Competitors shouldn't be allowed to have a cube to warm up with

[Mastermind2368]

Here is my reasoning. So people do one PLL to warm up sometimes, right? Some times they mix up their cube. Someone could get two Valk's and have one so it looks like it is mixed up on three sides, but on the other three, it is solved. They could have someone talk to the judge and when he/she is not looking, swap the cubes, show the solved part the non solved cube. The judge could see it and see the mixed up cube that they were using and call it legit. You also could do something where it is 5 moves mixed up, but looks fully scrambled and do the moves when the judge is not looking. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Cale S]

I would agree with a regulation against having other puzzles on the mat, but I think it's fine to bring cubes with you if you set them off to the side before solving

 

[CornerCutter]

Here is my reasoning. So people do one PLL to warm up sometimes, right? Some times they mix up their cube. Someone could get two Valk's and have one so it looks like it is mixed up on three sides, but on the other three, it is solved. They could have someone talk to the judge and when he/she is not looking, swap the cubes, show the solved part the non solved cube. The judge could see it and see the mixed up cube that they were using and call it legit. You also could do something where it is 5 moves mixed up, but looks fully scrambled and do the moves when the judge is not looking. What are your thoughts on this?

Yeah, I guess this probably could be a concern, but it might be pretty obvious if someone switched it. I wouldn't solve it the regular way,CFOP etc. Also if you can easily tell if it is not scrambled well as in the first example.

I would agree with a regulation against having other puzzles on the mat, but I think it's fine to bring cubes with you if you set them off to the side before solving

I see lots of people with stuff/cubes on the mat.

 

[AwesomeARC]

...when the judge is not looking.

Seriously, it is the job of a judge to take note of everything a competitor does. Judges exist only because there needs to be someone to ensure that a competitor does not do anything that's illegal. So, judges should never do anything else while they are actively judging. Forget about talking to someone; they shouldn't even look away for even a second.

 

[Aaron Lau]

if a cube has 3 solved sides, the only scrambled parts will be 9 edges right? also the judge wud be really blind to not see that 3 whole sides are unsolved imo and unless its a record time no one really cares amirite?

 

[AlphaSheep]

Here is my reasoning. So people do one PLL to warm up sometimes, right? Some times they mix up their cube. Someone could get two Valk's and have one so it looks like it is mixed up on three sides, but on the other three, it is solved. They could have someone talk to the judge and when he/she is not looking, swap the cubes, show the solved part the non solved cube. The judge could see it and see the mixed up cube that they were using and call it legit. You also could do something where it is 5 moves mixed up, but looks fully scrambled and do the moves when the judge is not looking. What are your thoughts on this?

What I take from this is that it should be against regulations to distract a judge while they are judging an attempt.

 

[AwesomeARC]

@AlphaSheep:

I fully agree. I just forgot to mention it in my post.

 

[Mastermind2368]

Seriously, it is the job of a judge to take note of everything a competitor does. Judges exist only because there needs to be someone to ensure that a competitor does not do anything that's illegal. So, judges should never do anything else while they are actively judging. Forget about talking to someone; they shouldn't even look away for even a second.

Of course, for Worlds, Nats, Euros they have a pro team. At a local comp, their is a bunch of 8 year olds. I heard Chris saying that some people back in the day found a 8 year old judge for magic, so they could do things without them noticing. I don't see why someone couldn't do this for a 3x3.

if a cube has 3 solved sides, the only scrambled parts will be 9 edges right? also the judge would be really blind to not see that 3 whole sides are unsolved imo and unless its a record time no one really cares amirite?

If you hold it at an angle, and the judge is not paying attention, you can pull it off.

 

[SenorJuan]

If the warm-up puzzle was significantly different to the puzzle being competed, then cheating would be impractical. For example if you used a 4x4x4 to warm up for a 3x3x3 event. Or you had a dedicated warm-up puzzle, such as an unstickered 3x3x3 when competing in 3x3x3.

 

[CornerCutter]

I think WCA needs to have some better enforced rules for the judges. And the delegate has to take note when there is a judge not doing his job.

 

[AwesomeARC]

I think WCA needs to have some better enforced rules for the judges. And the delegate has to take note when there is a judge not doing his job.

Precisely. So... Why don't we start spreading the message? Somehow? I mean, we can at least try to carry out some small-scale reforms.

For example, we can try to teach inexperienced people the basics of judging, what to do and what not to do when they are actively judging, ensure that they cooperate etc.

Or, we can have someone to supervise the judges (isn't that what a delegate is supposed to do?) at every point, especially the inexperienced ones. People who aren't actively competing at that time can also help in 'judging the judges'.

There might be many more things we could do, but these were the first ones which came to my mind. So... What do you all think about it?

 

[Christopher Cabrera]

If a slower competitor puts up an unusually fast time a delegate will usually notice before inputting the results. Once they notice they have the right to request the competitor to explain their solution to that scramble. Even if the whole operation you described somehow made it pass the judge there is still this regulation in place. Therefore, this person would need to pull of some professional level sleight of hand only to get a solve that is not too much faster than their average. All in all this doesn't seem worth it because if you got caught you would likely face a pretty hefty ban from the WCA.

 

[CornerCutter]

Precisely. So... Why don't we start spreading the message? Somehow? I mean, we can at least try to carry out some small-scale reforms.

For example, we can try to teach inexperienced people the basics of judging, what to do and what not to do when they are actively judging, ensure that they cooperate etc.

Or, we can have someone to supervise the judges (isn't that what a delegate is supposed to do?) at every point, especially the inexperienced ones. People who aren't actively competing at that time can also help in 'judging the judges'.

There might be many more things we could do, but these were the first ones which came to my mind. So... What do you all think about it?

Great post!

We could start it on a small scale at the competitions we go to. Talking with the delegates about the situation will be helpful.

What do other people think?

 

[AlphaSheep]

Great post!

We could start it on a small scale at the competitions we go to. Talking with the delegates about the situation will be helpful.

What do other people think?

Delegates already try to watch the judges, but they can only do so much. It's just one of a million things that the delegate has to juggle at a competition.

I think the most important thing is for experienced cubers to point out every mistake a judge makes. There are so many videos of solves by faster competitors with judges doing minor things they shouldn't - small things like talking to the competitor during inspection, looking away during solves, writing down the time from the display and not the timer, touching the cube while checking for a +2, etc. If the competitor that they were judging were to politely point out all of these mistakes, it would go a long way toward improving the quality of judges at competitions. The delegate isn't the only one at the competition who's supposed to have read the regulations.

 

[Mastermind2368]

If a slower competitor puts up an unusually fast time a delegate will usually notice before inputting the results. Once they notice they have the right to request the competitor to explain their solution to that scramble

If you are a 30 second solver and get a 20 second solve, I personally think the delegate won't give a crap. If you avg 18 seconds and get a 4.41 solve, of course they are going to ask you how you did it. Some people could do it for nats so they go only a few seconds faster, but they can compete at nats.

The delegate isn't the only one at the competition who's supposed to have read the regulations.

Yeah, but will you follow them if you are 10 yeats old and don't even know them?

Precisely. So... Why don't we start spreading the message? Somehow? I mean, we can at least try to carry out some small-scale reforms.

Amen. I don't give a crap if people warm up with cubes, just I don't want to see any easy ways to cheat.

 

[CornerCutter]

Yeah, but will you follow them if you are 10 yeats old and don't even know them?

Should there be an age limit like only 13+ can judge? I'm not sure.

Delegates already try to watch the judges, but they can only do so much. It's just one of a million things that the delegate has to juggle at a competition.

I think the most important thing is for experienced cubers to point out every mistake a judge makes. There are so many videos of solves by faster competitors with judges doing minor things they shouldn't - small things like talking to the competitor during inspection, looking away during solves, writing down the time from the display and not the timer, touching the cube while checking for a +2, etc. If the competitor that they were judging were to politely point out all of these mistakes, it would go a long way toward improving the quality of judges at competitions. The delegate isn't the only one at the competition who's supposed to have read the regulations.

This is a great idea. I wonder how many people read the regs before the comp?

 

[Christopher Cabrera]

If you are a 30 second solver and get a 20 second solve, I personally think the delegate won't give a crap. If you avg 18 seconds and get a 4.41 solve, of course they are going to ask you how you did it. Some people could do it for nats so they go only a few seconds faster, but they can compete at nats.

Personally I think it is easier to practice and get a sub 40 avg than it is to organize this scandal. Plus once again you are risking a hefty ban if you do get caught.

Amen. I don't give a crap if people warm up with cubes, just I don't want to see any easy ways to cheat.

It's not easy if you have to get some one to make a very specific distraction at a very specific time in order to pull this off. Then you have to hope that the judge doesn't turn their head back in time to see the switch. Not to mention most people have peripheral vision they can use to also see the swap. Once again this is a VERY high risk maneuver for a very low reward.

 

[Mastermind2368]

Should there be an age limit like only 13+ can judge? I'm not sure.

No I don't think their should be. I have been trying to earn a licence for the amateur radio and I noticed that you have a test you can take before you can get on air. What if at every comp you go over all the regs needed for the events happening at a comp. If you want to run, you take a test based on the regs about how to run. It probably will only need no more the 20 questions. The question will be about, "Where you find the cubes to run." "Where do you read the name to call out?" ect...

For scrambling, their should be a test 20-25 questions long, giving a scramble and asking what the UBR piece is after doing the scramble.

Judging will be 25 long , asking +2 penalties, Dnf's ect...

 

[JustAnotherGenericCuber]

Was anyone ever able to pull something like this off? If so, I think that this should be a concern. But if not, I don't think we should worry about it.

 

[Mastermind2368]

Was anyone ever able to pull something like this off?

As far as I know, I don't think anyone has. But if we put in a reg to fix it now, we won't need to deal with it.