Closed lgarron closed 8 years ago
As with "not wasting time/resources" below, we rely on the Delegate's discretion to judge intention.
Another bizarre incident that occurred -- David Nguyen had a very interesting final average. He had a timer malfunction on solve 1 (reset, timer still running and stops at low time like 0.05), so we awarded a new solve. We ran out of scorecards, so we were using makeshift ones written on extra paper. The scrambler, Chris Braiedy, next gave scramble 2 and added a line at the bottom of the scorecard for E1. The judge, however, thought E1 was being given already, and wrote the time in the E1 box. Chris Braiedy corrected this by drawing an arrow from E1 to the box for scramble 2. He then gave scramble 3. The judge in this case made another error, writing the box in the empty scramble 2 box, which only had an arrow pointing to it. Chris clearly gave scramble 3 again based on this scorecard, as it was the next open line on the card. David reported a repeated scramble, which caused a lot of craziness and confusion -- all of which was sorted out. We fixed the scorecard to reflect the correct time for scramble 3, and proceeded to give him scramble 4, then 5, then E1. (He actually had the exact same timer malfunction happen later, so he actually replaced 5 with E2) (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/wca-delegates/8y52PNr_jTM/jpA_I8NGgeYJ)(Minnesota Cube Melt 2015)
3a1) Competitors must be present and ready to compete when they are called to compete for an attempt. Penalty: disqualification from the event. Alternatively, a competitor who is not present in time for an individually scheduled attempt (e.g. an FMC attempt, a Multiple Blindfolded attempt) may be considered to have declined that attempt (DNS), at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.
(from this discussion)
TODO(@Sa967St): think of a better way to word this. Consider including (quite a few) concrete examples based on past incidents. Possibly also examples of things that are not really wasting time (e.g. just being slow).
Examples:
Non-examples:
From Chris Krueger:
This discussion came up again among some of us today, so I want to again suggest a regulation change about allowing disqualification from a solve/event at delegate discretion for a competitor not competing in good faith. Currently, I could walk into a competition without pre-announced cutoff times and announce that I intend to complete every solve in 9:59.99, and under a strict reading of the current regulations no one could do anything about it. I'd like to change that.
Change the wording of A1c to A competitor participating in an event must be able to fulfill the event's requirements (e.g. know how to solve the puzzle within a given time limit). A competitor competing with expectation of a DNF result or intentionally poor result may be disqualified from the solve or the event, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate. Restore E1 to read Article A1c applies to Fewest Moves Solving.
A justification based on wasting competition resources can be read from 2J 2K and A1c. The proposed change just simplifies that.
Plan: propose this to the Board as-is, else consider it for later Regulations, with possible Delegate voting.
This is the biggest problem in #192 (except intentional turns from #196).
See this draft commit.
Plan: propose the draft commit to the Board (with no other puzzle changes), since this is the most anticipated puzzle change, and has been publicly promised-ish. (If the Board says no, then no puzzle changes.)
See #262
Add an official recommendation ("should", but not yet "must") for the following timer modifications:
If the competitor resets the timer before the end of the attempt => DNF However, a +2 time penalty may be given instead if the result has been completely written down, at the judge's discretion.
Clarify that solutions written on a different piece of paper are okay, as long as a single move sequence is unambiguously indicated as the submitted solution.
Possible clarification: no words, arrows, complicated direction, etc.
The organization team may require scramblers to take additional measures to make sure that they are performing the correct scrambles (e.g. signing the score sheet to affirm that they performed the correctly-numbered scramble and checked that it matches the image).
It has long been promised that the WRC would change the scramble filter to 6 moves.
Extra attempts take place after all regular attempts are finished.
Is it mandatory? Why not immediately after the solve that is replaced?
Yes, the idea is to make this way of doing it mandatory, in order standardize it. The order of handling extra attempts has led to confusion in competitions in the past.
This is still in a draft branch; we'll see if the Board also considers it uncontroversial enough.
See individual comments below (these were produced by @lgarron, @KitClement, @Sa967St during a Skype conversation).
TODO: Edit the posts below to reference the relevant GitHub issues.
List of the posts below:
Also, misc. small issues: