Kalindu Sachintha Wijesundara19.67 FMC MEAN -

Status
Not open for further replies.
UKCubeFan said:
It's all messed up. Not liking someone's branch algs on a piece of paper, or their other scribbled algs doesn't make someone a cheat.
Being a cheat requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Prove he cheated with evidence he saw scrambles in advance. Or it's a legitimate WR.
Click to expand...
Most cheaters don’t leave an obvious trail of concrete evidence behind them. It would be smart to cover your tracks if you want to be a successful cheater. So for this case, we have to rely on forms of non-direct evidence like circumstantial evidence, expert testimonies, statistical analysis, and so on. Unfortunately, even though it is extremely clear in the mind of all top FMC solvers that his results are not legitimate, it takes a supermajority vote of at least 2/3 from the WCA in order to actually remove his results, so I personally don’t have too high of hopes that the correct decision will be made and I worry about the integrity of WCA records to come.
 
WoowyBaby said:
Most cheaters don’t leave an obvious trail of concrete evidence behind them. It would be smart to cover your tracks if you want to be a successful cheater. So for this case, we have to rely on forms of non-direct evidence like circumstantial evidence, expert testimonies, statistical analysis, and so on. Unfortunately, even though it is extremely clear in the mind of all top FMC solvers that his results are not legitimate, it takes a supermajority vote of at least 2/3 from the WCA in order to actually remove his results, so I personally don’t have too high of hopes that the correct decision will be made and I worry about the integrity of WCA records to come.
Click to expand...

What do you suggest to improve the integrity of the WCA records? Do you think there should be blind verification instead of verification by any WCA committee? Or should there be official arbiters trained to evaluate and take a fair decision based on proof? Should FMC attempts of top solvers be video recorded? Can an automated verification computer code be made to evaluate the human-ness of FMC solutions?
 
WoowyBaby said:
Most cheaters don’t leave an obvious trail of concrete evidence behind them. It would be smart to cover your tracks if you want to be a successful cheater. So for this case, we have to rely on forms of non-direct evidence like circumstantial evidence, expert testimonies, statistical analysis, and so on. Unfortunately, even though it is extremely clear in the mind of all top FMC solvers that his results are not legitimate, it takes a supermajority vote of at least 2/3 from the WCA in order to actually remove his results, so I personally don’t have too high of hopes that the correct decision will be made and I worry about the integrity of WCA records to come.
Click to expand...

There was a Multi-BLD solver that was banned a few years ago in a similar scenario. As in this case, there was analysis by top solvers used as 'evidence' for their eventual ban. Arguably, there was less evidence despite them having a longer history of success in the event (there was, to my understanding, less consensus among top BLD solvers as well). To add to this, the stakes were significantly lower being as it was not a WR.

The most damning thing about this case would have to be the statistical analysis. It isn't exactly 'hard' evidence but it's far more concrete than top solvers just being suspicious. As in the previous scenario, there will most likely be no hard evidence unless they come out and say that they cheated, which is unlikely.

I think the larger issue will be that they were a delegate. I'm surprised that delegates are allowed to participate in the competitions that they run in the first place. Even if Kalindu is found not to be guilty, there will need to be (at least there should be) a larger conversation about how competitions are run.

To me, it would be hypocritical of the WCA to not ban him given that they have banned others for less.
 
I believe in a correct decision from the WCA here. The WDA has a great track record of banning cheaters and not falling into the trap of accepting any thin plausible deniability excuse.
UKCubeFan said:
It's all messed up. Not liking someone's branch algs on a piece of paper, or their other scribbled algs doesn't make someone a cheat.
Being a cheat requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Prove he cheated with evidence he saw scrambles in advance. Or it's a legitimate WR.

🙂 🙃 🤩 🏏
Click to expand...
Strongly disagree. I think it should be the other way around.

In order for the record to be accepted you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is a legit result.
The disqualification of the competitor for years of competing and stripping all his results from the past should require higher burden of proof of course.

The acceptance of the record should be a privilege. There should be much higher burden on accepting WR than any other results in the WCA.

In other case either security measures will have to be pumped up to the point where regular competitions will be extremely hard to organize or a lot of records will eventually be the result of someone cheating.

And there is a lot of pressure to organize more competitions and pressure on the WCA to open up and make the path to becoming a delegate easier, which in turns increases the attack surface of "become a delegate and cheat a WR for yourself or your friend"
 
WoowyBaby said:
Most cheaters don’t leave an obvious trail of concrete evidence behind them. It would be smart to cover your tracks if you want to be a successful cheater. So for this case, we have to rely on forms of non-direct evidence like circumstantial evidence, expert testimonies, statistical analysis, and so on. Unfortunately, even though it is extremely clear in the mind of all top FMC solvers that his results are not legitimate, it takes a supermajority vote of at least 2/3 from the WCA in order to actually remove his results, so I personally don’t have too high of hopes that the correct decision will be made and I worry about the integrity of WCA records to come.
Click to expand...
The message you replied to was my only message not deleted by SS yesterday, apart from ones on a cricket thread. My theory was correct.

I did FMC at a comp and DNF'd. 16 as WR single is amazing. 2/3 have to oppose the WR for it not to stand? Wonder when it will be decided.
 
Silky said:
There was a Multi-BLD solver that was banned a few years ago in a similar scenario. As in this case, there was analysis by top solvers used as 'evidence' for their eventual ban. Arguably, there was less evidence despite them having a longer history of success in the event (there was, to my understanding, less consensus among top BLD solvers as well). To add to this, the stakes were significantly lower being as it was not a WR.

The most damning thing about this case would have to be the statistical analysis. It isn't exactly 'hard' evidence but it's far more concrete than top solvers just being suspicious. As in the previous scenario, there will most likely be no hard evidence unless they come out and say that they cheated, which is unlikely.

I think the larger issue will be that they were a delegate. I'm surprised that delegates are allowed to participate in the competitions that they run in the first place. Even if Kalindu is found not to be guilty, there will need to be (at least there should be) a larger conversation about how competitions are run.

To me, it would be hypocritical of the WCA to not ban him given that they have banned others for less.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. The most real evidence will probably be the statistical anaylsis, because personally, I am unable to provide an actual solid argument as to why it’s fake. I think many other top FMC solvers would also struggle to form an argument to the quality of an argument in an actual court case, other than just “here’s a bunch of stuff that’s really suspicious, but nothing on its own is enough to prove anything I guess”. There are FMCers out there more intelligent than I am to be fair, so more able to put everything together coherently. I don’t expect a decision anytime soon though.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the parallels with chess cheating, perhaps the most robust way to confirm the legitimacy of a strong player is to do something like this:

While this production was a little elaborate, Chess.com has more scaled back proctoring too (two cameras + an immediate sweep of the player's room as requested, etc).

Similarly, if a world record-holding FMC solver has been so consistent with posting solid results at home/online, then it should be easy enough to verify that they can still post pretty good results while on camera (even when accounting for stage fright). It's even better if they can talk through the process as they do it, although this step isn't usually necessary.

It would be reasonable to expect a WR FMC solver to be able to post a bunch of live-verified sub-23s on demand, yes? Hopefully this is already an option the WDC is looking towards, if it's even going to get to reach that stage.
 
eyeoh said:
He's listed as a delegate for a competition as far back as April 2023, and also many other competitions that occurred more than 2 months ago. Here's the earliest example I've managed to find: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/competitions/CubingRajarataOpen2023
Click to expand...
I think they were a trainee delgate though, and were not able to have access to the scrams. I think he became a junior delegate 2 months ago*, and that’s when he was the highest ranking delegate in comps that he went to.

* I will find a way to confirm this.
 
WoowyBaby said:
I agree with you. The most real evidence will probably be the statistical anaylsis, because personally, I am unable to provide an actual solid argument as to why it’s fake. I think many other top FMC solvers would also struggle to form an argument to the quality of an argument in an actual court case, other than just “here’s a bunch of stuff that’s really suspicious, but nothing on its own is enough to prove anything I guess”. There are FMCers out there more intelligent than I am to be fair, so more able to put everything together coherently. I don’t expect a decision anytime soon though.
Click to expand...

In a court case you can have an expert witness, so it's actually not outrageous to confer to top solvers. But it would come down to how my credence you put into the opinions of top solvers. It could be argued that other top solvers would be biased since they would benefit them to say it was faked. I don't necessarily agree with this but it could certainly be argued.
 
JDAW6 said:
I thinks so.
Click to expand...
If you aren't sure about something in a big profile incident like this, you're better off not commenting than spamming and misleading everyone else.

Since the first page on this thread you and the other guy (abunickabhi) have contributed nothing to the whole conversation but call the whole community toxic and force your opinions as truth to everyone. The ones being toxic right now are you two, not others.

Someone broke a WR and other competitors are suspicious of the results and have been questioning it with valid concerns. These are accusations right now and WDC is investigating it as well. Kalindu shared a video to defend his case. It's upto WDC to decide whether this is a case of malpractice/misconduct. If you have something that'll help WDC with more clarity on taking a decision, go ahead and email them. You're entitled to your opinions but you're not supposed to gaslight others into believing what you "think" is right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Hari Hari
[NR] [WR2] Kalindu Sachintha Wijesundara 20.33 FMC MEAN
Replies
5
Views
1,252
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
[NR] [Sri Lankan NR] Kalindu Sachintha Wijesundara 3BLD single 1:29.34 and mean 1:37.03
Replies
1
Views
827
Kalindu
Kalindu
Back
Top