Competitor requested orientation

[Ickathu]

Maybe start always using the random orientation feature on WCA. For everything, not just BLD. Even puzzles where it doesn't really matter (2x2,4x4,6x6).
Off topic: What orientation are you supposed to scramble pyraminx in?

 

[cubernya]

You can't use the random orientation on the WCA site for any 3x3 event, since you're supposed to use Cube Explorer to generate scrambles

 

[shelley]

We had a discussion about this in an email thread a while ago. When one competitor requests and receives a particular orientation he gets an unfair advantage over the competitor who doesn't think to ask or whose judge doesn't offer the choice. A regulation on orientation is too difficult to enforce consistently across all competitions, and it's simpler to consider finding your starting orientation part of your solve, just as finding and hitting the timer while blindfolded at the end is part of your solve.

 

[Julian]

We had a discussion about this in an email thread a while ago. When one competitor requests and receives a particular orientation he gets an unfair advantage over the competitor who doesn't think to ask or whose judge doesn't offer the choice. A regulation on orientation is too difficult to enforce consistently across all competitions, and it's simpler to consider finding your starting orientation part of your solve, just as finding and hitting the timer while blindfolded at the end is part of your solve.

If that's the case, that's fine, but competitors shouldn't be allowed to request an orientation.

 

[Bob]

If that's the case, that's fine, but competitors shouldn't be allowed to request an orientation.

I expect that will be made explicit in the newest set of regulations.

 

[Dene]

Woot, that's exactly what I wanted to happen . Yay for practical thinking.

 

[qqwref]

If the choice is "competitors cannot request an orientation", that's fine, but we should still decide how the cube should be oriented when given to the competitor. Do we choose a set orientation (either WCA standard or random) and require the judge to transport the cube as is, or do we let the judge use any orientation?

 

[riffz]

I agree with pretty much everything Kirjava said in this thread. To provide my reasoning would be redundant.

 

[Mike Hughey]

If the choice is "competitors cannot request an orientation", that's fine, but we should still decide how the cube should be oriented when given to the competitor. Do we choose a set orientation (either WCA standard or random) and require the judge to transport the cube as is, or do we let the judge use any orientation?

I agree that this is an important question. If we leave the regulations alone, it could be interpreted that a judge is allowed to orient the cube any way they want. If a judge were in collaboration with a competitor, that would allow the judge to develop a system with the competitor to give the competitor a clue about how to solve the scramble based on the chosen orientation. We need to make sure the judge is not allowed to look at the scramble and reorient based on it. Note that this is potentially even quite important on speedsolves, not just BLD solves. For really fast puzzles like 2x2x2, it could be very important indeed.

And I do like the idea of adding an orient to the initial scramble; that way there's not accidental favoritism towards a certain position of the centers when the competitor gets it. I think we should apply the orientation when scrambling, but not require that the orientation be preserved by the judge or runner when bringing it to the competitor. Under no circumstances should a scramble be able to be claimed to be a bad scramble because it got reoriented by accident on the way to the competitor.

 

[LarsN]

I think we should apply the orientation when scrambling, but not require that the orientation be preserved by the judge or runner when bringing it to the competitor. Under no circumstances should a scramble be able to be claimed to be a bad scramble because it got reoriented by accident on the way to the competitor.

I agree with this. All the competitions I have been to have had boxes to cover the cubes. Which means that even though the scrambler didn't change the orientation, using the box will rotate the cube by x2 or possible z2. It will be near impossible for the runner to keep the original orientation without looking at the cube.

 

[Erik]

This asks for a nice quote from Tyson:

Conveniently, being in the position that I was, this became the official WCA color scheme. Since the color in front was pretty much arbitrary, no one really complained. Only a few people, perhaps only one other person out there, really knew the story to this, and I remember him making the comment, "Tyson's own personal color scheme." It's true... the WCA color scheme is my own personal color scheme. It's how I solve my cubes blindfolded, and it's how I displayed my cubes on my desk and on my bookshelf in college. And now, it's how the world scrambles its cubes.

(http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ng-orientation&p=486263&viewfull=1#post486263)

Of course I'm very much against a requested orientation. The competitor and judge shouldn't have anything to do with how the cube is manipulated. By going with Tyson's quite my guess is that it was the purpose that the cube ended up with W/G on the table in the end. Practically this doesn't happen all the time. If using cups:
1. cube in cup W/G
2. cube to table (might flip)
3. turn cup upside down to release cube(yellow on top with any random colour on front)

In reality the normal procedure causes a more or less random orientation. Personally I don't really care about the orientation after I put a scrambled cube in a cup, after all a scramble should be random.
A requested or set orientation fails, if any, already for logistical reasons. Current procedure normally causes quite some randomness. Some extra clarification of the scrambling chapter should make clear the cube should be put in the cup (or w/e) in a random orientation.

Of course, if you dont want to spend time orienting, you should just learn to BLD with any orientation :rolleyes:

 

[blah]

On a more personal level, I think it just comes down to what you believe contributes to the "integrity" of a solve. I'm leaving "integrity" in quotes because we all know what it is (subjectively) and it's stupid to ask for a formal definition.

I'm genuinely shocked to find that there are top blindsolvers who don't consider the whole "random" aspect as part of this integrity. I've been doing the toss-it-in-the-air pre-solve ritual since I started blindsolving, long before I've been to a competition, long before I became aware of the WCA regulations. I personally feel extremely uneasy about having any knowledge of the cube before seeing it; it's like I'm cheating the blindcubing gods.

I certainly hope we can all agree that there is *some* form of "cheating the blindcubing gods" taking place when we have any knowledge of the state of the cube before seeing it. If we can establish this as a common consensus, then I think it's reasonable to say that requesting *anything*, other than having your cube placed in front of you, is merely a cheap act with the intention of shaving maybe a second off your time.

 

[Vincents]

A2e. Just a note for myself and the WRC.

This is by no means a finished document, by the way. If/when we release a new official scrambler, we may start to consider orientation as part of the scramble. Stay tuned.

 

[qqwref]

If using cups:
1. cube in cup W/G
2. cube to table (might flip)
3. turn cup upside down to release cube(yellow on top with any random colour on front)

It's been a while since I went to a competition, but here's how we did it:
- when a scrambler finishes with a cube, they put it on top of the correct scoresheet and cover it
- a runner notices a cube is covered (meaning it's been scrambled) and brings it to a judge
- the judge places it in front of their competitor without ever seeing the scramble
In this case, unless someone dropped the cube, it was pretty much guaranteed that the top color was the same. I don't think the procedure prevented y-axis rotations, though.

 

[Erik]

- the judge places it in front of their competitor without ever seeing the scramble

Against regulations.

The last 20-ish competitions I went to were all done the way I described it. Putting the sheet under the cup makes it harder for the judge to pick it up, thus the scoresheet is put on top of it.
Point is, there is no rules about how to do this procedure. I don't think it would be a good thing to put this procedure into details in the regs either.
Result: randomness.
Randomness = good.

 

[mariano.aquino]

There's this thing that still bothers me. Aren't we supposed to have all the same scramble? because that's supposed to be fair. Now, if we add rotations to the scramble, but then the judge does not place the cube on the correct orientation, that judge would be adding a rotation, and thus modifying the scramble. Besides, each judge would be modifying the scramble in different ways (probably), so each competitor will not end with the same "newly-defined" scramble, and that's openly and clearly not fair.

 

[Kirjava]

The competitors receive the cubes with the same scramble.

Them being in a different 'orientation' is a minor issue, and allowing something that most people consider borderline cheating is not a solution to it.

 

[mariano.aquino]

if orientation was a minor issue, we wouldn't be discussing here. If a judge "accidentally" leaves someone's cube oriented in a way that benefits him, and someone else's cube in a way which does not, how could we control that?

 

[Kirjava]

if orientation was a minor issue, we wouldn't be discussing here.

The issue I referenced and the broader issue of orientation on the whole are two different issues.

If a judge "accidentally" leaves someone's cube oriented in a way that benefits him, and someone else's cube in a way which does not, how could we control that?

Judges can help assist people solving in different ways. We stop them by having rules against it and taking action if they are found to break them.

 

[Vincents]

The runner, just as the judge physically sitting at the timing station, is also considered another judge, and is subject to the same regulations that all judges are subject to (e.g. he must have competed already, etc.). Runners do take a look at the scrambled cube/scoresheet beforehand (otherwise, how would they know who to give the cube to?).

Everyone receives the same scramble; that is, everyone gets the same arrangement of pieces. The orientation of the cube does not matter because we do not require you to finish the cube in a certain orientation.

(Up until/after) this point, randomness of starting orientation is still the way to go. Whether we specify that as a part of regulations is another debate entirely. If a judge is intentionally aiding a competitor in some way, that's also another debate entirely.