Coming back from Euro, I have some observations to make and to open some discussions regarding the judges. To have more transparent and fair competitions, I think there should be a rule like: "A judge my not judge the same competitor more than 2 times in a round." I said "2 times" because it will force the competitor to be judged by at least 3 different persons (in the case of a normal 5 solves average event). Magic and Master Magic should be excepted from this rule. I am proposing this, because in the finals, where I was a scrambler, some guys where specifically judging the same competitor again and again. I was doing the 4th or 5th scramble and there was the same signature for all the first 3-4 solves. I know it happened for the 3x3 OH finals and the 5x5 final. (I don't even remember who won - so it's nothing personal). I asked the judge: -"Please take this cube", which was already scrambled and ready for a competitor. -"No, I judge whoever I want" he said -"But you already judged him 4 times, please take this one which is already scrambled and stop waiting for "your" competitor...it might look not fair" -"There's no rule like this"...he said. Me, as a scrambler, I couldn't say anything against him. He was almost persuading me to do what he wanted. I am not saying they cheated...not at all, but I think there can be doubts every time when something like this happens. Nobody could know what was the real result now. If the judge and the competitor are friends they can very easy cheat and write different times than the real ones. I think it will be a useful rule, to give the scramblers the power to choose the judges or to avoid giving the same scrambled cube again and again to the same person. I don't think it's such a difficult or impractical rule to follow. Of course there should be no penalty for it (at least for the moment). There will be case when it will be broken, but still, I think it's a good idea to have more fair competitions.

This seems like a rule that creates more hassles and doesn't really solve anything. If I'm trying to get my times lower by having a judge forge the times, then I just have two friends judge (and the 5th solve is dropped). The scrambler is already busy. Assigning them the task of assigning judges is pointless. And if you have runners, now runners have to be mindful of where they run cubes. Also, I frequently will judge all of someone's solves. For example, if the person has a handicap that requires some special consideration for the judge, I just handle them completely myself rather than having to inform all the judges what to do. If someone shows up late, I may have someone just do all their judging and scrambling for that single person on a side timer. Or I may judge/scramble for a single individual because I want to clear them to judge. If you have issues with the volunteers, report it to the WCA delegate or competition organizer and let them handle it. That has the power to solve many many issues.

I like the intention, but unfortunately as Bryan points out there are too many impracticalities. For me the big problem would be getting a round started over here where we don't have a community built up and we do most of the work ourselves.

The only clear fault I can see is in the refusal of the judge to follow the scrambler's request. 1e1) A judge for an event is responsible for executing the procedures of the event. If a judge refuses to take a cube, then s/he is potentially slowing down the time taken to run that event. I've also seen judges continually try to avoid "slower" cubers in favor of getting the excitement of judging faster competitors. I have a low tolerance for this, and I usually just assign a judge to a scrambled cube if I can see this starting to happen. If one of my judges at a smaller local competition had refused me asking them to judge a competitor because they "judge who they want" I would certainly have asked that judge to no longer take part in the event. But, perhaps, that is just me. Chris

Thanks for your feedback guys. That's why I opened this discussion, to have some more opinions. [quote="BryanLogan":2q4e6zbx]If I'm trying to get my times lower by having a judge forge the times, then I just have two friends judge (and the 5th solve is dropped)[/quote:2q4e6zbx] Yes, but you see, there's already an improvement and a more difficult task for the "cheater", now. (supposing it exists)...He has to find 2 friends, not only one. [quote="Dene":2q4e6zbx]I like the intention, but unfortunately as Bryan points out there are too many impracticalities. For me the big problem would be getting a round started over here where we don't have a community built up and we do most of the work ourselves.[/quote:2q4e6zbx] I don't think it's so hard to ask and educate people (judges) to rotate and not certainly pick the same guy over and over. @Chris - Thanks for your opinion too. [quote="BryanLogan":2q4e6zbx]Also, I frequently will judge all of someone's solves. For example, if the person has a handicap that requires some special consideration for the judge, I just handle them completely myself rather than having to inform all the judges what to do. If someone shows up late, I may have someone just do all their judging and scrambling for that single person on a side timer. Or I may judge/scramble for a single individual because I want to clear them to judge.[/quote:2q4e6zbx] And for special cases, as you mentioned, of course there should be exceptions. This is why I see this not as a mandatory rule, but more as a "recommendation". It should regard more the regular judging, not the exceptions. As I said: -Magic/Master Magic should be excepted for this. -Finals should be excepted from this rule. -WCA Delegates also. Because they are trusted persons and I don't think there's a doubt if they judge 5 times the same person. -For people with handicap or who are late...of course the same judge may do it for all solves. It must not be an absurd rule. Personally I really don't see it that impractical. Maybe it should sound more like: "It is recommended that a judge my not judge the same competitor more than 2 times in a round, except WCA delegates, special cases or magic/master magic events." If you still think that's too difficult to follow and not an improvement, then I'm ok with it. I am just feeling that the fairness of a competition should be the priority.

So this would be a rule that has a bunch of exceptions and doesn't solve the core issue (just requires a second friend)? Doesn't need to be in the regulations. Actually, I think many of the regulations that are "should" should be eliminated. They have no consequences, they're just suggestions to running a competition, which would be better in a separate document.

This rule would just waste time and add administrative hassle. It would be better to add a rule like this: "A judge must not refuse to judge a competitor, unless (at the discretion of main judge or delegate) judging that competitor would be likely to cause a problem."

[quote="qqwref":15hmr8qn]This rule would just waste time and add administrative hassle. It would be better to add a rule like this: "A judge must not refuse to judge a competitor, unless (at the discretion of main judge or delegate) judging that competitor would be likely to cause a problem."[/quote:15hmr8qn] I like this idea, but we should tighten up the phrasing of what exactly constitutes a "problem." Perhaps you not allowing me to judge my friend I've judged for every solve so far causes me a "problem." But yes, I think such an addition to the regulations is a very good idea. Let's just precisely define which types of problem situations we'd like to avoid (or tighten up the wording that the main judge decides what constitutes a "problem"). Chris

[quote="cmhardw":1feli4w6][quote="qqwref":1feli4w6]This rule would just waste time and add administrative hassle. It would be better to add a rule like this: "A judge must not refuse to judge a competitor, unless (at the discretion of main judge or delegate) judging that competitor would be likely to cause a problem."[/quote:1feli4w6] I like this idea, but we should tighten up the phrasing of what exactly constitutes a "problem." Perhaps you not allowing me to judge my friend I've judged for every solve so far causes me a "problem." But yes, I think such an addition to the regulations is a very good idea. Let's just precisely define which types of problem situations we'd like to avoid (or tighten up the wording that the main judge decides what constitutes a "problem"). [/quote:1feli4w6] The problem here is "Who is in charge?" We had a scrambler telling a judge what to do and they didn't agree. Unless Radu was also the head judge, you're at an impasse. The issue should've been brought to the main judge or WCA delegate and it could've been solved without having to write another regulation.

[quote="BryanLogan":28r1pheg]The problem here is "Who is in charge?" We had a scrambler telling a judge what to do and they didn't agree. Unless Radu was also the head judge, you're at an impasse. The issue should've been brought to the main judge or WCA delegate and it could've been solved without having to write another regulation.[/quote:28r1pheg] Although I agree that this issue should have been brought to the WCA delegate by the scrambler, I think that in general the scrambler should absolutely have say over the judge in such a situation. Look at how the Caltech crew runs competitions. Whenever there starts to be a cubing backup because of the judges, the scramblers are the first to say something, and the judges follow their direction. I also try to model competitions that I help delegate this same way as well. We treat our judges nicely, and give them free food and lots of small thank you gifts, but the judges should absolutely follow the direction of all the other staff members on an organizational team. Chris

[quote="cmhardw":25ai6awl]Although I agree that this issue should have been brought to the WCA delegate by the scrambler, I think that in general the scrambler should absolutely have say over the judge in such a situation. Look at how the Caltech crew runs competitions. Whenever there starts to be a cubing backup because of the judges, the scramblers are the first to say something, and the judges follow their direction. I also try to model competitions that I help delegate this same way as well. We treat our judges nicely, and give them free food and lots of small thank you gifts, but the judges should absolutely follow the direction of all the other staff members on an organizational team.[/quote:25ai6awl] The Caltech situation works because the volunteers have mutual respect for each other, not because of regulations. What I'm trying to avoid is having unnecessary regulations, but also regulations that come back to bite us later. At my competitions, the scramblers are usually the more inexperienced people, so to have a regulation that explicitly says they have authority over the judges would be bad.

Yeah, I don't think it's necessary to forbid that from happening...sometimes you have n judges/timers and 2n competitors, and each competitor will end up always with the same judge...I don't see why that is bad. Things are already complicated enough, I think...