Article 9

StefanPochmann (2008-03-19 09:55:19 +0000)
[b:3moyehx7]9f16 - how to count multiple blindfold results:[/b:3moyehx7] I can live with both the old way and the new suggestion, but I'm leaning towards the old way. If we change it to the new suggestion, how are we going to compare new results with old results? Will all old results be reevaluated?
Mike Hughey (2008-03-19 15:09:37 +0000)
9e3 - I don't want to jump to any false conclusions here, so I'd like some clarification: 1. It isn't really defined in the rules how "the proposal" is handled for removal of events. For adding of events (in 9e2) it states a poll will be taken. Will a poll also be taken for a proposed removal of an event, or will the removal be automatic? 2. If an event is removed, will the results for that event in previous competitions be maintained in the database, or will they be removed? 3. Am I correct in assuming that this rule is pretty much guaranteed to always target the 5x5x5 blindfolded event until such time as that event is removed? (Barring any sudden extreme changes in participation at competitions, that is.)
BryanLogan (2008-03-19 16:10:16 +0000)
9k still conflicts with other regulations Qualification rounds - 9s1 - It would be nice if the limits were decided when the event is announced. 1 month before seems to be too short. 9s1 - Limiting the number of competitors in the qualification round should only be allowed with WCA Board approval. If you're already limiting by having a qualification round, it seems drastic that you would limit again. 9s2 - Is the inverse true? If you're trying to save time by having a qualifying round, should people who are pre-qualified be allowed to compete? If the pre-qualified people are going to compete, they should either have to meet the limits, or the organizer should just make the first round "Best of X, Y proceeed". If the organizer announces any competitor limits, then all registered competitors up to that point will be allowed. Here's my stab at a re-write: ======================================= 9s) A qualification round is a round of an event held before the first round of the event. The goal of a qualification round is to let unranked or low ranked competitors qualify for the first round of an event with many registered competitors. * 9s1) At the time the competition is announced, the organization team must announce: - how many competitors will compete in the first round of the event - the maximum number of competitors in the qualification round of the event (requires WCA board approval) - the qualification time for the event - the pre-qualification time for the event. This must be less than or equal to the qualification time. It may be based on an average or single solve. * 9s2) Any competitors who has a time in any WCA competition for that event that meets the pre-qualification time is pre-qualified and may not compete in the qualification round. (And alternative would be to say that if a competitor that is pre-qualified competes in the qualification round, they must qualify in order to compete in the first round). * 9s3) All competitors of an event who are not pre-qualified for the first round of the event, must compete in the qualification round of the event. * 9s4) Any competitor who meets the qualification time in the qualification round may compete in the first round, regardless of competitor limts for the first round. * 9s5) The organizer may choose to bring a minimum number of competitors from the qualifying round to the first round. =======================================
Pitzu (2008-03-19 17:51:50 +0000)
"9q) Events and rounds must have at least 2 competitors. " Does this mean that if somebody is alone in an event (for example 5x5 blindfolded) he cannot "compete". (I mean to setup a valid result.)
Lucas (2008-03-20 06:19:06 +0000)
[quote="Pitzu":1znwkni1]"9q) Events and rounds must have at least 2 competitors. " Does this mean that if somebody is alone in an event (for example 5x5 blindfolded) he cannot "compete". (I mean to setup a valid result.)[/quote:1znwkni1] Good question. Dan Dzoan might let me compete at 4x4x4 BLD again (last time, I did it in the FMC room, where he simply judged me while watching over FMC). Would I have to convince my friend to DNF ("try" to compete ) an attempt just so I can do this? Big cube BLD is not a competition between participants in a competition (except maybe at Worlds, and possibly US Open this year), but against the records. Why force it to be any more than it is?
Pitzu (2008-03-20 07:16:16 +0000)
[quote="Lucas":3a147zlu]Would I have to convince my friend to DNF ("try" to compete ) an attempt just so I can do this?[/quote:3a147zlu] My idea was the same. :lol:
anders (2008-03-20 14:04:05 +0000)
In the 3x3x3 blindfold event, we have many DNF's. Too many according to my opinion. This is not good for the sport. To encourage cubers not to DNF, I suggest that we change the preferred (final) format to 'mean of three' instead of 'best of x'. Article 9e) about new and old events. What is the WCA board's intention of doing with the results of events that are removed as official? Such events exist today since, for instance, the Rainbow Cube and the Siamese Cube earlier were official events. I know that the results from these events are saved in the WCA database, even if they are not available for the public. I suggest that separate access is made to all unofficial events that has been held at WCA-endorsed competitions. A minor typographical issue: Please write ”0.004”, ”0.00” etc instead of ”.004”, ”.00” etc in article 9f1) and passim, thanks.
cmhardw (2008-03-20 14:57:02 +0000)
Although it would make me very sad to have the big cubes blindfolded events deleted (I don't see any other event for which the wording of this new rule is more clearly targeted), I would put up less of a fuss if the results are somehow kept as anders suggested. If there can be a section on each person's individual results page of results achieved in past unofficial events before they were cancelled then I would consider that a compromise. Completely losing 2.5 years worth of my results in pretty much the only events I have practiced for that entire time would make me lividly upset at the WCA for this decision. In short, if and when big cubes BLD are deleted as events, please maintain the results in some sort of way as "results in previously (but no longer) official events" or something to that effect. We should probably do the same for the Rainbow cube, siamese cube, and speed BLD on the personal results pages of those competitors who focused on those events before they were deleted to be completely fair. I don't foresee the WCA backing down on this issue. I am more upset about potentially losing all the results of 2.5 years of my efforts than I am about losing the future ability to compete in big cubes BLD. WCA board can we at least compromise? Chris
BryanLogan (2008-03-20 16:58:48 +0000)
I don't think the WCA is gunning to retire any event, but they simply want to have the process defined so that they can retire it. Also, I don't think the wording should include anything about the number of competitors. If some event gets to the point where 50% of the competitors are within 1% of the WR, and all competitions basically come down to luck, then that event has probably plateau'd, even if there are many competitors. Since the board has the final decision, any event should be able to be discussed, but I'm sure many of them won't even make it past initial consideration. If someone wants to suggest that 2x2x2 be eliminated, fine, let them, but they won't get any support. Also, if an event was to be eliminated, it seems that there should be some sort of retirement phase for it. Maybe allow competitions to hold the event and then the next World's would be the final competition where the event is held. After that, the event name is changed in the WCA database to add "(retired)" on the end and all competitors WCA pages will show their history of that event. 9e1 should state that while to board will take the community discussion into consideration, they are able to make the final decision on their own. It kind of states this, but it would be good to make it explicit. Also, the poll option seems kind of odd. Who gets to vote? Anyone who's ever competed? How can we protect against ballot stuffing?
Mike Hughey (2008-03-20 17:12:34 +0000)
I agree with Chris that I hope we can somehow get to keep our results displayable even if events are removed. I also hope that Chris is really fearing something that won't actually happen. I'm still hoping that rule 9e3 does not have the ultimate result of removing 5x5x5 BLD (and perhaps even 4x4x4 BLD someday). I would like my questions above clarified. Each year, when the event is selected which has the fewest competitors for the year, will that event be removed automatically, or will a poll be taken to determine whether or not to remove it? And if there is a poll, what will the format for that poll be - how will it be carried out, and who gets to vote? Also, does this imply that we will potentially be removing one event per year? If so, that seems to me to be much too much churn for the good of speedcubing. The events should be fairly well established, with a history involved behind them so that they have more meaning. I also simply don't think that "the event with the fewest competitors for the year" is a good selection criterion for removing events. I think it would be much better if removal of events worked off of some sort of poll or other selection criteria. 5x5x5 BLD has traditionally had the fewest competitors (and also sometimes been a headache for organizers), but it has also generated a great deal of interest. For an audience of cubers, it gets more attention than most other events. At the Virginia Open, the only time we had applause during the entire competition was when there were big cube BLD solves, and the applause was greater for 5x5x5 solves than for 4x4x4 solves. For the most part, we were ignored, but as we got close to a finished solve, the entire room focused their attention on the solver. And afterwards, others were inspired to try - Jason Baum has gotten fairly good at 4x4x4 BLD now, and he said that a large part of what inspired him to try was seeing Chris, Daniel, and myself solving at the Virginia Open. I also think that big cubes BLD are just now starting to come into their own. I suspect that 5x5x5 BLD will "protect" 4x4x4 BLD from removal next year, and that after that, it is likely that 4x4x4 BLD will never be the event with the least competitors (with all the new people joining in the fun), so hopefully that means it will not ever be removed under this rule. I also anticipate that by the end of next year, the WCA will be contemplating requiring that 4x4x4 BLD solves be done on stackmats, with no stopwatch option. That should make the event much more manageable for organizers, and odds are that times will be very commonly under 10 minutes for 4x4x4 BLD by the end of next year (probably even by the end of this year!). If we give the big cubes BLD events some time, I think we could come to the point where we see a large number of competitors. Big cubes BLD are FUN to do, and as more people try them, I suspect the events will become more and more popular. Right now the big growth is in 4x4x4 BLD, but 5x5x5 BLD will follow in a logical progression as people "conquer" 4x4x4 BLD.
cada (2008-03-21 02:19:07 +0000)
I really think you guys are overreacting. I would be very disappointed were big cube BLD to be eliminated. I've been doing it for a long time, yet because of timing I've not solved in competition. You guys at least have competition results. Given the time I spent learning, along with time spent teaching others, I'd be rather sad to see big cube BLD go. And yet I'm not concerned. I don't see this regulation as 'targeting' big cube BLD, or any event for that matter. I don't think the intent is to remove an event every year, that would be ridiculous. This is just making it possible to remove truely extraneous events like siamese cube. I think there's enough support for big cube BLD to not need to worry. Alongside the people who actively compete and those currently learning, there are plenty of people who, despite likely never intending to compete in or learn big cube BLD, are very interested in the event and would like to keep it around. I see clock going first, if anything. -Chris Krueger
cmhardw (2008-03-21 05:19:11 +0000)
I do admit I think I did overreact to seeing this clause. It does make sense to be able to remove events, and also if events are added that later are too big of a problem to run then it would be good to be able to remove them. Although I feel a bit safer, based on the definition of removal for an event, I will always be a tad nervous about 5x5x5 BLD, but I will continue to practice it anyway. I apologize to the WCA board if I jumped to conclusions, I was just shocked at what appeared to me at the time to be a rule targeting the very event I like most ;-) I do hope this clause is not meant to target any current events, but even if they are deleted it sounds as if the overall opinion is to list those results as "retired events" in people's event list which was my biggest concern about event deletion. I think this would be a very fair compromise for any event that gets deleted, and I hope it's something the WCA would consider in such a case as the actual deletion of an event. Chris
Ron (2008-03-21 07:11:01 +0000)
@Stefan [quote:fkkk7ov3]9f16 - how to count multiple blindfold results: I can live with both the old way and the new suggestion, but I'm leaning towards the old way. If we change it to the new suggestion, how are we going to compare new results with old results? Will all old results be reevaluated[/quote:fkkk7ov3] All changes will of course have effects. But we should not dismiss change because of that. In this case I am thinking about the following effect: 1) all personal, national, continental and world records from before April 10, 2008 will stand for ever 2) if after April 10, 2008 people break records when comparing against the new regulations, the records will be changed On the technical side: Stefan and Clément have to change the way the results are displayed on the screen and stored in the database. @Chris @Mike There are some things to consider about adding and removing events: 1) in World Championships we should be able to have all events. So technically there is a limit of the number of active events. 2) if you can add events, it should also be possible to remove events. 3) Anders, Edouard and me already made a database and website for removed events. WCA board has not come to a conclusion on this subject, so it is not open to the public yet. The best may be to have a page with secondary or removed events in a corner of WCA site. 4) there is no universal vision on which events should ever be held and which should not. This is a discussion in itself. I personally dislike special events for all puzzles other than Rubik's Cube, for example 2x2 one-handed. But I would love have more like Skewb and Rainbow Cube. 5) there is no event now that is being considered as 'removable'. @Bryan [quote:fkkk7ov3]9k still conflicts with other regulations[/quote:fkkk7ov3] I added 9r to 9k. [quote:fkkk7ov3]9s1 - It would be nice if the limits were decided when the event is announced. 1 month before seems to be too short.[/quote:fkkk7ov3] Article is now 9r. This is a subject that we should not underestimate. If first you need to compete on Friday in qualification rounds, you make travel arrangements for that. Or other way around. I changed 9r1 and added 9r3. [quote:fkkk7ov3]9s2 - Is the inverse true?[/quote:fkkk7ov3] Article is now 9r2. The point is that you could have a qualification round on Friday, where the first round is on Saturday. This opens up a whole day for competition, where not all competitors need to be at the competition on Friday at 9am. @Pitzu @Lucas [quote:fkkk7ov3]"9q) Events and rounds must have at least 2 competitors. " Does this mean that if somebody is alone in an event (for example 5x5 blindfolded) he cannot "compete". (I mean to setup a valid result.) Good question. Dan Dzoan might let me compete at 4x4x4 BLD again (last time, I did it in the FMC room, where he simply judged me while watching over FMC). Would I have to convince my friend to DNF ("try" to compete ) an attempt just so I can do this? Big cube BLD is not a competition between participants in a competition (except maybe at Worlds, and possibly US Open this year), but against the records. Why force it to be any more than it is?Lucas[/quote:fkkk7ov3] Yes, with one competitor it is not a competition but a time trial. Yes, you could add a fake competitor who just DNFs. There is no way to prevent that other than WCA delegate and competitors being fair and sportsmanlike. @Anders [quote:fkkk7ov3]I suggest that we change the preferred (final) format to 'mean of three' instead of 'best of x'.[/quote:fkkk7ov3] I do not think that many DNFs is a problem. I do think that having more and more competitors in blindfolded may become a problem. In that case the organisation teams may need to bring the time limits down to still be able to manage the competitions. Going to 'mean of three' would be a too big change for now. Please try again next year. :-) [quote:fkkk7ov3]Please write ”0.004”, ”0.00” etc instead of ”.004”, ”.00” etc in article 9f1) and passim, thanks.[/quote:fkkk7ov3] Changed to x. instead of 0. Thanks for the feedback. All changes will be in Draft 4, March 21, 2008. Ron
Pitzu (2008-03-21 07:58:03 +0000)
Sorry everybody, just to clarify let's have [b:3mabtb01]me[/b:3mabtb01] as an example. :D I have now the Hungarian record of mbf according to the old rules which doesn't fit the new rules. Does your answer mean I will have it [b:3mabtb01]forever[/b:3mabtb01] without giving any chance for others to brake it with the same conditions?! OK, I will have it forever, but than it will lose its value if no chance to break it. However the competitor (Who's name we don't say :wink: ) can brake it with the new rules in 2 or 3 years.
Pitzu (2008-03-21 08:03:47 +0000)
A practical question: How will look like the official, [b:2tqz90uc]live[/b:2tqz90uc] world rankings of mbf after april 10?! Ryosuke or Dennis will have the WR?!
Ron (2008-03-21 08:44:27 +0000)
Hi István, Dennis will have the world record on April 10, 2008. If Ryosuke does 12/13 on April 11, 2008 he will have the world record with 11. Thanks, Ron
BryanLogan (2008-03-21 12:05:12 +0000)
[quote="Ron":2d9n8n0q] [quote:2d9n8n0q]9k still conflicts with other regulations[/quote:2d9n8n0q] I added 9r to 9k. [/quote:2d9n8n0q] Z2 should also be referenced. [quote="Ron":2d9n8n0q] [quote:2d9n8n0q]9s1 - It would be nice if the limits were decided when the event is announced. 1 month before seems to be too short.[/quote:2d9n8n0q] Article is now 9r. This is a subject that we should not underestimate. If first you need to compete on Friday in qualification rounds, you make travel arrangements for that. Or other way around. I changed 9r1 and added 9r3. [/quote:2d9n8n0q] 9r3 should state "at least one month before". Also, should "should" or "must" be more appropriate here? [quote="Ron":2d9n8n0q] [quote:2d9n8n0q]9s2 - Is the inverse true?[/quote:2d9n8n0q] Article is now 9r2. The point is that you could have a qualification round on Friday, where the first round is on Saturday. This opens up a whole day for competition, where not all competitors need to be at the competition on Friday at 9am. [/quote:2d9n8n0q] Correct. But if I'm qualified for the first round, I don't need to compete in the qualification round. But if I do compete in the qualifying rounds, what should happen if I don't meet the requirements? Right now, it looks like someone could use Z3 to have a requirement that says: "Anyone who has a 3x3x3 time under 60 seconds in Footown 2007 qualifies for the first round. Qualification times for Footown 2008 are: 3x3x3 - best of 3, under 30 seconds qualifies". Bob (who was at Footown 2007), competes in the qualification round and gets 45 seconds. Charlie (who wasn't at Footown 2007), gets 35 seconds and doesn't qualify. So, even though Bob did worse that Charlie, would he be able to compete in the first round? This is why I wanted to: 1) Unify the pre-qualification time in Z3 with 9r 2) Have the Z3 events be all WCA events to prevent abuse of the rule 3) Make sure that Bob doesn't get 3 free solves with no reprecussions. I think all of the article Z regulations could go elsewhere. Also, I think that using times instead of rankings is easier for the organizers and competitors to understand. What's easier to understand: 1) All competitors with a WCA average under 25 seconds (the day of the competition) qualify for the first round. 2) All competitors with a WCA average (the day of the competition) in the top 550 qualify for the first round. Also, with #2, I may look and be at 500 and qualify. However, a week before, a huge competition in Japan bumps me to 570, so now I'm not qualified. If my travel plans were based on not having to be at the qualification round, I'm in trouble.
Ron (2008-03-21 13:47:35 +0000)
@Bryan I corrected 9r3. I added that applying optional regulations for a competition must be approved by WCA Board. Good point about WCA ranking. I changed it to average time or single time. The rest I would like to keep this way. Updated in version draft 4a, March 21, 2008 Thanks, Ron
Pitzu (2008-03-22 10:30:47 +0000)
"9q) Events and rounds must have at least 2 competitors. " "Yes, with one competitor it is not a competition but a time trial." I think it could be a real-life case to be alone for example for 5x5 bld. According to this point the competitor doesn't get the possibility to setup an official time. I don't think the regulations should ban it if the competitor and the organizer can discuss it. Ron, you said to start a fake competitor is not a "sportsmanlike" mentality. I agree, that's why I put a smilie after this sentence. But we should give the possibility somehow to setup a time. As you can see, Lucas and me thougth the same easy solution for that. A soultion can be if we won't call this event a "competition", but a "time trial". Without medal and any prize, just with an official result. For example nobody (who is not crazy) competes with Chris in 6x6 bld, but he should have the possibility.
JChoi (2008-03-22 22:32:00 +0000)
[quote="Pitzu":sa3n2j4j]"9q) Events and rounds must have at least 2 competitors. " "Yes, with one competitor it is not a competition but a time trial." ... A soultion can be if we won't call this event a "competition", but a "time trial". Without medal and any prize, just with an official result. For example nobody (who is not crazy) competes with Chris in 6x6 bld, but he should have the possibility.[/quote:sa3n2j4j] I agree.
StefanPochmann (2008-03-23 13:45:18 +0000)
[quote="Ron":16kojfdb]@Stefan [quote:16kojfdb]9f16 - how to count multiple blindfold results: I can live with both the old way and the new suggestion, but I'm leaning towards the old way. If we change it to the new suggestion, how are we going to compare new results with old results? Will all old results be reevaluated[/quote:16kojfdb] All changes will of course have effects. But we should not dismiss change because of that. In this case I am thinking about the following effect: 1) all personal, national, continental and world records from before April 10, 2008 will stand for ever 2) if after April 10, 2008 people break records when comparing against the new regulations, the records will be changed On the technical side: Stefan and Clément have to change the way the results are displayed on the screen and stored in the database.[/quote:16kojfdb] I don't see how that could possibly work. Imagine after the change someone solves 16/18. Then the ranklist looks like this: 1. 16/18 (new) 2. 10/10 (old) 3. 17/18 (old) So 16/18 comes before 10/10 while the clearly better 17/18 comes after it? More compactly, without the 10/10: 1. 16/18 (new) 2. 17/18 (old) That's just wrong. The old results must be reevaluated if we don't want inconsistencies like that. One possibility I see is to duplicate the old multiblind results: 1) Freeze its old ranking and make it available on the other site along with the retired or semi-official events. 2) Also keep its old results in the main database, but reevaluate them according to the new way. [quote="Ron":16kojfdb]Yes, with one competitor it is not a competition but a time trial. Yes, you could add a fake competitor who just DNFs. There is no way to prevent that other than WCA delegate and competitors being fair and sportsmanlike.[/quote:16kojfdb] How is that not fair or not sportsmanlike? Nobody gets hurt! Only a rule is violated! And a rule should have a legitimate purpose, it should be the means to an end, not be an end in itself. I don't see a legitimate purpose in this rule, as nobody gets hurt by a "time trial" (or "success trial"). That rule is what's not sportsmanlike!
Ron (2008-03-23 14:04:40 +0000)
Hi Stefan, [quote:2vfb1fs7]I don't see how that could possibly work. Imagine after the change someone solves 16/18. Then the ranklist looks like this: 1. 16/18 (new) 2. 10/10 (old) 3. 17/18 (old) [/quote:2vfb1fs7] On the technical side it is actually pretty easy. Under the old regulations we added 1xxyyzzzzz in the results if not all puzzles were solved, indicating a kind of 'DNF'. Under the new regulations we do not add the 1xxyyzzzzz. So automatically these results are shown before the old ones. We do have to change the xx and yy format, because of the sorting. On the practical side I think it is actually pretty normal. Those records were set under other regulations, with more time. So it is normally that they are sorted differently. [quote:2vfb1fs7]1) Freeze its old ranking and make it available on the other site along with the retired or semi-official events.[/quote:2vfb1fs7] That would be a bad option. [quote:2vfb1fs7]How is that not fair or not sportsmanlike?[/quote:2vfb1fs7] Because it is circumventing the intention of the regulation. We still have time to think about one person events. I would like to hear more people. Thanks, Ron
JohannesLaire (2008-03-23 15:17:09 +0000)
[quote="Ron":3c6df2av][quote="StefanPochmann":3c6df2av]I don't see how that could possibly work. Imagine after the change someone solves 16/18. Then the ranklist looks like this: 1. 16/18 (new) 2. 10/10 (old) 3. 17/18 (old) [/quote:3c6df2av] On the practical side I think it is actually pretty normal. Those records were set under other regulations, with more time. So it is normally that they are sorted differently.[/quote:3c6df2av] It doesn't really make sense to me to have them on the same list. [quote="Ron":3c6df2av][quote="StefanPochmann":3c6df2av]1) Freeze its old ranking and make it available on the other site along with the retired or semi-official events.[/quote:3c6df2av] That would be a bad option.[/quote:3c6df2av] Why? Look at it this way: you're deleting the current multiple BLD event, and introducing a new one.
anders (2008-03-23 15:43:42 +0000)
[quote="Ron":2cnp2stc] We still have time to think about one person events. I would like to hear more people. [/quote:2cnp2stc] I have always been sceptical to one-person events. Cubing is for everyone and not one-man-shows. I assume that this is one reason for Article 8a5) which dictates that the competiton must have at least twelve competitors. In the light of 8a5, why not increase the number of people in 9q to, let's say, four? The logic is then, if you do not find twelve cubers, do not hold a competition; if you do not find four competitors for an event, do not hold that event. If allowing one-person events, I see no reason to not allow one-person competitions.
StefanPochmann (2008-03-23 17:15:20 +0000)
[quote="Ron":1p9avtj8][quote:1p9avtj8]I don't see how that could possibly work. Imagine after the change someone solves 16/18. Then the ranklist looks like this: 1. 16/18 (new) 2. 10/10 (old) 3. 17/18 (old) [/quote:1p9avtj8] On the technical side it is actually pretty easy. Under the old regulations we added 1xxyyzzzzz in the results if not all puzzles were solved, indicating a kind of 'DNF'. Under the new regulations we do not add the 1xxyyzzzzz. So automatically these results are shown before the old ones. We do have to change the xx and yy format, because of the sorting.[/quote:1p9avtj8] So a new 3/5 will be considered better than an old 17/18? Right now we have xx = 99 - solved yy = attempted zzzzz = time Can you tell how it shall be afterwards? I still don't get it. [quote="Ron":1p9avtj8]On the practical side I think it is actually pretty normal. Those records were set under other regulations, with more time. So it is normally that they are sorted differently.[/quote:1p9avtj8] What if someone does 16/18 using *more* time than the previous 17/18? Why should that be considered better then? That is *not* normal.
Ron (2008-03-23 17:16:17 +0000)
[quote:2iybsoh0] It doesn't really make sense to me to have them on the same list.[/quote:2iybsoh0] ... Why? Look at it this way: you're deleting the current multiple BLD event, and introducing a new one.JohannesLaire[/quote] Why? It is not a completely different event. There are two differences only: 1) time for first 6 cubes is lower 2) the ranking is slightly different Would that be a good reason to invalidate the old results? They are still valid and valuable. Thanks, Ron
StefanPochmann (2008-03-23 17:25:22 +0000)
[quote="Ron":3j509t5y]Would that be a good reason to invalidate the old results? They are still valid and valuable.[/quote:3j509t5y] I get the impression you misunderstood me. I don't want to invalidate them. Just reevaluate them. According to the new scheme. That's why I said "duplicate them". Have the old results shown evaluated according to the old scheme [b:3j509t5y]and[/b:3j509t5y] have them shown together with the new results, evaluated according to the new scheme.
Pitzu (2008-03-23 19:10:37 +0000)
I still think this change causes more disadvantages than advantages. I just don't understand the need behind this change. :? Nobody gave me answer for my 2 sentences I wrote in the other topic: "Deleting our results would be unfair with us. It was hard to reach them. Keeping our results without giving the same chance for others to brake them would be unfair with others." Stefan! Reevaluating my results would be DNF. :shock:
Pitzu (2008-03-23 19:18:27 +0000)
Anders! This negotiation is only about 5x5 blindfolded. There are 6 competitors who solved 5x5 blindfolded in competition. 3 in the US, 1 in India, 2 in Europe. It seems to be quiet impossible to have 4 of us in one competition. :?
Ron (2008-03-23 19:22:22 +0000)
Hi Stefan, [quote:369r0qez] 1. 16/18 (new) 2. 17/18 (old) ... The old results must be reevaluated if we don't want inconsistencies like that. [/quote:369r0qez] Yes, it may seem a bit strange, but: - time available was shorter (even if not fully used) - a miss in regulations 2007 was considered worse than in regulations 2008. I think it also deals better with the following regulation: [quote:369r0qez]9i3) If the regulations for an event are changed, then the old regional records stand until they are broken under the new regulations[/quote:369r0qez] If you would reevaluate, then you will be changing records from the past. For example Ryosuke will have the world record. [quote:369r0qez]One possibility I see is to duplicate the old multiblind results: 1) Freeze its old ranking and make it available on the other site along with the retired or semi-official events. 2) Also keep its old results in the main database, but reevaluate them according to the new way. [/quote:369r0qez] We should try to avoid two different rankings for the same event. There is also no precedent for that. [quote:369r0qez] Right now we have xx = 99 - solved yy = attempted zzzzz = time Can you tell how it shall be afterwards? I still don't get it.[/quote:369r0qez] There are several options. I think this is the best one: Format awwwwwwwww if a=1 { wwwwwwwww=xxyyzzzzz (old format); showOldFormat(); } else { wwwwwwwww=xxzzzzzbb (new format); //bb is # of missed solves showNewFormat() } [quote:369r0qez]I get the impression you misunderstood me.[/quote:369r0qez] I did not react yet to your latest message. I still had to think about that. :-) So the design goals of the new ranking should be: 1) all results under regulations 2007 must be in the same list as the results under regulations 2008 2) sorting of results under regulations 2007 should stay the same 3) all personal and regional records under regulations 2007 stand until broken under regulations 2008 Thanks, Ron
Pitzu (2008-03-23 19:24:08 +0000)
Let's imagine the following world rankings: 1. 16/18 - Ryosuke ... ... ... n. 17/18 - Ryosuke :D
StefanPochmann (2008-03-23 20:30:57 +0000)
Even 0/18 will be ranked higher than 17/18. But ok, although I think it'll become a confusing mess, I can see now how to implement it, so I'll try to see it as not my problem.
StefanPochmann (2008-03-23 20:48:21 +0000)
[quote="Pitzu":nosedz18]Stefan! Reevaluating my results would be DNF. :shock:[/quote:nosedz18] What I meant was reevaluation to determine the ranking, but not invalidating attempts because of changed time limits.
BryanLogan (2008-03-23 23:59:44 +0000)
[quote:3ik7r64h] 9p) For each round of an event, at least one competitor must not proceed to the next round. [/quote:3ik7r64h] I'm guessing this wouldn't apply for qualification rounds or combined finals if all the competitors met the time requirements.
JChoi (2008-03-24 04:26:02 +0000)
[quote="BryanLogan":80v9dc5m][quote:80v9dc5m] 9p) For each round of an event, at least one competitor must not proceed to the next round. [/quote:80v9dc5m] I'm guessing this wouldn't apply for qualification rounds or combined finals if all the competitors met the time requirements.[/quote:80v9dc5m] Oh, but it clearly violates that rule, and there is no clause that says 9p would be null in that event! Paradox!
Ron (2008-03-24 06:38:42 +0000)
@Bryan [quote:hbjwy6aw]I'm guessing this wouldn't apply for qualification rounds or combined finals if all the competitors met the time requirements[/quote:hbjwy6aw] Combined finals are counted as one round. In such a case you could also change the round to a final (without combined). For qualification rounds it does count. I added 'how many of the competitors will proceed to the first round' in version 4c. Thanks, Ron
anders (2008-03-24 10:44:15 +0000)
[quote="Pitzu":1j4lzfw7]Anders! This negotiation is only about 5x5 blindfolded. There are 6 competitors who solved 5x5 blindfolded in competition. 3 in the US, 1 in India, 2 in Europe. It seems to be quiet impossible to have 4 of us in one competition. :?[/quote:1j4lzfw7] I am talking about general principles, not pointing finger at any particular event, even if big cubes blindfolded might be "at risk" if following my reasoning. Another conclusion from my reasoning could be that we should also allow one-person [i:1j4lzfw7]competitions[/i:1j4lzfw7]. And why shouldn't we, if allowing one-person events?
BryanLogan (2008-03-24 11:50:26 +0000)
[quote="Ron":34i49fci] For qualification rounds it does count. I added 'how many of the competitors will proceed to the first round' in version 4c. [/quote:34i49fci] So the way I read 9r1 now is that qualification rounds have the criteria of "top x in qualification round" rather than "competitors who meet time x". Unless "how many of the competitors will proceed to the first round" can be interpreted as "the number of competitors whose time is below x". In the issue of fairness, I think anyone in the qualification round that proves they are as good as anyone who has pre-qualified for the first round should be able to compete in the first round. Looking at the current regulations, here's a pseudo-announcement: [quote:34i49fci] First round - no max Qualification round - 60 seconds average in a WCA event to automatically qualify. Otherwise, best of 2, top 10 proceed. [/quote:34i49fci] So in this case, an unranked competitor who gets under 30 may not proceed, because if a bunch of other people compete in the qualification round (even those who already pre-qualify), may beat him. If he had a chance to compete in a previous competition, he would have easily qualified. However, even now he may not be able to establish an average to pre-qualify next time. I like how the US Open is doing their qualification round. [quote:34i49fci] Qualification rounds are listed with qualifying time and the number of competitors who proceed. Competitors who have recorded an official WCA average under the listed qualifying time are pre-qualified and need not compete in the qualification round. From the qualifying rounds, N people will proceed such that N is at least 5 and N + number of pre-qualified competitors is greater than or equal to the number of people proceeding as listed for each round. [/quote:34i49fci]
cada (2008-03-24 14:16:03 +0000)
Ron, I have never competed alongside you in blindcubing, and yet I am able to look at the records and compare our results. That's the beauty of having a [b:30wivusw]world[/b:30wivusw] cube association, all our results are compared, even if we've never been on the same continent. In the case of a 'one man event', in the end they are still competing with the rest of the cubing world when their result is entered in the database. This regulation seems too restrictive to people with less access to competitions. As far as I am aware, once I leave the country there will be only one person in China able to solve a 5x5 cube blindfolded. Should he be kept from joining everyone else in the database? I can see an argument for not allowing prizes for a single person event, but they should still be allowed to compete. -Chris Krueger
Ron (2008-03-24 15:45:28 +0000)
Hi Chris, Interesting point. Would this be fair though? In this case someone not in China would have to really compete, and someone in China can have a free trial. It is a pity that some events have little interest in some regions. Rubik's Clock has only been an event 5 times in Northern America, 2 of them being the world championship. Other WCA members, please let us know what you think about this. Thanks, Ron
cada (2008-03-24 16:03:11 +0000)
I don't see what you mean by free trial. Either way they're solving the cube and will have their result compared to everyone else in the database. No matter who might be solving next to you, you're competing against the world. I think the only concern would be for prizes, which competition organizers can choose to not give for single person events, and for the 'medal collection' section on the statistics page, which I thought was just for fun. I've never seen cubing as being a contest at the competition level, but at the worldwide level. Ryan, Chris, Dan and Rama don't have to be in the same place in order to have strong competition between them. While single person events might be less interesting at the local level, I only see them benefitting the global level of cubing by potentially allowing more competitors. -Chris Krueger
BryanLogan (2008-03-24 18:06:33 +0000)
If the event is announced long before the competition, anyone interested can go. If only one person shows up for that event, it's fine because people who would have been interested would know about it. I think the only time you should have a minimum requirement is if you're adding an event the day of the competition. So if you have extra time and people are interested in another event, I would think that three would be a good number before you add it.
Pedro_S (2008-03-24 22:35:59 +0000)
I agree that one person events should be allowed... suppose I learn to solve the 5x5 blindfolded before next competition here... nobody else who is going there will know it too, so I would be the only one able to do it there... why can't I try it once and get an official result? giving prizes/medals is kinda weird, as you didn't really "beat" anyone...but the opportunity to have your name on the world rankings should be given...
Pedro_S (2008-03-25 01:49:05 +0000)
[quote="anders":2pcys0sf] I am talking about general principles, not pointing finger at any particular event, even if big cubes blindfolded might be "at risk" if following my reasoning. Another conclusion from my reasoning could be that we should also allow one-person [i:2pcys0sf]competitions[/i:2pcys0sf]. And why shouldn't we, if allowing one-person events?[/quote:2pcys0sf] because they're different... one-person competition makes no sense one-person events can be seen as a chance to get an official time, not really a competition against somebody else...other than the other people around the world who did that event...
Mike Hughey (2008-03-25 15:17:50 +0000)
[quote="Pitzu":1bh0uoui] For example nobody (who is not crazy) competes with Chris in 6x6 bld, but he should have the possibility.[/quote:1bh0uoui] Sorry, István, but I had to respond to this. I would be thrilled to compete with Chris in 6x6x6 BLD. (I can't wait to try!) And let's be honest, so would you. But then, maybe we're both just crazy. :)
cada (2008-03-25 15:41:39 +0000)
[quote="Pitzu":3bmufrec]For example nobody (who is not crazy) competes with Chris in 6x6 bld, but he should have the possibility.[/quote:3bmufrec] [size=50:3bmufrec]Sorry for the pointless post, but[/size:3bmufrec] He wasn't even the first person to attempt it.
anders (2008-03-25 18:38:03 +0000)
[quote="Pedro_S":2tzy4w9t][quote="anders":2tzy4w9t] I am talking about general principles, not pointing finger at any particular event, even if big cubes blindfolded might be "at risk" if following my reasoning. Another conclusion from my reasoning could be that we should also allow one-person [i:2tzy4w9t]competitions[/i:2tzy4w9t]. And why shouldn't we, if allowing one-person events?[/quote:2tzy4w9t] because they're different... one-person competition makes no sense one-person events can be seen as a chance to get an official time, not really a competition against somebody else...other than the other people around the world who did that event...[/quote:2tzy4w9t] I fail to see the difference. For example, if someone wants to do a ”big cube challenge” and solve the 7x7x7 cube blindfolded, he must collect eleven dummy cubers do hold a 3x3x3 speedcubing event just for the sake of having twelve competitors in the competition. Or let his relatives and friends do the Magic, possibly with DNFs... Your argument has some validity if tacitly assuming that there are a bunch of cubers around to fill the eleven spots. The ”big cube challenger” might be in a remote location (remote = lack of cubers in the neighborhood). Why should a “time trial” be allowed only when other events are hold?
Pedro_S (2008-03-25 21:01:19 +0000)
[quote="anders":p9ex7tvp] Why should a “time trial” be allowed only when other events are hold?[/quote:p9ex7tvp] because then you have a WCA delegate and judge(s), to make sure you do it according to the regulations...
anders (2008-03-26 05:44:36 +0000)
[quote="Pedro_S":27839fc2][quote="anders":27839fc2] Why should a “time trial” be allowed only when other events are hold?[/quote:27839fc2] because then you have a WCA delegate and judge(s), to make sure you do it according to the regulations...[/quote:27839fc2] Of course you must follow the WCA regulations and have announce the "time trial" at least a month ahead, having being approved by the WCA, having a WCA delegate, etc. I see no difference with a one-person competition and a multi-person competition in this respect.
Pedro_S (2008-03-26 19:53:16 +0000)
[quote="anders":3v5c7n71][quote="Pedro_S":3v5c7n71][quote="anders":3v5c7n71] Why should a “time trial” be allowed only when other events are hold?[/quote:3v5c7n71] because then you have a WCA delegate and judge(s), to make sure you do it according to the regulations...[/quote:3v5c7n71] Of course you must follow the WCA regulations and have announce the "time trial" at least a month ahead, having being approved by the WCA, having a WCA delegate, etc. I see no difference with a one-person competition and a multi-person competition in this respect.[/quote:3v5c7n71] do you really see no difference between: a) everybody doing their own "competitions", being the delegate, main judge, judge, competitor, score taker and b) someone attempting a 4x4 bld or 5x5 bld in an official competition ??
BryanLogan (2008-03-26 21:02:42 +0000)
[quote="Pedro_S":374x6qg5]a) everybody doing their own "competitions", being the delegate, main judge, judge, competitor, score taker and b) someone attempting a 4x4 bld or 5x5 bld in an official competition ??[/quote:374x6qg5] Well, the competition has to be approved by the WCA, and I'm guessing they would just use their own judgement if someone said the events would be 4x4x4 BLD, 5x5x5 BLD, and Magic. Also, the main judge cannot compete :) But yes, the number of competitors can easily be gotten around with competitors who DNF. It would be nice if even the 12 competitor limit was also at the discretion of the board. If you have a freak snowstorm on the day of the competition and half the people don't show up, it sucks if you have to throw away all the results.
Lucas (2008-04-13 17:50:00 +0000)
I really don't think this got answered before the final regulations came out (with 9q) still in). Does this mean that if the delegate/organizers would allow me a 4x4x4 BLD either of the next two weekends, I have to find another competitor to do it with me? If I were the only one to compete, would it... 1) ...be unofficial and just be dropped? 2) ...invalidate the whole competition because the regs weren't followed by the organizers (well, unlikely...)? 3) ...simply not be allowed for me to do it? What if another person was supposed to compete but couldn't make it or takes a DNS? Or what if I got someone to do a 10-second DNF? Would the WCA be able to do anything about it? Every other person who does big cube BLD seriously lives on another coast/continent... :cry:
Ron (2008-04-13 19:57:57 +0000)
Hi Lucas, Yes, you are right. There was no conclusion on this subject. [quote:3u3nhtxd]If I were the only one to compete, would it... 1) ...be unofficial and just be dropped?[/quote:3u3nhtxd] Yes [quote:3u3nhtxd]2) ...invalidate the whole competition because the regs weren't followed by the organizers (well, unlikely...)?[/quote:3u3nhtxd] No [quote:3u3nhtxd]3) ...simply not be allowed for me to do it?[/quote:3u3nhtxd] The WCA delegate should not accept the event. [quote:3u3nhtxd]Or what if I got someone to do a 10-second DNF?[/quote:3u3nhtxd] There is no regulations against that. [quote:3u3nhtxd]Every other person who does big cube BLD seriously lives on another coast/continent.[/quote:3u3nhtxd] I think that says more about the event than about the regulations. Maybe you should inspire other people to try it. Thanks, Ron
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.