• 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
I'll try to keep this as straightforward as possible, , addressing only the most relevant points (in my opinion, sure, but feel free to ask about any particular points if you wish) and claims which had not been brought up before.

I'll also stick to facts and try my best not dwell on personal matters or clutter this with irrelevant anecdotes.

posted on nov/20th. On the same day, he said to me he was looking for a new job. The day before, he had plenty of time to do a lot of posts/reply on reddit, 13 posts, if you count from midnight to 11:59 p.m.

The latest one
https://www.reddit.com/r/Cubers/comments/9ydo1w/_/ea2nail
This includes a description of a MBLD attempt.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Cubers/comments/9y3enp/_/ea0dm6f
You can check for yourself here.

Also, on the same day the announcement was made, he posted/replied 21 times during all the day long. So, I'm finding hard to agree that he was in such a hurry working and studying that he did not have 15 min to record the video then for WDC. It was not a weekend.
The request for videos happened way before the ban was announced, so I find it rather intellectually dishonest that one would twist the time-line of events in such a way. I'll cut him some slack, however, since as far as I know, my email exchanges with the WDC had been taking place under confidentiality, so it's somewhat justifiable that one would perceive the situation in such a misinformed way.

After I informed the WDC that I could not record the vídeos when those were requested and in the manner in which those were requested - again, I never refused to provide them with anything, I also expected to hear back from them with a counter-proposal as to how could I provide them with evidence on a way that would both be satisfactory for them and doable for me during this period. I never heard back, and then about one month after this, the ban was laid - yet I was never informed about it.

The only response I received was after issuing the appeal (which has indeed included the requested vídeos, which have been - to the best of my knowledge, sent for review by actual world class blind solvers) and thus the investigation was reopened. I'm just mentioning this for full context.

About the reconstruction of his 28+, it was made just after the solve, not a couple of days after. Diego asked the delegate for the scramble and presented Fabio with it and asked how he did it. He reconstructed it, perfectly, I was there. He was calm and steady during it. His description included just regular comms with simple setups, not an R2 setup for 3 comms as claimed here (isn't it strange how could he reconstruct a R2 if it were a misscramble?). He posted another reconstruction on Facebook and then, after the video, he started claiming misscramble.
I'd like to specifically point out, in regards to the last paragraph:

That competitor in question did not ask me about the full reconstruction, and I was never shown the full scramble. He had asked me about one aspect of the solve only - This has also happened after the round was over.

The * full * reconstruction was only made possible after the delegate had sent me the full scramble, days after the competition was over. This has been discussed at length with the WDC already.

Only after doing the reconstruction, now with the actual scramble at hand (as well as the video) and discussing the matter with other people is that I was also wondering whether it could have been a misscramble. I never denied this possibility and this concern was never raised during the entire course of the competition by anyone.

Bottomline is, as much as it appears as Campos is intentionally bending the time-line of events, again I'll give him the benefit of doubt and assume he is merely misinformed.

and he used to post solves in around 1 min on Facebook. He DNFed there with 7 and 8 minutes, he did not even try the third one. I thought “how can someone around 1 min get a 7 min DNF?”. He continued to get DNFs in competitions (11 in a row) and he was posting sub1 videos on Facebook.
Lorena Open happened in February, 2017. It was my first time competing in 3BLD; Back then I was far, way far from getting 1min solves. I never posted vídeos doing sub 1 BLD solves on Facebook leading up to this competition (this is actually a laughably false claim from Campos, just read my post history from Reddit and you'll see most of my progression reports). In fact, my first sub-minute solve happened in May that same year, here's the video:

Cumulative time limit @ Lorena Open was 20 minutes. My first attempt took (roughly) 11 minutes, and the second one was cut short when I reached the limit, about 9 minutes in (give or take). That's why my third attempt was a DNS.

Campos keep claiming I have many sub 1 vídeos on Facebook but he can't find those, which is a convenient excuse now that he no longer has access to my profile. For reference on my 3BLD learning curve, I suggest he digs a bit deeper into reddit and ask around there. I also invite anyone who does access to my FB profile to look through my plethora of cat pictures and political rants to let me know if there's any such video as Campos claims.

His first official success was a sub3 after a lot of sub1 videos. This is the only thing I have no proof.
As stated above and hopefully made clear throughout not just this thread, but the investigation as a whole, this is far from being the only thing Campos has no proof of. He keeps making severely biased accusations and speculations, and providing zero evidence other than his subjective perception of my social media history as well as his objectively wrong recollection of events from years past (namely Lorena Open 2017).

(I really would like to see again some videos from early 2017).
Sure:



My reddit history clearly shows a rather large amount of progress tracking, most notably about 3BLD after that first competition experience in February. It's open and public.

(like he asking around for a cube before getting the 9 min success. Why did he need a 5x5? Doesn’t he already had one or how did he practice?)
Regarding this matter, I was looking for a borrowed replacement corner piece, specifically. This happened before the 5x5 Blindfolded round started at all, not in between attempts.

Context: My cube had a minor discoloration in one of the corner facelets, which I assumed would not make it competition legal. After consulting with two out of 3 delegates there, it was cleared off and I was allowed to use it.

Now, in reference to his follow-up post, which contains what I can only consider a massive amount of blatant lies:.

This is the most clear part of it. 5 people confirmed the reconstruction was asked even before the end of the round and I watched it.
  1. Diego (do you think he is tendentious? Discard his opinion, you still have 4 of them).
  2. Myself
  3. The delegate (he received the cube and scrambled it)
  4. The guy who recorded the video of his final seconds of the solve
  5. The organizer
The conversation he claims having overheard, and to which there are allegedly all those witnesses, has happened after the round was over.

And that's for one simple reason which Campos conveniently ignores: There were so few competitors, we had fixed solving stations for each person. In other words, I only left the table after the round was over.

May I also remind anyone interested, that as explained and contextualized beforehand, the delegate (who's a close friend of Campos’, no less) has not only never raised any suspicion on my solve in question, which he actually watched me do with his own eyes and fromjust a couple feet away, with the cube he had (AFAIK) scrambled himself and brought to me just moments before.

I'm a teacher and I've had about 3000 different students over the past 5 years. I'm proud that, among other things, I can recognize some students by its handwriting while they are studying with me. The chair had a sign on a paper placed on it saying "BLD area, keep it quiet" or something like that. When I read the sign, I recognized his handwriting at the time, since he did some written joke somewhere else. I don't think I could recognize it by now. Besides, who else would be interested in doing so?
I suggest he consults his doctor for prescription glasses, because while there was indeed a “please be quiet” sign close to the entrance, it was not handwritten.

This is the room (actually, a corridor on the back of the venue)


You can see his judge, Fabio, me and the guy who was taking pictures of everyone (not of the second attempt, because of the chair). The chair was standing where I was (my left leg would be touching the chair), blocking the way in from outside. You couldn't even peek inside without moving the chair or going over it (by kneeing or something, risking making some noise during an ongoing BLD event). I did not try to move the chair out of empathy with a fellow BLDer.
Campos keeps insisting there was a chair blocking the entrance, so even though he carries the burden of proof, he has not offered substantial evidence to back up his claim at all.

About 15 or 20 min later, I decided to check on him. The chair was clearly blocking the way in and it was not there when I left. I could move it out, but I thought this would make some noise, so I let it be.
This is the excuse Campos gives. As the organizer of a National Championship, experienced competitor and especially as someone who had been questioning my results for well over a year, why would he not remove the chair? Because of noise? Sure someone capable of solving a Rubik's Cube Blindfolded would be capable of moving a chair away without making too much noise, if any at all. This is a silly excuse, and pretty much settles the deal for me: not only he has no proof of the existence of this chair, he also fails to justify why said object, if it ever existed, wasn't moved away.

The following is exactly what I told the WDC. This is copy-paste directly from the very first e-mail I responded to about this investigation

Did you put a sign on a chair to prevent people from accessing the room where you were solving? Why did you do it?

There was a sign at use to prevent people from making noise, the "Please be silent" kind. The room had thin walls and was right behind the general competitors' area so it was a simple way to signal there was still a blind round happening. It was never put there to "prevent people from entering the room", as you described. I also specifically asked a delegate if it was OK to hang it by the entrance and they obliged. Side note: Same situation happened, for example, as with me providing my own harmonica holder as a support for the additional sight blocker, as per regulations of Blindfolded events (that is, where the competitor is expected to take a longer time to solve).
Perhaps something was lost in translation (notice how the WDC official asks “a sign on a chair”, not “a chair” so perhaps that's where this whole subject started at?) or Campos is intentionally twisting semantics here, but one fact remains true: I have not put any chair anywhere and unless he is able to back up his statements with evidence that this happened, as well as an explanation as to why neither one of the 3 delegates or the competition organizer (oh, wait, that was him) who allegedly took notice of said chair did not do anything about it during the course of the competition (which, had this situation really happened, should have been settled right there and then so either he is lying about this chair which neither he nor anyone has proven to even exist, or he's admitting to his [and the delegates’] incapacity of running a proper competition under the WCA regulations), I'd kindly suggest, again, that he refrains from spreading any further falsehoods and speculations.

l
There was 2 types of chairs on the venue: plastic one, light, mostly used for WF solving and metal one, heavy. The chair blocking the way in was the made of metal one. About the position where Fabio was solving, he chose the most far place.


This is the opposite view. Pic was taken before the comp, we were studying the venue (I was one of the organizers). Fabio moved his table so it was touching those green pipes when he got the 9 min (I saw him moving his table. Since I was about to leave, I said "hey, move your table to the center, better lighting" and he replied "actually, here on the corners is perfect, just like the light of my bedroom, where I practice"). You can see the entrance and how a chair could block the way. People from outside couldn't even look.
I was solving closest to the door because lighting was better there, as explained to the WCA official (as per the quote below). I never moved any tables, as there were plenty of those available covering nearly all of the wall space between the entrance and the back of the room, yet Campos conveniently provides a picture of an empty space.

I kindly refer now to another quote from my first email response directed towards the WDC official.

Why did you choose to move to another place for the second attempt?

Both attempts took place in the exact same room and at most I slightly moved the chair sideways, since light conditions at this venue were far from optimal and thus I chose to sit closer to the entrance.
Also I don't practice on my bedroom :p If he or anyone wants to keep making up lies, I suggest they inform themselves better to at least make them somewhat plausible.


  • When he got the 26+2=8, he spent 7 seconds on 2 comms. If it were an easy misscramble, it would be like 7 comms. Considering this speed, it would take 24s just the execution. Now another possible scenario. If he got a fast memo, it would be like 8 s. The video I've seen starts at 19, so he would need 11 s to quickly execute 5 comms (almost 5 tps) and then 7 seconds to execute 2 slow comms, for some reason (almost 3 tps). The video includes a D2 after making a comm on the U face, so the D2 was useless here. This D2 led to the +2. Also, he has the entire recorded video, but he posted just the reaction on his channel (not to mention the pic with solved edges at 14, as Lorenzo posted), he didn't post the slow turning 28+ BLD.


  • This was discussed at length during my initial appeal with the WDC,backed up by real specialists but if Campos wants a list of commutators that involve both doing D2s and affecting pieces on the U layer, I'll be happy to teach him some of those, lol.

    [*]Correct reconstruction just after the attempt, he posted another reconstruction featuring an R2 setup and then he started claiming misscramble.
    Rhetorical question: How could I make a “correct reconstruction” unless I'm being presented with the actual scramble sequence?

    [*]On our WhatsApp group, about 1 week before the 9 min success, he posted that he got his first success in 5BLD in about 30 min.
    Oh, I remember that one - It had been a while since I last had a successful attempt at home, and my times (even if DNF), as per usual, fluctuated a lot. Here's a tip: Just because you're DNFing a lot, it doesn't mean you're not improving.

    This is obviously a “my word against theirs”, situation, but being a close friend to the delegate and involved witnesses would definitely puts this one Campos in a privileged position.

    It's unfortunate that him, out of all people, would actively exploit his position and go to such lengths in order to hurt a “fellow BLDer” who, up until this point, had nothing towards him but gratitude for the support and words of encouragement back when I first started. But that's just me rambling, sorry lol.

    Not only I'd kindly request that Campos stops lying and fabricating factoids, but would like to end this by reminding everyone that when you point a finger at someone, three others will point back at you.

    I'm collaborating with the WDC in resolving this issue, which I will reiterate: Is simply a disproportionate misunderstanding which I hope is amicably settled on a timely manner.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
35
Likes
29
Location
Brazil, MG
WCA
2015CAMP17
YouTube
user/afonsocampos20
That competitor in question did not ask me about the full reconstruction, and I was never shown the full scramble. He had asked me about one aspect of the solve only - This has also happened after the round was over.
It seems contradictory. Why would someone ask just a few aspect of the reconstruction? And you admitted he asked right there for a few aspects of the solve, you'd probably recognize the misscramble here. Yet again, I remember him asking you for the entire solve, I even remember this one pair you executed since I thought of an image that somehow I still remember (not that it really matters, since I could just get the scramble and use it, since I know your orientation, buffer and method).

I was also wondering whether it could have been a misscramble. I never denied this possibility and this concern was never raised during the entire course of the competition by anyone.
Of course we did not raise a thing during Mineirim, you confirmed you got the right scramble. This is something I remember, Diego gave you the cube and then he asked you how you did it. You looked at the cube and then started saying the pairs in order, always looking at the cube, and executing the comms. Every pair you mentioned, Diego agreed with you, since you share orientation, buffer and method. I wonder what we would get if he asked you, but kept the cube for himself and waited for your answer.

Campos keep claiming I have many sub 1 vídeos on Facebook
Nice videos you posted, of course I've seen them. I claimed you had videos. Of course I looked up for those before you blocked me up.

And that's for one simple reason which Campos conveniently ignores: There were so few competitors, we had fixed solving stations for each person. In other words, I only left the table after the round was over.
I remember that while you were reconstructing, people were still competing. That's what I meant. It's to give people a context about how quick you were asked for the reconstruction. Couple of minutes instead of couple of days.

May I also remind anyone interested, that as explained and contextualized beforehand, the delegate (who's a close friend of Campos’, no less) has not only never raised any suspicion on my solve in question, which he actually watched me do with his own eyes and fromjust a couple feet away, with the cube he had (AFAIK) scrambled himself and brought to me just moments before.
I wonder what relevance my relationship with the delegate Ronan has here. Btw, I have never spoken to him outside a competition.

As the organizer of a National Championship, experienced competitor and especially as someone who had been questioning my results for well over a year, why would he not remove the chair? Because of noise? Sure someone capable of solving a Rubik's Cube Blindfolded would be capable of moving a chair away without making too much noise, if any at all. This is a silly excuse, and pretty much settles the deal for me: not only he has no proof of the existence of this chair, he also fails to justify why said object, if it ever existed, wasn't moved away.
I questioned your results from Feb/2017 to Oct/2017, I believed you from Oct/2017 until Sep/2018. I provided WDC a list of people that saw the chair, including 2 that are on your side and 1 that I'm not sure of what he thinks. I had a lot of stuff to take care of during Brasileiro 2018. Of course I could try to quietly move the chair, but since I wasn't suspecting anything anymore at the time, it doesn't seemed necessary, so I turned around and went to take care of other business.

I was solving closest to the door because lighting was better there, as explained to the WCA official (as per the quote below). I never moved any tables, as there were plenty of those available covering nearly all of the wall space between the entrance and the back of the room, yet Campos conveniently provides a picture of an empty space.
No, you weren't. Now, a pic of the attempt #1.

IMG-20181125-WA0053.jpg

The place you chose had the worst lighting (which I remember, because I was glad at the time, since I could solve under a better lighting).

Also I don't practice on my bedroom
That's not what you said to me back then, but this is just word against word.

This was discussed at length during my initial appeal with the WDC,backed up by real specialists but if Campos wants a list of commutators that involve both doing D2s and affecting pieces on the U layer, I'll be happy to teach him some of those, lol.
Here's the reconstruction of the video I made.

19.456 - 23.681
D' U2' L D' L' U L D L' U D R // the end of a UBL-DFR-BRD (missing a R' at the beginning video)

12 turns, 2.84 tps

23.681 - 26,192: D2' U' L' U R2 U' L U R2 // UBL-RUB-LDB [Edit, I realized now what the D2 was for]
9 turns, 3,58 tps

Total: 21 turns, 3.12 tps.

This is obviously a “my word against theirs”, situation, but being a close friend to the delegate and involved witnesses would definitely puts this one Campos in a privileged position.
We are all friends on the cubing community. I don't know how my friendship with anyone is a thing here. I consider myself friends with your judge (he even stayed at my place 3 days for a competition) and he believes you. I'm totally ok with that, I won't show facts or try to convince him. I think it's important that you keep friends on the cubing community as well. I don't want no one turning the back on you and I gain nothing if your results are accepted or DNFed, I don't have any BLD records for you to be a threat.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Messages
412
Likes
266
Location
Colorado Springs
WCA
2017MILL04
Thread starter #124
Edit 7:

https://drive.google.com/a/worldcub...TI8yOR6YwC2n8V5wBAGtLOPBNcff/view?usp=sharing

The WDCs final report has been released, confirming that the competitior cheated, and an extra year has been added to the ban.

First of all, I would like to thank the WDC for becoming significantly more transparent. I and the rest of the community greatly appreciate this.

Second of all, I will be retracting all points made in the thread. Even though some thing about the investigation could have been tweaked, after reading the report my standings have changed.

I apologize to the speedsolving forums for the controversy I caused. The point of the rant for transparency has been achieved in a since, but my points in defense of the competitor are now in retraction.

Please remain civil.

For further edit, for those curious of my opinion, I’m still conflicted on what to think. I want to believe he didn’t cheat but with the evidence presented, that might not be the case
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
23
Likes
12
Location
Edmonton, AB
WCA
2015DORN02
YouTube
channel/UCXUtd7y4w-LjN6BKJA_5wGw
Edit 7:

https://drive.google.com/a/worldcub...TI8yOR6YwC2n8V5wBAGtLOPBNcff/view?usp=sharing

The WDCs final report has been released, confirming that the competitior cheated, and an extra year has been added to the ban.

First of all, I would like to thank the WDC for becoming significantly more transparent. I and the rest of the community greatly appreciate this.

Second of all, I will be retracting all points made in the thread. Even though some thing about the investigation could have been tweaked, after reading the report my standings have changed.

I apologize to the speedsolving forums for the controversy I caused. The point of the rant for transparency has been achieved in a since, but my points in defense of the competitor are now in retraction.

Please remain civil.

For further edit, for those curious of my opinion, I’m still conflicted on what to think. I want to believe he didn’t cheat but with the evidence presented, that might not be the case
Hey, there's no need to apologize. Civil discussion on serious issues such as these are totally fine, and it's always nice to have the ability to share multiple viewpoints. The controversy only becomes toxic if people wish to make it that way.
 
Top