• 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 35,000+ 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

Kit Clement

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,451
Location
Portland, OR
WCA
2008CLEM01
YouTube
Visit Channel
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.
From what I saw, this was not done for all competitors -- it was done only for a few competitors that we knew were capable of setting records on such a scramble. So some displays were working, others were not, it just appeared that there were some cable connection problems on a few stations, which is common.
 

Laura O

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
289
Location
Germany
WCA
2009OHRN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
From what I saw, this was not done for all competitors -- it was done only for a few competitors that we knew were capable of setting records on such a scramble. So some displays were working, others were not, it just appeared that there were some cable connection problems on a few stations, which is common.
So basically, you just implicitly told every good competitor that he is going to get a really easy scramble?
What if a competitor saw that the display was disconnected and asked the judge what he was doing?
And how was this communicated? And who decided who is "capable of setting records"?

Sorry, but this is weird.
 

Coolster01

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
2,343
Location
Near Deetroit, Michigan, United States
WCA
2011SBAH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
So basically, you just implicitly told every good competitor that he is going to get a really easy scramble?
What if a competitor saw that the display was disconnected and asked the judge what he was doing?
And how was this communicated? And who decided who is "capable of setting records"?

Sorry, but this is weird.
To be honest, I just thought it was a malfunction in the display or something. I didn't think much of it. Nobody is going to overthink a blank display. And the judge could just say, "sorry, was trying to fix it, I guess it doesn't work" or something like that. And the judge probably just used common sense and took a guess. There was no strict guideline for being capable.

Also, the reasons for why I didn't just ask for an extra scramble to begin with are:

1. He could've been trolling me, knowing that the delegate had just said that no scramble discussion was allowed.
2. Mainly - I wanted to do the solve first so I could see what I'd get just in case the WCA ends up calling it legal. If I reported it immediately, I'd have no chance at a 0.58, but rather just get that extra scramble. By doing what I did, we can decide based on the evidence between the 0.58 and the 4.xx. It's kinda hard to word this, but I hope you guys get what I mean. I wasn't really 100% sure that what happened would violate the regulations, so I decided to do it and then provide the evidence to see if it could be allowed. Kit even said that what I did was a smart choice.
 
Last edited:

FatBoyXPC

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
1,795
WCA
2010LACH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
So basically, you just implicitly told every good competitor that he is going to get a really easy scramble?
What if a competitor saw that the display was disconnected and asked the judge what he was doing?
And how was this communicated? And who decided who is "capable of setting records"?

Sorry, but this is weird.
A few things are misunderstood here. It's not like the delegates/judges went around saying "We're turning off your timer, that means it's a good scramble." This action was done in a 'secret' manner, and it's not like it was announced before hand that a disconnected timer meant that. I have often times tried fiddling with the cable while a competitor is coming to the station, because let's be honest here, those displays get disconnected all the time (sometimes all it needs is a little wiggle to turn back on).

Who decided who is capable? Again, let's be honest. Most cubers in general, but an even higher percentage of delegates and organizers know who is capable of setting records. It's not like it's a secret that if you put Lucas and Rami at the same competition (which happens frequently in Midwest US) that most people know who will take 1st and 2nd place. Even if we didn't have that, we still have the Psych Sheet from CubingUSA to get a quick birds eye view of who is fast.
 

Myachii

Member
Joined
May 24, 2014
Messages
884
Location
England
WCA
2013MORR03
YouTube
Visit Channel
1. He could've been trolling me, knowing that the delegate had just said that no scramble discussion was allowed.
2. Mainly - I wanted to do the solve first so I could see what I'd get just in case the WCA ends up calling it legal. If I reported it immediately, I'd have no chance at a 0.58, but rather just get that extra scramble. By doing what I did, we can decide based on the evidence between the 0.58 and the 4.xx. It's kinda hard to word this, but I hope you guys get what I mean. I wasn't really 100% sure that what happened would violate the regulations, so I decided to do it and then provide the evidence to see if it could be allowed. Kit even said that what I did was a smart choice.
I think you've worded it fine. It was a very mature thing to do but, if I'm honest, I don't think they'll allow the solve and give you both WR's (as much as you deserve them)

You're imagining it. There is no similarity, they are just different random state scrambles, and nothing more.
Oh okay. I wasn't sure but I thought there may have been a link between scrambles. Thanks for correcting me :)


Also, to those who say whoever told Rami should be permanently banned, I think you may be forgetting this.

This is possibly one of the most serious offences anyone could commit (in the eyes of the WCA, not the law) at a competition, and they're only banned for another six months.
 

Laura O

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
289
Location
Germany
WCA
2009OHRN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
A few things are misunderstood here. It's not like the delegates/judges went around saying "We're turning off your timer, that means it's a good scramble." This action was done in a 'secret' manner, and it's not like it was announced before hand that a disconnected timer meant that. I have often times tried fiddling with the cable while a competitor is coming to the station, because let's be honest here, those displays get disconnected all the time (sometimes all it needs is a little wiggle to turn back on).
OK, the judge sits at the table, seeing that a fast cuber is coming to the station and he starts fiddling with the cable of a *working* display with the result that it is not working afterwards? That can't be done in a secret manner.

Who decided who is capable? Again, let's be honest. Most cubers in general, but an even higher percentage of delegates and organizers know who is capable of setting records. It's not like it's a secret that if you put Lucas and Rami at the same competition (which happens frequently in Midwest US) that most people know who will take 1st and 2nd place. Even if we didn't have that, we still have the Psych Sheet from CubingUSA to get a quick birds eye view of who is fast.
So, who expected that Christian Kaserer could set the WR in 2011? Probably nobody.
Furthermore, who should check the psych sheet? The judge? And when?
 

Skullush

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
677
Location
Severna Park, Maryland, USA
WCA
2011SAKO01
YouTube
Visit Channel
OK, the judge sits at the table, seeing that a fast cuber is coming to the station and he starts fiddling with the cable of a *working* display with the result that it is not working afterwards? That can't be done in a secret manner.
I wasn't there, but what probably happened was there were some stations with working displays and others without. And the runner brought the cubes which belong to the most capable solvers to the non-display stations. At least for the first scramble.
 

Genius4Jesus

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
577
WCA
2013ESPA01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I wasn't there, but what probably happened was there were some stations with working displays and others without. And the runner brought the cubes which belong to the most capable solvers to the non-display stations. At least for the first scramble.
Most of the "fast solvers" (including me) were being rushed so we could go do big blind. So, we just stayed at the same station and the displays were unplugged before we started.
 

Kit Clement

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,451
Location
Portland, OR
WCA
2008CLEM01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Most of the "fast solvers" (including me) were being rushed so we could go do big blind. So, we just stayed at the same station and the displays were unplugged before we started.
This was the general approach we took -- it was done discretely and before the competitor was called up to the station. And yes, a station or two just stayed unplugged until we got through the first scramble for that group, and those stations were saved for who we knew were among the best at 2x2. We definitely were able to control scramble discussions doing this for the competitor area and the closest part of the audience, which unfortunately did not cover enough ground.

I'm not saying that I recommend this approach, but when we had three sets of groups to get through that scramble, we had to be discreet.
 
Last edited:

Myachii

Member
Joined
May 24, 2014
Messages
884
Location
England
WCA
2013MORR03
YouTube
Visit Channel
I wasn't there, but what probably happened was there were some stations with working displays and others without. And the runner brought the cubes which belong to the most capable solvers to the non-display stations. At least for the first scramble.
Two things I don't understand - How, without completing a solve yet, did the runners tell if someone was fast? Sure everyone knows Rami's face and many other world class cubers, but you don't have to be world class to be fast.

Second - Can't anyone theoretically get a sub-1 single on a 4-mover? I mean, you obviously have nerves of being at a competition, nerves of seeing a 4-mover and ability to spot it, but if somebody who averages, say, 5 seconds (like me) looks at the cube in front of them and happens to see that by doing a U R U' R' or whatever you could solve the cube? I mean, I'd definitely be willing to accept a DNF if my attempts to 1-look weren't successful, especially if there was a WR possibility.
Plus, slow cubers notice things too. Who's to say someone slow wouldn't happen to spot the 4-move solution?

I understand why you would want to cover up a 4-mover from people who haven't yet solved, but it seems a bit hit-and-miss as to whether the potential new WR holder gets a working display or not.
 

Coolster01

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
2,343
Location
Near Deetroit, Michigan, United States
WCA
2011SBAH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Two things I don't understand - How, without completing a solve yet, did the runners tell if someone was fast? Sure everyone knows Rami's face and many other world class cubers, but you don't have to be world class to be fast.

Second - Can't anyone theoretically get a sub-1 single on a 4-mover? I mean, you obviously have nerves of being at a competition, nerves of seeing a 4-mover and ability to spot it, but if somebody who averages, say, 5 seconds (like me) looks at the cube in front of them and happens to see that by doing a U R U' R' or whatever you could solve the cube? I mean, I'd definitely be willing to accept a DNF if my attempts to 1-look weren't successful, especially if there was a WR possibility.
Plus, slow cubers notice things too. Who's to say someone slow wouldn't happen to spot the 4-move solution?

I understand why you would want to cover up a 4-mover from people who haven't yet solved, but it seems a bit hit-and-miss as to whether the potential new WR holder gets a working display or not.
1. The runners just used prior knowledge and nothing more. Basically, "if the name sounds familiar and fast, unplug the timer" is the method that they went about. It seemed to work quite well because I didn't even see Bill Wang, Eric Limeback, or Antoine Cantin do their sub-1 solves, nor did I see their times. Also, I wouldn't have had any idea about this if the kid didn't come up to me.

2. Yes, anyone can, but it's less likely for a 5 second solver to do so than a sub-2 second solver.

I'm not understanding why some of you guys are stuck on this. Are you trying to say for the future what method we should use to keep everybody quiet? That's a separate issue, though, because it wouldn't affect the kid sharing the scramble. If we're trying to solve any problems, then we should be trying to solve that one, which caused this. I'm not seeing how the issue of unplugging of timers relates back to what happened in this situation.
 
Last edited:

Nathan Dwyer

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
170
Location
Fort Wayne, IN
WCA
2011DWYE02
I propose that all competitors should be gagged, blindfolded and be forced to wear noise-cancelling headphones while waiting to solve.
I agree with Simon: no phones, no gesturing, no watching others solve, no talking, no fun allowed!!

I'm not understanding why some of you guys are stuck on this. Are you trying to say for the future what method we should use to keep everybody quiet? That's a separate issue, though, because it wouldn't affect the kid sharing the scramble. If we're trying to solve any problems, then we should be trying to solve that one, which caused this. I'm not seeing how the issue of unplugging of timers relates back to what happened in this situation.
Regardless as to how it affected this solve of yours, I think there certainly is an interesting and meaningful discussion to be had about what to do when a stupid easy scrambles pops up, and whether letting the knowledge spread that there's a good scramble affects the fairness of the competition, and what to do about it. Though I was not there and can not speak about it meaningfully, I think there is a valid debate here as to whether the "policing the crowd and unplugging displays" route accomplished its goal, or whether it didn't in fact keep people in the dark about the scramble, or whether it is the best thing to do to try to keep people from knowing about a good scramble. As I said, I can't speak to it as I wasn't there, but this is certainly an important issue to discuss.
 

Genius4Jesus

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
577
WCA
2013ESPA01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I was unaware of the easy scramble and the timer was unplugged on my solves. I thought they unplugged the timers because they were rushing me and other competitors, so they didn't want it to seem like those stations were "open".
 

Isaac Lai

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
1,330
Location
Singapore
WCA
2015LAII01
I think that the delegate and organisers did the right thing by unplugging the timers. Hushing everyone would just make them even more focused on the competitors, such that they wouls see all the sub-1 or 1.xx solves.
 

Laura O

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
289
Location
Germany
WCA
2009OHRN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I'm not saying that I recommend this approach, but when we had three sets of groups to get through that scramble, we had to be discrete.
Ok, good to read that and the explanations makes things a lot clearer.

However, I don't want to sound rude, but stating *the timers displays were intentionally unplugged for the first solve* without giving any further information is bad. People are interested in these issues, this thread has more than 12.000 views. It was discussed at the competition here probably as soon as it was posted.
I don't want to see a competitor walking around the timer stations and unplugging the displays the next time there is an easy scramble because "that's how they did it in Canada".
 

Nathan Dwyer

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
170
Location
Fort Wayne, IN
WCA
2011DWYE02
I think that the delegate and organisers did the right thing by unplugging the timers. Hushing everyone would just make them even more focused on the competitors, such that they wouls see all the sub-1 or 1.xx solves.
Don't mean to sound silly here, but is it really desirable for people not to know about good times? I mean in 2x2 of course it's a special case because really fast times are obviously more scramble-dependent, but I'm not convinced that the effort it takes to hide fast solves and the loss in fun of "whoo i just witnessed or got a fast solve and want to celebrate it" is really worth keeping people in the dark about the probable existence of an easy scramble.

I'm curious as to how this was handled at Trentin Open 2011, or other competitions with <6 move solutions.
 
Last edited:
Top