[WCA Regulations 2014] Scramble Filtering (new poll)

[keyan]

Additionally:
we had agreed on filtering 0 and 1 moves from solved, or so i thought; then Sebastien says "Oh hey btw Board wants 4 for 2's and 8 for Pyra"
Tyson: We agreed on that? I wasn't aware we had discussion
The above is a direct quote from a conversation I had with a WRC member. I confirmed with Tyson that this was an accurate representation of the events prior to posting.

Please note that I've updated my previous post, as above.

 

[keyan]

For anyone interested, I've made a formal proposal to the WCA to change the regulations, eliminating scramble filtering for states with optimal solves of two or more moves* and making properly generated random scrambles final, disallowing retroactive filtering.

*Not an endorsement of counting a cube unsolved by one move as solved, but just reflecting the other regulations as they currently stand.

It is always the easiest to assume bad intentions, right?

You'll notice I was talking about appearances and said nothing of intentions.

- leaving out information that well just confuse not so experienced WCA members, seen how many problems we already have getting those to read our regulations.

Are you similarly in favor of eliminating 12c, 12d, 12e, 12g and 12h, as they have even less bearing on a regular competitor?

- leaving TNoodle and the regulations as disconnected as possible to not complicate changes. As a matter of fact, the Board has already decided to change the limits for Pyraminx and Skewb down to 6 moves, based on the community's feedback in this thread. We cannot make this change in TNoodle 0.8.0 (which will be released at the beginning of next week) though, because we would violate the regulations otherwise.

See Michael and Lucas's exchange above.

 

[Kirjava]

For anyone interested, I've made a formal proposal to the WCA to change the regulations, eliminating scramble filtering for states with optimal solves of two or more moves* and making properly generated random scrambles final, disallowing retroactive filtering.

Did anything come of this? It seems we came to the concensus that the majority do not like filtering the way it is and want it changed, yet nothing seems to have come of it.

I hope a personal agenda isn't hampering everyone else's progress.

 

[Lucas Garron]

Did anything come of this? It seems we came to the concensus that the majority do not like filtering the way it is and want it changed, yet nothing seems to have come of it.

I hope a personal agenda isn't hampering everyone else's progress.

My personal agenda is "don't focus on the WRC right now because I have some other priorities".

It's hard to get an agreement with such a strong no-filtering policy, and even if we adopt it with clear reasons the discussion will flare up again every time an easy 2x2x2 scramble comes up.

(Yes, the vote as it is currently structured shows a consensus towards it, but how many people would become indignant and take out their pitchforks
at a 2x2x2 scramble that can be solved with R U R'?)

 

[Kirjava]

My personal agenda is "don't focus on the WRC right now because I have some other priorities".

I wasn't referring to you, sorry if it seemed that way.

It's hard to get an agreement with such a strong no-filtering policy, and even if we adopt it with clear reasons the discussion will flare up again every time an easy 2x2x2 scramble comes up.

(Yes, the vote as it is currently structured shows a consensus towards it, but how many people would become indignant and take out their pitchforks
at a 2x2x2 scramble that can be solved with R U R'?)

You have no idea, so why would you even suggest that this would be the case when the statistics point to otherwise?

 

[Lucas Garron]

You have no idea, so why would you even suggest that this would be the case when the statistics point to otherwise?

The statistics show that people *say* they think otherwise. (At least, of those who bothered to vote.)

However, the 2x2x2 WRs have shown that people feel it's unfair when someone gets an easy scramble.
*Some* of that is due to the fact that Delegates were filtering inconsistently, which we've worked to fix. But I don't have any illusions that people will *feel* much more comfortable about easy scrambles even if every competitions scramble has (a priori) the same chance of being easy.

Should I care? I'm not sure. But I'll have to deal with it either way, and I don't have the time to consider all the aspects of this right now.

 

[Kirjava]

Why such a disbelief of other people's stated opinion?

In the 0.69 thread people are making the same complaints about easy scrambles, so what does this filtering even achieve?

 

[Lucas Garron]

Why such a disbelief of other people's stated opinion?

In the 0.69 thread people are making the same complaints about easy scrambles, so what does this filtering even achieve?

That's a fair point. *Any* change to the filtering requires careful consideration.

But it is at least *my personal concern* is that lowering the limits will result in people being more upset when easy scrambles come up.
That makes me reluctant to put in a lot of time to evaluate and push for such a change right now, even if I think scramble filtering isn't really a good idea.

(Why such a belief? Because sometimes people are terrible at expressing their actual preferences in a coldly logical setting, and I think this might be such a time.)

 

[Kirjava]

But it is at least *my personal concern* is that lowering the limits will result in people being more upset when easy scrambles come up.

I think the same people who get upset now will still get upset and the people who are not upset will still not be. How much more annoyed can you be at 0.52 than 0.69?

That makes me reluctant to put in a lot of time to evaluate and push for such a change right now, even if I think scramble filtering isn't really a good idea.

Does it have to be you that does it?

 

[Stefan]

It seems we came to the concensus that the majority do not like filtering the way it is and want it changed

How about a weighted evaluation, where the votes are weighted by how upset their voters can get?

Person A votes for high filtering but we implement no filtering and then a two-mover WR happens.
Person B votes for no filtering but we implement high filtering and a two-mover is filtered.

Who will get more upset?

 

[Kirjava]

I don't really think resultant mood is a large enough aspect to even bother factoring into this. Event integrity should take precedence.

A lot more people were upset when magic was removed than the people upset that it still existed.

I know you were largely joking but this made me realise how invalid that point is.

 

[Stefan]

Well, I wasn't really requesting that, but I wasn't joking, either. I picked the wrong term, though, as your magic example demonstrated. But that same example also demonstrates that the majority shouldn't necessarily get its way, that not all votes have to have equal weight.

I do feel that a two-moves WR happening hurts the event integrity (thanks for the term, it describes better what I actually wanted, I just tried to measure it in a wrong way) much more than a two-moves scramble getting filtered, partly because I think we can always go lower but not higher (than something that has already occurred and accepted). So I would indeed give more weight to votes for higher filtering.

 

[Stefan]

Just because I was curious and like coding...

          votes   mean/median/all membership ages in days
Option 1:     8   1106  995  [SIZE=1][2137, 2013, 1205, 1059, 932, 794, 378, 331][/SIZE]
Option 2:    23   1261 1106  [SIZE=1][2867, 2854, 2728, 2263, 2180, 2069, 1661, 1645, 1351, 1336, 1120, 1106, 956, 828, 789, 698, 689, 650, 338, 323, 320, 140, 94][/SIZE]
Option 3:    47   1109 1041  [SIZE=1][2904, 2895, 2457, 2429, 2089, 2045, 1978, 1708, 1680, 1647, 1597, 1432, 1407, 1345, 1325, 1250, 1237, 1216, 1215, 1207, 1147, 1106, 1098, 1041, 1041, 1017, 944, 920, 907, 875, 802, 796, 774, 690, 659, 591, 439, 408, 365, 326, 314, 211, 172, 116, 100, 98, 89][/SIZE]
Option 4:    10   1345  978  [SIZE=1][2654, 2167, 2158, 1738, 1026, 930, 884, 777, 697, 419][/SIZE]
Option 5:     6    931  450  [SIZE=1][2831, 1557, 519, 382, 215, 81][/SIZE]

 

[Kirjava]

Well, I wasn't really requesting that, but I wasn't joking, either. I picked the wrong term, though, as your magic example demonstrated. But that same example also demonstrates that the majority shouldn't necessarily get its way, that not all votes have to have equal weight.

How are you sure what the majority wanted?

I do feel that a two-moves WR happening hurts the event integrity (thanks for the term, it describes better what I actually wanted, I just tried to measure it in a wrong way) much more than a two-moves scramble getting filtered, partly because I think we can always go lower but not higher (than something that has already occurred and accepted). So I would indeed give more weight to votes for higher filtering.

"We won't be able to go higher again" doesn't seem like a good counter to "we don't want it to ever be higher".

 

[Stefan]

How are you sure what the majority wanted?

I just went with your "A lot more people...". Did I misuse it?

"We won't be able to go higher again" doesn't seem like a good counter to "we don't want it to ever be higher".

It's not supposed to be one. It's something to consider when making a decision.

 

[Kirjava]

I just went with your "A lot more people...". Did I misuse it?

You can have a preference for removal without being upset about the circumstance.

It's not supposed to be one. It's something to consider when making a decision.

I'm trying to take it into consideration. Is the gist that filtering will allow us to not filter in the future? Seems like an odd justification.

Surely if you think that not filtering is absolutely a bad idea this is moot.

 

[Stefan]

You can have a preference for removal without being upset about the circumstance.

Right, sorry. I really shouldn't have brought up 'being upset' in the first place.

Is the gist that filtering will allow us to not filter in the future?

Half of the gist, yes. The other half being that not filtering possibly will not allow us to do filter in the future. Filtering leaves a choice, not filtering might not.

Surely if you think that not filtering is absolutely a bad idea this is moot.

Why? Can't I change my mind? Or maybe I won't be around anymore in a couple years and then I don't count? Same for everybody else. Who knows who of us will still be around in the future, and what the cubers who will be around will think?

 

[Kirjava]

Half of the gist, yes. The other half being that not filtering possibly will not allow us to do filter in the future. Filtering leaves a choice, not filtering might not.

With the stance I take, not being able to add filtering in the future isn't a disadvantage.

Why? Can't I change my mind?

Well, yes. But if you think you have to stay with this option because it allows change, that kind of stops you from changing anyway.

 

[Stefan]

With the stance I take, not being able to add filtering in the future isn't a disadvantage.

Ok, but it's still something to consider for people who are undecided or who don't think they're infallible.

But if you think you have to stay with this option because it allows change, that kind of stops you from changing anyway.

Only as long as I think being able to change/choose is desirable.

 

[Kirjava]

Do you think the current idea you're championing is a strong reason?