Competitor requested orientation

[Sa967St]

But if it is allowed and not required then the solve time depends on maliciousness of the judge.

I don't see a problem with that. It seems more reasonable than having to settle on the random rotations idea.
Besides, you can request a certain judge.

 

[qqwref]

Yeah, and we don't want judges being able to hinder (or help) competitors, since they should be impartial. We need a procedure we can agree on for everyone, which is fair but also doesn't let people request rescrambles too easily.

 

[Escher]

I really don't see a problem with the way we currently do things, by that I mean, scramble WG as top/front, pick up cube, put down at table, competitor starts solve.
If you happen to get a judge that doesn't mess the cube around much or you happen to sit near the scrambling table so there is less chance of a reorientation 'problem', then so be it.

Pre-orienting is indeed defining the position of some cubies - what happens if it's suddenly popular to choose the orientation that has the easiest cycles/most pieces solved, and solve centre parity last?

The 'problem' people perceive is simply due to being biased towards one of the 24 different orientations - too bad.

The current way is completely 'fair' until people start intentionally affecting factors.

 

[Kirjava]

what happens if it's suddenly popular to choose the orientation that has the easiest cycles/most pieces solved, and solve centre parity last?

I hadn't even realised that it's possible for a judge to do this for someone and remain within the regs.

This whole thing is absurdly broken.

 

[Mike Hughey]

If the judge is allowed to choose an orientation based on the judge's knowledge of the state of the puzzle, this is a big problem even with non-BLD events. Imagine there is a really easy 2x2x2 solve because it's Sune to solve. If a judge wants to help the competitor, he could be sure to place the cube in the most common orientation for executing Sune. Now even a 15-second 2x2x2 solver is that much more likely to get a sub-2 solve. (My daughter Rebecca, for instance, might not recognize Sune unless it was placed in the right direction for her.) But even more seriously than this - a judge could place the cube in a direction according to a predetermined set of rules in agreement with a competitor which clues the competitor in on the best possible way to solve it.

It's true this is broken - we need a rule that makes it unacceptable for a judge to look at the scramble before it is uncovered for the competitor.

 

[Bob]

Well, the scrambler really should be covering the cubes at the scrambling table. There is no reason for the judge to be looking at it. or adjusting its orientation.

 

[Sa967St]

It's true this is broken - we need a rule that makes it unacceptable for a judge to look at the scramble before it is uncovered for the competitor.

To clarify my posts, I meant that if requested the judge (if he wants) can ensure that the cube stays in the same orientation from the time it gets placed on the table to the time it gets placed in front of the solved. At Canadian competitions, the judges don't see the scrambled cubes beforehand because we have runners who carry the covered cubes to them.

 

[Dene]

In response to your comment Bob:
A2d) When taking the puzzle from the scrambler, the judge does a quick general inspection of thorough scrambling of the puzzle. In case of doubt the judge contacts the scrambler for a detailed check.

Personally, I am 100% against competitors requesting puzzles to be placed in a particular orientation (even though, like eido, I would love to request this for sq1). If a competitor asked during a competition that I was delegating I would deny their request, citing a lack of regulation for or against. I don't believe it is in the spirit of the competition to be able to request a particular orientation. I also see no need to scramble into a particular orientation, or at least not with the "casual" way competitions are run at the moment. If in the future competitions become considerably more stringent then having orientation included in scrambles would work, but as things are now it just wouldn't work in the vast majority of competitions (scramblers doing it wrong, judges changing things, competitors complaining, etc.). I see no problem with the way things should be done now, where a cube is scrambled, taken to the table, and put down in whatever orientation it happens to be in. As long as there is no deliberate manhandling of the puzzle to give an advantage or disadvantage to a particular competitor, things should be fine.


EDIT: this paragraph makes horrible reading, but I can't be bothered to fix it up so deal with it

 

[Jaycee]

I've never been to a comp before so I don't know how scorecards work (as in who has them and when), so this idea may be complete rubbish.

How about if the judge has the score card beforehand, the orientation (like YO, WG, etc ) can be written somewhere on the card by the competitor so the judge will know to place the cube in that orientation?

 

[Noahaha]

I've never been to a comp before so I don't know how scorecards work (as in who has them and when), so this idea may be complete rubbish.

How about if the judge has the score card beforehand, the orientation (like YO, WG, etc ) can be written somewhere on the card by the competitor so the judge will know to place the cube in that orientation?

That just takes us back to the original argument, but that's probably how it would work if such a system were allowed.

 

[Ranzha]

I personally don't view the centres as pieces (and as someone already mentioned, scrambles don't affect centre orientation).
Why is it that we foresee potential problems and label them as absolute? Sure, people aren't necessarily trustworthy all the time, but judges should be chosen based on trustworthiness and credibility. This summer if I have the opportunity to host an unofficial competition and hold BLD, I'll try implementing this system and I'll report back the results. This gives the notion a chance without official times coming into play.

 

[LarsN]

The judge arrives with the puzzle and places it on the table.

Competitor: "I would like the puzzle oriented with yellow on top and orange in the back."
Judge checks under the cover and orients the cube if necessary: "yellow top, orange back. Go."

Easy to do, problem solved. It could be noted that asking for orientation of the cube is the competitors responsibility and you do not get a new solve if the orientation is not as requested. And of course it should be noted that we are talking about center orientation, which means it would be allowed for 5x5x5bld as well. But not 4x4x4bld since there are no fixed centers. For multi you could note it on the score sheet.

I suspect it would be like when the rules for inspecting OH changed to allow the use of both hands. Some people refused to do it, but I guess now it's just a normal thing.

 

[Kirjava]

Easy to do, problem solved.

The problem of the competitor knowing the location of certain stickers before seeing the puzzle still exists.

 

[DrKorbin]

The problem of the competitor knowing the location of certain stickers before seeing the puzzle still exists.

Is it really a problem? You can do nothing with the cube if the only thing you know is the position of centers.

 

[LarsN]

I think the problem is really not about knowing the location of the center stickers. The problem is that some competitors get an advantage because the judge agrees to orient the cube in a certain way.

It's really up to WCA to decide if it's a problem, but I would guess that fairness is a big priority for them. I think my suggestion would provide a fair solution. And I think it would be more easy to provide an orientation, compared to making sure that the orientation is not known to the competitior. (again I am talking about centers defining the orientation)

 

[Kirjava]

I think the problem is really not about knowing the location of the center stickers. The problem is that some competitors get an advantage because the judge agrees to orient the cube in a certain way.

You seem to be under the illusion that only things you disagree with are a problem.

I think it would be more easy to provide an orientation, compared to making sure that the orientation is not known to the competitior

I think it would be the other way around, go figure.

 

[yoinneroid]

Isn't getting a the cube in the desired orientation is like a skip in speedsolving? I don't know why i think this way, but this is just how I see it

 

[keyan]

Easy to do, problem solved.

Not so easy when the competitor and judge don't speak the same language.

The actual easy thing to do is acknowledge that random is fair.

 

[Goosly]

The actual easy thing to do is acknowledge that random is fair.

Random is fair, but not easy.
You would need to add a random orientation to the cube at the end of the scramble, the cubes should be placed it the right orientation on the scramble table, ánd the judge must place it in the right orientation on the table. It's hard to check if all of these were done correctly.

 

[Godmil]

Wow, this is a tricky one. Well done to Kirjava for identifying the issue.
I think maybe the simplest solution is to just specify that the judge should not deliberatly orient the cube. Less work for the judge, the competitor can't be guaranteed any orientation so has no cause for complaint, no additions to the scrambling method (x,y,z turns would be tricky to keep exact from scrambler to competitor). etc. I mean there isn't a set position judges put cubes on the table at the moment is there? All they'd need to do is put it down as is and not care about how its oriented.