Conversation
Suggestions for an improvement to WSAP 3.2, to clarify how we expect organizers and delegates to prevent competitors in the waiting area looking at solving competitors.
| 3. Competition Area | ||
| 1. A competition has at least one designated Competition Area, which will be in use throughout each group. | ||
| 2. The organization team and the WCA Delegate should reduce the possibility of competitors watching other competitors in their group make an official attempt. This could include adding a visual barrier between Solving Stations and/or having a sufficient distance between the Competitor Waiting Area and the Solving Stations. | ||
| 2. The organization team and the WCA Delegate must reduce the possibility of competitors watching other competitors in their group make an official attempt. This could be done by adding a visual barrier between Solving Stations and the Competitor Waiting Area. If having a visual barrier is not possible, a recommended distance of 10 feet (3 meters) between the Competitor Waiting Area and the Solving Stations should be arranged. If neither of these options are possible, the Competitor Waiting Area must be arranged in such a way that any competitors that are in the Competitor Waiting Area must be facing away from the Solving Stations. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The 3-metre suggestion and the suggestion to turn chairs in the waiting area away from the solving stations have been common practice in various regions for at least a few years. Adding them to the WSAP would make these practices more widespread, reducing the likelihood of competitors being able see upcoming scrambles by watching other competitors solve.
sshah4405
left a comment
sshah4405
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This creates clearer guidelines for the organizers and the delegates in setting up their waiting area and solving area. LGTM!
bullahggg
left a comment
bullahggg
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Vote passed. Approved by the Board.
|
Delegates and other Volunteers have not been consulted on this change. In particular, the WRC were not consulted and the revised must requirement goes beyond the scramble secrecy requirements contained in the Regulations. How will the updated policy be applied to competitions that have already been announced and have been planned with setups that would no longer be compliant? As written, almost all fixed seating competitions would be non-compliant as no additional measures are in place to stop competitors watching each other, despite the removal of the specific mention of barriers between solving stations. |
|
@ohexter The WCA Scramble Accountability Policy is owned by the WQAC, so they are not obligated to consult with WRC or other WCA Volunteers (except the board for approval) when modifying this policy. You're correct on the duplicated requirements. I encourage WRC to start a conversation with WQAC on resolving the tension between this change and the existing recommendations in the Regulations. Perhaps elements of one document should be migrated to the other to avoid duplicating requirements. |
|
Agree with @ohexter, this change is not practical. It is virtually impossible for fixed seated competitions to comply with this policy. |
|
@ohexter Thank you for voicing your concerns. We'll hold off on merging until the WQAC and WRC have had a proper discussion on this matter. |
|
@ohexter Nick has correctly outlined how policy approvals operate, otherwise we risk introducing unnecessary bureaucracy for every change. However, I will briefly address your other questions, noting this reflects my personal view. Although 'should' has been updated to 'must', the subsequent recommendation uses 'could', preserving flexibility and avoiding a prescriptive approach. With how fixed seating works regularly, the competitors face away from all solving stations except their own. It is unrealistic to regulate human nature such as turning one's head, even if the competitor waiting area is facing a wall. @sarahstrong314 can correct me here but I do not see these changes affecting any current competitions or voiding setups already planned and if they do, they probably did not meet scramble secrecy in general. That said, I believe it will be constructive for WQAC and WRC to discuss and I see steps have already been taken towards it. There is already a common member between both committees so I trust changes affecting both committees are communicated appropriately. |
7 participants
Suggestions for an improvement to WSAP 3.2, to clarify how we expect organizers and delegates to prevent competitors in the waiting area looking at solving competitors.