• 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!

The WDC and Brazilian Community Rant. (See latest edit, final decision)

Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
443
Likes
582
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
WCA
2016DERO04
YouTube
Bigodon
#22
Actually the WDC official in question imposed to me that I "keep all communications secret", which legally speaking makes no sense because I have the right to make fair use of such communications.

That's why I haven't publicized them - but in order to clear up specific points, I'm referring to quotes of those (all within context, of course).

They never said in the emails that he has to keep it private
 
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
1,254
Likes
397
Location
Belluno, Italy
WCA
2011TRON02
YouTube
PorkyDays
#24
@porkynator

Would you recognize your 3bld scramble two days after the comp?
It depends, but probably not. I have assumed that Fabio was shown the actual scramble a few minutes after the attempt. There are different versions for this part of the story, I am believing what the delegate told.

Your opinion also seems to diametrically differ from that of actual experts that I consulted, all within the top 5 WR for all BLD events, so if you could clarify your reasoning a bit more it would be nice. Again, I understand your opinion, and would say that you're simply misinformed instead of "wrong", but that's my personal perception and should not be taken as an offense, please.
My main comparison was done with the 37m DNF on the first attempt. I thought that, in order to get a sub-10 single with some luck and under perfect conditions, your average time for a 5BLD attempt could not be slower than 15-16 minutes. And I have considered an extreme situation. I personally could not get any "lucky" solve sub-10 minutes until I was averaging around 12.
Then I tried thinking about what could lead a 16 minutes solver to get a 37 minute solve, and I couldn't think of any good reason. If I remember correctly your justification was that it was a safe attempt (and possibly that you kept getting distracted for some reason?). I didn't consider this a plausible explanation. I thought that, in a similar situation, I would have just DNFed the attempt if I realised it was taking too long, in order not to waste precious time for the cumulative time limit and not to get exhausted.
A possible explanation for the discrepancy in your times was given by some other blinder who tried to defend you. They said that you use full audio memo for rushed attempts, and that explains why you can get much faster times. Regardless the validity of this explanation, this contradicts your own words: you said that you use "the exact same as pretty much anyone who does BigBLD", and this coincides with what you told the WDC (but not with the "full audio" part).
To sum it up: I don't believe that it is possible for anyone to get a 37 DNF and sub-10 success on the same day, unless they are going slow on purpose on the first.

But now that Lorenzo has contacted more experienced people, my opinion may become less relevant. I know that it coincides with that of some other top 5BLDer, so this "diametrically different opinions" exist within the top 5 WR.

What I find a bit weird is how Lorenzo compares big-blind results to MBLD results. By that logic Stanley Chapel should have 50+ MBLD points and Shivam Bansal should have a 3-minute 5bld result.
I think he did not use those Fabio's multiBLD results to imply anything about his bigBLD solves. I can certainly say that I did not do that.
What Lorenzo told me - I can't tell you the exact words, it was during a video call with me and another person (one defending Fabio) - is that after the first emails he wanted to "test" Fabio to see if he was trying to fool him around. So he asked him general questions about his BLD methods and results.
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
1,010
Likes
623
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
#25
I think he did not use those Fabio's multiBLD results to imply anything about his bigBLD solves. I can certainly say that I did not do that.
What Lorenzo told me - I can't tell you the exact words, it was during a video call with me and another person (one defending Fabio) - is that after the first emails he wanted to "test" Fabio to see if he was trying to fool him around. So he asked him general questions about his BLD methods and results.
Vincenzo:
What was the memorization time?

Fabiano:
About 4 minutes, give or take.

Vincenzo:
Again, I don’t believe this is possible, given your level of ability.
“As another example, I also see that your best result in multiblind is a 7/7 in 55 minutes, which indicates a very different capability of memorization with respect to a 9-minutes solve on a 5x5.”
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Messages
423
Likes
284
Location
Colorado Springs
WCA
2017MILL04
Thread starter #26
I feel like Fabio should defend himself on the first and the second responses here, but your speculation seems spot on. He always starts with an intentionally slow safety solve but due to nerves and constant review to get his first ever 5BLD result he went very very slow. He then, what he described to me, went all in (yolo) on his last attempt doing memo and exec as fast as he possibly could, getting the 9 minute solve.

As underwater mentioned, that third point is easily refuted in the OP under the discord post spoiler.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
443
Likes
582
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
WCA
2016DERO04
YouTube
Bigodon
#27
the first attempt. I thought that, in order to get a sub-10 single with some luck and under perfect conditions, your average time for a 5BLD attempt could not be slower than 15-16 minutes. And I have considered an extreme situation. I personally could not get any "lucky" solve sub-10 minutes until I was averaging around 12.
Paraphrasing what I have stated to thr WDC: My very few official results on 5x5 BLD are not directly reflective of my global average at home. I had been practicing extensively, and had already achieved similarly low times prior to the competition.

Then I tried thinking about what could lead a 16 minutes solver to get a 37 minute solve, and I couldn't think of any good reason. If I remember correctly your justification was that it was a safe attempt (and possibly that you kept getting distracted for some reason?). I didn't consider this a plausible explanation.
I'm not really sure how acquainted you are with blind solving, but safety solving is a well known, tried and tested strategy which lends further fluctuation in times, at varying levels. If you do not consider it a valid strategy refrain from using it - just be aware many people do, and use it indeed.

Side note: The distractions you are thinking of probably refer to the second competition, where I was indeed ill, which was a major distraction.


I thought that, in a similar situation, I would have just DNFed the attempt if I realised it was taking too long, in order not to waste precious time for the cumulative
That's an objectively bad strategy, and I would argue it would even be against the WCA Regulations. But that's just me, I'd rather DNF knowing I tried my best than simply give up but to each their own :p

A possible explanation for the discrepancy in your times was given by some other blinder who tried to defend you. They said that you use full audio memo for rushed attempts, and that explains why you can get much faster times. Regardless the validity of this explanation, this contradicts your own words: you said that you use "the exact same as pretty much anyone who does BigBLD", and this coincides with what you told the WDC (but not with the "full audio" part).
I'm pretty sure anyone who does BigBLD also uses audio memorization for parts of the solve. I never stated to use full audio 100% of the time, so I'd kindly ask you to refrain from twisting my words.

Edit | Just adding this to make it perfectly clear: I don't remember ever stating anywhere that I use full audio for 5x5 BLD, specifically. I have, however, used it a couple times with 4BLD and that is my main memorization method for 3BLD.

It depends, but probably not. I have assumed that Fabio was shown the actual scramble a few minutes after the attempt. There are different versions for this part of the story, I am believing what the delegate told.
I was only shown the actual scramble after the competition had ended - and have stated this multiple times to the WDC.

words, it was during a video call with me and another person (one defending Fabio) - is that after the first emails he wanted to "test" Fabio to see if he was trying to fool him around. So he asked him general questions about his BLD methods and results.
How professional of him. /s

I'm legitimately impressed.

He always starts with an intentionally slow safety solve but due to nerves and constant review to get his first ever 5BLD result he went very very slow. He then, what he described to me, went all in (yolo) on his last attempt doing memo and exec as fast as he possibly could, getting the 9 minute solve.
Yup. That's pretty much the strategy I employ in all my BLD solves (which is fairly common as far as I know).

I have also detailed this to the WDC during our e-mail exchanges.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
1,254
Likes
397
Location
Belluno, Italy
WCA
2011TRON02
YouTube
PorkyDays
#28
I'm not really sure how acquainted you are with blind solving
Seriously? Maybe I am not a cubing VIP, but you can easily check from my WCA profile that I am good enough at BLD to know at least what safe solves are. As I said, I have considered this in my analysis as well.

I'm pretty sure anyone who does BigBLD also uses audio memorization for parts of the solve. I never stated to use full audio 100% of the time, so I'd kindly ask you to refrain from twisting my words.
Sorry if it was unclear or badly worded, I know you have never claimed that. I meant that those people who tried to give a possible explanation for you assumed you use a different memo method for that attempt.

How professional of him. /s
I don't see the problem. This method may work with people who don't know anything about BLD and try to cheat by peeking under the blindfold and doing normal speedsolves. On the other hand, someone who knows how to do proper blind solves has nothing to be afraid of.
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
189
Likes
56
Location
Massachusetts
WCA
2016MARS09
#29
Yup. That's pretty much the strategy I employ in all my BLD solves (which is fairly common as far as I know).

I have also detailed this to the WDC during our e-mail exchanges.
sorry if this sounds dumb or completely off topic, but Fabio provided what was enough to say that there was no cheating involved butt...o_O
of course people wouldn't bring up a investigation if everything was perfect. By no means am I criticizing anyone but Vincenzo kind of rushed it due to maybe some pressure to get a answer out to the community about the issue.
wow... I actually did something on this thread
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
443
Likes
582
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
WCA
2016DERO04
YouTube
Bigodon
#30
Seriously? Maybe I am not a cubing VIP, but you can easily check from my WCA profile that I am good enough at BLD to know at least what safe solves are. As I said, I have considered this in my analysis as well.
It's just that I didn't recognize your username, lol. I browse the forum on mobile only so view space is limited (e.g.: signatures aren't shown). Sorry if that sounded rude, it wasn't my intention.
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
1,010
Likes
623
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
#31
I don't see the problem. This method may work with people who don't know anything about BLD and try to cheat by peeking under the blindfold and doing normal speedsolves. On the other hand, someone who knows how to do proper blind solves has nothing to be afraid of.
He has a whole channel that the WDC knows about full of solves. They don’t need to question if he knows bld methods

Edit: wait I forgot the videos are fake/prepared in the eyes or Lorenzo lol
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
1,010
Likes
623
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
#33
assuming there is no video of the event...
I’m talking about how Vincenzo supposedly wants to make sure he knows valid methods of solving a cube blindfolded but when he watches his videos which clearly shows he knows the execution methods he decides they are prepared lol. You could argue he knows the memo beforehand or something but regardless the execution (what we are looking at right now) is legitamite
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Messages
423
Likes
284
Location
Colorado Springs
WCA
2017MILL04
Thread starter #34
I don't see the problem. This method may work with people who don't know anything about BLD and try to cheat by peeking under the blindfold and doing normal speedsolves. On the other hand, someone who knows how to do proper blind solves has nothing to be afraid of.
Thats why paper blockers exist

Still really shady by the WDC. You shouldn't try to "fool" you should try to find the evidence without deception.

(Also the name is Lorenzo.)
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
189
Likes
56
Location
Massachusetts
WCA
2016MARS09
#35
I’m talking about how Vincenzo supposedly wants to make sure he knows valid methods of solving a cube blindfolded but when he watches his videos which clearly shows he knows the execution methods he decides they are prepared lol. You could argue he knows the memo beforehand or something but regardless the execution (what we are looking at right now) is legitamite
I know that he does BLD videos but I am %99.9999 on Fablo side on this scandal
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
1,010
Likes
623
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
#36
Thats why paper blockers exist

Still really shady by the WDC. You shouldn't try to "fool" you should try to find the evidence without deception.

(Also the name is Lorenzo.)
Oh yeah that brings up another point, if fabiano cheated then it’s basically a guarantee that the judge was in on it, Lorenzo even mentions the judge being the same person. If fabiano cheated then doesn’t that basically confirm the judge did too? If so then why wasn’t action taken with the judge?

Must have somehow gotten the V from vigani and slapped it in Lorenzo and then tweaked a few things lol
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Messages
423
Likes
284
Location
Colorado Springs
WCA
2017MILL04
Thread starter #37
Oh yeah that brings up another point, if fabiano cheated then it’s basically a guarantee that the judge was in on it, Lorenzo even mentions the judge being the same person. If fabiano cheated then doesn’t that basically confirm the judge did too? If so then why wasn’t action taken with the judge?

Must have somehow gotten the V from vigani and slapped it in Lorenzo and then tweaked a few things lol
DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER!

Exactly on point! Why not punish the judge then too?
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
1,010
Likes
623
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
#38
DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER!

Exactly on point! Why not punish the judge then too?
And while we are talking about have any of the 3 delegates not doing their job been punished in any way? None were present during the 4/5bld solves. This clearly isn’t in line with what the delegates should be doing

“The primary duty of a Delegate is to oversee competitions on behalf of the WCA. A WCA Delegate is responsible for making sure that all WCA Competitions are run according to the Mission, Spirit, and Regulations of the WCA.”

How are you supposed to oversee and ensure regs are being followed if you aren’t in the same room and you are allowing problematic situations (like only 1 judge and 1 competitor in the room) to arise lol
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
26
Likes
22
Location
Abu Dhabi, UAE
WCA
2017DUMM01
YouTube
DesertWolf 1205
#39
How are you supposed to oversee and ensure regs are being followed if you aren’t in the same room and you are allowing problematic situations (like only 1 judge and 1 competitor in the room) to arise lol
Not picking sides. Although it is wrong let's be honest if a competition has only few blind competitors solving at the same time of bigger events like pyra, skewb, 5x5 and mega the delegates will prefer to take care of those events. This isn't the first time something like that happens and it isn't uncommon either. I'm not saying it is correct and i'm not saying nothing should be done to change it, but we cannot target those 3 specific delegates for this reason specifically.
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
1,010
Likes
623
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
#40
Not picking sides. Although it is wrong let's be honest if a competition has only few blind competitors solving at the same time of bigger events like pyra, skewb, 5x5 and mega the delegates will prefer to take care of those events. This isn't the first time something like that happens and it isn't uncommon either. I'm not saying it is correct and i'm not saying nothing should be done to change it, but we cannot target those 3 specific delegates for this reason specifically.
1. A delegate could have appointed a trusted person to watch over everyone in the bld room (sketchy way to do things imo but it would be better than not having anyone)
2. There were 66 people at this comp lol, it’s not unusual for delegates to solo delegate 70+ people at comp so why not have 2 watch over the non-bld part and then have 1 watch over the bld. Should be easy for them to have less than 33 people each to watch over competing.
3. Also to note another thing in point 2, not everyone competes at once so they probably had even less competitors they needed to watch over lol
 
Last edited:
Top