Competitor requested orientation

[Kirjava]

I didn't say it was exactly the same, it's very similar though.

It's exactly the same as asking for the WhiteGreen edge to be placed at UF.

 

[DrKorbin]

Let's just use void cubes for 3x3 bld.


PS:

The centres are not random. This is less randomised than fully randomised. Fully randomised cube state is what we want.

Looking at scrambles, I see U, F, R, B, L, D moves and I don't see x, y, z, M, S, E moves. Therefore, when scrambler scrambles a cube, it's centers are not randomized, white center is still on top, green on front. Therefore fully randomised state including centers is not exactly what we want.

I prefer that a competitor would be able to request for certain orientation for 3x3 bld.

 

[Marcell]

Your definition of orientation is arbitrary.

It's based on the way we solve the cube blindfolded. If everyone was color-neutral in BLD, this woulnd't even be an issue.
Your further arguments are based on your statement that centres are not to be treated differently, which I still don't accept.

(The thing is, it's 0:41 here and I badly need to finish a paper for school tomorrow - well, today. So I might leace the conversation now, but will catch up later. I'm looking forward to discuss the matter in details.)

 

[Kirjava]

It's based on the way we solve the cube blindfolded. If everyone was color-neutral in BLD, this woulnd't even be an issue.

You cannot make rules based on what systems are popular. Rules must be method independent.

 

[Noahaha]

Wouldn't the existence of a single color neutral BLDer make this an unfair rule?

 

[aronpm]

I don't think that competitors should be allowed to request a particular orientation. If the competitor gets the wrong orientation, which could happen a lot, they are disadvantaged compared to everyone else. I do not think that the cube should be given in a particular orientation such as white-green, as this discriminates against every other orientation which is not fair. I think the orientation should be random, so that each competitor has the same chance of getting the cube in their solving orientation.

 

[Kirjava]

Wouldn't the existence of a single color neutral BLDer make this an unfair rule?

No, if that would make any difference on the matter the existance of that person would only have to be theoretical.

 

[Noahaha]

No, if that would make any difference on the matter the existance of that person would only have to be theoretical.

That's what I meant lol.

 

[Cubenovice]

When I scramble (d at Zune open) I always put the cube in the cup in WCA orientation.
When I judge I typically put a finger on the cube and flip the cup over.

If others scramble/ judge the same way as I do this does not give a random orientation: white would alway be facing down...

So how do you go about for "providing the cube to the competitor in a random postion"?

ninja'd by brest...

 

[Marcell]

You cannot make rules based on what systems are popular. Rules must be method independent.

Making it bold doesn't make it more right. We all (or: mostly) use a speedsolving system, in which inspecting the cube before starting the solve gives us a great advantage. Thus, we are given 15 seconds of inspection time before starting the solve. If someone doesn't want to use this time, it's their decision. But it's certainly different to speedsolve without inspection - that's why we have (or used to have) a separate uwr category for this.
And we all (or: mostly) use a blindcubing system, in which picking up the cube with the right orientation gives us an advantage (of some time, that's importance is determined by our blindcubing abilities). Thus, we could just as well be given the right to have the cube oriented for us.
I think looking at the cube before starting the solve in speedsolving could just as well be regarded as 'part of the solve' and included in the solving time as orienting the cube in blindcubing is.

 

[Kirjava]

Making it bold doesn't make it more right.

But that *is* a general requirement for regulations. You won't be able to convince the WRC otherwise.

 

[Marcell]

Have you read my post?
What I'm saying is the demond that the regulations should be method-independent doesn't mean they cannot reflect the way we solve the cube. It's that they should accomodate the common features of our different cube solving techniques and methods, and not be biased below that.

 

[qqwref]

Looking at scrambles, I see U, F, R, B, L, D moves and I don't see x, y, z, M, S, E moves. Therefore, when scrambler scrambles a cube, it's centers are not randomized, white center is still on top, green on front.

This is a good point. Currently, scrambles are designed to randomize the pieces with respect to the centers - thus this gives a random position, but a fixed orientation (relative to the centers). So asking for a particular orientation is not equivalent to asking for a particular edge in UF, or asking for the best block on top, or any other of Kirjava's somewhat silly suggestions. If you ask for, say, white top orange front, all you are asking is for the judge to do a y' while they bring the cube from the scrambling table to your mat.

Also, for everyone who's asking for the orientation to be randomized: should it be different for every person (throw cube in air), or the same for everyone (orientation included in scramble)? And if we do the latter, wouldn't a judge giving a competitor the cube in the wrong orientation count as a misscramble?

I'd like to agree that because BLD is completely no-inspection (negative inspection, even, since the competitor has to remove the cover after starting the timer) it does indeed matter how the cube is placed. Here's an example that would have a more obvious effect on time: if you are not color-neutral, do a no-inspection 3x3 avg12 without changing from the scramble orientation, and then do another with a random orientation. Anyway, this in sharp contrast to speedsolving events, where there is always plenty of time to use any orientation you like, without actually affecting the time that gets recorded. The orientation definitely matters in BLD.

 

[Kirjava]

This is a good point. Currently, scrambles are designed to randomize the pieces with respect to the centers - thus this gives a random position, but a fixed orientation (relative to the centers).

I would say that this is the fault of the scrambles.


I think Gilles Roux said it best;

"It's not a matter of "orientation" (strange concept), it's a matter of knowing where some pieces are located."

 

[DrKorbin]

"It's not a matter of "orientation" (strange concept), it's a matter of knowing where some pieces are located."

But until scrambles do not include x, y, z, M, S, E moves, they don't scramble centers, so should we consider center as a piece really?
And if someday scrambles have such moves, then it will be the task of a judge to put the cube in the right orientation, in concordance with scramble. So why not to do it now?

 

[Kirjava]

I don't think scrambles should affect the status of centres as a piece or not.

Maybe it's time scrambles had rotations at the end, akin to scrambling pyra tips. It doesn't matter for 3x3x3 speed because we never cared about reorienting, but it's becoming an issue in BLD, and maybe it's time we fixed our scrambles to truly randomise the cube.

As for it being in the wrong orientation from how it was scrambled, it's fine as long as it is random.

 

[Bob]

It would be stupid to allow competitors to request a certain orientation. There are too many issues with this. If the judge or scrambler accidentally gives it in a different position, what happens? What if they just didn't like the scramble and said it was in the wrong orientation and ask for a new scramble? Many judges wouldn't know any better. There are factors at the beginning of the solve that are already not uniform. Random orientation would be better, but I still don't think it's necessary.

I'd be more concerned about the covers used in BLD at the start of the solve. Somebody who has to move a scorecard placed on their cube will take a different amount of time as somebody who has to move a sheet of paper or somebody who has to remove a box. If we're concerned about people getting an advantage/disadvantage by the orientation, I think that a uniform cover would be just as (or more) important.

 

[Sa967St]

I personally think it's alright to request a certain orientation, but it's not other people's responsibility to make sure it remains in that orientation by the time it gets placed in front of the solver. This way, it's possible (if the scrambler and judge are careful) to have the orientation wanted, but if it's off then it's no one's fault.

In competitions that I've scrambled for BLD, if I knew the solver's orientation I've usually made sure it got placed the right way when I put the cover over it, since there was nothing in the regulations saying I couldn't. Now that this is being brought up, I think this should still be allowed.

 

[cubernya]

I personally think it's alright to request a certain orientation, but it's not other people's responsibility to make sure it remains in that orientation by the time it gets placed in front of the solver. This way, it's possible (if the scrambler and judge are careful) to have the orientation wanted, but if it's off then it's no one's fault.

In competitions that I've scrambled for BLD, if I knew the solver's orientation I've usually made sure it got placed the right way when I put the cover over it, since there was nothing in the regulations saying I couldn't. Now that this is being brought up, I think this should still be allowed.

I completely agree. I think it should be allowed, but not required by any means.

 

[DrKorbin]

But if it is allowed and not required then the solve time depends on maliciousness of the judge.