Add clarification on judges forgetting to put a sight blocker #1052
Conversation
|
Is the purpose of this guideline to say that a missing sight blocker should not result in a DNF, or just that it should not result in an extra unless there is a suspected advantage? |
|
Missing sight blocker should not result in an extra unless an advantage was gained. I'm not sure we should we have to emphasize the 1st point you mentioned. |
wca-guidelines.md
Outdated
| @@ -180,6 +180,7 @@ To be more informative, each Guideline is classified using one of the following | |||
| - B1+) [REMINDER] The competitor must use a puzzle without textures, markings, or other features that distinguish similar pieces (see [Regulation 3k](regulations:regulation:3k)). This should be given special attention for Blindfolded Solving. | |||
| - B1b+) [RECOMMENDATION] Blindfolds should be checked by the WCA Delegate before use in the competition. | |||
| - B2d+) [ADDITION] By default, the competitor starts the solve the first time that they start the timer after the judge has indicated that they are ready (see [Regulation B2a](regulations:regulation:B2a)). If they want to check that the timer is in working order, they must (ask and) receive confirmation from the judge each time before starting/resetting the timer during this phase. Penalty for starting and resetting a timer without confirmation from the judge: disqualification of the attempt (DNF). | |||
| - B4c+) [ADDITION] An attempt should not be disqualified solely due to the judge not putting a sight blocker. However, the WCA Delegate may replace the attempt with an extra attempt if they have a reason to suspect that the competitor gained an unfair advantage. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this needs to make explicit that this does not apply if https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#B4c3 is in effect (in which case the judge was not expected to use a sight blocker, and the competitor is responsible).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I actually thought about it, but I can't figure out how to clarify it correctly. Maybe an exception is needed here, like:
... the competitor gained an unfair advantage. Exception: if the competitor had to put a sight blocker themselves (see [Regulation B4c3](regulations:regulation:B4c3)), the attempt should be disqualified, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.
And I still don't like this wording.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thus making it look to have the same level of importance.
What would be the problem with that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What would be the problem with that?
A competition with all scramblers signatures missing won't probably cause a debate on whether the results should stay or not, but I don't think it would be fine to have the same for the sight blockers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Understood. What about changing "should not be disqualified" to "May remain valid" (or something like that)? With that wording, it would be a possibility, instead of a recommendation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would sound a way better. But maybe it should even be reworded to make it an exception? To clearly define that it's not a normal case and should be trated seriously.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you think about this approach? Focus on the idea and not the (bad) wording :p
B4c+) [ADDITION] if the judge forgot to put a sight blocker (or did not put it immediately), the WCA Delegate should always grant an extra attempt.
B4c++) [ADDITION] If an extra attempt is not available, the result may remain valid under exceptional circumstances, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.
|
It does not fit the rulings. I feel it's needed to be discussed internally, not here. |
|
The current use of "put" and the specific language of the judge forgetting is a bit strange. Also, the current language uses "should always" and needs to be changed to "should" or "must" for clarity. It would also be great to expand this to include when sight blockers are used but in a way that they do not properly block the competitor's view of the puzzle. How is something like the following:
|
Co-authored-by: Lucas Garron <lgarron@worldcubeassociation.org>
Adds Guideline B4c+ based on the recent rulings. Completely unsure about the wording and don't like the fact it looks almost the same as the [guideline](https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/guidelines.html#A2d1++) about scramble signatures thus making it look to have the same level of importance. Co-authored-by: Antonio Kam <19kamh3@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Lucas Garron <lgarron@worldcubeassociation.org>
Adds Guideline B4c+ based on the recent rulings.
Completely unsure about the wording and don't like the fact it looks almost the same as the guideline about scramble signatures thus making it look to have the same level of importance.