Of course that rule is very necessary! You are totally right about that. I thought it was obvious what I ment, but looks like I wasn't clear enough

People listening to other competitors that are solving: that's a clear form of cheating, its as bad as trying to find out what the scramble is of a round by watching other people solve. Especially in normal BLD events this is a thing you have to pay attention to as a judge/delegate. Luckily in a typical competition room there is always the buzzing of people talking to each other. The fact that (I mention this for the 3rd time now) you are only centimers away should make it possible to keep your voice down to a level that it would be really hard for a team at a different table listen to what they are saying (not impossible). I'd say at least harder than watching someone else's cube during the memoing part of a BLD solve.

Looking at a BLD scramble while someone is memoing or listening to another team calling during team-BLD should give you a nice at-least-one-year-long-ban from WCA competitions.

 

[EeeeeWarne]

How would you determine someone who is watching and listening to a Team BLD solve to gain an advantage from someone who is watching and listening to size up the competition and to go into their solve know "x and y go 45.67 seconds, so we have to beat that". Or, in another case watching and listening to see how their friends are doing? Supporting your friends is part of being a friend...right?

The simplest way to stop other competitors from getting an advantage is to speak quietly. The people who shout commands are putting themselves at a disadvantage...and you wouldn't do that...right?

Cubers can be quiet. Who runs around shouting during BLD?

 

[Kirjava]

The people who shout commands are putting themselves at a disadvantage

It's not that they disadvance themselves, it's that they allow other people to cheat.

 

[LarsN]

Thinking out of the box; an obvious, but potentially unfair solution, is to give people different scrambles. Or differentiate the order of the scrambles.