We need better judges.

[AlphaSheep]

I only took time to say all the bad judges we have, not the good ones. What about you can start judging once you have been to three comps? It won't fix the problem, but will eliminate everyone who comes down to do one round of 3x3, get pizza, leaves and will never come back. Sure you might say," Their could be a good judge that is a first timer." and that is true, but chances are all they know about comps is SD cards running out. And if they and to be helpful to the community, then they will do three comps. It only took me being very picky, 5 months and I think anyone who we want judging should not have any less cubing experience then that.

There are parts of the world where they only have one comp a year, so those who have been to 3 comps are actually really experienced. Also, what about comps in areas that have never had comps where all but 2 or 3 competitors are first-timers?

 

[lejitcuber]

In the UK, all of the judges are, give or take a couple of parents, cubers that I would say have been to 2 or 3 comps, and if they are a new competitor 1 of the 2 or 3 delegates attending the comp will run then through all of the procedure and penalties and so on. This sometimes does, admittedly, take the organiser or delegate calling for more judges/runners maybe 2 or 3 times during clock, or mega or something but I have only 1 real bad experience in 20 comps which were all 2 days long.
I honestly don't know how it compares to other comps, but they tend to have around 80-100 competitors with 16 solving stations, so that leaves 16 judges + 3-6 runners and 3 scramblers which is no more than 30 people for a very smooth and efficient system, and because only 30 people compete at a time maximum, only early on when only feet or clock is being done at 8:00 does this number become a problem, however you only need 10 to run these events so that just solves itself

 

[AwesomeARC]

There can be no better 'training' than judging a delegate. In fact, I did that twice in my first competition.
The delegate had told me that I was a really good judge.

 

[Mastermind2368]

There can be no better 'training' than judging a delegate. In fact, I did that twice in my first competition
The delegate had told me that I was a really good judge.

I disagree. Some people are better then others. What about this. In order to have a comp, you need at least 1 timing table for 15 people. People online say then can judge for X amount of time. If the Delegate doesn't know them, the Delegate will ask for proof ( The person judging at another comp, skype ect...). The comp can not be put online untill you have the number of judges needed. The 1 out of 15 applies to comps with 150> competitors. For 150 to 300, the ratio should be something like 1 to 30 people. Anything above 300, you need to have 20 tables with someone always judging. Any thoughts?

 

[AwesomeARC]

@Mastermind2368:

I think there's a misunderstanding somewhere... I meant to say that when you judge a delegate, they can will correct you immediately if you do anything wrong. It is a good way of learning the basic rules and regulations; if you get corrected once, you won't make the same mistake again.

Some people are better then others.

Unfortunately, I don't understand what exactly you mean by that. Do you mean to say that some people are better judges than others? If so, how is that a counter-argument to my post?

What about this. In order to have a comp, you need at least 1 timing table for 15 people. People online say then can judge for X amount of time. If the Delegate doesn't know them, the Delegate will ask for proof ( The person judging at another comp, skype ect...). The comp can not be put online untill you have the number of judges needed. The 1 out of 15 applies to comps with 150> competitors. For 150 to 300, the ratio should be something like 1 to 30 people. Anything above 300, you need to have 20 tables with someone always judging. Any thoughts?

Well, if implemented properly, it *might* be a good idea.

In an ideal world (or let's say comp), anything can be done in a controlled manner. In fact, we won't even need any special regulations for judges. Neither we'll need 'better judges', because in ideal conditions, everything is at its best. But... this is the real world. People differ, opinions differ and everything is possibly at its worst. Proper time management on a large scale is something that's almost impossible. If the delegate asks for proof from every person, it will take the delegate a lot of time to actually go through all the proofs. Now, let's say we can deal with that issue. But, we won't be able to say for certain whether the judges be present when they're required or not. There may be some kind of an emergency due to which a certain judge doesn't appear when needed. That will be enough to destroy the whole system.

Thus, this system might be successful for small comps, but not for big comps (unless there's some kind of professional establishment, of course).

 

[Kit Clement]

I disagree. Some people are better then others. What about this. In order to have a comp, you need at least 1 timing table for 15 people. People online say then can judge for X amount of time. If the Delegate doesn't know them, the Delegate will ask for proof ( The person judging at another comp, skype ect...). The comp can not be put online untill you have the number of judges needed. The 1 out of 15 applies to comps with 150> competitors. For 150 to 300, the ratio should be something like 1 to 30 people. Anything above 300, you need to have 20 tables with someone always judging. Any thoughts?

Or you can just train judges at the competition rather than spend your whole social life skyping competitors to meet incredibly arbitrary standards.

 

[mDiPalma]

No random first-time judge is intentionally sabotaging your solves. If the judge makes a mistake, just politely tell them what it is. Then after your solves are done, offer to take their place so they can go back to watching their son, playing phone games, or pestering their parents to leave, etc.

We don't need better judges. We need competitors that can communicate and solve these really simple problems.

 

[tx789]

An experienced competitor could help the judge if the judge is willing. I'll help the judge if needed, sometimes they ask what they need to do. Usually they are unsure about +2s where they can ask the delegate and how to write them down.

A delegate should be able to help them. Demanding people to have been to x comps is unfair for less devoloped areas. If you think there is a judging promblem and don't judge your part of the problem.

 

[Mastermind2368]

Or you can just train judges at the competition rather than spend your whole social life skyping competitors to meet incredibly arbitrary standards.

You have a lot more competition experience then I do, but don't you think it would be better to know who is gonna judge at what table for what time rather then just going into it asking random 10 year olds if they could help, when in reality they have no idea how to judge other then what the papers say to do. I know I didn't say this at first, but I know lots of people in the community including myself get annoyed when the judge does "3,2,1".

We don't need better judges. We need competitors that can communicate and solve these really simple problems.

I kida agree, mostly not. Sure they might not screw you up on purpose, but writing down their initials, cubing, asking what main you have, and other things like that are all out of laziness/ good intentions. If you are someone who has been to a few comps, you can tell if something that shouldn't happen does, but if it is your first and you have a noob as a judge, something could go wrong like +2 penalties ect...

Unfortunately, I don't understand what exactly you mean by that. Do you mean to say that some people are better judges than others? If so, how is that a counter-argument to my post?

I mean anyone who knows the WCA inside and out. You could come to your tenth comp and still be a nub, or you could be at your first and know all the +2 penalties.

Ok maybe the problem isn't the judges. What if its the runners putting the people at the tables. We should get some people at comps who know about everyone and their skill level. If they are a delegate/ someone with experience, put them with a nub. If they are new, put them with a good judge.


This brings up another thing. What if we changed the scrambling process. The scramblers know what their doing and if they are scrambling, I'd bet they know how to judge. What if had scramblers scramble at a judging table, they call the person who owns the cube. Do the solve ect... and the know all penalties. After the solve is done a runner runs it to another table. You might say, "Why not keep them their?" But then they could easily see the cube being scrambled. Or you know what? What if we got a shield so all we combined the judge and the scrambler and eliminate the runners. Any thoughts? I think a comp could go much faster.

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

Just for fun let me see if I can name all the +2s

Misalignment
Over inspection
Not starting timer with fingers and with hands facing down
Starting timer while touching cube
Starting timer with cube touching it
Stopping timer without palms facing down
Stopping timer without fully releasing puzzle
Touching cube after solve without applying moves

I only remember penalizing people for misalignments, although I had to DNF a kid at Overland Park for 18 second inspection

 

[1973486]

Starting timer with cube touching it

The reg which specified this (A3d1) was removed in the latest version and now A3d penalises the puzzle being placed anywhere other than the mat.

So technically you're missing +2s for placing the puzzle outside the mat but not on the timer

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

The reg which specified this (A3d1) was removed in the latest version and now A3d penalises the puzzle being placed anywhere other than the mat.

So technically you're missing +2s for placing the puzzle outside the mat but not on the timer

that's what I get for being a cuber before all you kids

 

[Mastermind2368]

So technically you're missing +2s for placing the puzzle outside the mat but not on the timer

Lol TCS was saying how they thought they made that reg because someone threw a cube across the room when competing. Not sure if this is true though.

 

[1973486]

Lol TCS was saying how they thought they made that reg because someone threw a cube across the room when competing. Not sure if this is true though.

I remember it being brought up after someone noticed this

 

[Ranzha]

We don't need better judges. We need competitors that can communicate and solve these really simple problems.

False. We need both.
More communicative competitors can help organisers/delegates eliminate judging problems.

Protip: If you think something's wrong, say something. If you're a competitor and your judge is bad, for the love of god tell the organiser/delegate.

Related: I +8'd (iirc) a solve at Worlds 2013 at the end because the solve was bad, and the judge DNF'd me for touching the cube while stopping the timer. I made a fuss, and another staff member insisted it was a DNF.
Even with (two!) WC-tier judges, mistakes still happen. Cubing isn't perfect. We should aim to do the best we can, as hold each other to that standard in a positive, constructive manner.

 

[Ronxu]

You have a lot more competition experience then I do, but don't you think it would be better to know who is gonna judge at what table for what time rather then just going into it asking random 10 year olds if they could help, when in reality they have no idea how to judge other then what the papers say to do. I know I didn't say this at first, but I know lots of people in the community including myself get annoyed when the judge does "3,2,1".

You should probably start by helping out with judging before you start demanding others to spend hours upon hours scouting for people who will 100% be present at a specific table at a specific time over a month beforehand.

 

[Mastermind2368]

You should probably start by helping out with judging before you start demanding others to spend hours upon hours scouting for people who will 100% be present at a specific table at a specific time over a month beforehand.

I try to help out at every comp I go to, whether by judging, scrambling, or running. People seem to be saying I shouldn't bring up a problem just because Judging is not my specialty. I didn't make this thread for me to just say, "Someone should volunteer to judge, but I won't." No! I made it so we have a better judging system helping competitions to be less chaotic and follow the regs better.

 

[CornerCutter]

False. We need both.
More communicative competitors can help organisers/delegates eliminate judging problems.

Protip: If you think something's wrong, say something. If you're a competitor and your judge is bad, for the love of god tell the organiser/delegate.

Related: I +8'd (iirc) a solve at Worlds 2013 at the end because the solve was bad, and the judge DNF'd me for touching the cube while stopping the timer. I made a fuss, and another staff member insisted it was a DNF.
Even with (two!) WC-tier judges, mistakes still happen. Cubing isn't perfect. We should aim to do the best we can, as hold each other to that standard in a positive, constructive manner.

I agree people need to point out bad judging more often. I've had problems with people starting the stopwatch and lifting the cube cover before I'm ready.

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

I wish organizers would tell BLD judges to use the stopwatch to time the solve so that some slow idiot like me could actually get like a 12 minute official solve.

 

[Malkom]

I wish organizers would tell BLD judges to use the stopwatch to time the solve so that some slow idiot like me could actually get like a 12 minute official solve.

Isn't it your responsibility to tell the judge?