[WCA Regulations 2014] Scramble Filtering (new poll)

[Tim Major]

form a strong pros and cons list, if we want to have any kind of impact on filtering any time soon.

Let's do this then, except, don't reject any pros/cons offered by the other side. Just compile a list.

For devil's advocate,

Pro: reduces chance of slower solvers getting ridiculously lucky and undeserved solves.

 

[Methuselah96]

Let's do this then, except, don't reject any pros/cons offered by the other side. Just compile a list.

For devil's advocate,

Pro: reduces chance of slower solvers getting ridiculously lucky and undeserved solves.

I'll keep a compilation of these on the OP if people post more pros/cons.

 

[Mollerz]

Does "cool it down" really mean "stop"? I really don't think so.

I was quoting Kirjava and he clearly says "Moderation has requested we stop posting". I'm taking information I'm given.

 

[Dene]

Out of curiosity, has anyone's opinion on the matter been affected by any of the posts in this thread? I get the impression that one's opinion on whether to filter or is difficult to change once formed, and probably won't change any time soon for almost all people. I don't think we're getting anywhere with this style of discussion; the same points are being brought up again and again, with no break-through. Rather, I think we ought to get a good summary from both sides, and form a strong pros and cons list, if we want to have any kind of impact on filtering any time soon.

Personally I am still undecided, and find compelling reasons to go for both sides. I find this discussion productive and I am following it (although Mr. Pochmann and Mr. Barlow have at times been unnecessarily pedantic, I would do the same ).

In saying that, an extensive pros and cons list would be very helpful. I think it would be good if Ron and Chris Krueger agreed to have their inputs in the delegate e-mail thread put in here too.

 

[Kirjava]

Nobody wants to eliminate them. Just reduce them a tiny little bit, and only at certain bad cases.

I see this reduction as an attempt to eliminate extreme variance.

Less than we're doing by removing best+worst from averages, and I don't see anyone lamenting that.

That only affects statistics we take, and it doesn't impact the scrambling/solving process in any way - it's not relevant here.

Also, I see your point as rather theoretical, harming noone, compared to the practical issue of undeserved records/ranks taking away from more deserving cubers, which I think compromises the integrity of the event more.

I don't see that as an issue at all.

Events that are affected by this quirk of Speedcubing are treated as an anomaly.

Take it for what it is and stop trying to make it something that it is not.

 

[keyan]

partly because I think we can always go lower but not higher (than something that has already occurred and accepted).

We already have cases of "going higher", cases that were allowed at one point no longer being allowed at a later point - solved angle, inspection time, requesting orientation during BLD.

I believe that that part of the discussion is mostly in from an email thread in the delegates mailing group. It's from January 12 and it's entitled "WCA regulations proposal: elimination of scramble filtering".

As well as other places. There's an email thread from about 13 months ago, title has something to do with groups for finals. Some discussion was with the delegate group there, unfortunately the pro-filtering arguments that filtering has nothing to do with solves and is meant to keep records to certain individuals wasn't public.

Why aren't the same kind of people who are against filtering also just as much against inspection?

I actually would support removing inspection, but at a much lower priority than filtering.

Instead, I want to filter scrambles that are short, precisely because those positions are too close to solved.

Waiting for your proposal that cubes unsolved by two or three moves count as solved (with penalty). Seriously.

undeserved records/ranks taking away from more deserving cubers

That's what I find so confusing. Did the person solve the cube or no? What makes someone more 'deserving'? Was Christian Kaserer more deserving than any of the many cubers who could have gotten an equal or faster solve on that scramble? That's why I find the arguments for retroactive filtering so disturbing, explicitly intending to keep records for certain acceptable cubers.

I think it would be good if Ron and Chris Krueger agreed to have their inputs in the delegate e-mail thread put in here too.

I don't think that's something that should need to be agreed to, but yeah, delegate discussion should be open unless discussing certain discipline issues or whatever.