weatherman223
Member
They never said in the emails that he has to keep it private, and lorenzo and you have already said plenty about the emails so I don’t see why not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I get your point. I’ll ask Fabio.
They never said in the emails that he has to keep it private, and lorenzo and you have already said plenty about the emails so I don’t see why not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
They never said in the emails that he has to keep it private
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.
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.
snip
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 not really sure how acquainted you are with blind solving
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.
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.How professional of him. /s
sorry if this sounds dumb or completely off topic, but Fabio provided what was enough to say that there was no cheating involved butt...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.
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.
He has a whole channel that the WDC knows about full of solves. They don’t need to question if he knows bld methodsI 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
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 legitamiteassuming there is no video of the event...
Thats why paper blockers existI 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.
I know that he does BLD videos but I am %99.9999 on Fablo side on this scandalI’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
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?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.)
DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER!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
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 doingDING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER!
Exactly on point! Why not punish the judge then too?
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.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
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)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.