Proposal: Video Evidence Should NOT be used to overturn official records

[MWilson]

WCA record keeping is a global scale attempt to create a database representing real life events. In this case, those events are the speeds at which individuals have solved various puzzles. All WCA regulations are set toward getting accurate measurements of these times.

It is possible for a video to suggest an inaccuracy in the record keeping, but not be conclusive, hence:

11f) Decisions about an incident may be supported with video or photographic analysis, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.

However, if video evidence of inaccurate record keeping is blindly ignored even when conclusive, and is not used to modify the record to be more accurate, then the WCA is no longer making use of all available means to record an accurate representation of what has occurred in real life events. This would cause the WCA to no longer serve a purpose in terms of record keeping.

Unlike major sports organizations, the WCA does not have to balance accurate record keeping with political and business interests totaling in the billions of dollars. Neither do they need to worry about career destroying media backlash, or losing their multi-million dollar holiday bonus because they made a player look bad who happened to be commercially endorsing a product of a major sponsor. Comparing the record keeping and regulations of the WCA to these comparatively gargantuan organizations is pointless, as their decisions are fueled by far more than just fair play.

The WCA is in a position where they can focus on accurate record keeping, and should certainly take advantage of that by using conclusive video evidence to maintain as accurate record of real life events as possible. Without doing so, they nullify one of their major purposes for existing at all.

 

[Kit Clement]

WCA record keeping is a global scale attempt to create a database representing real life events. In this case, those events are the speeds at which individuals have solved various puzzles. All WCA regulations are set toward getting accurate measurements of these times.

It is possible for a video to suggest an inaccuracy in the record keeping, but not be conclusive, hence:


However, if video evidence of inaccurate record keeping is blindly ignored even when conclusive, and is not used to modify the record to be more accurate, then the WCA is no longer making use of all available means to record an accurate representation of what has occurred in real life events. This would cause the WCA to no longer serve a purpose in terms of record keeping.

Unlike major sports organizations, the WCA does not have to balance accurate record keeping with political and business interests totaling in the billions of dollars. Neither do they need to worry about career destroying media backlash, or losing their multi-million dollar holiday bonus because they made a player look bad who happened to be commercially endorsing a product of a major sponsor. Comparing the record keeping and regulations of the WCA to these comparatively gargantuan organizations is pointless, as their decisions are fueled by far more than just fair play.

The WCA is in a position where they can focus on accurate record keeping, and should certainly take advantage of that by using conclusive video evidence to maintain as accurate record of real life events as possible. Without doing so, they nullify one of their major purposes for existing at all.

I assume you're responding to Keaton's incident. I don't know the specifics of his incident and therefore don't want to speak about that result. But in any similar incident, if the judge did not receive time to write down the time from the timer, then the regulations say the judge has the discretion to give a DNF. If the judge does award that DNF (and the delegate agrees), then that is the accurate result for the solve, because that's what the regulations say. Why would we do this rather than try to get the accurate result?

- It's entirely preventable by the competitor, and not the fault of the judge or any other outside party. While likely due to a mental lapse, ignorance isn't an excuse either, as competitors are required to know the regulations.
- It takes a decent amount of the delegate's time to go through video to correct this result, and depending on how the competition is going, the delegate might not have time to look over video evidence.
- Letting the result go through doesn't reinforce the proper procedure, which may lead the competitor to accidentally do this again and potentially waste more time.

There are many different reasons for different regulations, and ensuring the most accurate times are recorded is not the only one.

 

[MWilson]

I assume you're responding to Keaton's incident. I don't know the specifics of his incident and therefore don't want to speak about that result. But in any similar incident, if the judge did not receive time to write down the time from the timer, then the regulations say the judge has the discretion to give a DNF. If the judge does award that DNF (and the delegate agrees), then that is the accurate result for the solve, because that's what the regulations say. Why would we do this rather than try to get the accurate result?

- It's entirely preventable by the competitor, and not the fault of the judge or any other outside party. While likely due to a mental lapse, ignorance isn't an excuse either, as competitors are required to know the regulations.
- It takes a decent amount of the delegate's time to go through video to correct this result, and depending on how the competition is going, the delegate might not have time to look over video evidence.
- Letting the result go through doesn't reinforce the proper procedure, which may lead the competitor to accidentally do this again and potentially waste more time.

There are many different reasons for different regulations, and ensuring the most accurate times are recorded is not the only one.

I was responding in general to the topic of whether or not to use video evidence at all. That said, I don't think I should ignore your points, as they do indirectly address mine.

I am aware that the WCA cannot ensure perfectly accurate records. I was suggesting that all regulations are attempts toward the most accurate records possible.

Of course, these are not records of results from a machine simulation. These records are of something influenced greatly by human behavior, and therefore there will always be errors both in the records, and in the methods of obtaining them. This means regulations made toward the highest degree of accuracy possible must balance between the logical behavior of the puzzle, the scrambling process, and the timer, as well as the biological and psychological behavior of the judges and competitors.

Examples of regulations based on the logical behavior of the puzzle, the scrambling process, and the timer:

3h) Modifications that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle are not permitted. Modified versions of puzzles are permitted only if the modification does not make any additional information available to the competitor (e.g. orientation or identity of pieces), compared to an unmodified version of the same puzzle.
4b) Puzzles must be scrambled using computer-generated random scramble sequences.
10b) Only the resting state of the puzzle, after the timer has been stopped, is considered.

Examples of regulations based on the biological and psychological behavior of the judges and competitors:

2g) Competitors must remain quiet when inside the designated competition area. Talking is permitted, but must be kept at a reasonable level, and away from competitors who are actively competing.
2i1) Competitors may use certain non-electronic aids that do not give the competitor an unfair advantage, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate. This includes:
--- 2i1a) Medical/physical aids worn by the competitor (etc. glasses, wrist brace, hearing aids).
A6f) The competitor must not reset the timer until the judge has recorded the result on the score sheet. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF), at the discretion of the judge.

I include A6f, because when I make the point that the WCA database exists only to keep records of real life events, and suggest that all regulations must be toward the accuracy of that database, it was not meant to be a mechanical thought as if about a computer simulation. I am still considering the fact that the competitors and judges are human. I feel that I am including your three points, in that judges are more likely to make a mistake the more rushed and stressed they are. The competitors should definitely be aware of the regulations before competing, including those regulations that are in place to ensure that the judges are not distracted by unnecessary responsibilities or unreasonable time constraints.

- It's entirely preventable by the competitor, and not the fault of the judge or any other outside party. While likely due to a mental lapse, ignorance isn't an excuse either, as competitors are required to know the regulations.

I agree with the approach of the competitor also being responsible for ensuring accurate recording, because ...

- It takes a decent amount of the delegate's time to go through video to correct this result, and depending on how the competition is going, the delegate might not have time to look over video evidence.
- Letting the result go through doesn't reinforce the proper procedure, which may lead the competitor to accidentally do this again and potentially waste more time.

... a smooth, low stress system of record collection is crucial to it's accuracy when such a large degree of human behavior is involved. The competitor must play their part in the data collection being smooth and accurate. A mistake by the competitor should affect the accuracy of their own times, rather than delay future events and exhaust or distract judges, possibly affecting the accuracy of other competitors soon after.

I actually don't have any complaints about the current regulations myself. I'm just saying that I believe video evidence, when both conclusive and used under discretion, is in the interests of the WCA database regardless of potential debatable "unfairness" to competitors.

 

[Sa967St]

At Harvard Spring 2012, I accidentally reset the timer before the judge wrote down my time. I had video evidence of my times, but the judge refused to watch the video and write my time down.

I DNF'd both attempts(which may or may not have solidified my standings into the 2nd round of 3x3, another mistake at the competition.)

Either use all video evidence to support or hinder solves, or use none. Don't cherry pick whenever it's relevant to records.

From 2010 until 2012, Article 11f was:

11f) The main judge, organisation team and WCA delegate must not support their decisions with video or photograph analysis.

It wasn't until the beginning of 2013 that it was changed to the current version:

11f) Decisions about an incident may be supported with video or photographic analysis, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.

 

[DeeDubb]

But wasn't one of your original points about it being unfair that some solves are subject to more scrutiny than others? You seem to be going against your own point by saying that we only need to scrutinise a subset of the solves.

Define 'Going for NR/CR/WR'. You can get records without trying for them. Especially in more luck-based events.

Yes, one of my original points was exactly that. I'm reevaluating and modifying my point somewhat, because the main arguments for/against video apply mostly to how it's impossible to film EVERYONE, which I concede, and that video evidence is most important for ensuring legitimacy of record solves. That's why I propose that every record solve must be submitted with video as well. This would also solve the dilemma that was presented with the 4 second solve from Mexico last year. Sorry, no video, no record.

As for defining "going for a record", if you want a chance at a record, you better film your solves is basically it. I wouldn't need to because I know currently it's quite impossible for me to get anything close to any record in any event, and if I did get a record, it would be so fluky that it's not even worth me having. That being said, I'll still film my solves probably, just for fun.

to be honest, i don't think that this thread makes much sense. some of the arguments i have read seem to assume that everyone who takes a personal video is obligated to put it on the internet. it is not unfair to make use of evidence that someone willingly made available.

example: in the first round of my last competition, my hand slipped during inspection of a solve causing one face to make a full turn. i dropped the cube and didn't know which face i had turned. the judge said nothing so i just continued on as if nothing had happened. this entire thing was caught on video, but i decided not to upload it to youtube because of this. now it isn't like i was too concerned about the result being changed seeing as it is not even close to a record solve, but i simply didnt want to deal with any sort of social ramifications. that video is my personal property, and i can do with it what i wish, and if i happen to make a poor decision, i should face the consequences for it.

This was addressed in my opening post, that my concern was people would be afraid to post their official solves out of fear of being retroactively punished. This hurts the community as a whole when people aren't spreading solves.

 

[Kirjava]

That's why I propose that every record solve must be submitted with video as well.

Do you think that this doesn't come with more problems (?) , because there are a whole host of them.

 

[cubizh]

I personally think people should be more concerned in having a sportsmanlike behaviour when competing and just DNFing a result if they make an error (regardless if the judge sees or not), and politely accept a ruling if it is seen (now or later) that there was a mistake, and less scanning videos to see if it's safe to upload or not, or worried if they get filmed or not.

In this regard, I don't think anything should change.

That's why I propose that every record solve must be submitted with video as well. This would also solve the dilemma that was presented with the 4 second solve from Mexico last year. Sorry, no video, no record.

I can only assume you are joking. If not, maybe you should reread what you typed and ponder on it.

 

[DeeDubb]

Do you think that this doesn't come with more problems (?) , because there are a whole host of them.

I think it has problems that are outweighed by the benefits. I'd like to hear the problems you foresee, because maybe I missed some.

These are the possible Pros and Cons that I see

Pros:
Eventually when every record is broken, all record holders would be held to the same standards of judging
Every record solve is available on the internet for all to enjoy

Cons:
Technical difficulties could mean someone doesn't get a record - legit concern
Gray area in the quality level of video - Anyone with a modern smart phone has a good enough camera
If you have a bad camera man who can't hold you in frame during your solve, that could cost you. - Make sure your camera man knows how to film you
I suppose longer events such as MBLD could be annoying - also legit concern. MBLD could have separate rules or not be subject to this altogether
People should film FMC? That's stupid - You're right, no reason for FMC to be subject to the video rule.

I'll ask you, what percent of current records are NOT on film, especially WR? I think the vast majority were filmed.

I can only assume you are joking. If not, maybe you should reread what you typed and ponder on it.

Not joking at all. I've thought about everything I wrote. Why don't you tell me what you find wrong with what I said, and then we can have a discussion about it.

If his solve had been on video, it would have been obvious that he was cheating instead of having to go through the process that the WCA went through. If someone covered their tracks a little better, they could have a cheated record not on video and the WCA would have no way to disprove it without video.

 

[rowan]

Your second pro is very bizarre, a lot of cubers are not solving for others and they do not have to provide enjoyment for other cubers. This should not be considered a positive aspect of your proposal.

Also, you are (essentially) adding a financial requirement, people now have to own a camera or a smartphone or have access to one. Not everyone owns one of these things and shouldn't be required to. There are a multitude of reasons that cubers may not want to be filmed (pressure, personal preference, etc) and all of those are valid. There are so many issues with what you are proposing here that I don't think have been considered. I am sure others could think of endless reasons that requiring a video would be problematic.

You keep changing what you want required to help fix the initial problem you cited, too. First you said that videos shouldn't be used to overturn official records and now they should be required for them? I understand that what happened that inspired this thread needs to be addressed but I think (as others have pointed out) that is more of an issue with the puzzle regulations than with video evidence.

 

[DeeDubb]

You keep changing what you want required to help fix the initial problem you cited, too. First you said that videos shouldn't be used to overturn official records and now they should be required for them? I understand that what happened that inspired this thread needs to be addressed but I think (as others have pointed out) that is more of an issue with the puzzle regulations than with video evidence.

I think video shouldn't be used to determine the validity of a record unless it can be used to determine the validity of all records. My original point was that because it can't be used for everyone, it shouldn't be used for anyone, out of fairness. The debate then went towards concern about record holders, and the cheating that can only be caught on video. This is a pretty strong counterargument to my original point. So, I think, why not just focus on record holders instead of negating video because it's impractical to film every single person.

I can't think of a single person who is near record level who wouldn't have someone at an organized event willing to film them. The equipment required to organize an event is also costly, but still required. The idea that it's possible for someone who is at NR/CR/WR level would not have access to someone willing to film them doesn't seem like a feasible hypothetical situation to me.

As for the nerves aspect, people are nervous solving at a competition, but the WCA still requires that, because it helps fairness. If someone cannot perform under the pressure of a WCA event, we would say "I'm sorry, but that's just how we have to do things." If the camera were required, people would understand going in that it's part of the pressure, and they would just have to cope.

Alex asks that his films not be solved, and that's reasonable because filming solves is not required. He can't ask the judge to turn around while he solves so he can do it with less pressure, because the rules require the judge to be watching. If the rules required film, then Alex would have to deal with it.

 

[Ollie]

I think video shouldn't be used to determine the validity of a record unless it can be used to determine the validity of all records. My original point was that because it can't be used for everyone, it shouldn't be used for anyone, out of fairness. The debate then went towards concern about record holders, and the cheating that can only be caught on video. This is a pretty strong counterargument to my original point. So, I think, why not just focus on record holders instead of negating video because it's impractical to film every single person.

I can't think of a single person who is near record level who wouldn't have someone at an organized event willing to film them. The equipment required to organize an event is also costly, but still required. The idea that it's possible for someone who is at NR/CR/WR level would not have access to someone willing to film them doesn't seem like a feasible hypothetical situation to me.

As for the nerves aspect, people are nervous solving at a competition, but the WCA still requires that, because it helps fairness. If someone cannot perform under the pressure of a WCA event, we would say "I'm sorry, but that's just how we have to do things." If the camera were required, people would understand going in that it's part of the pressure, and they would just have to cope.

Alex asks that his films not be solved, and that's reasonable because filming solves is not required. He can't ask the judge to turn around while he solves so he can do it with less pressure, because the rules require the judge to be watching. If the rules required film, then Alex would have to deal with it.

So, my 4BLD record wasn't filmed, but Dan (a delegate with years of competition experience) judged it. A number of people also witnessed it. Similarly, Marcell's 5BLD WR was done off camera at the World Championships. What happens to our WRs? Or if similar situations happen again?

If unexpected WRs occur where the competitor did not anticipate performing very well or getting lucky scrambles, should they be punished?

What if camera malfunctions occur? What if a camera runs out of memory because it was used to film a faster person who didn't perform as well on the day?

 

[kinch2002]

What happens if I set a record but it isn't filmed? I get a DNF?

Who is going to film all 60 solves in the 2x2 final?

How annoyed will the organizers/delegate be when so many solves are preceded by a minute of the competitor trying to find someone to film?

How annoyed will people who just want to watch be when they are constantly being asked to film?

Who is going to scramble and judge the events at the end of the day when most people have left and everyone else is competing or filming?

What if a record is set but the camera ran out of battery/memory?

What if someone walks in front of the camera during the solve?

 

[DeeDubb]

So, my 4BLD record wasn't filmed, but Dan (a delegate with years of competition experience) judged it. A number of people also witnessed it. Similarly, Marcell's 5BLD WR was done off camera at the World Championships. What happens to our WRs? Or if similar situations happen again?

If unexpected WRs occur where the competitor did not anticipate performing very well or getting lucky scrambles, should they be punished?

What if camera malfunctions occur? What if a camera runs out of memory because it was used to film a faster person who didn't perform as well on the day?

Obviously, previous records would stand, because they were not subject to the rule. Future records would need to be filmed, because everyone would understand the rules.

What event could have a record by someone who isn't anticipating the possibility of getting a record? Maybe lucky Skewb, Pyra, or 2x2 singles? All of those were caught on camera even without it being a requirement.

Camera malfunctions was something I addressed as a legit concern earlier, that would be unfortunate, and the only really legit con that I could think of. Camera memory isn't much of an issue IMO. There's lots of people at these events with lots of cell phones, so I don't see how there could be a situation where a solve would not be able to be filmed.

 

[kunparekh18]

Here is the one problem I have with video being used, and this one really annoys me.

The way it appears to me, a regular WCA competitor who has no access to delegate/board discussions, is that once the decision was made to set Kunaal's solve as a DNF, the board had no intention of considering any counterarguments. Several people, including myself, made posts in the Kunaal thread arguing that the misalignment he did during inspection is not a DNF based on the regulations. I believe I made my initial post a full month ago. The last post made in that thread was 3 weeks ago. The board has had plenty of time to consider our arguments. But no reply ever came, not to agree with us and remove the DNF penalty, not to give an explanation why our arguments were not valid based on the current regulations, and not even to let us know that they were considering our arguments. The fact that neither reply came after this much time makes it appear (note I am not saying it is the case, but appearances are important) that the board intended to let the case simply be forgotten with time, as people would get tired of arguing about it eventually.

The board can overturn stuff based on video if they want, but they'd better listen to specific arguments based on the regulations as to why their decision might not be the right one. I don't want to have to think of the board as a dictatorship that will decide to do whatever they please without acknowledging sound arguments against them, but the Kunaal incident has, to this point, strengthened that impression.

Until I see that the board will listen to appeals by seeing a response from them regarding Kunaal's incident, I will remain against the use of video. (and will certainly never have my own square-1 solves filmed and uploaded if something as stupid as an accidental 30-degree misalignment causes an automatic DNF)

I totally agree, no word from the Board about it at all.

Kit:

Thus, I would believe any turn under 45 degrees in inspection is actually valid by the current regulations.

Of course, the board can make rulings that supersede the regulations. Currently, the regulations do not make sense with regards to misalignments of square-1 in inspection, so a board ruling would make sense here. Again, I state this not as an official ruling or statement, but just my own judgment of the regulations.

So that means that by your understanding of the regulations, it shouldn't be DNF, right?

Many people on the Indian Speedcubing page told that they would stop recording/uploading their solves, fearing getting a DNF.

This incident reduces the chances of getting quality and/or lucky solves on video which would be a treat to watch.

Videotaping all solves is impossible, and it shouldn't even be considered.

Even if all the solves were to be filmed, would the delegate have enough time to check each and every solve for mistakes? The very thought makes me laugh out loud

In the end, video evidence should be used to overturn solves, but then as Noah said, there is the situation where the competitor knows he/she did a mistake, has it on video, yet refuses to upload it so that it he/she doesn't get caught.

 

[Ranzha]

What event could have a record by someone who isn't anticipating the possibility of getting a record? Maybe lucky Skewb, Pyra, or 2x2 singles? All of those were caught on camera even without it being a requirement.

I didn't know Riley was filming my Skewb solve. In fact, I have been known to perform much worse (see: BASC 3 Flagj 2014 Skewb Round 1) when I try recording myself because sometimes I can't shake the pressure of the camera during solves. Therefore, it is a legitimate concern that competitors who don't want that pressure should be able to have it, especially when filming would not be required for every solve in the database.

Let me get this straight, DeeDubb. You argue:
1) All record-breaking attempts should be submitted with film evidence with penalty of DNF.
2) Competitors who do not set records with their attempts are not required to have their solves filmed.

 

[uberCuber]

What event could have a record by someone who isn't anticipating the possibility of getting a record? Maybe lucky Skewb, Pyra, or 2x2 singles? All of those were caught on camera even without it being a requirement.

The 7.41 Square-1 single by Andrea Santambrogio was not recorded. He is not even sub-20 and therefore had absolutely no reason to expect a WR as a possibility.


So are you arguing, then, that if I were to go to a competition with 6x6 right now and get a 1:40.87 single not on camera, there would be no problems at all, solve would be accepted. But if I got a 1:40.86 single not on camera, it couldn't be considered a legitimate tied WR and would have to be DNF'd? Being 0.01 seconds faster is a cause of penalty?

 

[DeeDubb]

Let me get this straight, DeeDubb. You argue:
1) All record-breaking attempts should be submitted with film evidence with penalty of DNF.
2) Competitors who do not set records with their attempts are not required to have their solves filmed.

My proposal would at least set record-setting solves to the same standard. My main point is that people should be on an equal playing field when it comes to how they are judged.

In the end, the whole argument revolves around the key points of what is more important in the eyes of the community:

A. Judge every solve as accurately as possible. This means using video when/if it's available.
Drawbacks:
- Possible punishment for sharing your videos publicly
- Judging those who are filmed by a different set of standards than those who are not filmed

B. Judge every solver as equally as possible, and since people are raising concerns about filming everyone or even filming only record solves, this would lead to not allowing ANY video to be used.
Main Drawback:
- No recourse against cheaters
- More inaccurate records than if we can use video to make corrections later

It seems I'm in the minority in siding with B. Most people here are happy with A, and if that's the consensus, then I'm fine with it too. I see merit on both sides of things.

My proposal was an attempt to find a compromise where it really matters, when records are involved. However, some legit concerns have come up with that proposal, and if the concerns outweigh the benefits, then that idea is not good either. So, I will just say, I stand by my opinion. I don't want people to get away with cheating, but I also think it's not fair that some people are not subject to the same slow motion, rewatchable scrutiny of their solves as other people are, and to me, that outweighs the benefits of catching cheaters.

 

[Ranzha]

Here's what makes the option you prefer worth considering:
More accuracy in score-reporting.

Here's why competitors might not prefer that option:
Film pressure for better solvers exclusively.
Inaccuracy of score reporting due to cases like the Andrea Santambrogio case.

Here's why organisers might not prefer that option:
More time will need to be allotted to make sure solves are being filmed.
Enforcing the 1.5m rule will get tougher.
Organisers may need to purchase cameras to ensure solves are being filmed, which can get costly.

Here's why parents of young competitors might not prefer that option:
There is no photo release that competitors/spectators or their legal guardians are required to sign in order to allow for the filming of competitors/spectators.

 

[rybaby]

What event could have a record by someone who isn't anticipating the possibility of getting a record?

The main event of practically every competition could: 3x3x3 Speedsolve. If you read through Alex Lau's 7.52 ER average thread, you know that nobody is known to have filmed it. Why? Alex doesn't like being filmed (understandable) because of the increased pressure. Under your proposal, would this be a DNF because Alex himself is uncomfortable with a constant film presence? Or should we require that Alex be filmed, knowing he will probably fare worse under that pressure?

Alex asks that his films not be solved, and that's reasonable because filming solves is not required. He can't ask the judge to turn around while he solves so he can do it with less pressure, because the rules require the judge to be watching. If the rules required film, then Alex would have to deal with it.

Why should we force someone to be filmed under these circumstances? This is not the NBA or NFL, these are Rubik's cube competitions. Should we require giant spotlights so everyone can see the "top contenders" better? Of course not. Saying that Alex would just "have to deal with it" is quite arrogant and not understanding of the pressure he faces even without cameras. Let's keep the WCA competing environment friendly without added pressures, please.

 

[Dene]

I can't think of a single person who is near record level who wouldn't have someone at an organized event willing to film them. The equipment required to organize an event is also costly, but still required. The idea that it's possible for someone who is at NR/CR/WR level would not have access to someone willing to film them doesn't seem like a feasible hypothetical situation to me.

Hi, my name's Dene. Nice to meet you.