Geneva Open 2008

[hr.mohr]

Simply, that was maybe, and sadly, the only way to erase that 2x2 solve/round.

I'm sorry but that is really not up to you to decide. You can't just go vigilanti because your own set of ideals are challenged.

As Laetitia wrote "The problem with deleting scrambles is : where is the limit?". It's very hard to regulate luck and why would you even want to do that? Luck is a part of the sport and the best example are right there in this 2x2 event. Why was it that only a select few was able to utilize the lucky scramble?

Again you tried to tamper with the competition and in my opinion that's just as bad as cheating for personal gain.

(This is just my personal opinion, i don't know you and i might not even understand exactly how the events unfolded)

 

[TMOY]

I want a salary now

Whereas I understand clapping and applauding by the audience is an uncontrollable element of the competition, why was anyone but the scramblers allowed near the scrambling table?

Did you read what I wrote ?

 

[jazzthief81]

I know it has been done recently in Hungarian Open, because the first face was done (not a layer).

Because a face was done?! Why not exclude all 3-moves-or-less white crosses on 3x3x3?

 

[joey]

I know it has been done recently in Hungarian Open, because the first face was done (not a layer).

Because a face was done?! Why not exclude all 3-moves-or-less white crosses on 3x3x3?

Yes please

Joey - Green cross user

 

[Kenneth]

To add something, I don't even think scrambles like this should be taken away. This if for several reasons.

Agree.

One of the reasons is that there is probably at least one in 5 scrambles on ALL tournaments which can be solved in 7 moves.

Wrong, only 289,896 out of 3,674,160 (about 1:12) are that short or shorter (HTM).

3rd of all, if you forget about my 2nd argument. There were already done solves with the scramble. If you want to take it out (which is not even allowed by the rules now I think) you should do it before you give people the scramble.

Not good, then someone must choose scrambles, and what are the rules for that? scrambles that solves in 7-8+ turns? Even if one layer is solved? and so on, as you wrote, it was up before and we found it is not much to do but accept easy scrambles (even if it makes you loose your new WR in a minute =)

And finaly: a scramble that skips the last layer after 5-6 turns to solve FL would be "easy"... but no one would start from that side, you don't start from a side that needs 5-6 turns when there are others that needs 2-4 turns (but does not skip the LL). what I'm saying is that not many of the "easy" scrambles are easy for real and many of the "hard" scrambles are really easy (example, all solved but 2 unoriented corners are 11 tiurns)

 

[Tyson]

I want a salary now

Whereas I understand clapping and applauding by the audience is an uncontrollable element of the competition, why was anyone but the scramblers allowed near the scrambling table?

Did you read what I wrote ?

Yes I did. If the organizers did not have the resources to run a proper competition because they are bad at time management, it is not to be used as an excuse to not follow WCA protocol.

That's like saying you didn't have time to finish your homework because you were too busy installing a new operating system on your new computer. Your professor isn't going to accept that excuse. I can't imagine the authorities here accepting a similar excuse for a cubing competition.

 

[TMOY]

I want a salary now

Whereas I understand clapping and applauding by the audience is an uncontrollable element of the competition, why was anyone but the scramblers allowed near the scrambling table?

Did you read what I wrote ?

Yes I did. If the organizers did not have the resources to run a proper competition because they are bad at time management, it is not to be used as an excuse to not follow WCA protocol.

WCA protocol was followed as much as it was necessary to ensure both fairness of the competition (as much as possible) and fun for everybody. That's all that matters, period.

 

[Tyson]

Yes, thank you for your opinion.

 

[supercube]

if someone had an unfair advantage then you have to assume that they all did except of course the first person to solve. if its not a level playing field then how can these times be compared to other times at comps where scrambles were actually kept secret? the guy who is standing next to the scramble table is just as guilty as the scrambler who quietly sits there not asking people to leave the area. if a scrambler didn't see this kid standing there watching him then how many people did he not see? knowing the scramble sequence, someone can figure out the scrambled state and the converse is also true with a little more effort. so without breaking the rules down to the definition of the word scramble it should be assumed that no one is to see it either.

 

[MistArts]

Furthermore, if you haven't competed, you really shouldn't be staring at the competition that's going on.

(Note: I am not accusing anyone. I'm just saying, if you're competing in BLD, and you haven't done the first solve, don't sit in the front row and study everyone doing the first solve. We have baseball bats to rectify this problem if it should occur.)

Then, we could make the competitors that are not competing in another room.