Scrambling incident at Canberra Autumn 2015

Olivér Perge (2015-05-13 18:47:44 +0000)
Dear Community, An incident happened at Canberra Autumn 2015, in which the scrambler performed the wrong scramble sequence for Feliks Zemdegs' first attempt of the 3x3x3 one-handed final. The attempt resulted in a 6.88-second single world record. The delegate for the competition asked Feliks to reconstruct the solve after the round, but he couldn't perform the same solution anymore. Video evidence was not used at the moment, and although the reconstruction was not successful, the delegate decided to keep the time and not give the competitor an extra attempt. After the competition had ended, it was clear from video evidence that the initial state of the puzzle did not match what the official scramble sequence should produce. After further analysis, it was discovered that the scrambler mistakenly performed one R move instead of an R' move. It was also found that the mis-scramble has the same number of moves to an optimal solution as the official one: 18. It is also of slight interest that the official scramble had a 4-move optimal cross on the U face, and the mis-scramble had a 3-move optimal cross on the B face. For the incident at hand, it has been decided that the original solve time will be accepted for the following main reasons: - The incident happened without the competitor causing nor noticing it. - There was no deliberate action by the scrambler to give the competitor an advantage. - The mis-scramble still provided a puzzle state obtainable by the scramble program. We thank the people involved in the resolution of this incident, especially Rob Stuart and Feliks Zemdegs, for their cooperation. Olivér Perge, on behalf of the WCA Board
aries (2015-05-13 20:14:12 +0000)
Hello, I've some questions: I don't understand why the delegate decided to do not give the extra solve to Feliks. If he couldn't make the reconstruction wasn't it clear that there was an error? Also the time was obviously way faster than the previous WR. Also, for the three reasons given: - How could Feliks notice the scramble was wrong? He didn't scramble it; - Shouldn't have been banned the scrambler if it the cube was miscrambled on purpose? - Wasn't the scramble illegal? It wasn't generated by tNoodle, if at the next competition I hand-scramble a cube will it be considered legit? Obviously I would scramble it in a way it won't give any advantage. I guess for an illegal scramble the solve should be given extra solve, or DNF; as rules. Still I don't get why the question wasn't resolved before starting the next round if the knew the scramble was wrong. Shouldn't disputes be resolved before the next event? I know the scrambler didn't act on purpose, but the delegate? Will he be punished? It was his responsibility if Feliks wasn't given an extra scramble. I find motivations a little poor, for a situation like this i think you should have given us more valid motivations and cleared all the remaining doubts. Yet, I know this situation would penalize Feliks if he is given DNF, but it's all the delegate's fault if the situation wasn't resolved at the competition. And he wasn't even nominated in the post. Thank you in advance for you answer
Natan (2015-05-13 22:27:26 +0000)
Hello Aries, I'll try to address your concerns. [quote:2kmhh3p1]I don't understand why the delegate decided to do not give the extra solve to Feliks. If he couldn't make the reconstruction wasn't it clear that there was an error? Also the time was obviously way faster than the previous WR.[/quote:2kmhh3p1] The delegate should have given Feliks an extra attempt once it was known that the scramble was not the correct one. Unfortunately, this did not happen, and the decision has been made based on what what we do have. [quote:2kmhh3p1]- How could Feliks notice the scramble was wrong? He didn't scramble it[/quote:2kmhh3p1] He couldn't. Ours is a general statement meaning we are not likely to disqualify a solve when the competitor has no responsibility in the incident. But take this other case: A competitor receives a repeated scramble during a BLD round and decides to take advantage of it. If discovered, we would obviously hold him responsible. In other words, our policy is not to punish competitors for others' mistakes. [quote:2kmhh3p1]- Shouldn't have been banned the scrambler if it the cube was miscrambled on purpose?[/quote:2kmhh3p1] Most likely. This doesn't void our reason. [quote:2kmhh3p1]- Wasn't the scramble illegal? It wasn't generated by tNoodle, if at the next competition I hand-scramble a cube will it be considered legit? Obviously I would scramble it in a way it won't give any advantage. I guess for an illegal scramble the solve should be given extra solve, or DNF; as rules.[/quote:2kmhh3p1] It was a mis-scramble. And an extra attempt should have been given. It wasn't, and thus we are accepting the cube state as valid because it is a state that TNoodle may generate. If you are caught intentionally disregarding official scramble sequences, you might be banned as it happened recently at Phalsbourg Open 2015. [quote:2kmhh3p1]I know the scrambler didn't act on purpose, but the delegate? Will he be punished? It was his responsibility if Feliks wasn't given an extra scramble.[/quote:2kmhh3p1] We don't see why we should punish a person who devotes many hours of his time, so people can have fun, for a mistake like this. I am sure Ray is aware of the mistake, and has learned a lot from this experience. I made worse mistakes, and way into my fifth competition as a delegate. We all learn as we go. Skips! -Natán
aries (2015-05-15 20:05:58 +0000)
Hello Natan, I understood your motivations, you don't want to penalize Feliks, but I still find your motivations poor and I don't think a DNF would penalize him: If Feliks was given an extra solve, the 6.88 wouldn't exist anymore, and the extra solve would have been done after the other 4 times of the average; as I can see on the WCA results, the other times weren't that good, so Feliks couldn't improve neither the WR avg nor the OCR Avg, so how could a DNF penalize it? By removing him a WR? By not allowing him an extra solve? If the rules were followed at the competition the WR would have been removed anyway; not allowing him an extra solve as I said before in the other post is all the delegate's fault. So yes, Feliks may be penalized, but how much? How much was the probability he would have beaten the (previous) WR? I think very low. In this way you are not giving him a DNF to do not penalize him, but you are penalizing all the other people, all those who trained for many hours at one-handed solving, those who could have done WR and now they have 6.88 which is almost unbeatable. I don't anything against Feliks, but I think you're acting in the wrong way: you are not following the rules you wrote (the WRC wrote) and for do not penalize one competitor who actually wouldn't be penalized that much, you are penalizing all the other people. Is it right? Is it respectful for the other people competed in that round? Is it respectful for who had the WR? Also you are creating a precedent. Aries
rAaIowAZJY9GyMM7988O (2015-08-04 15:37:37 +0000)
[quote="Olivér Perge":o1vl0or4] For the incident at hand, it has been decided that the original solve time will be accepted for the following main reasons: - The incident happened without the competitor causing nor noticing it. - There was no deliberate action by the scrambler to give the competitor an advantage. - The mis-scramble still provided a puzzle state obtainable by the scramble program. [/quote:o1vl0or4] Hello all, 1. How can you know that the competitor did not attempt to cause the mis-scramble? He simply played dumb when asked about the solution. He couldn't reconstruct anything. Are you going to trust his words alone? Did you do a polygraph test? 2. How can you know that the scrambler did not deliberately mis-scramble the cube? He simply insisted that he was "100% sure the scramble was correct." Are you going to trust his words alone? Did you do a polygraph test? [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCCE_V6LxUc:o1vl0or4]There is a program which can be run on any computer (or smartphone with a DOSBOX App)[/url:o1vl0or4]. It identifies advantageous mis-scrambles for the competitor for most of the main speedsolving methods (all of which are puzzle states obtainable by the scramble program). Even though the author intends this program as an exhibition and NOT for dishonest purposes, under the precedent that you have set, any competitor/scrambler pair can secretly use a program like this while conducting themselves exactly as Feliks and his scrambler did, in order to gain an unfair advantage on any 3x3x3 non-FMC attempt. Is that alright with you? If no, [u:o1vl0or4]thank you[/u:o1vl0or4]. But that contradicts your decision in the Canberra Autumn 2015 incident! If so, [i:o1vl0or4]thank you[/i:o1vl0or4]. Maybe I will install it on my phone! Your friend always, rAaIowAZJY9GyMM7988O.
Randomno (2015-08-04 17:56:13 +0000)
[quote="rAaIowAZJY9GyMM7988O":122eq2f5]1. How can you know that the competitor did not attempt to cause the mis-scramble? He simply played dumb when asked about the solution. He couldn't reconstruct anything. Are you going to trust his words alone? Did you do a polygraph test? 2. How can you know that the scrambler did not deliberately mis-scramble the cube? He simply insisted that he was "100% sure the scramble was correct." Are you going to trust his words alone? Did you do a polygraph test?[/quote:122eq2f5] 1. Probably because they don't try to assume the worst of everyone. 2. Ditto. [quote:122eq2f5][url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCCE_V6LxUc:122eq2f5]There is a program which can be run on any computer (or smartphone with a DOSBOX App)[/url:122eq2f5]. It identifies advantageous mis-scrambles for the competitor for most of the main speedsolving methods (all of which are puzzle states obtainable by the scramble program). Even though the author intends this program as an exhibition and NOT for dishonest purposes, under the precedent that you have set, any competitor/scrambler pair can secretly use a program like this while conducting themselves exactly as Feliks and his scrambler did, in order to gain an unfair advantage on any 3x3x3 non-FMC attempt. Is that alright with you? If no, [u:122eq2f5]thank you[/u:122eq2f5]. But that contradicts your decision in the Canberra Autumn 2015 incident! If so, [i:122eq2f5]thank you[/i:122eq2f5]. Maybe I will install it on my phone! [/quote:122eq2f5] Have you ever been to a competition? I would like to see you try to look at the laptop displaying the scrambles, copy a scramble on to your phone, and tell the scrambler how to misscramble the puzzle, all without getting raising suspicion.
rAaIowAZJY9GyMM7988O (2015-08-04 18:17:01 +0000)
[quote="Randomno":2m0qsayo] Have you ever been to a competition? I would like to see you try to look at the laptop displaying the scrambles, copy a scramble on to your phone, and tell the scrambler how to misscramble the puzzle, all without getting raising suspicion.[/quote:2m0qsayo] Quite frankly, it doesn't appear all that difficult. 1. Volunteer to scramble. 2. Take a picture of the scramble sheet with your phone (in my part of the world, the scrambles are usually printed on multiple sheets of paper), while pretending to text someone or check the time. 3. Go to the bathroom. Use an Image-to-Text App to convert the scramble into text (or do it manually). Paste it into the console on your phone. Memorize the mistake. Go back and apply it to your friend's cube.
Randomno (2015-08-05 22:24:50 +0000)
[quote="rAaIowAZJY9GyMM7988O":1bpzgotz]Quite frankly, it doesn't appear all that difficult. 1. Volunteer to scramble. 2. Take a picture of the scramble sheet with your phone (in my part of the world, the scrambles are usually printed on multiple sheets of paper), while pretending to text someone or check the time. 3. Go to the bathroom. Use an Image-to-Text App to convert the scramble into text (or do it manually). Paste it into the console on your phone. Memorize the mistake. Go back and apply it to your friend's cube.[/quote:1bpzgotz] Your friend's cube might be scrambled by someone else or someone may take over from you as a scrambler. The difficulty of doing it depends on how the competition is run, and I don't know much about Australian competitions.
Natan (2015-08-06 01:24:58 +0000)
So, there are far easier ways to cheat than the one suggested by Mr. Too-brave-to-use-my-real-name-di-Palma. The difference between his suggestion and what happened in this case is that the former would be carried out by scum, and the the latter simply happened without any intention of cheating. If you cheat and the WCA catches you, you join the ranks of Telesforo and the like. If you think you belong there, go ahead. Ain't it cool not being a Board member anymore and being able to respond to dicks accordingly? Then again, maybe ignoring stupidity is smarter. But this guy is the equivalent of a terrorist in the WCA, as his antics range from insulting Board members to actively promoting cheating, and this just makes me mad.