[WR] Chris Olson 1.71 2x2 avg5

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheDubDubJr said:
qqwref makes a great point
Click to expand...

So you'd give competitors a loophole that allows them to use more inspection time in case of the chance that some malicious judge would intentionally sabotage people?

Once again, improper procedure is classified as an "incident". If your judge is giving you wrong signals and you have video evidence (the only time in which this sabotage would work), you can bring it up with your delegate and ask for another attempt.
 
Kirjava said:
The hypothetical you post where the incident was known about at the time.
Click to expand...

I just stated that you don't know what exactly was going through Bryan's mind before, during, and after the solve. He might have known about it, he might have been completely oblivious. We don't know.

BaMiao said:
So you'd give competitors a loophole that allows them to use more inspection time in case of the chance that some malicious judge would intentionally sabotage people?

Once again, improper procedure is classified as an "incident". If your judge is giving you wrong signals and you have video evidence (the only time in which this sabotage would work), you can bring it up with your delegate and ask for another attempt.
Click to expand...

I brought out qqwref's point because it is something to consider when going about the regulations.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, the problem with punishing judges is that they're most likely volunteering, giving their time to help others, and so punishing judges would just make competitions harder to run, since there would probably be less people able to judge/willing to judge.
 
This reminds me of a time when I was given a +2 on 4x4 deliberately by Mitch Lane. All the layers where misaligned but the misalignment's were all <45 degrees. I was not notified that I was given the +2, and I only noticed when I went to sign. It was too late to dispute since the cube was already put back on the scrambling table. Other witnesses saw that it was indeed not a +2, but the delegate decided to let the final call stay with the judge.

As qqwref pointed out, this incident could open the doors for future judges to intentionally penalize competitors. And already the judge has many potential ways to intentionally penalize a competitor.
 
We could just use automated beeping systems such as you know...keyboard timers :P

A compooter beep is much more efficient than a person saying "12 seconds" and there is a much smaller room for error.
 
Edward_Lin said:
This reminds me of a time when I was given a +2 on 4x4 deliberately by Mitch Lane. All the layers where misaligned but the misalignment's were all <45 degrees. I was not notified that I was given the +2, and I only noticed when I went to sign. It was too late to dispute since the cube was already put back on the scrambling table. Other witnesses saw that it was indeed not a +2, but the delegate decided to let the final call stay with the judge.

As qqwref pointed out, this incident could open the doors for future judges to intentionally penalize competitors. And already the judge has many potential ways to intentionally penalize a competitor.
Click to expand...

That's pretty lane... I mean lame.

1. The competitor should always be the one who "solves" the cube.
2. If the judge is going to touch it, it needs to be after the competitor has signed the scorecard.
3. The judge should have informed the competitor about the +2 before moving the cube.

You should have gotten another attempt, especially because of 3.
 
Last edited:
BaMiao said:
So you'd give competitors a loophole that allows them to use more inspection time in case of the chance that some malicious judge would intentionally sabotage people?
Click to expand...
Well, it's not quite a loophole. In my scenario the judge gets punished - and, if it seems like the competitor is doing it deliberately, they would too. If we see the same competitor getting these kind of "mistakes" in their favor many times, for instance, it's obviously an instance of cheating.

BaMiao said:
Once again, improper procedure is classified as an "incident". If your judge is giving you wrong signals and you have video evidence (the only time in which this sabotage would work), you can bring it up with your delegate and ask for another attempt.
Click to expand...
And if neither the competitor nor the judge notices at the time, and by the time anyone brings it up it's far too late to take another attempt...?
 
qqwref said:
Well, it's not quite a loophole. In my scenario the judge gets punished - and, if it seems like the competitor is doing it deliberately, they would too. If we see the same competitor getting these kind of "mistakes" in their favor many times, for instance, it's obviously an instance of cheating.

And if neither the competitor nor the judge notices at the time, and by the time anyone brings it up it's far too late to take another attempt...?
Click to expand...

Cheating shouldn't have to be observed multiple times before it is caught.

If we want the rules to be enforced uniformly, we can't allow more than 15 seconds of inspection, period. If you're worried about your judge, I'd suggest watching the video before the end of the round if you think there is anything suspicious (hindsight, right?). Or, we can try to think about ways to get more uniform enforcement of the regulations, like automated timer systems. Allowing a record to hit the books containing an obviously unenforced penalty should not be an option.

And to be frank, there are easier ways for a judge to negatively affect a solve.
 
BaMiao said:
If you're worried about your judge, I'd suggest watching the video before the end of the round if you think there is anything suspicious (hindsight, right?).
Click to expand...
So you're suggesting that competitors need to videotape their own solves, then review the tape, if they don't want their judge to negatively affect their results by breaking WCA regulations?

BaMiao said:
And to be frank, there are easier ways for a judge to negatively affect a solve.
Click to expand...
Would you mind suggesting a few that don't result in the judge being punished in any way?
 
qqwref said:
So you're suggesting that competitors need to videotape their own solves, then review the tape, if they don't want their judge to negatively affect their results by breaking WCA regulations?
Click to expand...

Well, for quite a lot of people- and basically anyone attempting records- videotaping is already done. If you have the tape, you can watch it if you think there was something wrong (hindsight!). What we have is an imperfect system, and there isn't anything easy that can fix all the potential issues.

qqwref said:
Would you mind suggesting a few that don't result in the judge being punished in any way?
Click to expand...

We've already seen one story of a +2 where the judge moved the cube before the competitor could file a complaint. The judge could also just as easily give less inspection time, by giving the warnings earlier. Heck, any time the competitor even approaches 15 seconds, the judge could just add a +2, since no one else can see the stopwatch. Not to mention, the delegate is more likely to take the side of the judge in any dispute, since he is assumed to be impartial, which the competitor cannot be. This "scheme" that you've hatched relies on the competitor uploading the video (or someone else uploading it) with the entire inspection so that a solve which would be otherwise entered into the books with no problem can be viewed and analyzed by the community and the penalty enforced after the fact. Despite the fact that it seems to have happened here (pending WCA board decision), it isn't exactly a reliable way to sabotage someone.

So do I have every one of my solves videotaped to protect against evil judges? Heck no! I'm not breaking any records, and no one wants to watch my crappy solves on YouTube, anyway. Not only that, but I have a pretty optimistic view of humanity. I trust my judges much more than the previous paragraph might suggest. If I'm suggesting that you tape your solves to document potential incidents, it's to protect yourself against accidental, absent-minded mistakes, which seems to be what happened here. It sucks, but the regulations are clear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
[Official] Chris Olson - US Nationals 2x2 Finals 2nd Place 1.88 Average
Replies
12
Views
2,391
Antonie faz fan
A
Rubiks560
[Official] 1.73 2x2 Average - Chris Olson
2
Replies
21
Views
3,643
Coolster01
Coolster01
Rubiks560
[Unofficial] 1.66 2x2 average of 12 - Chris Olson
Replies
2
Views
1,040
kcl
kcl
Rubiks560
The Most Epic 2x2 Showdown Ever Chris Olson vs Jay McNeill - Results posted
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11,799
Dene
Dene
Rubiks560
[Official] DNF 2x2 Average (Massive WR Fail Alert) - Chris Olson
2 3
Replies
44
Views
8,224
rowehessler
rowehessler
Back
Top