• 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!

[WR] Rami Sbahi - 0.58 2x2 Single and 1.55 Average

Laura O

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
289
Location
Germany
WCA
2009OHRN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The timers displays were intentionally unplugged for the first solve, and we were keeping competitors as quiet as possible after they each attempted that scramble.

And nobody noticed that all the displays were not working?

I'm sure that this would trigger a lot of discussions here and competitors would notice that there is "something happening". So for me this sounds more like a non-verbal communication that there is an easy scramble.
 

mDiPalma

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
1,534
Nice solve Rami! And props for owning up. That takes guts.

It's too bad the delegate failed at preventing and enforcing 2g3...otherwise you would have the WR.

Unfortunately, the failures of active WCA delegates are becoming so prominent and frequent that whistleblowers like me are becoming less and less necessary. :)
 

Rubiks560

Nub
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
2,851
Location
Minnesota
WCA
2009OLSO01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Nice solve Rami! And props for owning up. That takes guts.

It's too bad the delegate failed at preventing and enforcing 2g3...otherwise you would have the WR.

Unfortunately, the failures of active WCA delegates are becoming so prominent and frequent that whistleblowers like me are becoming less and less necessary. :)

Are you being serious right now? What do you want the delegate to do? Strap muzzles on all the competitors?
You can't control everyone...the delegate did absolutely nothing wrong. And he did enforce 2g3, he disqualified the competitor from 2x2.
 

cubeninjaIV

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
217
Location
Michigan
WCA
2009HILD01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Nice solve Rami! And props for owning up. That takes guts.

It's too bad the delegate failed at preventing and enforcing 2g3...otherwise you would have the WR.

Unfortunately, the failures of active WCA delegates are becoming so prominent and frequent that whistleblowers like me are becoming less and less necessary. :)

While I am certain that everyone here appreciates your input, what you just said is completely false. If you've read any first hand report of what happened, you would know we did everything possible to prevent the scramble being leaked.

Kit was the first person to do the scramble, and immediately told me. I scrambled the rest of the average and we both spent he remainder of the round policing the crowd as hard as we could.

Its unfortunate, but we did what we could, and in other similar situations the decision was made to pull the scramble from the round because information about it got out.

Either way, Rami doesn't get a WR and that just how it is
 

MTGjumper

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
2,212
Location
Bath/Notts
WCA
2008CRAW01
YouTube
Visit Channel
mDiPalma said:
It's too bad the delegate failed at preventing and enforcing 2g3...otherwise you would have the WR.
Except it's already been mentioned that steps were taken to prevent communication:

The very first 2x2 competitor who solved the scramble was someone helping out at the competition (I can't remember who it was...), so he notified all the judges/runners/scramblers about the first scramble being short and easy in order that we prevent just that. The timers displays were intentionally unplugged for the first solve, and we were keeping competitors as quiet as possible after they each attempted that scramble.


mDiPalma said:
whistleblowers like me
Bahahaha.
 

mDiPalma

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
1,534
Are you being serious right now? What do you want the delegate to do? Strap muzzles on all the competitors?
You can't control everyone...the delegate did absolutely nothing wrong. And he did enforce 2g3, he disqualified the competitor from 2x2.

You don't have to control anyone. You have to control the environment. If you pledge to keep a fair and fun competitive environment for everyone (as is the WCA's mission), then it should be your duty to facilitate some basic measure of environmental control at the venue.

One very simple way to solve this problem is require that all competitors in a group must move to an isolated side of the venue and remain relatively quiet, monitored by some volunteer or official.

The fact that delegates call up four thousand people per group and let them drop their cubes off at any point in a 30 minute period is what fosters this pre-attempt scramble discussion. It's not hard to fix. Just have smaller groups, and keep all competitors together.

we did everything possible to prevent the scramble being leaked.

Kit was the first person to do the scramble, and immediately told me. I scrambled the rest of the average and we both spent he remainder of the round policing the crowd as hard as we could.

"everything possible"

"as hard as we could"

No. Evidently not.

It was a mutual failure on the competitors part (for leaking the scramble, against the regulations) and the officials' part, for not doing ENOUGH to prevent it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cashis

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
907
Location
louisiana
lol we are humans and we make mistakes. wca is founded around the mutual trust of the competitors . clearly , if you'd read, they did as much as possible to ensure the scramble was kept secret short of a safe with the competitors in it. its silly that were having this argument because its ridiculous that you cant see that the delegates did everything they possibly could to keep it secret. its unfortunate that this happened to Rami, but arguing about how it could be prevented isnt really helping anything.
 

mDiPalma

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
1,534
lol we are humans and we make mistakes. wca is founded around the mutual trust of the competitors . clearly , if you'd read, they did as much as possible to ensure the scramble was kept secret short of a safe with the competitors in it. its silly that were having this argument because its ridiculous that you cant see that the delegates did everything they possibly could to keep it secret. its unfortunate that this happened to Rami, but arguing about how it could be prevented isnt really helping anything.

"Everything they possibly could"


Want to know something they COULD have also done that would have 100% prevented scramble leaking?

Kept everyone in the venue quiet, like in a BLD event, only more intense.


Because there is SOMETHING that they COULD have ALSO done, they naturally did NOT do EVERYTHING they POSSIBLY COULD.

Final words: They did not take the proper course of action, as is evident by the existence of this thread. I'm not going to propagate this senseless debate like the others.
 

cashis

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
907
Location
louisiana
mDiPalma said:
Final words: They did not take the proper course of action, as is evident by the existence of this thread. I'm not going to propagate this senseless debate like the others.

Same. I dont really want to argue. but if suddenly they kept everyone quiet, wouldnt that basically be saying " hey somethings about to happen"? I dont know what the solution is, but I don't think the delegates can be blamed for this.
 

cubeninjaIV

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
217
Location
Michigan
WCA
2009HILD01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The actions we took were to keep the scramble a SECRET, anything more than we did would have made it evident that something was up.

Seeing as you weren't there, I recommend you stop acting like you know what happened and what should've been done instead.
 

Rubiks560

Nub
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
2,851
Location
Minnesota
WCA
2009OLSO01
YouTube
Visit Channel
You don't have to control anyone. You have to control the environment. If you pledge to keep a fair and fun competitive environment for everyone (as is the WCA's mission), then it should be your duty to facilitate some basic measure of environmental control at the venue.

One very simple way to solve this problem is require that all competitors in a group must move to an isolated side of the venue and remain relatively quiet, monitored by some volunteer or official.

The fact that delegates call up four thousand people per group and let them drop their cubes off at any point in a 30 minute period is what fosters this pre-attempt scramble discussion. It's not hard to fix. Just have smaller groups, and keep all competitors together.

Oh, really? 4,000 people? Would you like to show me a competition where 4,000 people get called up? I just can't seem to find one.
Groups are very often small. 6-10 people at a time. that is not very big and it's done to keep the competition running smoothly. And what's to stop a competitor who is already done from texting the other person the solution?
 

FatBoyXPC

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
1,796
WCA
2010LACH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Kept everyone in the venue quiet, like in a BLD event, only more intense.

Yes, because whenever we tell all the people in the venue to be quiet during BLD, that actually happens. Even if you go the "only more intense" route - all that does is let the competitor whisper to Rami, preventing other people from witnessing the act. Great idea!
 

mDiPalma

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
1,534
The actions we took were to keep the scramble a SECRET, anything more than we did would have made it evident that something was up.

WHO CARES IF PEOPLE KNOW SOMETHING IS UP. SOMETHING WAS UP. The objective of competitions is to TIME competitors SOLVING the cube ON THEIR OWN.

If every competitor goes into the scramble thinking: "Wow..everyone was made silent for some reason"....That is better than 95% of the competitors going up thinking "I have never seen this scramble before" while 5% are thinking "all I have to do is R U' R2 U". The first option is FAIR (WCA Mission), the second option is the easy way out, for officials.

Seeing as you weren't there, I recommend you stop acting like you know what happened and what should've been done instead.

Seeing as I wasn't there, I have no bias related to the situation. I don't feel the need to defend my actions, because I made no actions. It's often the best perspective to look from the outside in.

Oh, really? 4,000 people? Would you like to show me a competition where 4,000 people get called up? I just can't seem to find one.
Groups are very often small. 6-10 people at a time. that is not very big and it's done to keep the competition running smoothly. And what's to stop a competitor who is already done from texting the other person the solution?

Obviously I exaggerated to make a point. In the Northeast, it's not uncommon for DOZENS of people to be called up for the same scramble. And I know people that hear their name called to bring up their cube, and sit back and drill algs for 15-20 minutes, until the delegate calls their name for the final time.

Keeping a competition running smoothly should NOT be the primary objective of the Delegate or Organizer. It should be to uphold the WCA's Mission and follow the rules COMPLETELY. If it means taking 5 extra minutes per Round, so be it.

That's officially my last contribution.
 

Rubiks560

Nub
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
2,851
Location
Minnesota
WCA
2009OLSO01
YouTube
Visit Channel
WHO CARES IF PEOPLE KNOW SOMETHING IS UP. SOMETHING WAS UP. The objective of competitions is to TIME competitors SOLVING the cube ON THEIR OWN.

If every competitor goes into the scramble thinking: "Wow..everyone was made silent for some reason"....That is better than 95% of the competitors going up thinking "I have never seen this scramble before" while 5% are thinking "all I have to do is R U' R2 U". The first option is FAIR (WCA Mission), the second option is the easy way out, for officials.



Seeing as I wasn't there, I have no bias related to the situation. I don't feel the need to defend my actions, because I made no actions. It's often the best perspective to look from the outside in.



Obviously I exaggerated to make a point. In the Northeast, it's not uncommon for DOZENS of people to be called up for the same scramble. And I know people that hear their name called to bring up their cube, and sit back and drill algs for 15-20 minutes, until the delegate calls their name for the final time.

Keeping a competition running smoothly should NOT be the primary objective of the Delegate or Organizer. It should be to uphold the WCA's Mission and follow the rules COMPLETELY. If it means taking 5 extra minutes per Round, so be it.

That's officially my last contribution.

Why?

Because you understand you're being completely ridiculous and couldn't do a better job yourself?
 

cubizh

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
602
Location
Portugal
WCA
2014GOME07
YouTube
Visit Channel
It is unfortunate how some users with more than a few competitions experience still confuse the role of a delegate with the role of the organization team.
So on a more informative note, the attributions of the organization team are defined by regulation 1b).
It is the role of the organization team to control logistics and make the best effort to make the competition run without problems, and produce a venue that includes a competitors area, scramble area, competition area and a place for the audience, and that scramblers, judges and scoretakers exist and do their job. It is also the task of the organization team to make their best possible job at making sure all regulations are verified, including 2g3) and also any other.

The role of the competition delegate is as follows:
WCA Regulations said:
1c) The WCA Delegate may delegate responsibilities to other members of the organisation team, but is ultimately accountable for how these responsibilities are carried out. The WCA Delegate for a competition is responsible for:
1c1) Reporting to the WCA Board regarding adherence to WCA Regulations during the competition, the overall course of the competition, and any incidents. The report must be submitted to the WCA Board within one week of the end of the competition.
1c3) Sending the competition results to the WCA Results Team.
1c3a) All scramble sequences used during a competition must be sent with the results of the competition.
1c3b) Scramble sequences must be labelled with the events, rounds, and groups for which they were used.
1c4) Sending corrections to the competition results to the WCA Board.
1c5) Advising the other officials where necessary.
1c6) Approving all events and round formats of a competition, before the competition starts, and if changes are required during the competition.
1c7) Decisions about disqualifying competitors during the competition.
1c8) Providing the scramble sequences.
1c9) Decisions about changes to the scheduled times of rounds. In cases of such changes, a clear announcement must be made to all competitors.
1c10) Making a copy of the WCA Regulations available at the competition.

So situations that happen in which the organization team (in this particular case constituted by multiple people) is concerned should be viewed as a group and not as an individual.

In the case in discussion, the organization team can do their best to prevent discussion or the scrambles, but ultimately it is those that cheat that are the ultimate responsable for the situation, not the organization team alone, as the police can't be viewed as responsable if a burglar decides to rob your house or you for not defending it enough. Things can be done to minimize situations to some extent, but there, of course, can't be 100% guarantees.


Unfortunately, there are no perfect WCA competitions out there, as there are no perfect *any sport that involves people* competitions.
There isn't a perfect organization team out there either.
There is *always* room for improvement and things you can do to get better. Is this such a case? I don't know, I wasn't there, at this time I don't know how the organization team worked, how the venue was and more details on how this situation happened other than the ones posted before, so it's hard to quickly judge at this time if something else could be done by the organization team to prevent the situation.

It's very easy to point fingers.


Important Side Note:

For the people directly responding to Matt DiPalma's comments, please note that this competitor was *NEVER* a WCA competition organizer before, so *please* take his comments regarding how competitions are run under that premise, particularly those that have organized competitions before, and therefore can understand such difference in perception and experience, and avoid flaming as much as possible. Thank you.
 

Ninja Storm

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
1,754
Location
Maryland
WCA
2012ELLI01
YouTube
Visit Channel
WHO CARES IF PEOPLE KNOW SOMETHING IS UP. SOMETHING WAS UP. The objective of competitions is to TIME competitors SOLVING the cube ON THEIR OWN.

If every competitor goes into the scramble thinking: "Wow..everyone was made silent for some reason"....That is better than 95% of the competitors going up thinking "I have never seen this scramble before" while 5% are thinking "all I have to do is R U' R2 U". The first option is FAIR (WCA Mission), the second option is the easy way out, for officials.



Seeing as I wasn't there, I have no bias related to the situation. I don't feel the need to defend my actions, because I made no actions. It's often the best perspective to look from the outside in.



Obviously I exaggerated to make a point. In the Northeast, it's not uncommon for DOZENS of people to be called up for the same scramble. And I know people that hear their name called to bring up their cube, and sit back and drill algs for 15-20 minutes, until the delegate calls their name for the final time.

Keeping a competition running smoothly should NOT be the primary objective of the Delegate or Organizer. It should be to uphold the WCA's Mission and follow the rules COMPLETELY. If it means taking 5 extra minutes per Round, so be it.

That's officially my last contribution.

Put yourself in the delegate's position.

Would your first instinct be to stop the whole competition, set up an area where people solve one by one, secluded from everyone else, quiet the entire competition, silence everyone's reaction to the scramble, and hide the results from competitors?

My guess would be probably not. I think unplugging the displays and hushing competitors is a good reaction to this situation, and it's reasonable to ensure the competition stays on schedule.

Also, with all your pedantics about wording, I'd be cautious when you says something like "Obviously I exaggerated", because you're interpreting wordings by the letter in plenty of other situations.
 
Top