# Proposal Regarding BLD Orientation

Status
Not open for further replies.

#### Yichen

##### Member
I do not really agree with the ideas in the main post.

However, I do feel that the current regulation is not fair enough.
For example, suppose we have two blindfold competitors starting their memorisation using the same orientation, say white on top and green in front. Person A receives the scrambled cube placed with white on top and green in front, but person B receives the cube with other orientations. In this case, person A surely has an advantage over person B.

For blindfolded events, since there is no inspection period, the orientation of the cube has to be considered as part of the scramble. So different orientation actually means different scrambles for the competitors which is definitely not fair.

Here is my proposal:

Force same orientation for all competitors for each same scramble. This does not mean that the cube has to be placed 'white on top and green in front' or something for all scrambles. Basically the competitors would not know the orientations of the cube, but since the orientation for all competitors are the same, this would be fair. However, I have to admit that this is hard practically.

My second idea is deleted as I realise from the the replies that it would not really work.

Last edited:

#### tseitsei

##### Member
2. Add inspection period. But this is also a bit complicated. If the inspection period is 5s, it is quite hard for the judge to control it. As in I expect that the top cubers would make full use of these 5s to memorise as much as possible, which may lead them in exceeding the limits. Then I have this crazy idea which seem to reduce the problem. Basically the inspection period is redefined as follows:

• the competitor puts his hands on the timer
• the competitor removes the cover from the puzzle after starting the timer
• the competitor can inspect and re-orient the puzzle
• the competitor puts the puzzle down to the table and covers it with the cover (make sure the cube is not observable)
• the competitor puts both his hands to stop the timer

Any kind of inspection period completely ruins BLD... Memorization needs to be part of the solve time obviously. And I think dividing the memo in 2 parts (inspection and the rest after that) is just stupid. Please don't do this.

#### Goosly

##### Member
2. Add inspection period. But this is also a bit complicated. If the inspection period is 5s, it is quite hard for the judge to control it. As in I expect that the top cubers would make full use of these 5s to memorise as much as possible, which may lead them in exceeding the limits. Then I have this crazy idea which seem to reduce the problem. Basically the inspection period is redefined as follows:

• the competitor puts his hands on the timer
• the competitor removes the cover from the puzzle after starting the timer
• the competitor can inspect and re-orient the puzzle
• the competitor puts the puzzle down to the table and covers it with the cover (make sure the cube is not observable)
• the competitor puts both his hands to stop the timer

All the above steps should be done within 5 seconds as displayed on the timer. And related penalties can be applied for exceeding the limit. Then after this 'inspection period', the judge resets the timer and the competitor can start the rest of the attempt in the same way as the current regulation states.

So everyone will just get times that are 5 seconds faster than in the current system. What is the point of that?

#### Noahaha

##### blindmod
Most things worthy of saying have been said already, but I want to also point out that requested orientations are only fair under the assumption that everyone has a fixed orientation. Whether or not there are color-neutral BLD solvers, it doesn't seem right to base a regulation off of a feature of a particular system of solving, no matter how prevalent that system is.

#### Ollie

##### Member
Having a specific orientation when you learn to solve BLD is a choice - no need to change the regulations to accommodate this poor method choice.

But on a serious note, I'd argue that it's possible to glean information about a scramble while you're reorienting, especially for 3BLD. For instance, if a scramble is x2 y' from my preferred orientation, but I notice a couple of solved pieces while I'm reorienting, I can approximate how many targets I'm likely to get. Just to use another example - say I notice one solved edge while I'm reorienting, and I realize I only have 10 edge targets when I begin memo, I can progress to corners much more swiftly since I found the solved edge during reorientation, and not by searching the cube after I memorized my targets.

tl;dr - reorientation isn't always bad for a solve

edit: damn it Noah, ninja'd

Last edited:

#### Bindedsa

##### Member
Force same orientation for all competitors for each same scramble. This does not mean that the cube has to be placed 'white on top and green in front' or something for all scrambles. Basically the competitors would not know the orientations of the cube, but since the orientation for all competitors are the same, this would be fair. However, I have to admit that this is hard practically.
I don't see how this would solve any issues? If anything it would make it even easier to cheat because instead of needing a delegate you could just look at another competitor's cube to know the orientation of a scramble. Anyway, this change would only mean that competitions are slightly more fair between competitors in the same group at the same comp and this isn't really an issue right now.

2. Add inspection period. But this is also a bit complicated. If the inspection period is 5s, it is quite hard for the judge to control it. As in I expect that the top cubers would make full use of these 5s to memorise as much as possible, which may lead them in exceeding the limits. Then I have this crazy idea which seem to reduce the problem. Basically the inspection period is redefined as follows:

the competitor puts his hands on the timer
the competitor removes the cover from the puzzle after starting the timer
the competitor can inspect and re-orient the puzzle
the competitor puts the puzzle down to the table and covers it with the cover (make sure the cube is not observable)
the competitor puts both his hands to stop the timer

All the above steps should be done within 5 seconds as displayed on the timer. And related penalties can be applied for exceeding the limit. Then after this 'inspection period', the judge resets the timer and the competitor can start the rest of the attempt in the same way as the current regulation states.
What?! How does this even change anything? It still means one competitor would have an advantage if his/her cube was oriented preferably and he can get more memo done in his/her 5 seconds. Why not just allow 10 moves during inspection with 3x3? This is basically the same thing.

#### IRNjuggle28

##### Member
1. Force same orientation for all competitors for each same scramble. This does not mean that the cube has to be placed 'white on top and green in front' or something for all scrambles. Basically the competitors would not know the orientations of the cube, but since the orientation for all competitors are the same, this would be fair. However, I have to admit that this is hard practically.

1 seems like a good idea that's too difficult practically to work, as you said. I think 2 is a very bad idea, though. As others have said, it allows competitors to have part of their memo time not count.
Most things worthy of saying have been said already, but I want to also point out that requested orientations are only fair under the assumption that everyone has a fixed orientation. Whether or not there are color-neutral BLD solvers, it doesn't seem right to base a regulation off of a feature of a particular system of solving, no matter how prevalent that system is.
Fair point. People have almost all been against competitors requesting orientations, so I think we should stop discussing it, as it clearly is not the best option. What are your thoughts about white top/green front orientation?
tl;dr - reorientation isn't always bad for a solve
I think this is the first solid argument in favor of random orientation that doesn't concern the logistics and efficiency of orienting the cube before the solve, so thanks for that.

In hindsight, I should've added a poll to this. Noah or Lucas, could you do that, please? I'd like it to include the first three options listed in the OP: random orientation, white top/green front orientation, and competitor requested orientation.

#### tseitsei

##### Member

Not good because it would favor those who solve white top green front...

#### DrKorbin

##### Member
Reorienting of the cube is not the part of puzzle memorization and puzzle solving. Let's allow judge to reorient it.
Lifting the puzzle cover is not the part of memorization and solving. Let's ask judge to lift the cover.
Putting the blindfold on is not the part of memorization and solving. Let's ask the judge to put the blindfold.

Umm, yeah. There are things that have nothing to do with memorization and execution, yet they are parts of the attempt, and reorientation is one of them.
I don't see problems with the current situation and do see them if competitors start to request an orientation.

#### Erik

##### Member
Is this still being discussed? We have regulations for this now to ensure a specific (but random) orientation for each scramble.

Reorienting of the cube is not the part of puzzle memorization and puzzle solving
Yes it is??

I honestly can't understand any reason in allowing a requested orientation. Sure 99.9% of all cubers treat the centres like fixed points, but there are also methods which regard centres to be pieces that have to be solved. Allowing the judge to solve the first 6 pieces for you doesn't make any sense. Maybe my fixed point is the DBL corner so I'll request that one to be put down then, so I always have one corner solved? I'll ask my judge to solve my pyraminx tips as well then. After all they are also trivial and way too easy to solve ;-)

Regs should stay method neutral.

#### tseitsei

##### Member
Is this still being discussed? We have regulations for this now to ensure a specific (but random) orientation for each scramble.

Yes it is??

I honestly can't understand any reason in allowing a requested orientation. Sure 99.9% of all cubers treat the centres like fixed points, but there are also methods which regard centres to be pieces that have to be solved. Allowing the judge to solve the first 6 pieces for you doesn't make any sense. Maybe my fixed point is the DBL corner so I'll request that one to be put down then, so I always have one corner solved? I'll ask my judge to solve my pyraminx tips as well then. After all they are also trivial and way too easy to solve ;-)

Regs should stay method neutral.

+1 I completely agree