[WR] Feliks Zemdegs 3x3 OH single 6.88

[Coolster01]

there's a difference between allowing women to vote and a guy solving a cube lol

It's called an analogy. They aren't supposed to be the same thing.

anyway, by going off previous situations, WCA should be consistent and change this to DNF. For those saying "it's not faz's fault ;(", he could've actually chosen to ask for an extra scramble, so that this wouldn't be DNF'd for sure. So you can't say that "he had NO control, so it can't be a DNF."

 

[Ranzha]

It's called an analogy. They aren't supposed to be the same thing.

anyway, by going off previous situations, WCA should be consistent and change this to DNF. For those saying "it's not faz's fault ;(", he could've actually chosen to ask for an extra scramble, so that this wouldn't be DNF'd for sure. So you can't say that "he had NO control, so it can't be a DNF."

Why would he have asked for an extra scramble?
Again, the notion that the scramble was wrong was conceived after the round and confirmed well after that.

 

[biscuit]

He did try to get it fixed. He asked to make sure it was correct if they had discovered it was not when he asked then he would have gotten a extra scramble.you talked about consistence? In previous situations they have upheld solves similar to this.

 

[Coolster01]

Why would he have asked for an extra scramble?
Again, the notion that the scramble was wrong was conceived after the round and confirmed well after that.

Could he not have done an extra scramble after the round, they hol his time, then later decide between submitting that or the 6.88?

 

[Ranzha]

He asked to make sure it was correct if they had discovered it was not when he asked then he would have gotten a extra scramble.

Think hard about what you're trying to say before vomiting up words in an unintelligible jumble. What are you trying to say?

Could he not have done an extra scramble after the round, they hol his time, then later decide between submitting that or the 6.88?

From the WCA thread, "The delegate for the competition asked Feliks to reconstruct the solve after the round, but he couldn't perform the same solution anymore. Video evidence was not used at the moment, and although the reconstruction was not successful, the delegate decided to keep the time and not give the competitor an extra attempt.

After the competition had ended, it was clear from video evidence that the initial state of the puzzle did not match what the official scramble sequence should produce."

 

[biscuit]

Holy crap what did I write?!

 

[Faz]

Could he not have done an extra scramble after the round, they hol his time, then later decide between submitting that or the 6.88?

Yes, and this is what will occur in the future. However, in 7 years of competing, I've never once done or seen anyone else do an extra scramble after a round, 'just in case' their record was mis-scrambled.

I don't like dealing in hypotheticals, but this was a good point brought up in the Akash Rupela thread.
Say it was discovered after US Nationals that one of Collin Burns' solves in the final was mis-scrambled (Any one except his worst solve). A DNF on any of the other 4 solves means that Rowe Hessler becomes the US Champion.
Yes, the solve was 'invalid', 'illegal', according to the WCA regulations - whatever you want to call it. Does anyone legitimately believe that DNFing Collin's solve and relinquishing his title as US champion would be fair?

If so, you simply lack common sense and good judgement.

 

[cashis]

Holy crap what did I write?!

that's what we're wondering kek

 

[biscuit]

that's what we're wondering kek

With really good reason to. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what I was trying to say.

 

[mark49152]

I've been trying to follow the arguments made based on the letter of the regulations rather than the spirit, but I still can't see their case.

Article 4 clearly exists to ensure that solves start with the puzzle in a suitable state. The regulations there define the procedure by which a suitable state is intended to be reached. I don't see anywhere an explicit statement on what should happen if the procedure is not followed correctly. The fact that 4g exists is acknowledgement that things can go wrong, but nowhere do they account for what happens if 4g goes wrong.

Therefore, the incident is not covered by the regulations. Article 11 makes clear that where an incident is not covered by the regulations, fair sportsmanship prevails.

Fairness is of course subjective, to an extent, and its determination usually involves looking at the intent and spirit rather than the letter of the regulations. Like it or not, that is what the WCA Board appear to have done by considering that the scrambling procedure is a means to an end, and a minor irregularity can be tolerated as long as it achieved its objective of generating a suitable puzzle state.

 

[Dene]

@mDiPalma (and everyone else)

A lot of the discussion has centred around the different views people have on the philosophy of law. The two major camps come across to me as fitting nicely into something I learnt about some years ago. You seem to fit into the legal positivism camp, where we essentially treat what is written down as black and white, with no opportunity for interpretation. The other camp is legal interpretivism, where we look at historical relevance, and current moral views, to determine what the law is, and essentially ignore stupid historical laws or obvious flaws in the written laws to get the desired result.

These two camps are incompatible and people in this thread from opposing camps will never see eye to eye regarding this decision. Fortunately the WCA Board sees sense and takes an interpretivist approach, because legal positivism is retarded.

 

[mDiPalma]

These two camps are incompatible and people in this thread from opposing camps will never see eye to eye regarding this decision. Fortunately the WCA Board sees sense and takes an interpretivist approach, because legal positivism is retarded.

If they're going to have a Regulation Set that they REQUIRE every competitor to be familiar with and every delegate to bring to the competition with them, then how can they expect us NOT to take everything they've written verbatim. It's a respect thing. If rules are written down, somebody cared enough about the situation and consequences to organize a document. And if somebody cared enough to organize a document, they likely had a good reason that we should respect.

That's how I always felt about the WCA. A bunch of volunteers came together with a vision to bring speedcubing back with Fairness and Fun as paramount objectives. They came up with GOOD regulations that made sense to achieving these ends. I really appreciate that, and I therefore give the highest regard to the Regulations. They are the only concrete guidelines as to how competitors and officials should conduct themselves at competitions to maximize the goals I previously described.

But now that I know that the WCA couldn't care less what regulations are applied to solve attempts, and now that I know that the WCA's vision for a FAIR solving environment has dissipated, and now that I know that up to 6 regulations may be explicitly violated PER solve attempt, I'm going to care a lot less about how I conduct myself (and how OTHERS conduct themselves) at competitions.



In the US we call it Strict Constructionism, and it's much more effective at defining liberties and equality of opportunity than you make it out to be.

 

[Mollerz]

Now that I know that up to 6 regulations may be explicitly violated PER solve attempt, I'm going to care a lot less about how I conduct myself at competitions.

Explain to us how you will conduct yourself differently at competitions please.

 

[Dene]

@mDiPalma funny because you're also meant to know the law and yet people "bend" it all the time and get away with it. Or else they go to court and a judge makes a decision one way or another, and often it goes against what the wording seems to be. Then these things get challenged through the courts, all the way to the top, where some small group of important people determine how we should "interpret" what is written, and this generally results in a new law, or at least a new interpretation of a law. What I'm trying to say is in practise legal interpretivism is generally used.

Also you blatantly ignore the Mission Statement of the WCA, which trumps all regulations (after all, the regulations are there to guide us towards the mission of the WCA). Now I know what you're going to say "fair and equal conditions" blah blah, but this is all open to interpretation. We use different scrambles all around the world every weekend. Hell, we use different scrambles in the same competition. In the same round. Sometimes just for one person. Nothing is different about this case in terms of "fair and equal" other than the "random state" thing, which then brings us back to the interpretation of the mission statement, which the WCA Board has interpreted in this case to be in favour of keeping the solve.

Your options are thus:
1) Keep on hating it. In this case I suggest you leave as you are in the minority and clearly your values aren't compatible with the WCA, and no one is making you stay.
2) Accept it and move on. Please. I wouldn't want you to leave over this, but that is up to you.

 

[mDiPalma]

@mDiPalma funny because you're also meant to know the law and yet people "bend" it all the time and get away with it. Or else they go to court and a judge makes a decision one way or another, and often it goes against what the wording seems to be. Then these things get challenged through the courts, all the way to the top, where some small group of important people determine how we should "interpret" what is written, and this generally results in a new law, or at least a new interpretation of a law. What I'm trying to say is in practise legal interpretivism is generally used.

Also you blatantly ignore the Mission Statement of the WCA, which trumps all regulations (after all, the regulations are there to guide us towards the mission of the WCA). Now I know what you're going to say "fair and equal conditions" blah blah, but this is all open to interpretation. We use different scrambles all around the world every weekend. Hell, we use different scrambles in the same competition. In the same round. Sometimes just for one person. Nothing is different about this case in terms of "fair and equal" other than the "random state" thing, which then brings us back to the interpretation of the mission statement, which the WCA Board has interpreted in this case to be in favour of keeping the solve.

Your options are thus:
1) Keep on hating it. In this case I suggest you leave as you are in the minority and clearly your values aren't compatible with the WCA, and no one is making you stay.
2) Accept it and move on. Please. I wouldn't want you to leave over this, but that is up to you.

Then why even write regulations... If the Mission Statement of the WCA is so encompassing and accurate? ...If it's so simple and to the point? ...If we can all agree to it?

Why not just have an entrance exam for all delegates that tests their capacity to make rational decisions that parallel the WCA's Mission Statement?

I mean, if all these "illegalities" and "inconsistencies" are purely product of the existence of WCA Regulations that the Board elects not to keep, then why can't we throw them all away and have a Guiding Mission Statement instead? If we had no concrete regulations, then 500 of the posts in this thread would never have had been written. It would have saved so much time and stress, especially on the WCA end.

Your thoughts?

 

[Tim Major]

Why not just have an entrance exam for all delegates that tests their capacity to make rational decisions that parallel the WCA's Mission Statement?

This almost already exists. A delegate is recommended if another delegate believes that the potential delegate has the "capacity to make rational decisions that parallel the WCA's Mission Statement". It's a field exam.

Basically, as Dene stated, your arguments centre around keeping the regulations as complete, all-encompassing rules. In almost every competitive sport, all first world countries, there are sets of rules/laws laid out for participants/citizens to follow. Often these rules are broken, but in a way that is not fully covered in a moral ground in the rules. For example, an Australian Football team had most/all players taking a banned substance. The results were stripped from the club, however, most of the individual players were not punished, as it was not their intention to break rules. Here, whilst regulations were broken, the WCA decided that they were not broken to gain an advantage, but through honest human error of a non-participant. Whilst Feliks "broke the rules" by solving a misscrambled cube, it was not done for intentional advantage, so the regulations had to be interpreted for the specific scenario.

There are glitches in programs, because the developers oversaw possible actions made. Here, there was an oversight in the original regulations, wherein a competitor can be punished through no fault of their own, so the board has to decide whether or not to apply the regulations. In this case, they decided not to, due to the mission statement, and that is their final decision. Rather than try to get this solve removed, perhaps suggest alternative regulations to better cover competitors from unfair punishment.

 

[Dene]

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are... you're deliberately being retarded, and I'm not sure why. You aren't stupid; I was loud and clear, and you understood what I said. The options I gave you before are still the same.

 

[SolveThatCube]

Wow. 52 pages in a WR thread. That's got to be a WR in itself.

 

[Pro94]

Did you even read the reasoning behind keeping Akash's solve?

Yes, and I still find them not conform to regulations, and you're answering to my question with another question.

 

[pyr14]

No screaming? You Australians really don't know how to massively overreact.

I just want to point out there was only 40-50 people in that comp. maybe even 30-40, cause of the people who don't turn up.
also 40 might seem a lot still, but this was the second day, where all the second rounds start, so for those who don't make it to second round just don't come on second day, so there wasn't much people anymore. probably 20-30 people.

Lots of people were having long lunches as well, so most left. only 8 competitors in OH finals and 6 timers. so think that. 14 ppl plus clueless non cuber spectators who think a 10s time is still good.