Team Blind Discussion thread

[Bryan]

Why not put regulation discussions in the WCA forum?

 

[StachuK1992]

Why not put regulation discussions in the WCA forum?

Because it's Skype?

What I mean by this is that the rules might not be necessarily the same, so putting them on the WCA may lead to confusion concerning people there thinking this is to be an official event.

 

[Bryan]

Because it's Skype?

What I mean by this is that the rules might not be necessarily the same, so putting them on the WCA may lead to confusion concerning people there thinking this is to be an official event.

Well, the first post isn't Skype. I figured it was discussion on how TeamBLD should be done in order to make it an official event. No harm in discussing proposed events.

 

[Toad]

Surely it's not a good idea to be able to repeat the same scramble with switched roles? If you've just dictated the solution to someone you'll likely be able to remember a lot of it while you're then solving it...

 

[StachuK1992]

Mhmm. Perhaps we can get some basics here and then transfer the ideas there so we have something to back ourselves up with.
I would love for this to be an official event!

 

[Erik]

I have some suggestions for the regulations for how they are proposed in your TBLDregs.docx file: (btw who made this?)

2c: "Team Blindfolded implements a “Mean of 3” system as opposed to an “Average of 5” system." Why mean of 3, Team BLD wouldn't take that long... if you think the round will take too long then just make it a combined final (one of your first two attempts must be under x:xx to get an avg).

4d: "At no point during inspection is the dictator allowed to touch the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve." I don't see the purpose of this really. At most competitions where we did unofficial Team BLD the caller was allowed to pick up the cube to inspect, after all the caller has to inspect the cube, not the executor.

4e: "The dictator is allowed only to stand, where the executor is allowed to sit and stand as he wishes." This does not make sense to me. I don't understand what you want with this. I understand it as something that the caller has to stand near the executor (?). I think the caller should be free to stand where he/she wants.

4g: "The competing team is allowed to make notes, but only in a verbal manner." As far as my view on Team BLD goes, it is build up on two principles:
- the caller can't make moves
- the solver can't see the cube
Why make the restriction of only verbal ways of communicating? It is much more challenging to invent a system where a tap on the right shoulder would mean something for instance. I am wondering why this boundary was made.

 

[Toad]

The key decision for me is whether or not the solver is allowed to talk or not?

I don't know which I prefer, both options make sense for various reasons. What do people think?

 

[That70sShowDude]

I completely agree on the not being able to switch roles choice. That's a horrible idea in my opinion.
I also think that the solver should also remain muted during the entire inspection/solve. I look at talking and sight as the same thing. Neither should be used.

 

[StachuK1992]

I wish for only the caller to speak.
Tapping, also, would be allowed.

 

[Lucas Garron]

My comments, from scanning the thread:

- Could we not use the unnecessarily brutal names "dictator" and "executor"? I propose "caller" and "solver."
- I think both should be allowed to talk. The solver is allowed to point, so there is interactive communication; allowing both to talk is like allowing both hands during inspection: Not much different, easier on beginners, and easier to enforce.
- I would prefer the caller not to be allowed to touch the puzzle, but I think that's just personal preference.

 

[riffz]

I would prefer if both could talk. It's easier to enforce, and in competition settings where it's noisy and busy, I think the solver should be allowed to ask the caller to repeat themselves, or ask for clarification.

 

[Kian]

My brother and I never let the solver speak. I think it's more fun this way, it provides some added difficulty in explaining yourself. But to each his or her own, I guess.

 

[Bryan]

The solver is the one with their hands on the timer and they're blindfolded at the end of inspection, but the team is suppose to ensure the light is green.

Since this would be a new event and different enough from the existing stuff, why not eliminate inspection?

Also, you should've written the document in a way that references the existing rules, and just notes where stuff is different.

Don't put in regulations what happens for no-shows. That should be reserved for the organizer. If I'm on a tight-schedule, I do not want to do a bunch of extra work changing entries and scorecards because your full team didn't show up. If a full team doesn't show up and they forfeit, nothing would be recorded in the results. "DNS" is for when you don't finish and average of 5 or mean of 3, not when you don't start one.

Disallowing talking would be tough. A5a allows a competitor to communicate with the judge during the solve, so that could be a passive way to communicate with the caller. And really, what benefit is gained by banning this?

 

[Ranzha]

MASSIVE POST.

Why not put regulation discussions in the WCA forum?

Those were proposed regulations. It's not an event yet. If Team BLD isn't an event next year (or following years) but certain competitions hold it unofficially, it's better to have some standard way of doing things.

Surely it's not a good idea to be able to repeat the same scramble with switched roles? If you've just dictated the solution to someone you'll likely be able to remember a lot of it while you're then solving it...

For Skype, I don't see the major difference. Nathaniel and I do it all the time. The thing is, it's the job of the second solver to be solving according to what the second caller calls.

I have some suggestions for the regulations for how they are proposed in your TBLDregs.docx file: (btw who made this?)

I did. I just adapted some regs from the WCA forum thread and added what I thought was necessary. It’s quite crude, in my opinion.

2c: "Team Blindfolded implements a “Mean of 3” system as opposed to an “Average of 5” system." Why mean of 3, Team BLD wouldn't take that long... if you think the round will take too long then just make it a combined final (one of your first two attempts must be under x:xx to get an avg).

I proposed a mean of 3 for time’s sake. It’d take even less time as a mean of 3 than an average of 5 (but that’s obvious. xP) My logic behind this is that for those competitors who aren’t accustomed to Team BLD when they register for it for a competition (for instance, as in the case of Nathaniel and me) , it’ll most likely take longer, mainly due to a lack of resolution for potential recognition issues.

4d: "At no point during inspection is the dictator allowed to touch the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve." I don't see the purpose of this really. At most competitions where we did unofficial Team BLD the caller was allowed to pick up the cube to inspect, after all the caller has to inspect the cube, not the executor.

I was considering this. On a personal note, I like the idea of having the caller inspect hands-on. I’ll change it.

4e: "The dictator is allowed only to stand, where the executor is allowed to sit and stand as he wishes." This does not make sense to me. I don't understand what you want with this. I understand it as something that the caller has to stand near the executor (?). I think the caller should be free to stand where he/she wants.

Oh. This. I’ll omit it. It’s not necessary. They may stand and sit as they please. I have a feeling the overall consensus would be that the caller stands, and the solver can sit or stand.

4g: "The competing team is allowed to make notes, but only in a verbal manner." As far as my view on Team BLD goes, it is build up on two principles:
- the caller can't make moves
- the solver can't see the cube
Why make the restriction of only verbal ways of communicating? It is much more challenging to invent a system where a tap on the right shoulder would mean something for instance. I am wondering why this boundary was made.[/QUOTE]

I didn’t take this into account. I’ll revise to prohibit written notes only, instead.

My comments, from scanning the thread:

- Could we not use the unnecessarily brutal names "dictator" and "executor"? I propose "caller" and "solver."
- I think both should be allowed to talk. The solver is allowed to point, so there is interactive communication; allowing both to talk is like allowing both hands during inspection: Not much different, easier on beginners, and easier to enforce.
- I would prefer the caller not to be allowed to touch the puzzle, but I think that's just personal preference.

I am changing the names to “caller” and “solver.” I just wanted to see reactions. xD
All in good fun.

The solver is the one with their hands on the timer and they're blindfolded at the end of inspection, but the team is suppose to ensure the light is green.

Since this would be a new event and different enough from the existing stuff, why not eliminate inspection?

I saw this and I thought to myself, “Is inspection necessary?” Considering that this doesn’t require memorization as a normal BLD solve would and that there is sighted participation, I’m going to keep inspection in the proposed regulations.

Also, you should've written the document in a way that references the existing rules, and just notes where stuff is different.

Okay. Will do.

Don't put in regulations what happens for no-shows. That should be reserved for the organizer. If I'm on a tight-schedule, I do not want to do a bunch of extra work changing entries and scorecards because your full team didn't show up. If a full team doesn't show up and they forfeit, nothing would be recorded in the results. "DNS" is for when you don't finish and average of 5 or mean of 3, not when you don't start one.

About the no-shows, yeah. I see. I’ll omit. Discretion of main judge.

Disallowing talking would be tough. A5a allows a competitor to communicate with the judge during the solve, so that could be a passive way to communicate with the caller. And really, what benefit is gained by banning this?

I agree with this. Let both people talk. =D Additionally, talking to each other can clear up dastardly

 

[Toad]

I'm just gonna put this out there that I think the way all you guys are currently doing Skype teamBLD is ridiculous and not even close to how teamBLD would be run as an official event. We need to make very clear what discussion relates to teamBLD and what relates to Skype teamBLD in this thread 'cos I'm getting pretty confused

 

[Ranzha]

I'm just gonna put this out there that I think the way all you guys are currently doing Skype teamBLD is ridiculous and not even close to how teamBLD would be run as an official event. We need to make very clear what discussion relates to teamBLD and what relates to Skype teamBLD in this thread 'cos I'm getting pretty confused

Okay.

So like, I'll make a thread?

 

[Lucas Garron]

I am changing the names to “caller” and “solver.” I just wanted to see reactions. xD
All in good fun.

If that's how you're going to treat this, I'd rather not have you in charge of the discussion for potential official regulations. :rolleyes:

Right now, this thread is rather idiosyncratic. I would prefer something more like the way Chris handled the Speffz discussion.

 

[Ranzha]

Would there have to be some kind of judge that would have to hold a piece of paper in between the solver's face and the puzzle the entire time?

No. After reading the WCA forum's thread on it, I've decided to leave it out.

If that's how you're going to treat this, I'd rather not have you in charge of the discussion for potential official regulations. :rolleyes:

Right now, this thread is rather idiosyncratic. I would prefer something more like the way Chris handled the Speffz discussion.

I see your logic. I didn't want to propose these as potential official regulations. I just wanted to propose some system, open to suggestions.


NOTE: If anyone out there more experienced than me (well, that's basically everyone out there, to mention it) wants to take over from here, I'd be glad. I think it'd be better for someone like Lucas to propose a system for Team BLD, considering his experience level.

 

[Bryan]

No. After reading the WCA forum's thread on it, I've decided to leave it out.

I think that's one of the major issues with TeamBLD is this problem. I can't simply be ignored because it's difficult to find a solution if it's going to be an official event.

 

[Ranzha]

I think that's one of the major issues with TeamBLD is this problem. I can't simply be ignored because it's difficult to find a solution if it's going to be an official event.

An option would be to have a piece of paper taped to the blindfold as a facemask. Each team would supply their own facemask.