Baltimore Spring 2010

[masterofthebass]

Leading option is that it's Johannes' FMC solver.

it wasn't.

 

[CharlieCooper]

He should not be given any extra attempt. If he cheated his way to the 13, he obviously doesn't deserve anything but a ban, but I understand how it puts the WCA board in an awkward place without concrete evidence.

The judge was Justin Jaffray's mom, and the time happened, but it's assuredly his set up scramble.

Frankly even though they can't prove it, we all know it happened and the WCA is under no obligation to prove anything beyond all doubts. I would very not like to see his blatant cheating at a competition again (Read: Ban.)

Also, Christopher Phillips' 30 move FMC is borderline impossible, too.

Of note, it would have been super easy to cheat in either of those two situations. For FMC the judge was wandering around and not paying attention for a time and in 3x3 it was chaotic and people weren't called, they just randomly brought up their cubes, so it would have been extraordinarily easy for Shane to bring up a fake scramble and have a judge pick it up as a scramble.

Dave had me judge Shane's last three solves so that I could account for the rest of his speed, and I can. If I gave Shane a thousand solves he might never get a sub 20. A 13 is impossible.

Also, given his previous reputation it just seems so blatantly obvious what really happened that I don't see the point in ignoring who he has been in the past. This went from him being an annoyance to being a real problem.

Cheating is cheating and I totally agree with you.

If somebody did something similar and broke the world record with a ridiculous 5 second official solve everybody would be going crazy about this. Just because it isn't a world record and his uncharacteristic solve isn't mind-blowingly fast by world standards doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken as seriously. I hope he gets a suitable punishment.

 

[Kian]

I'm assuming it'll stay the way it is considering there's no way to prove that he didn't get that solve.

[19:54] <Kian> but like at what point does that end?
[19:54] <Kian> what if he got a 12?
[19:54] <Kian> or a 10?
[19:54] <Kian> or a 7?
[19:54] <Kian> would we allow a 3?
[19:54] <Kian> b/c we couldn't prove otherwise?
[19:54] <Kian> obviously there is a point where reason comes in

quoted myself out of laziness.

 

[Dene]

I hope he gets a suitable punishment.

*If he cheated.

Don't forget that he might be innocent in all this. He may have handed in a scrambled cube, but not with the intention of receiving that scramble. He may have been given a cube that was scrambled incorrectly, and is thus the scrambler's fault, technically.

Let us be careful where we place the blame.

(Note: I personally think that he cheated and should be punished appropriately).

 

[CharlieCooper]

I hope he gets a suitable punishment.

*If he cheated.

Don't forget that he might be innocent in all this. He may have handed in a scrambled cube, but not with the intention of receiving that scramble. He may have been given a cube that was scrambled incorrectly, and is thus the scrambler's fault, technically.

Let us be careful where we place the blame.

(Note: I personally think that he cheated and should be punished appropriately).

Yes, you're right, but then again if he put his cube down with the "classic Shane" scramble, then surely he would notice when he got that scramble under the cube cover. If I get the same scramble twice by accident, I say something, should he not have done the same? I agree it could be a scrambling error though, but it would have to have been a pretty great scramble for him to have got a time so much faster than his average.

Is the FMC issue guy a friend of Shane's or did I misunderstand that bit?

 

[Kian]

Is the FMC issue guy a friend of Shane's or did I misunderstand that bit?

He was in the same group for people, at least, that came from Gallaudet University, I believe.

 

[chris410]

Is the FMC issue guy a friend of Shane's or did I misunderstand that bit?

He was in the same group for people, at least, that came from Gallaudet University, I believe.

Perhaps judges should have a sign in sheet with their initials that way, the WCA delegates know who each judge is according to name and initials. (I say this because some people initials are impossible to match to a name)

In addition, prior to removing a cube, the person scrambling the cube or a independent source should "OK" the cube prior to taking it to the person solving. This would at least insure that the cube is scrambled and the judges can be noted and later referenced for things such as this.

The reason I say this is the fact that people can pretty much offer to help judge however, if someone is not familiar with cubing, they may not know better when it comes to the actual judging. For instance, what if the competitor moves pieces prior to starting the solve? ie...cross placement, F2L pairs...etc..etc... Honesty becomes a factor however, whether intentional or unintentional, people sadly do at times cheat. It's one thing to get a lucky solve however, there's a point where realistic solves come into play.

Just a couple of thoughts...

 

[cuBerBruce]

Thankfully, my 5x5 results are missing.

 

[RyanO]

If he doesn't get banned now he will continue to cheat. However, he won't have as easy a time next time as I'm sure he will be watched very closely.

 

[flee135]

anyway, off the topic of Shane, is there any way we can see the scrambles? I'm only really interested in the FMC scramble (can anyone confirm if that was supposed to be an optimal scramble? I wouldn't see any other reason for a 19 move scramble) and the pyraminx scrambles.

 

[Bob]

I did not try to reduce the length of the FMC scramble. It came out at 19 moves with touching the green |> to reduce its length. 19 was probably not the optimal length.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I am always nervous giving my opinions about an issue like this, but here is what I dislike about letting Shane get away with this:

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=808

Here is a competitor who cheated, but later admitted cheating, confessed, and took the time to write an apology. It seems awful that someone else who did not do such an honorable thing would get to act as if nothing happened.

I would just like to say that with regard to the forum entry above, although I certainly don't approve of the cheating, I really appreciate the fact that the competitor both admitted it and apologized. A good example I wish others would follow.

 

[cuBerBruce]

anyway, off the topic of Shane, is there any way we can see the scrambles? I'm only really interested in the FMC scramble (can anyone confirm if that was supposed to be an optimal scramble? I wouldn't see any other reason for a 19 move scramble) and the pyraminx scrambles.

I did not try to reduce the length of the FMC scramble. It came out at 19 moves with touching the green |> to reduce its length. 19 was probably not the optimal length.

I am pretty sure the Fewest Moves scramble was:
D2 L2 D2 U2 L F2 R B2 U L U L2 F' D' U L' B F' L'

I checked with Cube Explorer and it can be solved in 18 moves (and not fewer than that), so it was not an optimal scramble.

 

[ManasijV]

On my 21.xx solve the PLL took ~7.5 seconds :S
It's on video.

Are you Austin Thielemier?

 

[4Chan]

He's Mister Crislip.

 

[rowehessler]

its pathetic to set up a scramble and only get a 13. If you're going to cheat, at least be good at it.

 

[Ethan Rosen]

its pathetic to set up a scramble and only get a 13. If you're going to cheat, at least be good at it.

He still did better than faz did

 

[Faz]

lol

 

[qqwref]

ugh, Shane... I hope there is a really good explanation for that 13. A really good explanation. If not I am going to have to vote for a ban.

I'm really wondering about the 30 FMC too, and it would be nice to have some more info on that. It's not impossible that someone who averages 50 seconds on 3x3 will get such a good fewest moves solve, but it is hard to believe.

Good job to nlcuber for proving to the world that he is capable of a sub-30 solve (and sub-20, too!). And you're almost sub-10 at 2x2, too! I guess these results aren't too good considering you seem to claim 13.xx 3x3 averages and sub-5 2x2 averages.

 

[nlCuber22]

Good job to nlcuber for proving to the world that he is capable of a sub-30 solve (and sub-20, too!). And you're almost sub-10 at 2x2, too! I guess these results aren't too good considering you seem to claim 13.xx 3x3 averages and sub-5 2x2 averages.

lol at my 2x2 results. 14.xx was pretty much all lockups, and I even slammed the cube down on the table and restarted the solve, it was maddening (lol) 9 was just plain bad and the 6's were normal.