[WCA Regulations 2014] Scramble Filtering (new poll)

[Stefan]

Relying on technicalities to get more people to vote "yes"? That's just low.

Huh? All I want is that people answer correctly, as otherwise the results lose meaning, and I do want this to be usable. I really wish there were explicit options "only filter the solved state" and "only filter solved and off-by-one" and I'd like a new poll replacing this one so people could choose those options instead of answering incorrectly. They are the ones misrepresenting the situation, not me. Call them low if you want. How is me trying to get an accurate picture of what people actually want "low"?

Can you please stop throwing nonsensical insults at me?

I don't care about whether the resulting scrambles feel easy or not
[...]
choose a number that gives us a desired amount of exclusion
if we feel like 4-move 2x2x2 scrambles should still be allowed but no easier

First you're against using feelings and then you suggest using desire and feel, evading the question how they're formed.

 

[Methuselah96]

I really wish there were explicit options "only filter the solved state" and "only filter solved and off-by-one" and I'd like a new poll replacing this one so people could choose those options instead of answering incorrectly.

Can a moderator/admin do this? Who could I PM to edit the poll and reset it?

 

[Noahaha]

Can a moderator/admin do this? Who could I PM to edit the poll and reset it?

I can do it. What options do you want?

In the future, you can use the report button in the bottom left hand corner of a post to get a mod's attention.

 

[Stefan]

Btw, Michael, what about the people who only want to filter "solved" and who did correctly chose option 2 in the current poll? You can't tell from their vote that they only want to filter that little. Offering their actual choices as options would make their votes go much closer to "no", and I'm all for that!

Also I like your idea of a constant to make it more uniform.

How about filtering states solvable in three or fewer moves? For all puzzles. Also uses a constant to make it (more?) uniform.

 

[Methuselah96]

I can do it. What options do you want?

In the future, you can use the report button in the bottom left hand corner of a post to get a mod's attention.

Thank you.

Should the scrambling procedure include filtering certain positions?
Yes, the filters already in the regulations are perfect.
Yes, the positions filtered should be more than one move away for some puzzles, but not the positions filtered in the Regulations (changing Regulations 4b3b-4b3d).
Yes, the positions filtered should only be the solved state and one move away (deleting Regulations 4b3b-4b3d).
Yes, the position filtered should only be the solved state (changing Regulations 4b3, 4b3e; deleting Regulations 4b3b-4b3d).
No.

 

[Carrot]

(how did the 6-move pyraminx scramble happen anyway?).

Easy, a 6 move scramble including tips happens in 1 out of 415 solves. That's once every 83 round ^_^ without counting tips they had a 2 mover in Norway like 2 years ago. We used to not have a filter for pyra of 7 moves.

 

[Noahaha]

Thank you.

Should the scrambling procedure include filtering certain positions?
Yes, the filters already in the regulations are perfect.
Yes, the positions filtered should be more than one move away for some puzzles, but not the positions filtered in the Regulations (changing Regulations 4b3b-4b3d).
Yes, the positions filtered should only be the solved state and one move away (deleting Regulations 4b3b-4b3d).
Yes, the position filtered should only be the solved state (changing Regulations 4b3, 4b3e; deleting Regulations 4b3b-4b3d).
No.

I had to change them because of a character limit. Tell me if I messed up the wording on any of them.

 

[qqwref]

Huh? All I want is that people answer correctly, as otherwise the results lose meaning

My point was that people are answering according to the spirit of the poll: do you want filtering, yes or no? Just because (almost?) everyone thinks solved is not a scrambled position doesn't mean they should all vote yes. These kind of statistics are all too easy to misinterpret and I don't want someone making a wrong decision just because they see everyone voting "yes" on a filtering poll. I think instead of complaining about people answering wrong, you should complain about the poll being written in a way that doesn't conform to people's intuition of what scramble filtering means.

EDIT: I like what Noah put up there, it's clean and easy to interpet. Is there some way to clear the existing votes, though? It says I've already voted but all the counts are zero.

First you're against using feelings and then you suggest using desire and feel, evading the question how they're formed.

I'm not against the concept of modifying regulations based on what people want. I am against one person making a decision based primarily on personal feelings that may not be shared by others (e.g. "let's get rid of anything under 7 moves for pyraminx, those feel too easy to me"), and then making everyone else follow it because it's The Rule. If the consensus is that we should keep allowing 4-move 2x2x2 scrambles, then we won't use a k-value of 1/1000.

 

[Methuselah96]

I had to change them because of a character limit. Tell me if I messed up the wording on any of them.

The second option could be worded better I think: let me think for a sec...how about: More than the +2 and solved positions, but not the ones in the current regulations

 

[Stefan]

Darn. I had several issues with Methuselah96's new option suggestions and was writing all about it, and in the meantime Noah rewrote them and pretty made much all my issues go away

 

[Methuselah96]

Darn. I had several issues with Methuselah96's new option suggestions and was writing all about it, and in the meantime Noah rewrote them and pretty made much all my issues go away

That's good. I didn't like the wordings of my proposed options either. I figured you or qqwref would set them straight.

Shouldn't the second option be more like: More than the +2 and solved positions, but not the ones in the current regulations
In case some people want higher filters for some reason?
For instance setting a 3x3 filter as well as an offshoot of qqwref's method for consistent filters: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ing-(new-poll)&p=938759&viewfull=1#post938759


Also, option 2 could be interpreted that they want "Just the solved and +2 positions." as it is "Less than what is specified in the regulations for some puzzles."

 

[Noahaha]

That's good. I didn't like the wordings of my proposed options either. I figured you or qqwref would set them straight.

Shouldn't the second option be more like: More than the +2 and solved positions, but not the ones in the current regulations
In case some people want higher filters for some reason?
For instance setting a 3x3 filter as well as an offshoot of qqwref's method for consistent filters: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ing-(new-poll)&p=938759&viewfull=1#post938759


Also, option 2 could be interpreted that they want "Just the solved and +2 positions." as it is "Less than what is specified in the regulations for some puzzles."

Good point. Option 2 has been changed.

 

[Stefan]

My point was that people are answering according to the spirit of the poll: do you want filtering, yes or no? Just because (almost?) everyone thinks solved is not a scrambled position doesn't mean they should all vote yes. These kind of statistics are all too easy to misinterpret and I don't want someone making a wrong decision just because they see everyone voting "yes" on a filtering poll.

It wasn't a yes or no question. There was another option in the middle and I sure hope people viewing the results wouldn't have ignored the "but" part of that "yes, but..." option and counted it simply as more "yes" votes. But ok, you're right, some might have, maybe even someone important. Suggesting that I'm trying to achieve that was mean, though. Btw, it was also easy to misinterpret all those "no" votes to mean that we should allow the solved state.

I think instead of complaining about people answering wrong, you should complain about the poll being written in a way that doesn't conform to people's intuition of what scramble filtering means.

I am, but admittedly I should have done earlier and more directly (but I might keep complaining if people answer wrong).

I am against one person making a decision based primarily on personal feelings that may not be shared by others (e.g. "let's get rid of anything under 7 moves for pyraminx, those feel too easy to me")

From the discussions I see on WCA mailing lists and GitHub etc, I firmly believe that no significant decision is done like that at all. I think not even a board member could/would do that. Looks like significant agreement from the rest of the board/WRC/delegates/organizers/community is always needed.

 

[Tim Major]

Current AsR was 5 moves+tip

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ingle-1-93-sec&p=619587&viewfull=1#post619587

Not sure about Odder's.

I know one thing for sure. Give a 5+ second solver 5 moves (lower than current WR) and it's extremely unlikely they'd beat 1.36 in comp conditions with a stackmat

 

[Stefan]

Easy, a 6 move scramble including tips happens in 1 out of 415 solves.

I get 1 in about 414.3 (is there a more convenient way to compute this? didn't like typing it all out like that)

 

[AustinReed]

Current AsR was 5 moves+tip

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ingle-1-93-sec&p=619587&viewfull=1#post619587

Not sure about Odder's.

I know one thing for sure. Give a 5+ second solver 5 moves (lower than current WR) and it's extremely unlikely they'd beat 1.36 in comp conditions with a stackmat

Sorry to rain on your parade, but as a 5+ second solver, I can do it pretty easily. I don't think that's a good argument. Granted, it's not comp conditions, but I think there's a good enough margin that it's possible. Also, there are probably people with higher TPS than mine.

 

[XTowncuber]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but as a 5+ second solver, I can do it pretty easily. I don't think that's a good argument. Granted, it's not comp conditions, but I think there's a good enough margin that it's possible. Also, there are probably people with higher TPS than mine.

R B' L U' L gogogo
R L U B' R' gogogo
B' U' R U B gogogo

(I just typed out whatever I felt like)

I think it's a great argument. Really, I'll take whatever argument I can get to get my 6-movers back.

Not sure about Odder's.

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ge-2-96-(-Danish-Special-2013)-by-Odder/page2

 

[AustinReed]

R B' L U' L gogogo
R L U B' R' gogogo
B' U' R U B gogogo

(I just typed out whatever I felt like)

I think it's a great argument. Really, I'll take whatever argument I can get to get my 6-movers back.

He never specified moves/scrambles, so why does that contribute? I'm pretty sure we're on the same side of the argument here, but I don't think that the argument of "most cubers wouldn't be able to do it" doesn't work in a majority of cases. There are just too many unknowns.

 

[Robert-Y]

This doesn't really matter but Yohei's pyraminx single AsR had two tips twisted in the solve. I even pointed it out in the thread...

 

[XTowncuber]

He never specified moves/scrambles, so why does that contribute? I'm pretty sure we're on the same side of the argument here, but I don't think that the argument of "most cubers wouldn't be able to do it" doesn't work in a majority of cases. There are just too many unknowns.

my point was that I doubt any 5+ second solver could execute 5 moves sub 1.36 (as Tim said). This means that if you lower the limit to 5 moves, it would still take some skill to get a WR. (as opposed to 2x2, where the WR single holder is 365th for average)