Martín Telésforo "4.41 single" DNF - Perry Open, Mexico

[windhero]

I don't really like this statement. If there's a lot of cheating in competitions, it means WCA is useless and regulations are not followed. I prefer to believe cheating, if any, is as few as possible...

Sure, it's a grim way to think about the competitions, but a blatantly obvious fake solve like this left me wondering, that there might be more. Even a small percentage of recorded fake solves is a huge amount since there have been so many solves - fake or legit - in total.

Wishing it doesn't exist doesnt help either. Think of these competitions as with any other sport. ski'ing and bike competitions are full of competitors that use doping. If there was no countermeasure everyone would use it. I dont think it's that hard to make it impossible to cheat on these competitions compared to those sports. Accepting the fact that some jerks cheat is the best way to get rid of the cheating phenomena in my opinion.

 

[jayefbe]

Sure, it's a grim way to think about the competitions, but a blatantly obvious fake solve like this left me wondering, that there might be more. Even a small percentage of recorded fake solves is a huge amount since there have been so many solves - fake or legit - in total.

Wishing it doesn't exist doesnt help either. Think of these competitions as with any other sport. ski'ing and bike competitions are full of competitors that use doping. If there was no countermeasure everyone would use it. I dont think it's that hard to make it impossible to cheat on these competitions compared to those sports. Accepting the fact that some jerks cheat is the best way to get rid of the cheating phenomena in my opinion.

Anyone that's been to a comp knows that it would be a little too easy to cheat. It's not a failing on the part of the WCA, rather, guidelines set by the WCA aren't enforced as strictly as they probably should be. I understand why. Judges are exhausted after a full day of judging solves. Things become very hectic, it's a struggle to keep things on time, while also keeping track of dozens of cubers, scrambles, and judging. It's tough to keep things running smoothly and efficiently. I'm hoping that this experience will lead to behaviors that will discourage cheating to a greater degree. Things like replacement judges/scramblers, clearly defined runners that are the ONLY ones to touch the cube, better oversight on scrambles, and maintaining a boundary around the judges tables and scramblers tables are things that I think could help discourage cheating a lot.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

Anyone that's been to a comp knows that it would be a little too easy to cheat. It's not a failing on the part of the WCA, rather, guidelines set by the WCA aren't enforced as strictly as they probably should be. I understand why. Judges are exhausted after a full day of judging solves. Things become very hectic, it's a struggle to keep things on time, while also keeping track of dozens of cubers, scrambles, and judging. It's tough to keep things running smoothly and efficiently. I'm hoping that this experience will lead to behaviors that will discourage cheating to a greater degree. Things like replacement judges/scramblers, clearly defined runners that are the ONLY ones to touch the cube, better oversight on scrambles, and maintaining a boundary around the judges tables and scramblers tables are things that I think could help discourage cheating a lot.

Since everyone should be able to judge, and should indeed help out, they shouldn't be exhausted. Is this a US thing? We never have it in the UK, and things like only solved cubes can be put on scoresheets at the starts of rounds, and the round won't start until all the cubes are in. Also the boundary is usually pretty well defined, with at least a sizeable gap and any chairs near the table facing away from the scrambling. It sounds to me, from posts like this and also discussions on IRC, that perhaps organisers and delegates in the US aren't paying as much attention, or putting as much effort into running the competition as they should be.
I'm not saying that all of them are unable to do it correctly, but there does seem to be a bit of a quality gap between US comps and those in other countries.

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

What happened here is actually similar to something that happened at a Drexel University competition, I think it was February of 2008. Interestingly, the person involved there was known for posting videos of rehearsed solves and claiming them as actual solves...

I believe Tyson is misremembering the incident at Baltimore Spring 2010.

 

[ben1996123]

Anyone that's been to a comp knows that it would be a little too easy to cheat. It's not a failing on the part of the WCA, rather, guidelines set by the WCA aren't enforced as strictly as they probably should be. I understand why. Judges are exhausted after a full day of judging solves. Things become very hectic, it's a struggle to keep things on time, while also keeping track of dozens of cubers, scrambles, and judging. It's tough to keep things running smoothly and efficiently. I'm hoping that this experience will lead to behaviors that will discourage cheating to a greater degree. Things like replacement judges/scramblers, clearly defined runners that are the ONLY ones to touch the cube, better oversight on scrambles, and maintaining a boundary around the judges tables and scramblers tables are things that I think could help discourage cheating a lot.

do you actually have dedicated judges and scramblers that only judge/scramble? that seems like a stupid idea.

 

[qqwref]

I think it's quite possible that this competition, being in Mexico and apparently outdoors, was less well organized than many of the US and Europe competitions run by very experienced organizers. Perhaps that made it easier for someone to put a solved cube down and get it as their first "scramble". It would be good if all organizers were explicitly told about this kind of cheating (as well as other types) and how to prevent it. This kind of mistake cannot be prevented without people knowing why they have to be vigilant.

 

[jayefbe]

Since everyone should be able to judge, and should indeed help out, they shouldn't be exhausted. Is this a US thing? We never have it in the UK, and things like only solved cubes can be put on scoresheets at the starts of rounds, and the round won't start until all the cubes are in. Also the boundary is usually pretty well defined, with at least a sizeable gap and any chairs near the table facing away from the scrambling. It sounds to me, from posts like this and also discussions on IRC, that perhaps organisers and delegates in the US aren't paying as much attention, or putting as much effort into running the competition as they should be.
I'm not saying that all of them are unable to do it correctly, but there does seem to be a bit of a quality gap between US comps and those in other countries.

I've only been to one comp (my second is tomorrow), so all of this should be taken with a huge grain of salt. However, I have talked to a few people that have been to other comps, and found that my observations weren't unique. Definitely a small sample size, so I don't want to generalize across all competitions. But my limited first and second hand experience suggests that careful consideration of how cheating may occur, and limiting the opportunities for cheating would be helpful.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

I've only been to one comp (my second is tomorrow), so all of this should be taken with a huge grain of salt. However, I have talked to a few people that have been to other comps, and found that my observations weren't unique. Definitely a small sample size, so I don't want to generalize across all competitions. But my limited first and second hand experience suggests that careful consideration of how cheating may occur, and limiting the opportunities for cheating would be helpful.

Yeah of course, I totally agree, but I'm just saying that it isn't a global issue, it seems to be only some competitions in which it happens, which then implies the fault lies more with the organisers that with the system.

 

[jayefbe]

Yeah of course, I totally agree, but I'm just saying that it isn't a global issue, it seems to be only some competitions in which it happens, which then implies the fault lies more with the organisers that with the system.

I agree with that. I think the WCA guidelines are sufficient if executed properly.

 

[Mirco]

it isn't a global issue, it seems to be only some competitions in which it happens

But it (whatever "it" is as I don't know how he cheated. Maybe the WCA could give him half a year less punishment if the 4.41 guy confessed and told the way he did) could happen in every competition.
The easiest way is to work together with a judge since everyone may and should be able to judge. Sometimes we have not enough voluntary judges so the delegate has to force some people to, but to keep up with the time schedule this sometimes is the only way.

This thread is drifting into a "how can we prevent cheating" discussion. Shouldn't there be a new (and I bet there already is some thread of this kind) one for this topic? Not that the WCA isn't discussing this right now...

 

[AvGalen]

Maybe it is a good idea to have one scrambler/judge made responsible to handout and take in the cubes to and from the scramble table for small competitions

Yes, this should be part of the rules. There should be 1 person between the scramblers and judges that checks all the scrambles. That person should also keep an eye on the flow of the competition (sometimes someone is already doing his 3rd solve while another person hasn't done his 1st solve) and should prevent friends from cherrypicking each others cube for judging.

Yes, so what actually happened during the solve. The reason why it isn't in the statement is because we can't prove it, but we have a very good guess as to what actually happened. What happened here is actually similar to something that happened at a Drexel University competition, I think it was February of 2008. Interestingly, the person involved there was known for posting videos of rehearsed solves and claiming them as actual solves...

What I think happened is that the competitor at Perry Open 2013, who had a history of posting videos of rehearsed solves and presenting them as normal solves, used a rehearsed scramble. If you put your cube down on your scramble sheet, and you put it down scrambled, a judge can easily mistake it for a scrambled cube and take it to the timer.

I have one big problem with this explanation: After the solve the judge/scrambler/delegate checked with the competitor about the state of the scramble. It was then decided that the competitor had solved the correct scramble. I already asked Anders about this but never got a satisfactory answer.

Sorry that I couldn't reveal anything about the official statement that Martin had made to Anders. Basically Martin had seen/heard about one of the cube-explorer solutions that leads to the J-Perm posted by Michael (not the one that Kevin solved over 100 times).

"Hi, a fellow cuber informs me that someone found this solution.
x2 U' R D F2 R L B' D2 L U' B2 U F' L' U2 D' B2 [J perm]
up to this point
x2 U' R D F2 R L B' D2 L U' B2 U F' L' U2 D'
this is what I did and then
B' U'
and instead of finishing I noticed the F2L that was also solved and I inserted it with
U B'
ending up with a Jperm that I execute in under one second."

After that statement all doubt about the legitimacy of this solve was gone. I tried to steer everyone away from discussing the other scramble and instead hoped to get an insight into what had really happened, but not much useful information followed.I am personally very happy with the result of DNF + ban on the basis of lying for Martin, but I am also very curious about what really happened that day.
Just like half of the episodes of Lost/X-Files I will just have to accept that I will never really understand

 

[Genesis]

Come to think of it, is it possible to have a camera filming the scramble process or the cubes leaving the scramble area(Before covering and bringing it over)? If something suspicious happens, we can check back and this may possibly allow us to settle most incidents

 

[Noahaha]

You could have a designated scramble checker for each event.

 

[Kattenvriendin]

Even easier.. one table to bring the cubes to and put them on their respective sheets and when all cubes are in they get taken (moved over) to the scramble table by the delegate.

Everyone stays away from the table (participants are separate in any case) until called or until a cube goes in the scrambled cup so a judge can take it.

 

[Mirco]

You could have a designated scramble checker for each event.

Isn't that what the scramblers are for?

 

[Noahaha]

Isn't that what the scramblers are for?

Sure, but it wouldn't hurt to have an extra layer of carefulness.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

Sure, but it wouldn't hurt to have an extra layer of carefulness.

But then even more people are required to help with the scrambling process, causing to run slower. I think we should be able to expect the scramblers to check the scramble, since its in the WCA regs. The system works fine, the problem lies with the implementation if at all.

 

[Ollie]

But then even more people are required to help with the scrambling process, causing to run slower. I think we should be able to expect the scramblers to check the scramble, since its in the WCA regs. The system works fine, the problem lies with the implementation if at all.

We should try and sneak a prepared scramble into the scrambling table at Cambridge to see how easy the mistake is to make

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

We should try and sneak a prepared scramble into the scrambling table at Cambridge to see how easy the mistake is to make

Umm no we shouldn't.
Anyway, it would only work for the first solve since it goes back to the table solved afterwards. I can't actually think of a way to do it.

 

[CubeRoots]

Don't scramble a single cube until all cubes from that round are solved on scorecards. Simple.