• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Proposal: Video Evidence Should NOT be used to overturn official records

Should video be used to overturn official records?


  • Total voters
    163

XTowncuber

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
1,500
Location
Ohio, USA
WCA
2010BRAD01
YouTube
Visit Channel
How about having a person that sits at the scramble table and only checks if the scrambles are correct. That person could then cycle the puzzles that are misscrambled directly back to the scramblers.
I really think this idea would work pretty well. As a scrambler, you have an awful lot of tasks to juggle, and it can be difficult to remember to give each cube a thorough check. However, a person with a set job of checking scrambles would not have nearly as much of a difficult time remembering to check cubes.

Downsides are the need for a larger scrambling table, having more staff, and that it makes the scrambling process slower. Also, it still wouldn't necessarily be 100% effective. And probably some other stuff that I haven't thought of.

In any case it seems like a better idea to me than some sort of scramble checking cube cover.
 

Stefan

Member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
7,287
WCA
2003POCH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The competitor doing the checking is the whole point of this thing.

No it's not. There's a reason I put competitor checking in parentheses and after the main point.

I just should have added a "maybe", though, as I doubt it gives away valuable data but I'm not sure. On the other hand, the cuber would right afterwards see the entire cube for 15 seconds anyway. Is everybody against this "minimalistic pre-inspection" also against inspection?

I think exposing parts of puzzles is a very bad idea (no offense). As well as different colour scheme problems, you also have to put the cube in a non-random orientation.

I thought this was coming anyway, though I might be mistaken. At least I didn't find it in TNoodle.

But we could still do that, maybe scramble 3x3 with double layer turns only and then expose not corner stickers but center stickers? And make it so that the scrambles in each group all end up with different cube rotations. If the scrambler makes exactly one mistake (a move, or picking the wrong scramble), the centers check would find it, and if the scrambler makes several mistakes, the centers check would still find it with high probability. Also, it would only require checking two stickers (quite convenient for scrambler, runner or judge, whoever checks).

About the scramble checker person idea: Besides checking scrambles, they could make the job of the scramblers easier. They could check the incoming puzzles (particularly clock, where sometimes the judges don't notice a DNF), give them to the scramblers with proper orientation, order them so that people behind with their average get scrambled first, and if time permits, they could scramble as well.
 

AvGalen

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
6,857
Location
Rotterdam (actually Capelle aan den IJssel), the N
WCA
2006GALE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
No it's not. There's a reason I put competitor checking in parentheses and after the main point.

I just should have added a "maybe", though, as I doubt it gives away valuable data but I'm not sure. On the other hand, the cuber would right afterwards see the entire cube for 15 seconds anyway. Is everybody against this "minimalistic pre-inspection" also against inspection?



I thought this was coming anyway, though I might be mistaken. At least I didn't find it in TNoodle.

But we could still do that, maybe scramble 3x3 with double layer turns only and then expose not corner stickers but center stickers? And make it so that the scrambles in each group all end up with different cube rotations. If the scrambler makes exactly one mistake (a move, or picking the wrong scramble), the centers check would find it, and if the scrambler makes several mistakes, the centers check would still find it with high probability. Also, it would only require checking two stickers (quite convenient for scrambler, runner or judge, whoever checks).

About the scramble checker person idea: Besides checking scrambles, they could make the job of the scramblers easier. They could check the incoming puzzles (particularly clock, where sometimes the judges don't notice a DNF), give them to the scramblers with proper orientation, order them so that people behind with their average get scrambled first, and if time permits, they could scramble as well.

Another vote for adding "scramble checker" to the list of official functions. A scramble checker would NOT be allowed to twist a puzzle though, because that would make him the obvious suspect for helping a cheater. There are so many benefits to this, with the only negative being "1 more person needed to help"
Other benefits:
* No more unscrambled cubes given to a competitor
* No more "I already had this scramble"
* No more "Other people are already doing their 4th solve and I only had 1"
 

Stefan

Member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
7,287
WCA
2003POCH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
A scramble checker would NOT be allowed to twist a puzzle though, because that would make him the obvious suspect for helping a cheater.

That's if you want to make this help prevent cheating in addition to help prevent mistakes. But it's probably easier to have an accomplice among the many judges instead of the one scrambler checker anyway.

Being allowed to twist not only allows scrambling but also allows solving (for re-scrambling after wrong scrambling). And if they're someone that needs to be trusted anyway, like a delegate, then I don't see much value in trying to prevent them from helping someone cheat this way.

Although, if not allowed to scramble, they could look up at any moment and try to see whether only runners/judges are taking cubes and to tell judges who are looking for specific cubers they want to judge to instead take the next in line. And call for people who are late or for more judges.

A whole bunch of good stuff this person could do.

(sorry for getting rather off-topic, yes I realize most of this has nothing to do with the thread topic)
 
Last edited:

tseitsei

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
1,354
Location
Tampere, Finland
WCA
2012LEHT01
No it's not. There's a reason I put competitor checking in parentheses and after the main point.

Ok. I still think it would much be better for competitor to be the one checking the corner stickers because:

If the judge/runner/someone else does the checking and the wrong scramble gets through anyway then we still have the same problem.
Now if we demand the competitor to check the stickers and the scramble is still found to be wrong afterwards, we can say that it was the competitors own fault to not notice that and DNF the solve fairly.

Do you see my point?
 

kinch2002

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,504
Location
Guildford! UK!
WCA
2009SHEP01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Ok. I still think it would much be better for competitor to be the one checking the corner stickers because...
But the competitor would see part of the puzzle before inspection starts. In my opinion that's just wrong and should not happen, no matter that your argument for it is a good one.

I think having a scramble checker is the only feasible option so far. It would make things run a bit slower, but hopefully not too much. And should eliminate 99% of the mistakes.
 

Mike Hughey

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
10,553
Location
Indianapolis
WCA
2007HUGH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I do think a scramble checker is the most workable suggestion made so far in this thread, but I am afraid that that "one extra person" could significantly slow down competitions. It's always a challenge to have enough scramblers, especially for a single-round event (where the guidelines suggest only a single scramble group should be used - 1h++) - the scramble checker would have the same restrictions as scramblers, which would make it significantly harder. When running my own competition, for these events, I typically sit out of the event, and as a non-competing scrambler, scramble for a good scrambler through all 5 solves, and then that scrambler can take care of everyone else at a relatively normal pace. With a scramble checker, I'd have to scramble for the good scrambler through all 5 solves, then have that scrambler scramble for a second person (who would become the scramble checker) for all 5 solves, and then the two of them could run the rest at a relatively normal pace. That could cost a significant amount of time for slower events such as 5x5x5.

Also, would a scramble checker be needed on every single solve? If so, then you'd need two non-competing scrambling-capable people (for the first person through) for each event like this - that would almost certainly be a problem - one is hard enough.

The signing by the judge and competitor thing already is a mistake in the regulations. It just doesn't work. You can't read who signed it, people just make an X or a smiley or put down their autograph. In no way this can be traced back to the correct judge. You can maybe force the competitor to sign correctly since this can be checked, but not the judge. This burocracy should definitely not be expanded more.

I agree with almost everything you said, Erik, except this item. Perhaps in Europe what you're saying is true (due to people making an X or smiley, etc.), but I know I have used judges' initials many times to resolve issues with regards to difficult-to-read times or other issues. At the competitions I've delegated, it's almost always possible to determine the judge from the initials. There are admittedly exceptions, but they are rare, and the judges' signatures help a great deal at our competitions.

Still, I agree with your other statements, and I think the scrambler signing for scrambles would be more harmful than helpful.
 
Last edited:

Erik

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
2,663
Location
Enschede, Netherlands, Netherlands
WCA
2005AKKE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I agree with almost everything you said, Erik, except this item. Perhaps in Europe what you're saying is true (due to people making an X or smiley, etc.), but I know I have used judges' initials many times to resolve issues with regards to difficult-to-read times or other issues. At the competitions I've delegated, it's almost always possible to determine the judge from the initials. There are admittedly exceptions, but they are rare, and the judges' signatures help a great deal at our competitions.

Don't get me wrong, I wish it did work so the signing would actually have somewhat of a useful function. To be honest I have seen delegates and even board members sign with smileys and stuff as well. I guess there is a lack of awareness on how 'important' the signing is. If initials are used they are not readable in most cases, at least in Europe and because of the bad signing it's really hard to find out who it was that is signing badly (talking about the judge here). It's a chicken-egg thing :)

Scrambler checker:
I don't really understand why this is proposed (and apparently supported by some) when it's not even clear how big this 'problem' is. Also: expecting even more competitors to help will not increase the level of fun during a competition, but push it more towards it being a day of work.

Having a scrambler checker is like having a judge-checker, or even a delegate checker, it's just going too far.
You guys talk about this as if you are discussing the optimization of a measurement device by doing constant plausibility checks. This is not some mathematical problem you are trying to solve. In reality we are still talking about a competition in solving plastic puzzles where people want to have some fun where everything is based on trust.
 

Rubiks560

Nub
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
2,852
Location
Minnesota
WCA
2009OLSO01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Is signing really that bad in Europe? The signing system works near flawlessly here. It's pretty rare that we have someone signing so poorly that we can't read it.
Perhaps it just needs to be more clear how important the signing is?
 

~Adam~

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
2,553
Location
Earth
WCA
2011GREE03
Most of the time there is more than 1 scrambler. Couldn't one check the scrambles for the other/s? It would take a little longer but you wouldn't need an extra person.
 

Stefan

Member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
7,287
WCA
2003POCH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Ok. I still think it would much be better for competitor to be the one checking the corner stickers because:

If the judge/runner/someone else does the checking and the wrong scramble gets through anyway then we still have the same problem.
Now if we demand the competitor to check the stickers and the scramble is still found to be wrong afterwards, we can say that it was the competitors own fault to not notice that and DNF the solve fairly.

Do you see my point?

I see your point and I'm not saying competitor-checking is worthless, I did include it in the suggestion after all. I'd just find checking by runner/judge more important, and the hope is that the runner/judge checking the scramble would get rid of almost all mistakes so they don't play out in the first place. Also, some dishonest competitor could realize that he's getting the same scramble again and say "yes it's correct".
 
Last edited:

AvGalen

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
6,857
Location
Rotterdam (actually Capelle aan den IJssel), the N
WCA
2006GALE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Don't get me wrong, I wish it did work so the signing would actually have somewhat of a useful function. To be honest I have seen delegates and even board members sign with smileys and stuff as well. I guess there is a lack of awareness on how 'important' the signing is. If initials are used they are not readable in most cases, at least in Europe and because of the bad signing it's really hard to find out who it was that is signing badly (talking about the judge here). It's a chicken-egg thing :)

Scrambler checker:
I don't really understand why this is proposed (and apparently supported by some) when it's not even clear how big this 'problem' is. Also: expecting even more competitors to help will not increase the level of fun during a competition, but push it more towards it being a day of work.

Having a scrambler checker is like having a judge-checker, or even a delegate checker, it's just going too far.
You guys talk about this as if you are discussing the optimization of a measurement device by doing constant plausibility checks. This is not some mathematical problem you are trying to solve. In reality we are still talking about a competition in solving plastic puzzles where people want to have some fun where everything is based on trust.
We can call it the "table master" or "pitt boss". He is responsible for what comes in and out. Now scramblers often spend time on this that wouldn't be needed if there was a pitt boss. I think the net effect on time spend of having a pitt boss versus an extra judge isn't very different but things would be more polished.

Also, by calling it a pitt boss we will surely get a volunteer for this function that might otherwise not help, right ;)
 

Dene

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
6,911
WCA
2009BEAR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Most of the time there is more than 1 scrambler. Couldn't one check the scrambles for the other/s? It would take a little longer but you wouldn't need an extra person.

My post is directed at quite a few people, but I'm just going to quote you :p

Basically, why is everyone acting as if it's just going to mean more staff? If implemented effectively, there would only be need for extra staff in really fast events (2x2, pyra). In everything else, the scramblers could fill the role once things are chugging along. Maybe an extra person would be needed while 3x3 rounds get started up because there is a big rush at the start.

A lot of it depends on how people run their competitions. For example, the problems brought up by Mr. Hughey would never be a problem here. I know what it's like having only one competent scrambler for an event, but you don't need a competent scrambler to be scramble checker, as they're just checking a picture. You could just get a parent to do it...

The way we run things here, by getting everyone to help out, we'd never have a problem finding someone to do it.

Also, it seems a lot of organisers treat staff work as a chore. It used to be like that here, but nowadays people are super keen to help out. Being at the scramble table is a good time to socialise, so people want to be there >.<
 

XTowncuber

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
1,500
Location
Ohio, USA
WCA
2010BRAD01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Basically, why is everyone acting as if it's just going to mean more staff? If implemented effectively, there would only be need for extra staff in really fast events (2x2, pyra). In everything else, the scramblers could fill the role once things are chugging along.
I'm confused by what you mean here. How is this different from what we have now? Do you mean "competitors" instead of "scramblers" in the last sentence?
 

~Adam~

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
2,553
Location
Earth
WCA
2011GREE03
The way we run things here, by getting everyone to help out, we'd never have a problem finding someone to do it.

I see it as wasting an extra person's time all competition long if the task can be accomplished without that person. I'd rather give people breaks who have been working hard than adding more tasks.
 

DrKorbin

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
707
Location
Russia, Moscow
WCA
2011GRIT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Is signing really that bad in Europe? The signing system works near flawlessly here. It's pretty rare that we have someone signing so poorly that we can't read it.
Perhaps it just needs to be more clear how important the signing is?

Perhaps in Europe what you're saying is true (due to people making an X or smiley, etc.), but I know I have used judges' initials many times to resolve issues with regards to difficult-to-read times or other issues.

I attended only one competition in USA, but I noticed that everyone signs scorecards using first letter of their name and surname. At other competitions I've visited (mostly east Europe) signs mostly are letters from name and/or surname outlined (and often crossed) with circles, flourishes, lines and so on. In this case it becomes harder to identify the author of this sign.
 

kcl

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
4,485
Location
Minneapolis, MN
WCA
2013LEJE03
YouTube
Visit Channel
I attended only one competition in USA, but I noticed that everyone signs scorecards using first letter of their name and surname. At other competitions I've visited (mostly east Europe) signs mostly are letters from name and/or surname outlined (and often crossed) with circles, flourishes, lines and so on. In this case it becomes harder to identify the author of this sign.

That's weird.. Here we all use our initials.

Edit: we all excludes California apparently
 
Last edited:

Mike Hughey

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
10,553
Location
Indianapolis
WCA
2007HUGH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I know what it's like having only one competent scrambler for an event, but you don't need a competent scrambler to be scramble checker, as they're just checking a picture. You could just get a parent to do it...

Not true. A parent wouldn't be able to easily grasp the issue of handling nonstandard color schemes. Nonstandard color schemes make "just checking a picture" not all that easy - especially if you're worried about things like a scramble being applied with the wrong orientation.
 
Top