• 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

DeeDubb

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
1,432
Location
South Korea
WCA
2014WHIT07
YouTube
Visit Channel
The record should not be allowed.

Feliks's Record:

Misscramble, unintentional, and no known advantage. Therefore, it was awarded.

Rami's Time:

Even though certain staff members were policing the area making sure scrambles were not discussed, a kid did go up to Rami and attempt to show him the scramble. Some people think that the kid approached Rami and said "Dude check this scramble out." -- That could have been a simple scramble from a mobile timer. But, the kid went up to Rami and said "Practice this scramble, you will get World Record!"

This makes it clear that Rami would have known of an easy scramble, which might have allowed him to tell when it would come up. This does provide some form of advantage, although he did not see the scramble.

Don't allow Rami to have the record, and prevent the kid from competing in 2x2 for six months or so.


Also, why don't we start an open discussion on whether or not different scrambles should be used for different heats?

How can anyone possibly say this? It's VERY clear that Feliks got a HUGE advantage from the misscramble.

It seems silly that rules were overlooked for Feliks because it's clearly the right thing to do (which I agree with) and not for Rami.
 
D

Deleted member 19792

Guest
How can anyone possibly say this? It's VERY clear that Feliks got a HUGE advantage from the misscramble.

It seems silly that rules were overlooked for Feliks because it's clearly the right thing to do (which I agree with) and not for Rami.

For "no known advantage", Feliks never knew about the misscramble. He also didn't know anything about the scramble itself. -- WCA Forum Thread clicky

Feliks didn't cause the misscramble, Feliks didn't notice the misscramble.

Rami MAY have known beforehand about the easy scramble which could be an advantage all on its own. "Oh hey, easy scramble. let me pay attention to that." -- Knew that an easy scramble was there.
 

Dene

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
6,900
WCA
2009BEAR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
It often happens that people are aware of an "easy" scramble before they get around to doing it. It seems like the organisers did a particularly good job at this competition of keeping it quiet.
 

DeeDubb

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
1,432
Location
South Korea
WCA
2014WHIT07
YouTube
Visit Channel
For "no known advantage", Feliks never knew about the misscramble. He also didn't know anything about the scramble itself. -- WCA Forum Thread clicky

Feliks didn't cause the misscramble, Feliks didn't notice the misscramble.

Rami MAY have known beforehand about the easy scramble which could be an advantage all on its own. "Oh hey, easy scramble. let me pay attention to that." -- Knew that an easy scramble was there.

Who got a bigger unintentional advantage? Feliks or Rami?
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
2,987
Location
Webster Groves, MO
WCA
2013BARK01
Well, Rami did see that it was an easy scramble in a split second... You really think that he wouldn't notice it with 15? That is what it sounds like it comes down to...

Who got a bigger unintentional advantage? Feliks or Rami?

I'd personally say Feliks, because he got a PLL skip which he probably wouldn't have gotten if it weren't a misscramble. He also MUST have had some sort of other advantage because no one (except me because I'm slow at OH) averages 7 seconds on PLL for OH. However, Rami had hardly any advantage because of what I just said. (At the beginning of the post)
 
Last edited:

RicardoRix

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
130
WCA
2013LEIS01
Felix, Chris Olson, and Rami have all had WR times under rules infringements, which on the solvers behalf was not their fault or intention. I think it's clear if the rule infringement is due to the competitor directly then the solve would be invalid.

Chris Olson had over 15 inspection time. (Awarded WR after WCA consultation.)
Faz got a minor mis-scramble. (Awarded WR after WCA consultation.)
Rami briefly saw the scramble before the solve.

So the WCA are going to look very closely at whether an unfair advantage was obtained due to these rule infringements, even if the competitor was responsible or not.

I think with Chris they could safely say that additional inspection time had no effect, and even if it did then they swayed with the percentage chance that it's 99% likely that no advantage was gained due to the >15 seconds.
Faz's scramble can be agued quite easily that it is very likely that this scramble could have equally have been generated the same as the scramble he was actually given, just one move difference and it still follows TNoodles constraints.

Rami's condition is sadly far more controversial. The unfair advantage can be more related to the traditional idea of cheating, and not just a slip of the mind, but one competitor deliberately and unfairly helping another.
Even so, this still does not clearly define whether Rami has a gained a clear unfair advantage.
Rami has been extremely honest, and his admission supports that he briefly saw the scramble on someone else's cube and did not even study the cube, but got a glimpse which was enough information to tell him that an easy solution was possible and even figured the solution out (I think I've got that bit right). Well, if you believe this confession, then I think it's clear that Rami could have easily identified the one-look solution within the 15s inspection time even without the pre-solve glimpse. The conclusion: No unfair advantage was gained, even if the rules were broken.

His cube, their cube, inside the area, outside the area and all just pedantic lawyer style arguments that don't wash with common sense - bottom line: he saw the scramble.

The bit that doesn't sit well with me (I'm not sure if this has been covered, and I hope I'm getting the facts right) is that he should have talked to a delegate before hand.
As previously discussed it may have been his best route to try and get a WR, but for the WCA I would have thought that they would have to be 100% sure that any advantage gained has to be nothing to do with the competitor, and that there was nothing possible the competitor could have done to not gained an advantage. It could be seen that not talking to a delegate could be seen as trying to gain an advantage.

My personal verdict in all 3 cases. The WR should be awarded.
 

AustinReed

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
1,295
Location
Tucson, Arizona
WCA
2011REED01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The bit that doesn't sit well with me (I'm not sure if this has been covered, and I hope I'm getting the facts right) is that he should have talked to a delegate before hand.

Personally, I don't think I would've talked to the delegate either beforehand if I were in the same situation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he didn't exactly know this was going to be tje scramble, did he? If it were me, I would've shooed the kid away, realized the scramble was the same, and then told someone, just like what happened.

My personal verdict in all 3 cases. The WR should be awarded.

Nope. They should all be DNF's. Chris' WR should've been a DNF easily (sorry Chris) because, yeah, extra info was taken in during that extra time. Otherwise, inspection would not have been over 15 seconds.

Feliks' record should've been a DNF because, well, more of a gut feeling, which is a really crappy argument. However, it is a clear violation of rules and I think that if it were anyone else, it would've been DNF'd.

I think for Rami's record, it should follow the same ruling as Feliks' record. Therefore, it should remained DNF'd. It's nothing personal against these people, obviously, but there's no way to make a "fair" ruling on any of these. These things happen, and they suck, but follow the regs.
 

notfeliks

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
382
but follow the regs.

This is what I have an issue with. The regulations are not perfect, obviously, or a situation like this and Faz's would never have happened. Always blindly following them and never allowing change will in the end do more damage than it will good - for instance, when a child who actually wishes ill-intent on a potential WR solver employs the same method. Sure, we can just punish the kid, ban him for however long, but what if next time the child is not a cuber? What if next time it's someone sent by someone else to prevent a WR, and that cannot be proved? How will they be effectively punished then?

We cannot make the regulations perfect, but when a solve slips through the cracks as this one has, we can patch it up and have one less opportunity for cheaters to cheat. I say allow the WR based on the evidence others have provided previously and ban the child from all competitions for a year or so. This is a perhaps a bit harsh, but it is an effective deterrent for the real cheaters.
 

CraigBouchard

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
274
Location
Kingston, ON, Canada
WCA
2005BOUC01
I just want to add two questions to the discussion, because I think we have to look at the situation objectively, not subjectively, which a lot of people seem to be. "It was Rami, Feliks..." etc.

1) If this was not Rami (or someone else in the same ballpark for skill level) would you be arguing to allow the solve?

2) If this was not for a WR (or CR or NR) would you be arguing to allow the solve?

Assume it was a normal scramble and some random cuber had this happen and told the delegate. Would the solve count? Based on the regulations the answer is no.

If we are arguing the case on the assumption of "did he or did he not (the generic he, not specifically Rami) gain an unfair advantage by seeing the cube?" then this argument goes in favour of Rami. Most people would not be able to deduce the information he deduced in such a brief glimpse of the cube. Again, I think if this is the question being asked then it has to be viewed objectively. We can't make special cases every time a violation comes up.

To the person who was saying he should have talked to the delegate before hand: I disagree. I think he handled the situation correctly. He had no way of knowing if the other competitor was telling the truth until after he did his solve. He immediately told the delegate once he knew the facts of the situation were fact and not just hearsay.
 
Last edited:

Rubiks560

Nub
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
2,851
Location
Minnesota
WCA
2009OLSO01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Personally, I don't think I would've talked to the delegate either beforehand if I were in the same situation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he didn't exactly know this was going to be tje scramble, did he? If it were me, I would've shooed the kid away, realized the scramble was the same, and then told someone, just like what happened.



Nope. They should all be DNF's. Chris' WR should've been a DNF easily (sorry Chris) because, yeah, extra info was taken in during that extra time. Otherwise, inspection would not have been over 15 seconds.

Feliks' record should've been a DNF because, well, more of a gut feeling, which is a really crappy argument. However, it is a clear violation of rules and I think that if it were anyone else, it would've been DNF'd.

I think for Rami's record, it should follow the same ruling as Feliks' record. Therefore, it should remained DNF'd. It's nothing personal against these people, obviously, but there's no way to make a "fair" ruling on any of these. These things happen, and they suck, but follow the regs.

So, what if I was the scrambler for Feliks' WR and intentionally scrambled it wrong?
If he gets a WR it should be DNF'd because of it being scrambled wrong, right?
Seems like an easy way to sabotage people if we go with your "follow the regs". You can't prove that I intetionally scrambled it wrong.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
2,987
Location
Webster Groves, MO
WCA
2013BARK01
Personally, I don't think I would've talked to the delegate either beforehand if I were in the same situation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he didn't exactly know this was going to be tje scramble, did he? If it were me, I would've shooed the kid away, realized the scramble was the same, and then told someone, just like what happened.



Nope. They should all be DNF's. Chris' WR should've been a DNF easily (sorry Chris) because, yeah, extra info was taken in during that extra time. Otherwise, inspection would not have been over 15 seconds.

Feliks' record should've been a DNF because, well, more of a gut feeling, which is a really crappy argument. However, it is a clear violation of rules and I think that if it were anyone else, it would've been DNF'd.

I think for Rami's record, it should follow the same ruling as Feliks' record. Therefore, it should remained DNF'd. It's nothing personal against these people, obviously, but there's no way to make a "fair" ruling on any of these. These things happen, and they suck, but follow the regs.

4.21'd*
 
Joined
May 16, 2015
Messages
385
Location
Kent, England
WCA
2015LLOY02
YouTube
Visit Channel
Huge congratulations on the double WR, Rami!

Even though there will still be some debate on whether or not this was the right decision, It's satisfying to see people actually get rewarded for their honesty and integrity once in a while.

And in case I forgot to say so before, nice job on the solve!
 
Top