[Unofficial] Joe Richards 5/5 multibld 'sub9' apparently

[Stefan]

There are so many reasons from the first video/solver to assume it is fake. There are so many reasons from Maskow's video/solver to assume it is real. I don't get your point.

Just saying that not checking the cubes before thinking you succeeded doesn't necessarily imply faking, as the very first video I checked (Maskow's) shows precisely that. As others have noted, Maskow also doesn't really celebrate, another of the common "pieces of evidence".

The number of "suspicious factors" of course plays a role, but let's say there are five factors and 50% of innocent people do them, then one in 32 shows all those suspicious factors even though he's innocent. The other 31, because they look less suspicious, are less likely to be pointed out and discussed at all, making the poor guy look even worse because people suddenly see all the factors, ignoring that they've been ignoring them in others.

I remember people calling Robert Yau and Feliks Zemdegs fake

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?8858-I-call-BS

 

[qqwref]

5/5 in 5:40

Dude... WTF...

 

[CHJ]

I find joe an alright person, i hung around with him for a bit and he was alright, i had no idea this was to happen and caused alot of uproar on here, he couldn't blindsolve at WSMO and to have said he could do this, hmmm i know its fake, but i don't see the harm of trying to fake something just learn about it first before trying it :/

Dude... WTF...

I wouldn't expect any other reactions to maskows ability

 

[qqwref]

Fortunately, proving legitimacy to everyone's satisfaction (by making a particular type of video and letting it be analyzed) is not very difficult if you're legitimate, and practically impossible if you're not. Hell, if you're willing to wait, you can even ask someone to come to a competition/meetup and get close to their previous results.

In this guy's case I very much doubt he is capable of producing a fast multiBLD video that will withstand scrutiny.

 

[ben1996123]

for those who didn't see this: 10/10 'sub18' apparently

 

[FinnGamer]

for those who didn't see this: 10/10 'sub18' apparently

At least he admitted the fake in this one

 

[5BLD]

Oh look at the description now. "lol, it was fake but fun to make"
Does he ever learn...?

 

[Stefan]

Oh look at the description now. "lol, it was fake but fun to make"
Does he ever learn...?

Learn what? How to have fun? Apparently he knows that already.

 

[RNewms27]

Joe Richards for WCA Delegate.

 

[CHJ]

Alex did you talk to him at RDO at all?

 

[pjk]

Just saying that not checking the cubes before thinking you succeeded doesn't necessarily imply faking, as the very first video I checked (Maskow's) shows precisely that. As others have noted, Maskow also doesn't really celebrate, another of the common "pieces of evidence".

The number of "suspicious factors" of course plays a role, but let's say there are five factors and 50% of innocent people do them, then one in 32 shows all those suspicious factors even though he's innocent. The other 31, because they look less suspicious, are less likely to be pointed out and discussed at all, making the poor guy look even worse because people suddenly see all the factors, ignoring that they've been ignoring them in others.

True, but I think the people who replied saying "he didn't celebrate, fake!" didn't mean that was the *only* reason it was fake, it was just one of the reasons that made it suspicious. If there was a big doubt as to whether it was real and someone posted "he didn't celebrate, fake!", then it would be a bit ridiculous because that isn't a valid reason to call it fake. But if it is blatantly obviously that it is a fake, I don't mind people making replies like that.

On a side note, seriously, as funny as it may be for people to make fakes, it does no good. In fact, it indirectly criticizes the people who spend countless hours legitimately practicing those events.

 

[PandaCuber]

On a side note, seriously, as funny as it may be for people to make fakes, it does no good for anyone. In fact, it indirectly criticizes the people who spend countless hours legitimately practicing those events.

This. People gotta stop doing fake videos.

 

[Stefan]

if it is blatantly obviously that it is a fake, I don't mind people making replies like ["he didn't celebrate, fake!"].

Well, I do. It's still a wrong argument, and it detracts from the real ones.

funny as it may be for people to make fakes, it does no good for anyone

I'd say the green part of your sentence is a counter-example of the red part.

 

[pjk]

Well, I do. It's still a wrong argument, and it detracts from the real ones.

True, but more than half of posts made distract from the actual purpose of the discussion, and if someone is posting a fake video acting like it is real, the whole thread is just a big joke. But I understand your point.

I'd say the green part of your sentence is a counter-example of the red part.

You're right. It does good for the select few who find it funny, my mistake. However, I think it tarnishes our community.

 

[qqwref]

Fake videos have a clear net negative effect on the community. And I don't think in a topic like this the "purpose of the discussion" is particularly important to uphold.

 

[Mike Hughey]

Fake videos have a clear net negative effect on the community.

Which is why I carry a grudge with Mythbusters.

Spoiler

Honestly, I didn't watch the show, just the video posted on YouTube. So I don't know if they spoilered it by explaining that people really can do it without trickery. But unfortunately, there are LOTS of people who saw only the YouTube video (like me), and I suspect that video has done significantly more damage than Joe Richards has done with his 223 views.

 

[Tyjet66]

Which is why I carry a grudge with Mythbusters.

Spoiler

Honestly, I didn't watch the show, just the video posted on YouTube. So I don't know if they spoilered it by explaining that people really can do it without trickery. But unfortunately, there are LOTS of people who saw only the YouTube video (like me), and I suspect that video has done significantly more damage than Joe Richards has done with his 223 views.

They did explain it.

 

[Mike Hughey]

They did explain it.

Did they? Explain that people can do it without trickery, I mean? What exactly did they say about it/us? I'd love to know.

And while I suppose I should primarily hold the Discovery Channel responsible for the YouTube video, I still suspect Mythbusters could convince them to add a comment to the video description, so I still hold Mythbusters partially responsible.

 

[Tyjet66]

They explained how they faked the video and openly admitted to doing so. I believe they may have mentioned that people can do it legit but I'm not 100% sure on that. If they did though, it would've been nothing more than a brief mention however.

But yea, I'd hold Discovery responsible (I'm biased, as I like Mythbusters.)

 

[pjk]

Which is why I carry a grudge with Mythbusters.

Can you please post the video you're referring to?