• 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 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Who will win worlds?

Who will win worlds?

  • Max Park

    Votes: 29 22.0%
  • Feliks Zemdegs

    Votes: 83 62.9%
  • Seung Hyuk Nahm

    Votes: 4 3.0%
  • Sebastian Weyer

    Votes: 1 0.8%
  • Lucas Etter

    Votes: 3 2.3%
  • Mats Valk

    Votes: 5 3.8%
  • Kian Mansour

    Votes: 7 5.3%
  • Drew Brads

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    132

turtwig

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
656
Congrats to Max Park (1st), Seung Hyuk Nahm (2nd), and Lucas Etter (3rd)!

(Seung actually got a 6.15, but there was a timer reset. If it had counted, he would've won :()

RIP Feliks, no podium after 2 wins :(
 

efattah

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
711
Congrats to Max Park (1st), Seung Hyuk Nahm (2nd), and Lucas Etter (3rd)!

(Seung actually got a 6.15, but there was a timer reset. If it had counted, he would've won :()

RIP Feliks, no podium after 2 wins :(

Indeed I felt terrible for Seung. That timer malfunction was not cool. I almost think they should just re-analyze the video and take the time from that.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
88
Location
Toronto, Ontario
WCA
2017JIAA01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Indeed I felt terrible for Seung. That timer malfunction was not cool. I almost think they should just re-analyze the video and take the time from that.
I think the WCA should add to their regulations, 'If a timer malfunction occurs, if a video was taken and/or there was 1 or more trustworthy witnesses, the video will be analyzed/the witnesses will say what the last time they saw was, and in the case of a video, they'll slow it down as much as possible, to find the most accurate time, and add 0.1 seconds. For when there are witnesses, they'll find the average of the witness' times, and add 0.1 seconds.' I realize there are some problems with that, like for example, it's unfair if no one trustworthy saw it, and maybe the people are wrong or lying, but I think it's better than the alternative.
 

turtwig

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
656
I think the WCA should add to their regulations, 'If a timer malfunction occurs, if a video was taken and/or there was 1 or more trustworthy witnesses, the video will be analyzed/the witnesses will say what the last time they saw was, and in the case of a video, they'll slow it down as much as possible, to find the most accurate time, and add 0.1 seconds. For when there are witnesses, they'll find the average of the witness' times, and add 0.1 seconds.' I realize there are some problems with that, like for example, it's unfair if no one trustworthy saw it, and maybe the people are wrong or lying, but I think it's better than the alternative.

The much better alternative is having O-rings. Your rule is way too vague and unfair. On top of the fact that your essentially giving people that film their solves an advantage, if even one person cheats the system due to the 'trustworthy eyewitness' rule, I'd rather have all timer resets count as DNFs. Even if we used timers that literally just randomly reset 1/20 solves for no reason, at least that's fair in a sort of way, where as your rule is to vague an subjective.
 

turtwig

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
656
Isn't a timer malfunction grounds for a replacement solve?

If it was the timer's fault, I believe so, but the incidents at Worlds were usually the competitor accidentally pressing the reset button when stopping the timer (or something like that, because they didn't get extra solves).
 

DGCubes

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
1,823
Location
Over there
WCA
2013GOOD01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I think the WCA should add to their regulations, 'If a timer malfunction occurs, if a video was taken and/or there was 1 or more trustworthy witnesses, the video will be analyzed/the witnesses will say what the last time they saw was, and in the case of a video, they'll slow it down as much as possible, to find the most accurate time, and add 0.1 seconds. For when there are witnesses, they'll find the average of the witness' times, and add 0.1 seconds.' I realize there are some problems with that, like for example, it's unfair if no one trustworthy saw it, and maybe the people are wrong or lying, but I think it's better than the alternative.

If this regulation were implemented, it would be way too hard to tell if the timer was reset on purpose just to get a resolve. The other issue with this is the display lag. Timer displays are always off by a notable amount, so you can't use video evidence or random people saying, "I think it was..." because even if they're correct with what it displayed, what it displayed is itself incorrect.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
88
Location
Toronto, Ontario
WCA
2017JIAA01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The much better alternative is having O-rings. Your rule is way too vague and unfair. On top of the fact that your essentially giving people that film their solves an advantage, if even one person cheats the system due to the 'trustworthy eyewitness' rule, I'd rather have all timer resets count as DNFs. Even if we used timers that literally just randomly reset 1/20 solves for no reason, at least that's fair in a sort of way, where as your rule is to vague an subjective.
Hmm, true.

If this regulation were implemented, it would be way too hard to tell if the timer was reset on purpose just to get a resolve. The other issue with this is the display lag. Timer displays are always off by a notable amount, so you can't use video evidence or random people saying, "I think it was..." because even if they're correct with what it displayed, what it displayed is itself incorrect.
I guess so. No rules are perfect though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top