[WR] Chris Olson 1.71 2x2 avg5

[Noahaha]

No, I am just saying that there is a natural bias that people can't help. Not that everyone is not looking at this objectively.

You were using the "natural bias" as a reason for people arguing in Chris's favor. If that's not an example of subjective reasoning, I'd like to know what is.

 

[Bunyanderman]

If that's the case, give Cameron his WC2011 solve back.

According to that then he should of not been penalized.

 

[scottishcuber]

With that being said though, I also understand I went over 15 seconds of inspection which isn't fair to Sameer...

2.58 average with the plus two.
I will be blatantly honest.
It isn't really fair to Sameer Mahmood if this counts because it is technically a plus two and wouldn't be a WR if it had counted. I feel like most people are only saying it should count because they like Chris and are glad to see him set a WR.

I think it’s more important to be fair to the event rather than one competitor, if anything it would be considered unfair to all (serious) 2x2ers not just me.

I definitely think this will bring into play whether or not video evidence should be used in this situation. Where do you draw the line? All comps or none? If so, we need to be consistent about it and not start a heated discussion as to whether or not this solve stands, but the nature of this situation as a whole (because we don’t want it to happen again).

Consider if his 4.x (first solve) went over the inspection time and this was only noticed after video evidence indicated that, no one would care much and his solve most definitely would not be given a DNF/ +2 (even though technically that is the penalty that should be given). Does the fact that it was a counting solve suddenly mean we should come down like a tonne of bricks, especially when we (or the WCA) wouldn’t have otherwise?

I’m certainly aware if Chris’ capabilities and I think it would be quite sad to see it taken away because we all know he probably would have gotten that same time and come away with the wr avg.

My point to this comment is that there is no point discussing who deserves what, but rather how we are going to solve this issue and how can we do so consistently.

It’s hard to not let my awe at Chris’ ability get in the way of whether or not I want this average to stand.

 

[Kirjava]

Consider if his 4.x (first solve) went over the inspection time and this was only noticed after video evidence indicated that, no one would care much and his solve most definitely would not be given a DNF/ +2 (even though technically that is the penalty that should be given)

If the WCA were notified, I don't see why they would treat it differently.

 

[aceofspades98]

I think it’s more important to be fair to the event rather than one competitor, if anything it would be considered unfair to all (serious) 2x2ers not just me.

Thats what I meant
I totally agree with everything you said though. We should just take precautions to prevent this from happening again in the first place.

 

[TeddyKGB]

What are the rules on when the judge is supposed to start the stop watch? Is it when he begins to lift the cover? once the cover is completely removed? once the competitor touches the cube? As far as I'm aware there is no specific point when to start inspection so who knows when the judge started the stopwatch and who knows what the time on the stopwatch said when Chris started his solve. So in reality you could say neither Chris nor the judge did anything wrong and this was a perfectly legitimate solve.

 

[scottishcuber]

If the WCA were notified, I don't see why they would treat it differently.

Hmm ok. Maybe because I've never heard of such a thing occurring, I assumed they wouldn't really pay much attention (especially being the worst solve).

 

[Tim Major]

No, I am just saying that there is a natural bias that people can't help. Not that everyone is not looking at this objectively.Chris stated earlier that he didn't need that extra time and he had already planned out the whole solve.

To counter your argument, I know neither Chris nor Sameer, and I know Cameron, yet I'd rather this record stayed. Stefan brings up a good point about athletics however.This reminds me of the ex-swimming world records. Most competitors used the special suits as they weren't told they were banned. Afterwards, they were banned and all records with those suits were treated differently, and were no longer the times to beat for future swimmers. The competitors did nothing wrong here either, followed procedure.I want Chris' record to stay, but I feel like it would be unfair to all future competitors. The extra inspection time likely had little impact, but with no proof other than, "the regulations were broken" we can't say for sure.

 

[XTowncuber]

okso

people who want Chris to have WR:

He didn't do anything wrong, it's not his fault give him the WR.

People who do think the WR should not count:

Even if it's not his fault, he had an advantage. Disqualify this.


I don't see how the argument has become more complicated then this.

 

[TheDubDubJr]

What are the rules on when the judge is supposed to start the stop watch? Is it when he begins to lift the cover? once the cover is completely removed? once the competitor touches the cube? As far as I'm aware there is no specific point when to start inspection so who knows when the judge started the stopwatch and who knows what the time on the stopwatch said when Chris started his solve. So in reality you could say neither Chris nor the judge did anything wrong and this was a perfectly legitimate solve.

There also needs to put a factor on the equipment and if the stopwatch had a small malfunction when starting it, hence delaying the time shown. Those stopwatches weren't the most reliable.

 

[kcl]

There also needs to put a factor on the equipment and if the stopwatch had a small malfunction when starting it, hence delaying the time shown. Those stopwatches weren't the most reliable.

That is very true. I screwed up my first round 3x3 average because I nearly got a DNS.

 

[Stefan]

Afterwards, they were banned and all records with those suits were treated differently, and were no longer the times to beat for future swimmers.

Differently how? Were the times discarded, are there separate rankings now, or what?

 

[Kit Clement]

We should really hope for a more efficient cubing timer to be made that can prevent mistakes like this. Something that would work something similar to pressing the "lap" button on a normal stopwatch. I'm imagining it would work like this:

1. Competitor starts timer, removes cover on their own. This starts the inspection timer.
2. The competitor inspects, then puts his hands on the timer again. When the hands are removed from the timer, the inspection timer stops and the solve timer begins.
3. This goes as normal, the competitor solves the cube and then puts his hands on the timer to stop the solve timer.

This is great not only for eliminating human error, but also to give the competitor a live view of inspection time so they can get more information than just "8 seconds" and "Go!" Maybe this changes the layout of inspection drastically, but I think it would help to prevent human error. I'm sure it happens all the time, we just don't notice it since it isn't a WR solve.

Granted, I don't expect this timer to just fabricate itself, just thinking out loud here. But with the discussion of a possible new WCA-specific timer from speedstacks, maybe this could be incorporated somehow.

EDIT: There should clearly be a way to turn on/off this functionality for BLD events.

 

[rj]

We should really hope for a more efficient cubing timer to be made that can prevent mistakes like this. Something that would work something similar to pressing the "lap" button on a normal stopwatch. I'm imagining it would work like this:

1. Competitor starts timer, removes cover on their own. This starts the inspection timer.
2. The competitor inspects, then puts his hands on the timer again. When the hands are removed from the timer, the inspection timer stops and the solve timer begins.
3. This goes as normal, the competitor solves the cube and then puts his hands on the timer to stop the solve timer.

This is great not only for eliminating human error, but also to give the competitor a live view of inspection time so they can get more information than just "8 seconds" and "Go!" Maybe this changes the layout of inspection drastically, but I think it would help to prevent human error. I'm sure it happens all the time, we just don't notice it since it isn't a WR solve.

Granted, I don't expect this timer to just fabricate itself, just thinking out loud here. But with the discussion of a possible new WCA-specific timer from speedstacks, maybe this could be incorporated somehow.

That sounds like a really good idea. I think PPT should include this as a feature when connected to speedstacks.

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

We should really hope for a more efficient cubing timer to be made that can prevent mistakes like this. Something that would work something similar to pressing the "lap" button on a normal stopwatch. I'm imagining it would work like this:

1. Competitor starts timer, removes cover on their own. This starts the inspection timer.
2. The competitor inspects, then puts his hands on the timer again. When the hands are removed from the timer, the inspection timer stops and the solve timer begins.
3. This goes as normal, the competitor solves the cube and then puts his hands on the timer to stop the solve timer.

This is great not only for eliminating human error, but also to give the competitor a live view of inspection time so they can get more information than just "8 seconds" and "Go!" Maybe this changes the layout of inspection drastically, but I think it would help to prevent human error. I'm sure it happens all the time, we just don't notice it since it isn't a WR solve.

Granted, I don't expect this timer to just fabricate itself, just thinking out loud here. But with the discussion of a possible new WCA-specific timer from speedstacks, maybe this could be incorporated somehow.

Perhaps also with lights which become lit/flash when 8s/12s are reached, I wouldn't want to have to at the timer too closely to know how much time I had left.

 

[Noahaha]

Perhaps also with lights which become lit/flash when 8s/12s are reached, I wouldn't want to have to at the timer too closely to know how much time I had left.

It could beep maybe.

 

[Kit Clement]

It could beep maybe.

That could be possibly distracting/confusing to neighboring competitors.

 

[Noahaha]

That could be possibly distracting/confusing to neighboring competitors.

If it's set to the right volume, I don't see how it would be any more distracting/confusing than judges saying 8 seconds and 12 seconds.

 

[kcl]

That could be possibly distracting/confusing to neighboring competitors.

I agree. If we could find a way to reprogram them (stackmat timers) so that you touch the timer pads to start inspection, and then the timer displays the countdown first. It would also show on the tourney display. It would be basically like what Cstimer does when you use stackmat with WCA inspection on.

 

[Kit Clement]

If it's set to the right volume, I don't see how it would be any more distracting/confusing than judges saying 8 seconds and 12 seconds.

Judges have different voices, beeps sound the same. It's a minor concern, I realize, but I'd prefer flashes from the timer.