[WCA Regulations 2014] Scramble Filtering (new poll)

[Stefan]

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

The idea of leaving a choice? I'd say low to medium strong. Not as strong as the main reason of finding a let's say two-or-fewer-moves record undesirable, but I find it stronger than the reasons against filtering that I remember (which admittedly is pretty much none... maybe someone ought to summarize them and put that somewhere where it can be easily found? I checked the first two pages of this thread and didn't find any).

 

[Kirjava]

Not as strong as the main reason of finding a let's say two-or-fewer-moves record undesirable

I consider 3 and 4 moves ostensibly the same. What makes you completely fine with 4 moves but suddenly having 3 bring a complete loss of integrity?

 

[Methuselah96]

I consider 3 and 4 moves ostensibly the same. What makes you completely fine with 4 moves but suddenly having 3 bring a complete loss of integrity?

Where did Stefan say that 4 moves is completely fine? You might consider 3 and 4 moves ostensibly the same, but others might not.

 

[Sa967St]

[...] the reasons against filtering that I remember (which admittedly is pretty much none... maybe someone ought to summarize them and put that somewhere where it can be easily found? I checked the first two pages of this thread and didn't find any).

I believe that that part of the discussion is mostly in from an email thread in the delegates mailing group. It's from January 12 and it's entitled "WCA regulations proposal: elimination of scramble filtering". It's somewhat long and the last time I read it in full was over a month ago, but IIRC the gist of the main argument is that filtering scrambles by number of moves does not filter all scrambles we believe are "easy", and hence there should be no filtering in order to achieve fairness. (Please correct me if this is incorrect.)

Where did Stefan say that 4 moves is completely fine? You might consider 3 and 4 moves ostensibly the same, but others might not.

Here's the post.

 

[Stefan]

IIRC the gist of the main argument is that filtering scrambles by number of moves does not filter all scrambles we believe are "easy", and hence there should be no filtering in order to achieve fairness.

Which is completely nonsensical, as not being able to find a 100% perfect solution pleasing everyone doesn't mean we have to give up and do nothing. We should do the best we can. Find some middle ground.

Inspection for example has the same problem. It's unnatural, it's inappropriate (recognition+thinking is part of solving but inspection time is not included in the solve time), the length is arbitrary, and there are people who'd like no or reduced inspection. There is no perfect solution, so why don't we give up and don't do inspection? Why aren't the same kind of people who are against filtering also just as much against inspection?

Cubes as well. Some cubes are clearly ok, others are clearly not, and people have different opinions about what exactly should be allowed. There is no perfect solution, so why don't we give up and don't restrict anything?

Here's the post.

I'd say Thom's "completely fine with 4 moves but suddenly having 3 bring a complete loss of integrity" is an exaggeration of what I said there or anywhere else.

And I'm puzzled why he asked what makes me think so, as that exact post of mine already explained it and we also talked about it in subsequent posts.

 

[Kirjava]

Which is completely nonsensical, as not being able to find a 100% perfect solution pleasing everyone doesn't mean we have to give up and do nothing. We should do the best we can. Find some middle ground.

This is not to do with pleasing everyone.

Inspection for example has the same problem. It's unnatural, it's inappropriate (recognition+thinking is part of solving but inspection time is not included in the solve time), the length is arbitrary, and there are people who'd like no or reduced inspection. There is no perfect solution, so why don't we give up and don't do inspection? Why aren't the same kind of people who are against filtering also just as much against inspection?

I don't think this is analogous as I see inspection and no inspection as two completely different events.

I'd be fine with holding both, I would prefer to not (stop holding the inspection && hold the no inspection instead), but that's just because of my personal preference for inspection due that being the event I practise.

Cubes as well. Some cubes are clearly ok, others are clearly not, and people have different opinions about what exactly should be allowed. There is no perfect solution, so why don't we give up and don't restrict anything?

That appears to be what we are moving towards.

And I'm puzzled why he asked what makes me think so, as that exact post of mine already explained it and we also talked about it in subsequent posts.

Yeah, it's based on how you feel. The post really feels like like you're creating justification to fit the circumstance.

I can't help but wonder if the limit was 5 moves that you'd agree that 4 is too trivial.

Also, as I said before, many (most?) people for filtering already think 4 is too trivial anyway, as seen in the 0.69 WR thread.

 

[Stefan]

This is not to do with pleasing everyone.

It does have to do with that, as it's not perfect if it doesn't please everyone.

I don't think this is analogous as I see inspection and no inspection as two completely different events.

Even if you do that, it doesn't justify the 15 seconds, and there are people against 15 seconds. It remains imperfect, so apparently we should give up and not do it.

That appears to be what we are moving towards.

Moving towards, but never going to reach.

The post really feels like like you're creating justification to fit the circumstance.

I certainly do base my opinion on all circumstances. Who doesn't?

I can't help but wonder if the limit was 5 moves that you'd agree that 4 is too trivial.

Maybe I would. We'll never know.

But note that I didn't vote for "The ones specified in the current regulations", so it's not like I just blindly adore and defend the current limits. And I've been in favor of filtering <4 and allowing >=4 for 2x2x2 for years, long before it was implemented in the official scrambler and regulations.

Also, as I said before, many (most?) people for filtering already think 4 is too trivial anyway, as seen in the 0.69 WR thread.

Yeah, I know there are people who think so. You can't please everyone. Hence the "find some middle ground" thingy. Also, those people are what makes 4 some middle ground.

 

[Stefan]

IIRC the gist of the main argument is that filtering scrambles by number of moves does not filter all scrambles we believe are "easy", and hence there should be no filtering in order to achieve fairness.

Besides what I said above... yes, filtering let's say <=3 doesn't filter all "easy" ones, but aren't those it does filter "easy"? Put differently: I believe there are scrambles considered "easy" by everybody, scrambles considered "not easy" by everybody, and the remaining "unclear" scrambles. I see the argument you mention as "We can't draw a line in the unclear region, so let's not draw a line at all". Ignoring the fact that we already have a line, between the easy and the unclear regions, and could draw other lines inside the easy region, all of which would be better than not drawing a line at all.

 

[Kirjava]

It does have to do with that, as it's not perfect if it doesn't please everyone.

I don't think a requirement for 'perfect' has to be that it pleases everyone. There can be rules that are 'objectively' correct yet people will be unhappy about.

Even if you do that, it doesn't justify the 15 seconds, and there are people against 15 seconds. It remains imperfect, so apparently we should give up and not do it.

My argument for not filtering doesn't rely on the fact that we cannot find a method of filtering that everyone is happy with.

Moving towards, but never going to reach.

Besides, the point is folly to what I said above.

I certainly do base my opinion on all circumstances. Who doesn't?

I was more saying that I wonder if you'd argue for this if it wasn't already in place. You covered that below though.

But note that I didn't vote for "The ones specified in the current regulations", so it's not like I just blindly adore and defend the current limits. And I've been in favor of filtering <4 and allowing >=4 for 2x2x2 for years, long before it was implemented in the official scrambler and regulations.

That's completely fair, but were you doing this before it was pseudo-official? Delegates have been acting as if this rule was official and filtering <4 since forever.

Yeah, I know there are people who think so. You can't please everyone. Hence the "find some middle ground" thingy. Also, those people are what makes 4 some middle ground.

I don't really feel like there can be a real middle ground against no filtering. Sure, 2x2x2 filtering is less extreme than skewb, but it's still completely unwanted. Any kind of filtering is bad.

"We can't draw a line in the unclear region, so let's not draw a line at all"

It's not like this. I think you can draw a line and you've chosen an appropriate place for it. If I wanted filtering, I think I would be happy with the line you have drawn (maybe even higher).

But it doesn't really matter where it is, I think it shouldn't be drawn because I don't think we should filter, not because of the question of its location.

 

[Stefan]

I don't think a requirement for 'perfect' has to be that it pleases everyone. There can be rules that are 'objectively' correct yet people will be unhappy about.

And how are we going to find this 'objectively' correct rule? Ask god?

My argument for not filtering doesn't rely on the fact that we cannot find a method of filtering that everyone is happy with.

What is your argument?

but were you doing this before it was pseudo-official? Delegates have been acting as if this rule was official and filtering <4 since forever.

Well, when did it become this "pseudo-official"? I suggested this exact filtering in 2008, apparently right after learning about filtering for the first time, and with the exact same reasoning I'm still using today:

"I think I'd vote for either no discardings or only trivial ones, let's say "scrambles solvable in three moves or less", which even non-cubers could solve."

At that point I knew that Erik thought a 3 had been filtered and that his 7 had been allowed, and that apparently "face done" had been allowed somewhere and rejected elsewhere. So looks like accepting 4 and drawing the line exactly there was in fact my own idea. Maybe I caused that "pseudo-official" rule? (at least the "allow >=4" part, if you didn't mean to include that)

I don't really feel like there can be a real middle ground against no filtering.

"middle ground against no filtering" doesn't make sense to me (maybe explain what you mean?). Middle ground "on filtering" I'd call it. There's a spectrum from "no filtering" to "filter easy ones" (including stuff like superflip), and filterings like <=1, <=3 or the current regulations are middle grounds.

Sure, 2x2x2 filtering is less extreme than skewb, but it's still completely unwanted.

Unwanted by you. Not by everybody. So actually it is wanted (as it's wanted by someone).

Any kind of filtering is bad.

Why?

It's not like this.

Well I'd say the one Sarah presented, the one I was responding to, really is.

I don't think we should filter

Why?

 

[Tim Major]

As a small sidenote, I could do 2flip on pyra (8 moves) faster than 3 random moves and 2 tips (5 moves) yet the slower and less trivial scramble filtered.

It's also more likely to be seen by a nub (2flip is a basic alg that most people use. 3 random moves isn't immediately obvious)

The same exists for skewb.

 

[uberCuber]

As a small sidenote, I could do 2flip on pyra (8 moves) faster than 3 random moves and 2 tips (5 moves) yet the slower and less trivial scramble filtered.

It's also more likely to be seen by a nub (2flip is a basic alg that most people use. 3 random moves isn't immediately obvious)

The same exists for skewb.

Lol I legitimately have difficulty figuring out a 2-move scramble on skewb.

 

[Tim Major]

Yet you could probably sub 2 8 moves (pure pi)

So why filter 5 move scrambles that no one will see, and not 8 movers that EVERYONE would see.

To me, filtering makes no sense purely for this reason.

 

[kcl]

Lol I legitimately have difficulty figuring out a 2-move scramble on skewb.

I'm decently fast at skewb and it's slightly embarrassing that this is true for me too. I've missed one looking 3 movers :/

 

[qqwref]

Personally, I think anyone who makes the argument that "well, this filtering scheme would not prevent against this easy scramble, so filtering is no good" is kind of missing the point of filtering. It is not to get rid of easy scrambles - I think almost everyone would agree there is no practical and universal way to list all scrambles people would find easy. And really, I like easy scrambles, and expect the best singles to be on scrambles that are noticeably better than average.

Instead, I want to filter scrambles that are short, precisely because those positions are too close to solved. Such positions do not guarantee ridiculous times, but they have the potential to result in ridiculous times, even for people who do not know a decent method (e.g. Bob Burton method on Pyraminx) or who are turning nearly randomly. I don't like the idea that someone who does not know how to solve a puzzle (from all positions) could get a time that is unmatchable by many skilled cubers.


I suppose, if we don't filter, someday the world record single for some puzzles will be 0.00. I'm not necessarily against that; we're already there in some simulator puzzles. But I don't like the idea that the record will then belong to whatever people happened to be at that competition. Imagine the situation of Christian Kaserer, but even more extreme. Perhaps someday statistics such as sum-of-singles can just not count rankings like that.

 

[Kirjava]

And how are we going to find this 'objectively' correct rule? Ask god?

We don't have to find it. It feels like you're deliberately misinterpreting me.

The point is that we don't have to please everyone. Some people will want to remove easy crosses.

What is your argument?

Variance and randomness are fundamental aspects of Speedcubing. Attempting to eliminate them compromises the integrity of the event.

Maybe I caused that "pseudo-official" rule?

You monster

"middle ground against no filtering" doesn't make sense to me (maybe explain what you mean?)

Yeah, sorry - I wasn't too clear. I know that you can choose places between no filtering and 20f* positions only and some of them can be closer to no filtering than others. I'm not saying that we should give up and not filter because we have to draw a line, I'm saying we should not filter because it's the right thing to do. From my perspective 'low' filtering doesn't feel like middle ground at all since the integrity of the event is still being harmed.

Unwanted by you. Not by everybody. So actually it is wanted (as it's wanted by someone).

Unwanted by people that do not like filtering. I thought that was implied.

Why?

My explanations earlier in this post reply to both of these questions.

Well I'd say the one Sarah presented, the one I was responding to, really is.

This view has been projected by you onto me multiple times to defend, it must be made clear that I do not hold it.


Thanks for asking me to reply to your post. (Moderation has requested we stop posting - I don't see how this discussion negatively affects anything and would like to continue it)

 

[Stefan]

Variance and randomness are fundamental aspects of Speedcubing. Attempting to eliminate them compromises the integrity of the event.

Nobody wants to eliminate them. Just reduce them a tiny little bit, and only at certain bad cases. Less than we're doing by removing best+worst from averages, and I don't see anyone lamenting that. Also, I see your point as rather theoretical, harming noone, compared to the practical issue of undeserved records/ranks taking away from more deserving cubers, which I think compromises the integrity of the event more.

Thanks for asking me to reply to your post. (Moderation has requested we stop posting

Well, I take the "cool it down" as "stop posting soooooo much" (for others: when we were asked, I had had the last long word and I didn't want Thom getting cut off, so I asked to let him reply however he wants).

 

[Sa967St]

Out of curiosity, has anyone's opinion on the matter been affected by any of the posts in this thread? I get the impression that one's opinion on whether to filter or is difficult to change once formed, and probably won't change any time soon for almost all people. I don't think we're getting anywhere with this style of discussion; the same points are being brought up again and again, with no break-through. Rather, I think we ought to get a good summary from both sides, and form a strong pros and cons list, if we want to have any kind of impact on filtering any time soon.

 

[Mollerz]

My opinion follows the line of Kirjava's and Tim Major's, and has done all along, I am just very bad with putting my point across so I never really delved into the discussion when Kirjava is saying exactly what I want but better.

(Moderation has requested we stop posting - I don't see how this discussion negatively affects anything and would like to continue it)

I don't understand why moderators ask people to stop discussion on a controversial topic that still has not been resolved. The discussion fuels other people's input so without initial discussion, there would not be a discussion at all. The only way for this to be resolved at all is with discussion so why halt it?

 

[Stefan]

I don't understand why moderators ask people to stop discussion

Does "cool it down" really mean "stop"? I really don't think so.