Kalindu Sachintha Wijesundara19.67 FMC MEAN -

[ProStar]

This is wrong. You are, and should be, innocent until proven guilty. You cannot make baseless claims without evidence otherwise this could be considered slander/libel/defamation of character. It would just end up turning into a 'he said she said' scenario which means nothing. Granted, this isn't an actual court case, however, there needs to be some level of burden of proof.

This is not slander, libel, or defamation of character. As of right now there is legitimate suspicion that the results were obtained illegitimately, and as such they are being held from approval until a decision on their legitimacy is made. When all evidence, even if not hard proof, is pointing towards him cheating, then it is necessary for him to provide some level of defense. There is a burden of proof, but not as extreme as the real-world justice system, because this is not a matter of people's lives. Not to mention that this situation is very similar to the real justice system, where a person may be arrested because there is evidence pointing towards them being a criminal, and they may be held for a period of time before a trial has occurred to decide for sure if they are guilty.

 

[baseballjello67]

This is wrong. You are, and should be, innocent until proven guilty. You cannot make baseless claims without evidence otherwise this could be considered slander/libel/defamation of character. It would just end up turning into a 'he said she said' scenario which means nothing. Granted, this isn't an actual court case, however, there needs to be some level of burden of proof.

When it comes to legal matters, I believe in innocence until proven guilty. However, when it comes to the WCA, I believe that your result (mainly focusing on important ones) being accepted should be a privilege, not a right, especially with the incredible amount of reasonable suspicion when it comes to this topic.

You cannot make baseless claims without evidence otherwise this could be considered slander/libel/defamation of character.

The claims that people have been making over the last few days are not baseless whatsoever. There is an incredible amount of reasonable suspicion with this topic, although I think @ProStar says it best.

This is not slander, libel, or defamation of character. As of right now there is legitimate suspicion that the results were obtained illegitimately, and as such they are being held from approval until a decision on their legitimacy is made. When all evidence, even if not hard proof, is pointing towards him cheating, then it is necessary for him to provide some level of defense. There is a burden of proof, but not as extreme as the real-world justice system, because this is not a matter of people's lives. Not to mention that this situation is very similar to the real justice system, where a person may be arrested because there is evidence pointing towards them being a criminal, and they may be held for a period of time before a trial has occurred to decide for sure if they are guilty.

 

[qwr]

If you want a comparison to the US legal system, it's based on guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not "proof" but strong enough evidence that no other possibility is reasonable.

For example in a court case, even if you don't have video on camera of a stabbing murder, if the suspect was the only one with the victim at the time, and the victim's blood is found in the suspect's car, and the suspect has a strong motive for killing, then that's probably guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for the jury.

 

[ProStar]

If you want a comparison to the US legal system, it's based on guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not "proof" but strong enough evidence that no other possibility is reasonable.

For example in a court case, even if you don't have video on camera of a stabbing murder, if the suspect was the only one with the victim at the time, and the victim's blood is found in the suspect's car, and the suspect has a strong motive for killing, then that's probably guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for the jury.

Obligatory nerd post about how video evidence is becoming less and less conclusive as time goes on

 

[AhsanDaCuber125]

OK, I think we don't really need to post in this thread anymore as the WDC has made their statement.

Edit: Confused? The WDC's got it, they're still investigating, we don't need to add anything more into the thread, it really does nothing.

 

[ProStar]

OK, I think we don't really need to post in this thread anymore as the WDC has made their statement.

They haven't though? They made a statement which says they are looking into it and temporarily restricting Kalindu's competing a bit (similar to detaining a likely suspect) until they make a decision. All this implies is that they believe the accusations are not baseless and potentially accurate.

 

[Discomantis]

You cannot make baseless claims without evidence

This is not the case. We have tons of evidence that point to potential cheating.

 

[Silky]

This is not slander, libel, or defamation of character. As of right now there is legitimate suspicion that the results were obtained illegitimately, and as such they are being held from approval until a decision on their legitimacy is made. When all evidence, even if not hard proof, is pointing towards him cheating, then it is necessary for him to provide some level of defense. There is a burden of proof, but not as extreme as the real-world justice system, because this is not a matter of people's lives. Not to mention that this situation is very similar to the real justice system, where a person may be arrested because there is evidence pointing towards them being a criminal, and they may be held for a period of time before a trial has occurred to decide for sure if they are guilty.

I think you've misunderstood my point. I am not saying that there isn't evidence and reasonable suspicion. What I am trying to say is that not having a defense is not evidence that they cheated. It's a bit nit-picky, I admit.

A better way to go about it would to see if he can explain the solution adequately, since that is a part of the solution/regulations. If he cannot give an adequate explanation as to what he does in the solve THAT would be evidence to support the claim that he cheated - not that he hasn't provided a defense.

I'm no expert at the law but from my understanding you cannot make baseless claims - that's why I mentioned slander/libel.

 

[ProStar]

that's why I mentioned slander/libel.

Not as sure about slander and libel, but defamation requires someone to make a statement knowing it is false in a malicious attempt to hurt the reputation, income, etc. of an individual/entity

I understand your point though, and I agree that him not jumping to his defense publicly doesn’t mean he’s guilty. I also agree that the regulations clearly state the competitor must be able to give a reasonable explanation of their solution, which I’m sure the WDC will do (either privately or publicly)

 

[Silky]

Not as sure about slander and libel, but defamation requires someone to make a statement knowing it is false in a malicious attempt to hurt the reputation, income, etc. of an individual/entity

I understand your point though, and I agree that him not jumping to his defense publicly doesn’t mean he’s guilty. I also agree that the regulations clearly state the competitor must be able to give a reasonable explanation of their solution, which I’m sure the WDC will do (either privately or publicly)

I can see how my comment was confusing. I wasn't commenting on the case as a whole, just the logic behind that specific argument. And I agree with you - defamation is the wrong term to use. I just wanted to point out that you cannot make baseless claims. Obviously in the case there is evidence far beyond them not providing a defense.

 

[abunickabhi]

World Cube Association

The World Cube Association governs competitions for mechanical puzzles that are operated by twisting groups of pieces, commonly known as 'twisty puzzles'. The most famous of these puzzles is the Rubik's Cube, invented by professor Rubik from Hungary. A selection of these puzzles are chosen as...

forum.worldcubeassociation.org

Statement by the WDC, it is not conclusive yet.

 

[qwr]

A better way to go about it would to see if he can explain the solution adequately, since that is a part of the solution/regulations. If he cannot give an adequate explanation as to what he does in the solve THAT would be evidence to support the claim that he cheated - not that he hasn't provided a defense.

He made a video on it and it doesn't help his case at all lol. He starts off explaining what quarter and half turns are and what EO is. I'm pretty sure anyone watching his video for evidence doesn't need that explained

 

[Silky]

He made a video on it and it doesn't help his case at all lol. He starts off explaining what quarter and half turns are and what EO is. I'm pretty sure anyone watching his video for evidence doesn't need that explained

I haven't watched the video yet but yes that doesn't sound particularly convincing. EO is the bare minimum for DR and knowing EO doesn't necessarily mean you understand DR.

 

[JDAW6]

Also something Else that kalindu has done suspicious is that at my comp there were 12 groups of 3x3 and 6 sets of scrams (A,B,C,D,E,F). I was in group 8 so it would make sense that I got set D but actually I got set F; kalindu was also in my group and he got pr2 single in this average. Idk if it’s cheating but it is definitely suspicious

 

[JDAW6]

Currently, your opinion does not matter. Whether you believe this record is legitimate or not, the decision is up to the WDC, not us here on this forum.

His video showing his reconstructing does not prove anything at all. It proves he knows the solutions, but it does not prove anything against our main suspicion - that he had access to scrambles beforehand and cheated this average.

I've also seen this argument from both you and @abunickabhi. "he is so nice, he couldn't have cheated! it must suck for him to go through looking at all of this!" Just because someone may seem kind to you does not mean that they may not be doing something unethical without you knowing. Being nice does not mean that he couldn't have cheated.

Please stop spamming this forum. Your countless two-sentence posts have only cluttered this thread and made it harder for people just joining this thread to understand what is going on. If you have new insight into this topic, feel free to chat and nobody will care one bit! But simply spamming this thread and many others that you participate in is simply useless.

As @Shah said earlier, the only way we will find out whether this was faked or not is when we see him perform at this level in a competition he is not delegating.

Main suspicions so far:

20.00 mean of 6 with a best single of 19, very consistently low
Delegate at the competition - easy access to scrambles beforehand
Was learning "NISSY" just two months ago
No proof that he did not cheat
Only non-trainee delegate attending the competition

As somebody said earlier, I think that having your result accepted should be a privilege, not a right, and that we should not assume it was legitimate with this much suspicion.

What do you mean? I don’t think this mean is legitimate, i have changed my opinion. To be clear, a few posts above is a message saying that I don’t believe this a legit mean. So I’m having some difficulty understanding where you are coming from.

 

[ender9994]

Not as sure about slander and libel, but defamation requires someone to make a statement knowing it is false in a malicious attempt to hurt the reputation, income, etc. of an individual/entity

This is not correct ( though to be fair i dont know the laws on Mars). Defamation can also occur if someone unknowingly makes a false statement. Frankly there have been cases of defamation occurring even with true information, even though it goes against certain legal definitions. My point is, there have been lots of definitions and arguments in this thread that are complete mumbo jumbo.

 

[qwr]

It's a bit rude to say JDAW's opinion doesn't matter, but of course none of our opinions here on this thread matter. The WDC will consult top level solvers, and I believe there is enough honesty and sportsmanship in cubers that we won't have all top solvers colluding to mislead the public and WCA about the legitimacy of these solves. At least the WDC's report will be way more thorough than Kalindu's video. Their previous reports have been extremely thorough.

 

[baseballjello67]

It's a bit rude to say JDAW's opinion doesn't matter, but of course none of our opinions here on this thread matter.

This. In the end, no matter what we say, the WDC's decision is final, so realistically nobody's opinion here matters (I stated this because he was simply spamming with his two-sentence posts)

I still don’t believe any of this cheating bs.

What do you mean? I don’t think this mean is legitimate, i have changed my opinion. To be clear, a few posts above is a message saying that I don’t believe this a legit mean. So I’m having some difficulty understanding where you are coming from.

You are obviously welcome to change your opinion, but don't think we forgot about the countless posts you made earlier defending it. Switching sides does not mean forgetting everything you said while on the other.

 

[ProStar]

This is not correct ( though to be fair i dont know the laws on Mars). Defamation can also occur if someone unknowingly makes a false statement. Frankly there have been cases of defamation occurring even with true information, even though it goes against certain legal definitions. My point is, there have been lots of definitions and arguments in this thread that are complete mumbo jumbo.

Per Cornell:

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

This applies broadly to defamation in the US, but the details vary from state to state. Admittedly I’m only familiar with the law in a couple of states, and in those the requirements for defamation are more strict. After doing a bit of research you are definitely correct for some states.

Nothing in this thread has been defamation by any means, but I suppose Kalindu could try to sue the WCA if they end up denying his record. I highly doubt he would have a case in that situation, assuming there’s any reasonable suspicion of the record being fake. And also Kalindu is in Sri Lanka which would make the entire legal process much more difficult anyway

 

[FineGeoduck2211]

He made a video on it and it doesn't help his case at all lol. He starts off explaining what quarter and half turns are and what EO is. I'm pretty sure anyone watching his video for evidence doesn't need that explained

were's the vid?