• 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

adimare

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
381
Location
Costa Rica
WCA
2011MARE02
The WCA Board supersede the regs, so if they decide so nothing breaks the regs. Suck on that.

*deliberate attempt to start a flamewar*

Do you agree with the decision? The two reasons presented in the statement made by the WCA seem pretty weak to me:

1. Rami most likely did not gain a significant or unfair advantage from being exposed to the scrambled state for a brief glimpse.
That "most likely" implies that maybe he did get a significant and unfair advantage, which means that maybe an incredibly hard to beat WR was awarded to someone that had a significant and unfair advantage. I'd love to see the arguments that convinced a majority of the board that a world class 2x2 solver does not get any sort of advantage from a) knowing the scramble was incredibly easy ahead of time and b) actually seeing the scramble.

2. Not awarding the solve time would be more unfair than whatever unfairness there might be in the glimpse offered.
This argument relies 100% on the first one being correct. If a WR was awarded to someone with a significant advantage, the situation is unfair not only to other competitors that day but to anyone who has ever legitimately solved a 2x2 in a WCA competition.

Rami should not suffer for the incorrect behavior of another competitor.
That's just wishful thinking stated as fact. What happened to Rami sucks, but I don't think it's wise to sweep it under the rug and deny the fact that by the time it was his turn to solve the cube, he had advantages no one else did.
 
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
76
Which reg did it break? Please quote it.

2g3) Competitors in the Competitors Area must not communicate with each other about the scrambled states of the puzzles of the round in progress. Penalty: disqualification of the competitor from the event, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.

He may not have been in the competitors area, but I still think this reg applies to him.
If you say no regs were broken, does that make it legal to cheat?
Sebastián Pino Castillo had his records removed because he knew the scrambles beforehand, why should the WCA be inconsistant.

Do you agree with the decision? The two reasons presented in the statement made by the WCA seem pretty weak to me:

1. Rami most likely did not gain a significant or unfair advantage from being exposed to the scrambled state for a brief glimpse.
That "most likely" implies that maybe he did get a significant and unfair advantage, which means that maybe an incredibly hard to beat WR was awarded to someone that had a significant and unfair advantage. I'd love to see the arguments that convinced a majority of the board that a world class 2x2 solver does not get any sort of advantage from a) knowing the scramble was incredibly easy ahead of time and b) actually seeing the scramble.

2. Not awarding the solve time would be more unfair than whatever unfairness there might be in the glimpse offered.
This argument relies 100% on the first one being correct. If a WR was awarded to someone with a significant advantage, the situation is unfair not only to other competitors that day but to anyone who has ever legitimately solved a 2x2 in a WCA competition.

Rami should not suffer for the incorrect behavior of another competitor.
That's just wishful thinking stated as fact. What happened to Rami sucks, but I don't think it's wise to sweep it under the rug and deny the fact that by the time it was his turn to solve the cube, he had advantages no one else did.
+1
 

cubernya

Premium Member
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
2,076
Location
Central NY, US
2g3) Competitors in the Competitors Area must not communicate with each other about the scrambled states of the puzzles of the round in progress. Penalty: disqualification of the competitor from the event, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.

He may not have been in the competitors area, but I still think this reg applies to him.
If you say no regs were broken, does that make it legal to cheat?
Sebastián Pino Castillo had his records removed because he knew the scrambles beforehand, why should the WCA be inconsistant.

Rami did not communicate, and didn't break the reg. Regardless, it is at the discretion of the delegate, who didn't DQ him.

Also, with Castillo he practised the scrambles beforehand, which is much more significant than seeing the cube for a split second.
 

mark49152

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
4,719
Location
UK
WCA
2015RIVE05
YouTube
Visit Channel
For what it's worth, I am an 8 second Ortega solver, yet was able to one-look this solution in about 3 seconds of inspection.

In my opinion, the skill in getting a WR on this scramble was not in the inspection and planning, it was in the pick-up, handling, tps and stop.
 

Logiqx

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
1,427
Location
Herts, UK
WCA
2015GEOR02
YouTube
Visit Channel
For what it's worth, I am an 8 second Ortega solver, yet was able to one-look this solution in about 3 seconds of inspection.

In my opinion, the skill in getting a WR on this scramble was not in the inspection and planning, it was in the pick-up, handling, tps and stop.

Ditto. I've only just tried the scramble and came up with x R F2 R2 U.

Well done Rami. Good skills!
 
Last edited:

DeeDubb

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
1,432
Location
South Korea
WCA
2014WHIT07
YouTube
Visit Channel
2g3) Competitors in the Competitors Area must not communicate with each other about the scrambled states of the puzzles of the round in progress. Penalty: disqualification of the competitor from the event, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.

He may not have been in the competitors area, but I still think this reg applies to him.
If you say no regs were broken, does that make it legal to cheat?
Sebastián Pino Castillo had his records removed because he knew the scrambles beforehand, why should the WCA be inconsistant.


+1

So, he wasn't in the competition area AND he wasn't part of the communication process AND the decision is at the discretion of the delegate.

Sorry, but there's 3 reasons why Rami's record could be allowed under this reg.

The only reason people have for DQing Rami is that he BROKE this reg. Well, the reg allows for wiggle room just like most regs. There's delegates and a board for a reason. They can decide what is FAIR, and what is FAIR is more important than some words written on a piece of paper. Stop making this so black and white.

Does that make it legal to cheat? No. It makes it so the board has the right to decide on a CASE-BY-CASE basis what is the right decision and what isn't. Any argument that this means the board allows cheating is nothing more than a slippery-slope fallacy.
 

Rubiks560

Nub
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
2,851
Location
Minnesota
WCA
2009OLSO01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Guys, don't forget that anybody else could've gotten the exact same advantage as me by just watching someone else solve. Are we DQing them? No.

The difference is that that competitor would directly be breaking the regs. :p

Edit: I have no clue why you're still arguing with people. The decision has been made final. Why waste your time?
 

Dene

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
6,900
WCA
2009BEAR01
YouTube
Visit Channel

I was mostly joking in that statement just to stir up some trouble (boo no one went with it).

There are many things wrong with what you've said, but tbh I don't care enough to get into detail. This situation is just more evidence that 2x2 is stupid and shouldn't be an official event.

Overall I think the outcome is the right one, but for my own reasons.
 

Isaac Lai

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
1,329
Location
Singapore
WCA
2015LAII01
His solve on that scramble got DNFed because he was present when that kid came to show the scramble and he saw it too.

His solve was .9x FYI.

Wait so he told the delegate too?

But actually, for him it isn't as serious (arguably) because his average would still stay the same. The only thing that he would gain is a fast single.
 

Coolster01

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
2,342
Location
Near Deetroit, Michigan, United States
WCA
2011SBAH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The difference is that that competitor would directly be breaking the regs. :p

Edit: I have no clue why you're still arguing with people. The decision has been made final. Why waste your time?

Okay, okay, I'm done. The next thing is a different argument, so excuse this, lol:

His solve on that scramble got DNFed because he was present when that kid came to show the scramble and he saw it too.

His solve was .9x FYI.

I agree that it should count for sure if mine did. He was further down the table and the kid was talking to me, not him, so there's no way his advantage (if any) was any more than mine (if any). I'm not sure if he even cares, though. :p

EDIT: Okay, so I've talked with the kid who showed me the scramble and it makes a little bit more sense now. This has nothing to do with the verdict, but it's nice to know what was going through his head when he was showing this to me. He says that he had no idea that competitors all get the same scrambles, and he just wanted to see me get a sub-WR time on his scramble (which would be my scramble later) in practice, not knowing that I'd get it officially.
 
Last edited:

Sebastien

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
800
WCA
2008AURO01
I agree that it should count for sure if mine did. He was further down the table and the kid was talking to me, not him, so there's no way his advantage (if any) was any more than mine (if any). I'm not sure if he even cares, though. :p

This has been raised internally already, quite soon after the decision for your case was made. To be precise we are just waiting for Bill's initial time to be confirmed by the delegate to reinstate it.

EDIT: Okay, so I've talked with the kid who showed me the scramble and it makes a little bit more sense now. This has nothing to do with the verdict, but it's nice to know what was going through his head when he was showing this to me. He says that he had no idea that competitors all get the same scrambles, and he just wanted to see me get a sub-WR time on his scramble (which would be my scramble later) in practice, not knowing that I'd get it officially.

Hm, interesting, so that kid might not be the pure evil after all.
 
Top