Competitor requested orientation

[Kirjava]

The cube is always in the correct orientation for him to pick up.

There is nothing in the regulations regarding this, should there be?

EDIT: for clarification, this post was originally a response to the (excellent) BLD WR video seen here.

 

[RTh]

The cube is always in the correct orientation for him to pick up.

There is nothing in the regulations regarding this, should there be?

I think there should be something like ''in BLD the cube should be positioned as the cuber requests''. There's no need to lose even more time in rotating the cube, it could affect the cuber's concentration.

 

[Kirjava]

I think there should be something like ''in BLD the cube should be positioned as the cuber requests''. There's no need to lose even more time in rotating the cube, it could affect the cuber's concentration.

This is a terrible idea - cube isn't fully randomised and if the judge gets it wrong does the competitor get another attempt?

Better to leave it as it is and overlook if the cube keeps happening to be in the correct orientation.

 

[Julian]

Random orientation at the end of BLD scrambles?

 

[Mike Hughey]

I think the cube should be provided in an undetermined orientation. It should definitely NOT be possible for a competitor to claim the cube was in the wrong orientation and be able to get a new scramble.

It would be nice if we tried to provide the cube in a random orientation, but that might be impractical. We could have the scrambler toss the cube in the air after scrambling and before placing it with the competitor's scorecard, but I'm not sure it's really necessary.

 

[qqwref]

It would be trivial to add a random orientation after each scramble. The question is, is it worth the effort? And if we do randomize it, do we penalize a judge/scrambler who puts it in the wrong orientation by accident (or in a deliberate attempt to help a particular competitor)? Would we consider a cube in the wrong orientation as scrambled incorrectly?

Personally, I think it'd be best if the competitor could specify a particular orientation - perhaps it'd be listed on their score sheet - and their judge would place the cube in that orientation when they put it in front of the competitor, without the competitor being able to see the cube. That might be fairer for everyone, especially since that fraction of a second of reorientation can definitely make a difference. I don't know if this is practical, though.

 

[Kirjava]

I don't think specifying orientation is a good idea. Doesn't feel like the cube is 'randomised'.

Could I specify the that the WBR corner starts at UFR? I like to think of centres as just another piece.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I personally think it's a really bad option to allow the competitor to specify a particular orientation. The problem I have is that I think having competitors able to claim a bad scramble because of orientation is a much worse issue than any issue associated with fairness due to reorienting. As soon as you have people able to claim a bad scramble because of orientation, all kinds of possibilities open up for unfairly taking advantage of it - for instance, you see that the cube is oriented wrong, and you noticed that people around you were getting fast times, so you don't complain and take the misorientation; but on the other hand, if people were getting bad times around you, you claim a bad scramble and get a new scramble, with a better chance at a good one. That would be more unfair than any issue of reorienting advantages. With undetermined orientation (which is how I think it should be treated now, according to the rules), since different people use different orientations, it's basically randomized as to whether your particular orientation is to your advantage or not. I think that's as fair as it can be.

I've always considered orienting the cube to be part of BLD solving anyway; with big cubes BLD, reorienting the cube well is actually an important skill in the solve.

By the way, if a competitor asked me to orient a cube a particular way for BLD at a competition I was delegating, I would say no, that's not allowed. If that's an incorrect ruling on my part, I'd like someone to inform me of it, but that is how I would currently do things.

 

[Julian]

I don't think specifying orientation is a good idea. Doesn't feel like the cube is 'randomised'.

Could I specify the that the WBR corner starts at UFR? I like to think of centres as just another piece.

Well put. That's why I think having a random orientation at the end of scrambles is a good idea. As it stands, the majority of the time the cube is in WG, which I'd say is unfair. And if we standardize an orientation, that eliminates randomness, as Kir explained. I think that a random orientation is the only fair solution.

Sorry if that was redundant.

 

[Kirjava]

By the way, if a competitor asked me to orient a cube a particular way for BLD at a competition I was delegating, I would say no, that's not allowed. If that's an incorrect ruling on my part, I'd like someone to inform me of it, but that is how I would currently do things.

The regulations say nothing on this and need to be addressed.

I've been asked what orientation I want my cube to be in at a competition. Seems a similar sort of thing to scramblers at worlds 2003 asking what cross colour people used.

 

[That70sShowDude]

Random orientation at the end of BLD scrambles?

I already thought it was done like this. My bld solves in comp seem to always be in a random orientation.

 

[A Leman]

We could have the scrambler toss the cube in the air after scrambling and before placing it with the competitor's scorecard, but I'm not sure it's really necessary.

This suggestion is more than a little scary. Would you just expect the person throwing your cube in the air to not drop it and turn it into abstract floor art?

Personally, I think it'd be best if the competitor could specify a particular orientation - perhaps it'd be listed on their score sheet - and their judge would place the cube in that orientation when they put it in front of the competitor, without the competitor being able to see the cube. That might be fairer for everyone, especially since that fraction of a second of reorientation can definitely make a difference. I don't know if this is practical, though.

This sounds like a reasonable solution

 

[Kirjava]

I can't believe that some people agree with being able to request centres to be in a specific place.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

I actually would prefer that all cubes are given to the competitor in scramble orientation. I'm so used to orienting to my orientation from WG (scramble standard) that I would get onfused if it was already in that orientation. Also then, it makes it easier on the scramblers/judges/whoever

 

[Mike Hughey]

This sounds like a reasonable solution (allowing the competitor to specify an orientation)

I don't think it's reasonable because if the judge places the cube wrong, it's implied that the competitor would be able to ask for another scramble. That causes far more problems than anything we do today.

Judges often have trouble getting what they're doing now right; I believe asking judges to always get the orientation right would be asking too much of a judge. Also, saying that they would place the cube in that orientation without the competitor being able to see the cube might be a challenge to make sure happens - judges can tend to be sloppy about things when they're in a hurry.

 

[kinch2002]

I haven't looked through this discussion in detail, but for what it's worth, here are my initial opinions

[22:35] <@Kirjava> kinch2002: baby,
[22:35] <@Kirjava> where do you stand on the scramble orientation thing
[22:36] <kinch2002> the what?
[22:37] <@Kirjava> look at endri's wr thred
[22:38] <kinch2002> hasn't this been discussed before?
[22:38] <kinch2002> anyway, afaik the rules don't forbid it
[22:38] <kinch2002> so if i were superfast at 3bld i'd probably request my orientation every solve
[22:39] <kinch2002> adding a rotation to the scramble is not going to work
[22:39] <kinch2002> and requesting orientation should be banned imo

 

[Kirjava]

moar


23:40 < kinch2002> but as I said, i'm happy to do it for now as the rules don't forbid it
23:42 <@Kirjava> kinch2002: cool, you agree with me on every point about it
23:43 < kinch2002> so you gonna request for a corner to be in a certain place at WSMO?
23:43 <@Kirjava> no
23:43 <@Kirjava> why the **** would I do that
23:43 <@Kirjava>
23:43 <@Kirjava> hm
23:44 < kinch2002> to make a point
23:44 <@Kirjava> kinch2002: can I request orientation for 3x3x3speed?
23:44 < kinch2002> same as bld, so yes
23:44 <@Kirjava> s'funny
23:44 <@Kirjava> if he'd've used white top green front I probably wouldn't've noticed what was happening
23:45 <@Kirjava> and the issue wouldn't've come up
23:46 <+RobertY> can't the cuber just request the orientation, just before the judge sets the cube down?
23:47 <@Kirjava> no
23:47 <@Kirjava> because then the cube would not be truly randomised
23:48 <+cubizh> what if the judge doesnt want to comply or messes up the orientation anyway
23:49 < eido_> I wish I could request that judges place my sq1 in the right orientation
23:49 <+RobertY> the thing is..
23:49 <+RobertY> we measure memo+excution time
23:49 < eido_> nothing's more annoying than being given a backwards square-1
23:49 <+RobertY> reorientation isn't really part of that
23:49 < kinch2002> but at the moment you can do this...
23:50 < kinch2002> for sq-1 as well
23:50 <+RobertY> for sq-1 I really don't care
23:50 <@Kirjava> RobertY: what the ****
23:50 <+RobertY> as long as I can memo the cubeshape
23:50 <@Kirjava> saying "orientation isn't a part of that" is just the same as
23:50 <+RobertY> then I start the solve almost immediately
23:51 <@Kirjava> "picking up the cube isn't a part of that"
23:51 < eido_> RobertY: true, I usually inspect about 3 seconds
23:51 <+RobertY> Kirjava: good point
23:51 <@Kirjava> ***** I always make good points
23:51 < eido_> but I hate having to flip the cube and worry about accidentally doing a move
23:51 <+RobertY> haha
23:51 < kinch2002> you're allowed to accidentally do a move
23:51 < kinch2002> as long as you undo it
23:51 <+RobertY> I remember once in UK open 2010
23:51 <+MLSTRM> kinch2002: yeah i saw. dunno what to do lol
23:52 <+RobertY> I started my sq1 with the sq1 upsidedown by accident
23:52 <+RobertY> WHY ISN'T IT TURNING PROPERLY
23:52 <+RobertY> OH...
23:52 < kinch2002> that's fine
23:52 <+MLSTRM> yeah
23:52 <+RobertY> Kirjava: fair enough
23:52 <+RobertY> let's leave it
23:53 <@Kirjava> I don't knw what to do really
23:53 < kinch2002> just tell him he'll eventually have a place. whatever it takes
23:53 <@Kirjava> you ca't enforce random orientation
23:53 <@Kirjava> and you can't allow people to request an orientation
23:53 <+RobertY> Kirjava: oh but another thing
23:53 <+RobertY> the cube might be correctly orientated
23:53 <+RobertY> whereas
23:53 <+RobertY> you pick up the cube every single time
23:54 <+Mollerz> Yeah ****ing BLD
23:54 <+Mollerz> I take half a second to orient the cube
23:54 <+Mollerz> And MBLD is worst
23:54 <@Kirjava> half a second oh wow
23:54 <+Mollerz> Especially with lots of cubes
23:55 <+RobertY> Kirjava: do you get what I'm saying?
23:55 <@Kirjava> yes
23:55 <@Kirjava> but I don't see how ti changes anything
23:56 <@Kirjava> the concept of "orientation" is not something WCA needs to care about
23:56 <@Kirjava> cube needs to be randomised
23:56 <@Kirjava> the less arbitrary definitions of things in the regulations the better
23:56 <@Kirjava> centres are just another piece
23:56 <@Kirjava> who says that orientation of **** is based on centres
23:58 <+RobertY> oh fair point
23:59 <+RobertY> mike has a good argument
23:59 <+RobertY> comparing it to bigcubes
23:59 <+RobertY> yah ok
23:59 <+RobertY> let's leave it...
Day changed to 02 Mai 2012
00:00 <@Kirjava> oya
00:00 <@Kirjava> bigcubes
00:00 <@Kirjava> pwn
00:02 < kinch2002> i want my 4bld given to me with the maximum white centres on D
00:02 <@Kirjava> olol
00:03 <+RobertY> I should switch to yellow top
00:03 <+RobertY> because cubes are likely to be place with white on top
00:03 <@Kirjava> at uk comps at least..
00:03 <+RobertY> then judge turns it upside down and you lift cover
00:03 <+RobertY>
00:03 <@Kirjava> kinch2002: can I ask for the biggest block to be put at UF?

 

[Marcell]

In general, I agree that the current state, where the regulations don't say anything about this issue, is not optimal. However, I'm not sure what the optimal solution would be. Providing the cube with the scrambling orientaiton seems valid at first sight, but it does mean that someone who has learned to blindsolve with e.g. BY oriention is kind of negatively discriminated in all their blindfolded solves to someone who does it with WG. If we were to decide that the cube should be put down with a random orientation, I'm not sure there's a need for the scrambler to toss it in the air - in the process of bringing the cube from the scrambling table to the stage and putting it down there it kind of ends up being randomly oriented anyway - but having the cube correctly oriented can cut off seconds from the result, which is of great importance at solves around 30 seconds, and I don't see why we should disadvance the competitors by forbidding this.
Mike, I don't really agree with you. First, reorienting is only part of the 4BLD event (regarding official events), it's hardly an issue in 5BLD - it's a specific phenomenon in the 3BLD event, and has to be evaluated as such. (Assuming everyone does 3BLD with a fixed orientation and not moving the centers, which I think is pretty realistic.) And I don't think it's such a burden to the judges having to put down the cube with a certain orientation on the competitors request. Doesn't seem like a hard task to me. And there must be a sheet on the table for the solving part anyway, the judge could easily use that to block the competitors view while doing it. And if they know they put down the cube in the requested way, the competitor can't call for a new scramble on grounds of a wrong orientation...
In my opinion, we should provide the right to the competitors to ask the judge to orient the scrambled cube in a certain way.

Kirjava:
-centers are certainly not just another piece in 3bld.
-I don't get what you mean by the cube is less randomised when put down with a requested orientation.
-the fact that bld has no inspection phase makes the question completely separate from 3x3 speedsolving or sq-1 or whatever that does.

--should we maybe open a new topic for this discussion?

 

[Kirjava]

A mod should split this thread here.

Asking for a specific orientation in 3BLD is like asking for a 4BLD scramble to be oriented with the face with most white centres on D.

Does this mean that I can request that in 3speed the biggest block is placed at UF?

-centers are certainly not just another piece in 3bld.

Of course they are. Your definition of orientation is arbitrary. You could define orientation by a single corner instead.

-I don't get what you mean by the cube is less randomised when put down with a requested orientation.

The centres are not random. This is less randomised than fully randomised. Fully randomised cube state is what we want.

-the fact that bld has no inspection phase makes the question completely separate from 3x3 speedsolving or sq-1 or whatever that does.

I don't think it does, but even if it does this has no bearing on the legitimacy of your argument.

 

[Marcell]

Asking for a specific orientation in 3BLD is like asking for a 4BLD scramble to be oriented with the face with most white centres on D.

No, it isn't. The latter would be asking the judge to make a decision based on the current scramble. The former is independent from it.