Who is responsible for reporting the results to the WCA board (i.e. Ron ? The WCA-delegate. The organiser?

See article 1c1)

1c1) only states that the WCA delegate shall report if the regulations were followed; not to submit the results.

Good find! Added in draft 4 March 21.

[quote="Ron":lervupp5] [quote="BryanLogan"} 1h1 - Can't people judge/scramble after they've competed in their group? [/quote:lervupp5] No, that would make the regulations too complex. Of course you can make a separate group for such competitors. Groups do not need to have the same size.[/quote] Are you sure? It seems like adding "until they've completed all of their solves for the round" to the end of 1h1 isn't complex. If I have 6 stations, and 6 people who are willing to judge, then I can split into 2 groups (Half of judges and competitors in Group A, half of judges and competitors in Group B). Have the three judges of the first group immediately handle the other judges, and then I can keep all 6 stations full for the rest of the group. Repeat for the other group. If we can't do this, then the alternative would be to make 3 groups, Half of judges in Group A, half of judges in Group B, and everyone else in Group C. While getting a "lucky" scramble is dependent on what group you're in, some competitors might be more upset if a lucky scramble went into a judges-only group. Also, if you can scramble/judge after you compete, then it just takes a single person who didn't make it to the final to start by having the judges compete first. This way, all competitors in the final round will have the same scrambles, which I think most people would agree is fair.

Hi Bryan, I do not understand your example, but I think there is enough flexibility in the regulations to solve your problems. I do not see a reason to add more regulations, and to enforce these. Feel free to come with a complete text proposal. Thanks, Ron

1h) Competitors can be divided into groups to handle large events or to enable competitors to help with scrambling or judging. * 1h1) Competing judges/scramblers for a round must not judge or scramble in their own group until after they have completed all their solves for the round * 1h2) Groups must have different scrambles By removing the old 1h1 ("The competiting judges/scramblers must compete before all other competitors, with the judging/scrambling done by non competiting judges/scramblers.") you've made it impossible for all judges to be helping out at the same time unless you have a minimum of three groups (with two of those groups basically being judges-only). So while it is still possible, it would be nice to have this so we don't have more groups than needed. I know this is how they did it at the US Open, and how I've heard they do it at Caltech.

1d3 - Can this be eliminated? By leaving it in, you usually guarantee that the main judge will be a non-cuber. The WCA delegate is the final authority at the competition, so there's really not a conflict of interest.

[quote="BryanLogan":2jers28a]1d3 - Can this be eliminated? By leaving it in, you usually guarantee that the main judge will be a non-cuber. The WCA delegate is the final authority at the competition, so there's really not a conflict of interest.[/quote:2jers28a] Is really the WCA delegate the final authority during a competiton? I have viewed the delegate as an observer and consultant (to the main judge and the organiser), and that the delgate should report to the WCA if the organisers/main judges have fulfilled their duities. The idea of a non-cubing main judge is, as I understand it, to have a part that is not competing and therefore can act without personal bias in the competition. This idea is violated if the WCA delegate (who might take part in the competition) rules over the main judge. Following this reasoning to the end, the WCA delgate cannot compete...

[quote="anders":3cq9mbsr][quote="BryanLogan":3cq9mbsr]1d3 - Can this be eliminated? By leaving it in, you usually guarantee that the main judge will be a non-cuber. The WCA delegate is the final authority at the competition, so there's really not a conflict of interest.[/quote:3cq9mbsr] Is really the WCA delegate the final authority during a competiton? I have viewed the delegate as an observer and consultant (to the main judge and the organiser), and that the delgate should report to the WCA if the organisers/main judges have fulfilled their duities. The idea of a non-cubing main judge is, as I understand it, to have a part that is not competing and therefore can act without personal bias in the competition. This idea is violated if the WCA delegate (who might take part in the competition) rules over the main judge. Following this reasoning to the end, the WCA delgate cannot compete...[/quote:3cq9mbsr] Look at 2n and 2r. Even if the main judge isn't a competitor, that won't eliminate bias, because the judge is probably a friend of at least one competitor. The WCA delegate is trusted by the WCA to not show any bias. At some point there has to be trust by the WCA unless the WCA board members attend every single event, which isn't feasible. But if you get some rogue main judge that does something unfair, then the competitor can appeal to the WCA delegate. The delegate can then make the right decision and I'm sure the rogue judge would be in the WCA report.

[quote:1yokqwmi]1h) Competitors can be divided into groups to handle large events or to enable competitors to help with scrambling or judging. * 1h1) Competing judges/scramblers for a round must not judge or scramble in their own group until after they have completed all their solves for the round * 1h2) Groups must have different scrambles[/quote:1yokqwmi] That is a nice solution, thanks. In the scrambling article it did not say that groups had different scrambles... We need to stick to 1d3, as you pointed out yourself. Updated in version draft 4b, March 22, 2008. Thanks, Ron

My point is the following, maybe splitting hairs. WCA does not organise competitions, at least not the vast majority of them; it is done by individuals or local clubs. And Article 8a) regulates how a competition may become official according to the WCA. Among the requriements is that a WCA delegate must attend the competition. From this I would say that it is the formal organiser who is the final authority at the competition; he is responsible for all arrangements incuding the appoinment of main judges and all other officials. It is also the responsibility of the organiser to make sure that the WCA regulations are followed, if he wants the competititon to be acknowledged by WCA. And one task of the WCA delegate is to check if that is the case, and report back to the WCA. But when re-reading the new draft of the regulations, in particular the changes in Articles 2k, 2n, 2p and 2r, I find that a major change has been imposed. Namely, that the organisers have to surrender authority to the WCA delegate. Thus, earlier the organiser was the final authority (after consulting the WCA delegate), and after the competition the WCA delegete reports how well the organiser followed the WCA regulations. But in the new regulations the WCA delegate has a more formal part in the applications of the regulations. [quote="BryanLogan":1o5kr6lb] Look at 2n and 2r. Even if the main judge isn't a competitor, that won't eliminate bias, because the judge is probably a friend of at least one competitor. The WCA delegate is trusted by the WCA to not show any bias. At some point there has to be trust by the WCA unless the WCA board members attend every single event, which isn't feasible. But if you get some rogue main judge that does something unfair, then the competitor can appeal to the WCA delegate. The delegate can then make the right decision and I'm sure the rogue judge would be in the WCA report.[/quote:1o5kr6lb] Yes, the objective of WCA delegates is to relieve the WCA burden from visiting all competitions. The fairness of the competition can be established either, as in the old regulations, by the organiser/man judge as final authority (after consulting the WCA delegate) or, as in the new regulations, by the WCA delegate as final authority. In both cases, the WCA delegate reports back to the WCA. In a perfect world, the one who reports to the WCA board should not be a part of any decisions during the competition, but as you say, [i:1o5kr6lb]The WCA delegate is trusted by the WCA to not show any bias[/i:1o5kr6lb].

How did I argue for keeping 1d3 in? At competitions you organize, if some judge has a question, do they usually go to you? Or do you actually have some official that's extremely knowledgeable of the regulations that takes time to be the main judge and not compete? I just can't think of a scenario where having a judge not compete would make a difference. If the judge is biased, he could be biased to help his friends if he's not competing. If the competitor thinks the judge is biased, he can appeal to the trusted WCA delegate. I suppose if the WCA delegate and the head judge where the same person, if that person could then compete (1c7 overrules 1d3) then I would be fine. All the judges end up coming to me for questions anyways, so an official "main judge" doesn't really serve a point. But let's look at what the main judge does: The main judge for an event is responsible for making sure that the regulations are followed. - OK, so it would be best to have a cuber in this position, since they know the rules the best. The main judge may decide to start a round later than scheduled, but only earlier than scheduled with a clear announcement to all competitors. - This can be handled by non-cubers, but I'm guessing it's more of the organizer wanting to make the decision. Changes to the score sheets must only be made with consent of the main judge. - Anyone can do this Disqualification of a competitor for an event may be enforced by the main judge of an event if a competitor fails to show up in time for a round of an event. - Anyone can do this. 5b5) If, after the solve, non functional parts of the puzzle are still defect (like a centre cap of a cube) or not fully rotated (like a 5x5x5 centre piece twisted in its spot), but the puzzle is otherwise unambiguously solved, the puzzle is considered solved. (discretion of the main judge) - A cuber is best able to determine "unambiguously solved" If during a round a competitor does not solve within the time limit, then his solve may (courtesy of main judge) be stopped and disqualified by the judge. The main judge decides whether the competitor may continue the round, for example if the time was exceeded because of a puzzle defect. - Shouldn't it be the regular judges who stop a competitor if they go over the time limit? Then the main judge would be the one to decide if they can continue. In case of an incident during an event the main judge of the event must decide about the outcome. - A cuber knows best, plus they're consulting the WCA delegate anyways. In case of a dispute no moves or alignments must be applied to the puzzle until the dispute has been settled, involving the main judge if needed. Penalty: disqualification of the solve (courtesy of judge). - While all the regulations explain the misalignments and they're a little more clear today, a cuber still is the best person to handle the job. So, to have the best officials, having a cuber as a main judge is preferable. Most cubers won't volunteer for this position if it means they can't compete.

[quote="BryanLogan":230xsx2a]At competitions you organize, if some judge has a question, do they usually go to you? Or do you actually have some official that's extremely knowledgeable of the regulations that takes time to be the main judge and not compete?[/quote:230xsx2a] They normally ask me. In all competitions that I have organised, I have also been the WCA delegate... And, in fact, in almost all of them, I have also been the main judge, and thus I have not competed. [quote="BryanLogan":230xsx2a]So, to have the best officials, having a cuber as a main judge is preferable. Most cubers won't volunteer for this position if it means they can't compete.[/quote:230xsx2a] How true. But if we want to evolve to a serious sport, we must have independent and professional judges. But should we? As I asked earlier: Shall we have fun or shall we be serious? (http://www.x.se/qkxf). The answer of that question should guide how to write the regulations. I vote for having fun. We must never forget the fun part of cubing.

@Anders I agree with you that it is a big change to give more responsibility to the WCA delegate. The change did not come out of nowhere, though. Take disqualification for an event. That is a responsibility of the main judge. It is possible this way, because he is independent (not competing in the event). Take disqualification for the competition. Formerly this was a responsibility of the leader of the organisation team. This could be anyone. It could be a sponsor, or a competitor, or the owner of a venue. This person does not need to have any knowledge about cubing. You cannot leave such a decision up to such a person. You can also not have the main judge decide. He is only in charge of one event. That leaves only person: the WCA delegate. The requirements for the WCA delegate are: - must be very trustworthy - must feel very responsible - must be strong enough to influence an organisation team and officials to make sure the WCA regulations are followed - must know the WCA regulations "by heart" We could create another role: something like 'chief of judging'. I think it easier to have the WCA delegate. Another option would be to not let the WCA delegate compete. I would definitely disagree with that. Who would want to be the WCA delegate then? I hope in a few years we will have a group of fully independent judges, main judges and WCA delegates. Hopefully before I retire from competing. What do you think? @Bryan For main judge I think it is different. It should be possible to find someone who is not competing in an event. The only problem event I have seen so far is the Rubik's Cube event. So for some competitions someone has to sacrifice competing in Rubik's Cube event. By pointing out the responsibilities of the main judge I thought you were showing that we need a main judge. When rereading it you could also read that you want to get rid of the main judge. Either way, for main judge it is easily possible to separate the responsibility of executing the regulations (main judge) from the responsibility to oversee the regulations (WCA delegate). Thanks, Ron

Yup, the Rubik's Cube is the only "problem" event. So would it be possible to have 1c7 overrule 1d3? In fact, you could almost argue that with the 3x3x3 being the main event, that the WCA delegate would be the best to be the main judge and it could be required. And yes, let the WCA delegate still compete. But like you said, until we have completely independent delegates, judges, and main judges, some people might always criticize. But even in the NBA, they still have problems with the refs not being independent. Anders, I agree with you that "fun" should be over seriousness. Like you, I'm also the organizer, delegate, judge, etc for my competitions. Before I've said we should just get rid of it. But I see now how it is useful, but I would want to be able to also fulfill that role. However, since there are very few competitions near me, I still want to be able to compete in my competitions. Otherwise, money that I'm putting towards holding competitions I would just spend sending myself to others, but that doesn't benefit other cubers.

Ron, I think that the WCA regulations have been improved by each revision. And I believe that giving the WCA delegate a more important role is a good and logical structural change. However, when introducing such kind of changes, we must always contemplate over where we are heading. What kind of place do we want the cubing society to be and what kind of competitions do we want to have? Even it the WCA regulations are necessary to set competition standards, we must not be too conformal so that the organisers do not dare to try out new things. We in Sweden have experimented with unofficial events quite a lot. I wish that more organisers do that. I know that there already are a lot of different events and that the time is limited for each competition, but there are also a lot of other fun puzzles to be solved! As you know, I am very in favour of an open database with removed/unofficial events. You retiring from cubing? Well, not before you beat Rune... Yes, Bryan, if people like us do not find it fun and never get a chance to compete in ”our” competitions, there will be far less competitions around. At the Swedish Open last year I was the main judge in all events but the Rubik's Cube event where another experienced cuber voluneered as main judge.

I will make one final argument and then try not to say anything more. First, I believe that most competitors trust the judges and WCA delegate. I haven't heard of any incidents where we've had a rogue main judge who has disqualified someone unfairly. Maybe there has and it just hasn't been made public. Since the competitor can always appeal to the WCA delegate, if they feel the judge is treating them unfairly, they can appeal to the delegate. If someone has a problem with a main judge competing because they think it's a conflict of interest, I would think that same person would think that a main judge who is friends with another competitor would still be a conflict of interest. The "You're disqualifying me because then you'll place better" simply becomes "You're disqualifying me so your friends can do better." or "You're disqualifying me because I'm (some nationality)". Once again, the competitor can appeal to the WCA delegate. Everyone wants the most qualified officials possible. By not allowing the main judge to compete, the most qualified person may not volunteer. And if the WCA delegate takes the dual-role of main judge for 3x3x3 and can still compete, there's no more conflict of interest than currently exists, because the competitor can always trust the delegate. If someone doesn't trust the delegate, they won't trust them under the old or new rules.