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

[DizzypheasantZZ]

You know that they already didn't give him the record? It's on the WCA page. 4.21, not 0.58.

Yes, I'm just saying what would happen if it would be accepted

I really don't think it's fair, though, to allow people to have the power to stop a world record from happening by doing this. As someone said earlier, if you hold a record yourself, and you get an easy scramble, and you know someone else who is fast will get the scramble, can't you just tell them the scramble so they don't get your record? So what if your average is DNF, you still get to keep your record. The only way to prevent this from being allowed is by seriously punishing the kid to show that if you're gonna prevent a record, then you shouldn't have the chance to compete for a while.

I think that the kid who told you should be banned for a long time.

 

[cashis]

For a long time? If I were the WCA, I'd ban him for life, at least from 2x2. This cant be tolerated.

 

[antoineccantin]

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.

The solution wasn't THAT obvious. Believe me, if I would have seen the 4 move solution I'd have gotten better than 0.94

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..

I personally didn't notice the display being unplugged until after the solve.

 

[ryanj92]

I really don't think it's fair, though, to allow people to have the power to stop a world record from happening by doing this. As someone said earlier, if you hold a record yourself, and you get an easy scramble, and you know someone else who is fast will get the scramble, can't you just tell them the scramble so they don't get your record? So what if your average is DNF, you still get to keep your record. The only way to prevent this from being allowed is by seriously punishing the kid to show that if you're gonna prevent a record, then you shouldn't have the chance to compete for a while.

remember, the average DNF punishment is at the discretion of the delegate. i could imagine if the person telling you either held a significant record or could potentially break one, the punishment would be made more severe...

 

[Dene]

I agree with you about the acceptance of this solve as being an opportunity for cheating. It was the same with Feliks OH WR. Accepting it only give cheater a good way to cheat and easily get away with it. Afterward you confess that you saw the scramble beforehand or that it was a mis-scramble, and if the WCA doesn't have any proof that you cheated they have to accept it for the idiotic reason that "it wasn't you fault", and the cubing community thinks that you are such a great, honest guy because you confessed that the regs were broken (even though the shouldn't because you knew all along that it would be kept).

There are so many ways to cheat. We can't police them all. When issues occur, as they inevitably will, we just have to use our best discretion to determine whether someone is malicious in their actions or whether they are innocent.

 

[Laura O]

There are so many ways to cheat. We can't police them all. When issues occur, as they inevitably will, we just have to use our best discretion to determine whether someone is malicious in their actions or whether they are innocent.

We also have the opportunity to improve things after such issues occur.

When you're using different scrambles for every group and do not divide them into heats, you would never have 15 minutes to communicate about a scramble and probably also less opportunities to do this without anyone noticing (because you would be sitting in the waiting area with others)...

 

[DeeDubb]

This thread is just full of slippery slope fallacious arguments. "If we allow this WR through, then what's next?" This doesn't set any kind of dangerous precedent. The only precedent it sets is that the WCA is concerned primarily with fairness and getting the decision right rather than punishing people for cheating by others.

Things should be handled on a case by case basis, and if Rami were to receive the WR, it wouldn't mean that the WCA tolerates discussing scrambles, it just means in this particular situation, where Rami was UNWILLINGLY shown a scramble, where Rami likely would have gotten a WR anyway (at least MUCH more likely than Feliks's OH WR), it is simply fair to award him. Even more fair than awarding Feliks in my opinion. I was all for Feliks' keeping his record, but him losing that OH WR would be much more understandable than Rami losing this one.

What's more likely: Feliks' getting a WR on the correct OH scramble or Rami still getting a WR without any prior knowledge of his 4 move scramble? I think the answer is extremely obvious.

 

[Dene]

We also have the opportunity to improve things after such issues occur.

When you're using different scrambles for every group and do not divide them into heats, you would never have 15 minutes to communicate about a scramble and probably also less opportunities to do this without anyone noticing (because you would be sitting in the waiting area with others)...

I definitely agree. I simply can't understand why the system is used over there. This is a hot topic amongst the delegates at the moment, in case you're interested. Expect changes.

 

[Myachii]

I really don't think it's fair, though, to allow people to have the power to stop a world record from happening by doing this. As someone said earlier, if you hold a record yourself, and you get an easy scramble, and you know someone else who is fast will get the scramble, can't you just tell them the scramble so they don't get your record? So what if your average is DNF, you still get to keep your record. The only way to prevent this from being allowed is by seriously punishing the kid to show that if you're gonna prevent a record, then you shouldn't have the chance to compete for a while.

The way I see it there's really only two options -
1) The WCA allow the record (which would only show others that they could fraud a record by doing what you did but actually practicing the scramble)
2) The WCA doesn't allow the record (which would show others that they can stop someone fast from getting a WR easily)

I think the only way that the WCA can truly prevent this from happening again is by making an example of the kid. Give him a very harsh punishment so others see that, although you can technically prevent a World Record, you'd be completely sacrificing your own right to compete for a long long time.

I think that it's very unfortunate that you lost two world records Rami, and I feel sorry for you. But I think that the WCA needs to use this as an example to prevent others from getting any ideas about preventing very talented cubers from setting very fast records.

There will be a time where you get an even better record at a competition that beats this one. The World Records are still up for grabs and you know that you've already *technically* officially beaten it once, so why not again? So stay positive Rami, this kid will get what he deserves and so will you some day

 

[TDM]

For a long time? If I were the WCA, I'd ban him for life, at least from 2x2. This cant be tolerated.

Seriously? Do you know how old he is? You can't ban someone forever because of something they did as a child. Everyone does stupid things as a child. Personally I don't think he should be banned for more than a year or a year and a half.

 

[Username]

Seriously? Do you know how old he is? You can't ban someone forever because of something they did as a child. Everyone does stupid things as a child. Personally I don't think he should be banned for more than a year or a year and a half.

If we're gonna treat different aged people differently we might as well have age groups for solving too. I don't see a reason to treat younger people differently, regulations are regulations, no matter who you are.

 

[APdRF]

If we're gonna treat different aged people differently we might as well have age groups for solving too. I don't see a reason to treat younger people differently, regulations are regulations, no matter who you are.

Are you kidding? If we are gonna treat younger people like adults why don't we let them vote too? Everyone here did many stupid things as a child, I'm sure.

I don't mean that the kid doesn't deserve a punishment, but I think that it's not fair to condene all his "cubing career" because a stupid thing he did as a child.

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

Seriously? Do you know how old he is? You can't ban someone forever because of something they did as a child. Everyone does stupid things as a child. Personally I don't think he should be banned for more than a year or a year and a half.

I agree. He probably feels really bad about what he did, and then some people want to punish him by never letting him compete in a competition again? He is 10 years old. Banning him for life would act against the WCA. "Oh, they banned someone for life for something they did at age 10? That's just... mean..."

At my first competition I was 10. If I had done what he had done, I would have felt so bad about what I did, and then if they decided to ban me for life then I couldn't handle it.

 

[cashis]

I agree. He probably feels really bad about what he did, and then some people want to punish him by never letting him compete in a competition again? He is 10 years old. Banning him for life would act against the WCA. "Oh, they banned someone for life for something they did at age 10? That's just... mean..."

At my first competition I was 10. If I had done what he had done, I would have felt so bad about what I did, and then if they decided to ban me for life then I couldn't handle it.

Seriously? Do you know how old he is? You can't ban someone forever because of something they did as a child. Everyone does stupid things as a child. Personally I don't think he should be banned for more than a year or a year and a half.

Maybe that was harsh, but I still think it should be longer than a year. Every competitor should know the regulations. Its in the regulations. I mean, I'm sure at the time he knew he was breaking regulations. I'm almost positive despite being 10, he knew what he was doing and that he was breaking regs. It was a childish thing to do, but I know for sure he at least knew he was breaking regulations

 

[MTGjumper]

Wasn't it specifically announced near the start of the round that competitors shouldn't discuss scrambles, once it was realised that there was such an easy scramble? If that's the case then the competitor, irrespective of age, has no excuses.

 

[Tyler Comfy Hat]

Yeah, I don't think he should be banned for life. Though that's mainly because I don't think anyone should be banned for life*, age doesn't really make a difference for me. Everyone deserves a second chance, even if they have to wait several years for it. Call me too forgiving.

* - unless, perhaps, they did something that was seriously against the law, like poisoning one of the other competitors, or something like that. I dunno.

 

[Myachii]

Nobody gets a permanent ban with the WCA, child or adult. I mean even someone who tried to fraud the 3x3 Single WR didn't get a perm ban.

Still this kid should definitely be made an example by the WCA. Couple years ban at most, 6 months ban at least.

 

[Deleted member 19792]

Nobody gets a permanent ban with the WCA, child or adult. I mean even someone who tried to fraud the 3x3 Single WR didn't get a perm ban.

Still this kid should definitely be made an example by the WCA. Couple years ban at most, 6 months ban at least.

How about in JUST 2x2? There was a kid who was under 18 and he cheated at 3BLD which caused him to get a six month ban from BLD only. Why not do it with 2x2 here?

 

[Myachii]

How about in JUST 2x2? There was a kid who was under 18 and he cheated at 3BLD which caused him to get a six month ban from BLD only. Why not do it with 2x2 here?

What's the point in banning someone from ONE event? I mean BLD fair enough, it's a completely different type of solve with different rules and regs, but with 2x2 there's still 3x3, 4x4, 5x5 etc.

Telling someone about an easy scramble isn't something that you can ONLY do in 2x2, whereas peeking under a blindfold you can't do in anything but BLD.

 

[JK]

The solution wasn't THAT obvious. Believe me, if I would have seen the 4 move solution I'd have gotten better than 0.94

Seriously? The solution wasn't obvious? Or are you just talking about the best execution wasn't that obvious?