My Apology

[Bhargav777]

That was really really a brave thing. Apologising in public, even after getting into one of the best cubers club is'nt soething everyone can do.
#Respect

 

[Sebastien]

Sebastien, I don't know where exactly you read that "the WCA Board had never punished a cheater".

I neither read that nor assumed that you explicitely stated this. I just said that you talked as if that was the case.

 

[Eric79]

I just wanted to take a moment to point out that your argument here is fundamentally wrong. The idea that future people in the same situation can try to do the same thing without being punished? This is incorrect.

You misinterpreted what I worte. In short: I (basically) said that this is sending out the wrong message and that people might risk cheating more often - because they assume there were no punishments because of how this incident is handled.
In long: I didn't say people were not punished in future. What I wrote was a reply and indication of how people could interpret what qqwref said (the part I cited; the context of my post) and how your/the Boards actions may be understood by competitors and the public. This underpinned by pointing to the fact that people (here Rowe) actually take advantage of such situations - which kinda shows that what I wrote is far from being "fundamentally wrong".

The reason why Rowe's punishment is very lenient is because he's the one who came forward.

This - in my opinion - was a reason to impose a more lenient punishment, yes. But a punishment additionally to removing his time - opposed to only removing his time from the tables. If you commit a crime and confess afterwards, you still get punished. His crime was cheating in a WCA event. This should be the worst misdemeanor in WCA competitions as it harms the WCAs image the most, internally and externally.
One shouldn't say he just took advantage of the situation and that it was the judges fault by forgetting to fill out the card correctly and thus it's no cheating: Rowe did - with full knowledge (everyone is asked to read and know the rules before competing) and thus wilfully - infringe the rules. He was responsible to controll the judge ("A7c) The competitor is responsible for checking the result on the sheet, immediately after the judge has written it down."). Therefore he indeed cheated.
So removing the illegally achieved WR is not a punishment, it is simply correcting former results. Just like not granting another belatedly try with a new scramble is not a punishment - as he cheated, we don't owe him this chance in the first place.
And just to make things clear again: As previously stated I don't worry too much about Rowe, it's about principles and that breach of the rules should be punished.

So in order to have treatment similar to Rowe, the cheater would have to come forward. Which then makes no sense as to why you would cheat in the first place.

I agree, but you have to - for example - ask Rowe why he still confessed or took advantage of the situation in the first plave - even though he knew better.

If someone cheated, and then was discovered by the WCA Board or another source, then it would be a different matter. Certainly some type of ban would be in place in that situation.

And so should be proceeded in this situation as well as the misdemeanor happend, it's not undone by confessing.

But I still don't see how someone can look at Rowe's situation and Rowe's outcome, and benefit from it. If I'm wrong, let me know. But from my thinking, I feel that your argument is flawed.

As said before, you should ask others for their motivation to cheat. I can only assume that they do it for possible PBs and/or fame. To them the risk of getting caught still seems to be (to them obviously is) reasonable for what they might gain.

anyway, I of course understand that you see things different from me because we simply are two different people with a different background. But you should consider that your point of view as a board member (and maybe personal friend of Rowe) is flawed too: After all you are representing a worldwide association and thus you (the board) should not only have your personal point of view when deciding things, you should also try to take other cultures/peoples morals and way of viewing things in consideration as well. Western (with a western mind) people judge different than people from the Middle or Far East. But the WCA is representing people from all over the world, so you should meet those peoples expectations somehow. As you can see in the threads regarding the incident, there actually are quite some people who had expected a punishment.

You want the WCA to be officially respected and acknowledged in the whole world. Not only by WCA members but also by the people and the media in general. So being sloppy (now I'm not only talking about this case, but in general about not always have anything double checked during competitions 100%, which makes cheating by false/double scrambles possible in the first place) or being inconsequent (see things mentioned e.g. here like judges at one place judging different than at another place) for sure does not help to achieve that goal. Handling this recent incident like you did reminds me more of innocent playground rules instead of serious world association rules. After 8 years the WCA should have matured more. So the rest of the world might not take you/us serious if things work like that.
Of course it all should be about fun in a friendly atmosphere instead of punishment, but nowadays there are newspapers writing about events and world records, speedcubers show up even on TV... so it should be time to get things straight and to make sure that if things are against the rules, that there are consequenses and punishments. And if because of this there are less competitions, I agree with Owen who wrote (here): "Sure, I'd rather go to one solid competition per year than three shaky ones.". In my opinion Rowe should be banned - just like anyone else who was caught cheating. The difference in his case should be in how long he is getting banned.

Can you give examples of cheating incidents where you feel that there needed to be more punishment?

Sure: Rowe in this case and the judge who said "Well, it's better to have a scramble you remember then to get a new one" when being told that he gave out the same scramble twice to the same competitor (mentioned in this post here). That judge also should be banned - as competitor and as judge. As judge for a lifetime. Yes, I know I have strong opinions.

Ok, by now I've written enough and I made my point (more than once), so this is my last post on this topic here. Unfortunately I don't feel like things will change for the better anytime soon.

 

[tim]

and the judge who said "Well, it's better to have a scramble you remember then to get a new one" when being told that he gave out the same scramble twice to the same competitor (mentioned in this post here).

It looks to me as if this incident was never brought up to the WCA board let alone the WCA delegate on site.

 

[chris410]

Good on that you cleared your conscience and came forward when you could have easily gotten away with it...now you can move past it.

 

[Mike Hughey]

It looks to me as if this incident was never brought up to the WCA board let alone the WCA delegate on site.

I gave more information on the other thread, but this is currently in discussion with the WCA board; I'm trying to take care of it.

And as for Rowe's situation: Rowe, I really appreciate that you came forward with this - thank you.

 

[tim]

I gave more information on the other thread, but this is currently in discussion with the WCA board; I'm trying to take care of it.

The purpose of my post was actually solely to point out his flawed example. I didn't want to blame anyone for potentially ignoring the incident. Great that you take care of it!

 

[bran]

~("A7c) The competitor is responsible for checking the result on the sheet, immediately after the judge has written it down.")~

~My judge was inexperienced and did not write down DNF on the second solve.....

And hats off to you Rowe for confessing to something which could have just been your secret for your whole life.

 

[Eric79]

One last thing:

It looks to me as if this incident was never brought up to the WCA board let alone the WCA delegate on site.

I totally agree and I didn't want to make it sound as if it was brought up back than. But now it surfaced and was brought up to the Board. Tyson asked me for examples and I mentioned that judge/incident as one.

 

[hcfong]

anyway, I of course understand that you see things different from me because we simply are two different people with a different background. But you should consider that your point of view as a board member (and maybe personal friend of Rowe) is flawed too: After all you are representing a worldwide association and thus you (the board) should not only have your personal point of view when deciding things, you should also try to take other cultures/peoples morals and way of viewing things in consideration as well. Western (with a western mind) people judge different than people from the Middle or Far East. But the WCA is representing people from all over the world, so you should meet those peoples expectations somehow. As you can see in the threads regarding the incident, there actually are quite some people who had expected a punishment.

The WCA Board consists of 4 persons, from 2 different continents, so saying that Tyson made a decision based solely on his own personal views is just plain wrong. I assume that this decision has been made by the whole Board and not just an individual Board member.

 

[Thaynara]

I am a bit ''disappointed'' for doing what you did, but at least you did come up with the truth which is the best in these cases. However, we can't really blame some ''stupid'' actions that teenagers do because they don't think about their actions and If those actions can reflect in a near future. By that time you were 17, now you have 21y/o (right?) and many people can learn over the years....and guess what? You did and I'm proud of you.
I always had respect for the person that you are (because when I started speedcubing, you were one of the persons that ''I mirrored'' to be more fast and also because Breandan showed me what kinda of human-being you are). Now you should be wondering yourself about what Breandan told be about you haha but I'm not gonna say anything here, because I don't need to ''judge'' you or whatever. If people know you, If people know what kinda of human you are, they will accept your apology as I do.
Below is a passage from a song I like, because we can think about our actions and expect to be accepted by society.

''Don't worry, cause' evrey little thing gonna be alright'' - Bob Marley
Rowe

 

[cmhardw]

Thanks Rowe, coming clean to Ron/Tyson must must have been hard to do. As a fellow cuber I appreciate you admitting your past mistake, and I'm happy to move past it.

 

[CarlBrannen]

Congratulations on confessing. That must have been horrible.

But I'm not sure what a contestant should do when confronted with a scramble that is apparently identical to one already given. I don't do BLD, but the same problem certainly can come up in sighted solves.

If I tell them that the scramble is a repeat do I get a replacement scramble? What if I'm wrong, by telling them that I suspect it's the same scramble do I get a DNF? In fact, there is a chance that you could get two identical scrambles in a row in a perfectly legitimate set of two scrambles. It's as likely as getting a "solved cube" as a scramble but the probability is not zero.

After they show you the cube, the pressure is on. I can see why someone would solve the thing and worry about the consequences later. We're timed on how long it takes us to solve a cube not on how long it takes us to resolve moral dilemmas. When I'm solving a cube (and being serious about it), I'm thinking of nothing but solving that cube.

I can totally see how one could postpone telling the judges that it seemed like a repeat scramble until after finishing the solve. But after solving it, how can the judges figure out if it was, in fact, a repeat? Isn't it your word against, well, no one in this case. So should the judges give an extra scramble to a contestant who claims that he's been given a repeat scramble?

 

[A Leman]

So should the judges give an extra scramble to a contestant who claims that he's been given a repeat scramble?

This could lead to a different type of cheating where someone says they had a repeat scramble after a bad solve to protect their average and give them another chance.

 

[Julian]

Congratulations on confessing. That must have been horrible.

But I'm not sure what a contestant should do when confronted with a scramble that is apparently identical to one already given. I don't do BLD, but the same problem certainly can come up in sighted solves.

If I tell them that the scramble is a repeat do I get a replacement scramble? What if I'm wrong, by telling them that I suspect it's the same scramble do I get a DNF? In fact, there is a chance that you could get two identical scrambles in a row in a perfectly legitimate set of two scrambles. It's as likely as getting a "solved cube" as a scramble but the probability is not zero.

After they show you the cube, the pressure is on. I can see why someone would solve the thing and worry about the consequences later. We're timed on how long it takes us to solve a cube not on how long it takes us to resolve moral dilemmas. When I'm solving a cube (and being serious about it), I'm thinking of nothing but solving that cube.

I can totally see how one could postpone telling the judges that it seemed like a repeat scramble until after finishing the solve. But after solving it, how can the judges figure out if it was, in fact, a repeat? Isn't it your word against, well, no one in this case. So should the judges give an extra scramble to a contestant who claims that he's been given a repeat scramble?

What I would do is solve the cube, then tell the head judge that you think you got a duplicate scramble. If you did and it was an accident, chances are the scrambler will be able to confirm the mistake, and you will get a replacement scramble.

 

[uberCuber]

If you did and it was an accident, chances are the scrambler will be able to confirm the mistake

Do you actually think so? I would think that with scrambling a bunch of cubes for different people, they wouldn't really remember which scrambles they've performed on which cubes. This could be hard to remember even with a conscious effort to do so.

 

[antoineccantin]

Do you actually think so? I would think that with scrambling a bunch of cubes for different people, they wouldn't really remember which scrambles they've performed on which cubes. This could be hard to remember even with a conscious effort to do so.

He could easily confirm that it is the same scramble by checking what the first scramble looks like.

 

[uberCuber]

He could easily confirm that it is the same scramble by checking what the first scramble looks like.

Julian also said he would solve the cube first, though. Perhaps I should have included that in the quotation

 

[tim]

The rules of thumb I follow:
- In speed solves I never complain about a duplicated scramble since I only have four (cross) pieces as a reference and being wrong could lead to a DNF (depends on the judge/delegate). But I make sure to solve the cross differently in order to get a different solve. And I also make sure to complain afterwards or tell the scramblers to pay more attention.
- In BLD solves I always complain since I'm 100% sure about what I memorized a few minutes ago.

I don't know about Multi BLD, though. Since complaining costs valuable time and I might lose focus I'll probably be tempted to give the cube a few turns without anyone noticing. ^^

 

[hcfong]

The rules of thumb I follow:
- In speed solves I never complain about a duplicated scramble since I only have four (cross) pieces as a reference and being wrong could lead to a DNF (depends on the judge/delegate). But I make sure to solve the cross differently in order to get a different solve. And I also make sure to complain afterwards or tell the scramblers to pay more attention.

Really? Has it ever happened to you? I don't think that wrongly, but in good faith, reporting a duplicate scramble should ever result in a DNF. In the worst case, you get the reverse scramble. But, do correct me if I'm wrong.