Issues with BLD events, OH and credibility of whole databse [DISCUSSION]

[Thom S.]

He and the judge (which accidentally appears to be his wife)

But did Tonia actually lie? From what I know they always admidded that she prepared his stacks to be in the right orientation and in 2x8 blocks. There was a Post by the WCA that it is unfortunate that this happened and they won't allow it in future attempts. What you are missing about Marcin is: He was able to do these Results. People like Matyas were not. The Delegates had enough chances to tell him that there were several broken rules.

Please ban heavy table abuse. Rouxers will dominate that event and it will basically become as retarded as 2x2x2 single solve.

Where do you draw the Line between Table abuse and heavy table abuse? Such vague rules are even more unfair. Would you ban all fast Methods as well so TICT users have a chance of getting the World Record.
I never lift the cube from the table in my solves(using VH) so basically my 1 Minute+ solves give me an unfair advantage over others, right(bad comparisson, but functions as an example of why such vague rules won't function)

 

[WombatWarrior17]

Table abuse has been legal and has been used since the start of WCA.

Not true. Quote from the 2008 regs:

• C1b1) If the competitor drops or puts down the puzzle during a solve, then the competitor must not do moves or align sides until the puzzle has no contact with the surface anymore. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.

2007 regs:

• C1b) During the solve no other body part or the table or any other available object must touch the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/history/files/regulations2008.html#onehandedsolving
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/history/files/regulations2007.html#onehandedsolving

 

[DGCubes]

Do you know that once cubes with logos were allowed in 3BLD event?

I could apply your argument towards every solve where cube with logo was used. And according to you we should retroactively DNF all such results. Your original argument just doesn't work here and changing it over and over again won't make you appear smarter.

The difference between table abuse in OH and logos in BLD is that disallowing table abuse changes the very nature of OH; logos change nothing about the event unless you were using them to cheat in the first place.

What exactly do you want to change? Do you want table abuse to be illegal entirely, or only in some situations? (Because either one of these is way harder to regulate than what we currently do; see my previous post for reasons.)

In response to the 2007/2008 regs: just because table abuse was illegal back then doesn't mean it should still be. It was changed for a reason.

 

[WombatWarrior17]

In response to the 2007/2008 regs: just because table abuse was illegal back then doesn't mean it should still be. It was changed for a reason.

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying they should be changed back. I was correcting a false statement.

 

[Klaudiusz Szyprocinski]

The difference between table abuse in OH and logos in BLD is that disallowing table abuse changes the very nature of OH; logos change nothing about the event unless you were using them to cheat in the first place.

Why do you even bring this out, I was simply responding to the original argument of @xyzzy which he later decided to modify to still have a point. When you make a change like removing and event, dissallowing certain type of cubes or disallowing an action (like abusing the table for example) you don't care if the regulations in the past were different and you don't need to wonder what to do with old results.

What exactly do you want to change?

To be honest this would be so hard to implement that at this point I think we should simply remove 3x3 OH event

 

[WombatWarrior17]

To be honest this would be so hard to implement that at this point I think we should simply remove 3x3 OH event

So, because you don't like table use (which I personally don't like either, but I understand that it's better to have than not have) you just want to remove the event entirely because what you want wouldn't work? :confused: :?

 

[Klaudiusz Szyprocinski]

So, because you don't like table use (which I personally don't like either, but I understand that it's better to have than not have) you just want to remove the event entirely because what you want wouldn't work? :confused: :?

I'm just thinking ahead. One day all of top100 averages in 3x3 one-handed will be done using Roux method which unfortunately shares little differences with two-handed variation (see my original post) and the rankings will be really similar to eachother. Obviously we want to keep the events as diverse as possible. I don't want to argue about this aspect anymore now, but I am 100% sure this issue will be brought up in the future again and will be considered more seriously

 

[weatherman223]

Not true. Quote from the 2008 regs:

• C1b1) If the competitor drops or puts down the puzzle during a solve, then the competitor must not do moves or align sides until the puzzle has no contact with the surface anymore. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.

2007 regs:

• C1b) During the solve no other body part or the table or any other available object must touch the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/history/files/regulations2008.html#onehandedsolving
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/history/files/regulations2007.html#onehandedsolving

Apologies, I will edit my post soon. Thank you for pointing this out.

As well, I feel that Fabio is irrelevant in the current discussion right now, so I will not respond to the point that the OP made

 

[CraZZ CFOP]

Solution 2 for OH: seperate OH into two events: OH with table and OH without table

 

[Underwatercuber]

Solution 2 for OH: seperate OH into two events: OH with table and OH without table

Anytime people suggest a variation of a current event it’s dumb imo. Its even worse than having both 6 & 7 as events, rankings will look the exact same and all it does is waste more comp time.

Edit: not saying we should remove 6 or 7, I’m jusy saying that’s probably borderline for too similar and stuff like OH with and without table crosses that line I’m my opinion.

 

[Thom S.]

I'm just thinking ahead. One day all of top100 averages in 3x3 one-handed will be done using Roux method which unfortunately shares little differences with two-handed variation (see my original post) and the rankings will be really similar to eachother. Obviously we want to keep the events as diverse as pposieren. I don't want to argue about this aspect öAnmerkung now, but I am 100% sure this issue will be brought up in the future again and will be considered more seriously

There is some truth behind this argument, I give you that but you word it in a way that makes me believe you have this concern out of personal fear. If Roux can be proven to be faster at OH, what is holding anybody back learning it. Preferences exist(which is an opinion I'm defending strongly) and not everybody is equally able to wrap their mind around Blockbuilding.

When given the same amount of time, otherwise I believe Roux is not a viable argument against something most competitors do

 

[Mike Hughey]

I'm just thinking ahead. One day all of top100 averages in 3x3 one-handed will be done using Roux method which unfortunately shares little differences with two-handed variation (see my original post) and the rankings will be really similar to eachother. Obviously we want to keep the events as diverse as possible. I don't want to argue about this aspect anymore now, but I am 100% sure this issue will be brought up in the future again and will be considered more seriously

This doesn't make any sense at all to me. If it really were true that all of the top 100 averages in 3x3x3 OH were done using Roux, I think it's probably pretty safe to say it will be a long time (if it even ever happens) before even most of the top 100 averages in 3x3x3 are done using Roux. Regular 3x3x3 will probably always be dominated by CFOP, unless something new and really special comes along. So actually, if the current 3x3x3 OH rules favor Roux, by your argument that events should be as diverse as possible, this makes OH with table abuse a BETTER event, since it favors using a different method and is therefore significantly different from regular 3x3x3. And the people who dominate 3x3x3 OH will be very different people from those who dominate regular 3x3x3.

Although I still am not so sure that more than a few Roux solvers in the world will ever be as fast with Roux OH as Max is with CFOP OH.

 

[xyzzy]

I was simply responding to the original argument of @xyzzy which he later decided to modify to still have a point.

I don't spell out everything explicitly every time because I don't want to spend ten hours writing each post. Sometimes I miss the mark, and assume the wrong amount of background knowledge. (This is a legitimate flaw I recognise in my communication skills.)

If you think table abuse is illegitimate (as your opening post seems to imply), then to me it makes sense to retroactively remove illegitimate solves. Many people would be affected by a move to ban table abuse, not just Roux users, yet you focus the brunt on Roux solvers. I drew the comparison between Max's and Kian's OH solves because, while I was expecting the Roux solves to have much more table time, my expectations turned out to be wrong. The difference, if any, was too tiny to pick up in my small sample. If your objection was in how much the table was being used (as I had assumed, perhaps wrongly), Max's results would be as illegitimate as you think typical Roux solves are.

You countered this by reiterating that Roux users were using the table as a second hand. I countered your counter by using your own words against you. Your objection amounted to nothing more than "I don't like Roux", which you later changed to "I want to see variation". (See what I did there?) Why don't you say this about big cubes, where most people use reduction into CFOP?

Like I said, not principled. Isolated demands for rigour.

I could apply your argument towards every solve where cube with logo was used. And according to you we should retroactively DNF all such results.

A fundamental difference is that logos distinguishable by touch were never allowed, so there wouldn't have been any advantage even if the competitor used a legal cube with a logo. The change to banning logos came because of discrepancies in how delegates and competitors decided which logos were distinguishable by touch (e.g. Qiyi's printed logos); this was a change to the regulations primarily to make judging easier, not to eliminate cheating.

 

[CraZZ CFOP]

This doesn't make any sense at all to me. If it really were true that all of the top 100 averages in 3x3x3 OH were done using Roux, I think it's probably pretty safe to say it will be a long time (if it even ever happens) before even most of the top 100 averages in 3x3x3 are done using Roux. Regular 3x3x3 will probably always be dominated by CFOP, unless something new and really special comes along. So actually, if the current 3x3x3 OH rules favor Roux, by your argument that events should be as diverse as possible, this makes OH with table abuse a BETTER event, since it favors using a different method and is therefore significantly different from regular 3x3x3. And the people who dominate 3x3x3 OH will be very different people from those who dominate regular 3x3x3.

Although I still am not so sure that more than a few Roux solvers in the world will ever be as fast with Roux OH as Max is with CFOP OH.

Disallowing table abuse might end up increasing the amount of ZZers in OH.

But CFOP might still be the most used method in OH

 

[Klaudiusz Szyprocinski]

A fundamental difference is that logos distinguishable by touch were never allowed

Nice try, but my post you are referring to doesn't contain the distinguishable word.

 

[Tabe]

To add my two cents:

1) I definitely agree that we should start requiring cameras. I also understand that this will be an issue in a lot of places. Perhaps set a goal of 5 years or something to give people time to acquire gear.

2) I would have no problem with banning table abuse entirely in OH. To me, using the table violates my perception of what OH should be - an unassisted solve using just one hand. I would be OK with going back to the old reg where you just had to pick it back up after dropping the cube but couldn't turn it while it was touching. Or, if you want to completely eliminate gray areas, make it a DNF for any drops (though that seems pretty harsh). I don't do OH enough to care all that much, so would never push for a change but it seems *to me* that table abuse should be illegal.

 

[One Wheel]

To add my two cents:

1) I definitely agree that we should start requiring cameras. I also understand that this will be an issue in a lot of places. Perhaps set a goal of 5 years or something to give people time to acquire gear.

I agree, although 5 years seems a little long. I would go with 2, personally. Recommend starting in 2020, require starting in 2021.

Regarding table abuse and roux in OH, I have argued that OH adds relatively little to the 3x3 event relative to what WF adds. After reading the arguments here I would like to retract that argument. I believe that WF adds a lot, but I withdraw my argument that OH does not add to the event, if it encourages the development and practice of different methods.

 

[Tabe]

I agree, although 5 years seems a little long. I would go with 2, personally. Recommend starting in 2020, require starting in 2021.

That works, too. I basically just threw a number out there.

 

[PapaSmurf]

I have very few opinions on this, apart from table abuse: I’m all for keeping it, because what about the floor in feet? If you can’t use the table in oh, you have to do feet off the floor. But I’d also be very happy to see it be stopped, as it makes ZZ undoubtedly the best OH method (out of the big 4), but I know that’s selfish. Although I wouldn’t mind if it was banned.

 

[Sue Doenim]

Whether or not table abuse should be allowed or not has absolutely nothing to do with Roux. Ideally, it should be be based on people's thoughts on what OH really means. Obviously, it means solving with one of your hands and that being the only body part to touch it, but that doesn't say anything about whether other things should be able to touch it. I would say (perhaps from a biased viewpoint, being a Roux solver my self) that since the table is a static, unchanging factor in the solve, it should not be banned from use. I feel like cubing is an activity that rewards ingenuity, and using the table in such an unintuitive manner falls under that category. Table abuse is difficult; it doesn't magically make you immediately faster, but requires practice, like anything else that is a part of cubing. From a realistic viewpoint, I think that it shouldn't be changed simply because of the sheer number of people who would be crushed by the ban. It would definitely make a lot of people mad, and I feel like that is against the spirit of the cubing community.