# WCA has now banned stickerless cubes for BLD. Thoughts?



## HEART (Oct 31, 2012)

Official WCA statement

What do you think? They say it helps memorize faster, does it? I find the idea absurd. It's really annoying that they are no banned, especially for people that have a lot of them for mBLD. Going by this logic, i could just have very big stickers on my cube covering all the plastic, would that mean my cube should be illegal?

I really would like to see this repealed.

edit: Yes i know i typed in the title. Supposed to be "now" not "no".


----------



## lex (Oct 31, 2012)

wow that really sucks for bld... prolly gonna get protested like crazy.I mean those cubes cost money!!! 

colored cubes are _famous_, its a symbol asscoiated with _success_
Here's a 7 second presliced video as evidence of the stickless cube's acceptance by people!!!

http://www.youtuberepeater.com/watch?v=U37ULq3VNo0&s=163&e=170


----------



## AlexByard (Oct 31, 2012)

Well, i have used both for my BLD solving, and to be fair I believe the stickers help me memo faster... This is just quite stupid. very stupid.


----------



## DrKorbin (Oct 31, 2012)

HEART said:


> They say it helps memorize faster, does it? I find the idea absurd.


Are you a good blindfold solver? You just think it is absurd or you've done many attempts with stickerless cube and it didn't help you?
Because Noahaha did and it helped him.


HEART said:


> Going by this logic, i could just have very big stickers on my cube covering all the plastic, would that mean my cube should be illegal?


3h) No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle. Some examples of enhancing the basic concept are: new moves are possible, normal moves are impossible, *more pieces are visible*, colours on the backside of the puzzle are visible, moves are done automatically, more or other solved states.

So if your cube violates this rule it won't be legal.


HEART said:


> I really would like to see this repealed.


Where were you two months ago when WRC announced these cubes to be banned sooner or later? You could argue in this thread. Now I think it is a bit late.


----------



## moralsh (Oct 31, 2012)

I find it really unfair for one reason not mentioned here, many MBLDers may have to re-sticker 20 or 30 cubes very often, which I think is a PITA.

I personally think that the advantage is negligible, but this has been discussed to death and WCA has stated their reasons many times.


----------



## HEART (Oct 31, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> 3h) No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle. Some examples of enhancing the basic concept are: new moves are possible, normal moves are impossible, *more pieces are visible*, colours on the backside of the puzzle are visible, moves are done automatically, more or other solved states.
> 
> So if your cube violates this rule it won't be legal.



More pieces wouldn't be visible, same ammount of stickers would be visible as before. Eastsheen stickers leave _almost_ no plastic on the edges of the 4x4 and 5x5 cubes, should they be banned?

Also, i didn't start BLD solving untill about a month ago, so there's where i was when most of this went down.

I average around 2:30 during BLD, but i have picked up stickerless cubes before, and i find them really... disorienting for my memo, perhaps because I wasn't used to it. Same logic applies though if i just had bigger stickers, similar to eastsheen.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Oct 31, 2012)

Yay for no more double standards! Now no one will use the excuse "but they use them in bld"


----------



## Noahaha (Oct 31, 2012)

You can complain as much as you want about this decision, but it had to be made. Stickerless should be allowed for everything or nothing, and honestly it's a lot easier to remove them from BLD than to add them in to everything else.


----------



## antoineccantin (Oct 31, 2012)

I thinks its about time considering mine was turned down for my last 2 competitions.


----------



## Erik (Oct 31, 2012)

Good decision, it's really weird they would be allowed for some events but not allowed for others. Theoretically you could still get an advantage if you just do a small turn that disaligns the layers but not counts as a full move: you could see the colour of the piece from the side then. Of course this is negligible. As a matter of fact I'd like to have them legal for ALL events, but it's better to ban them for all events than only for some.

For those with many of them and doing multiblind: if you have 6 you can just rebuild to 6 legal cubes of just 1 colour of plastic.


----------



## HEART (Oct 31, 2012)

While consistency is nice, the reason for banning them in other events besides BLD becomes void when it enters BLD. They're banned also because when a layer is turned, you can see the other color of pieces because the way the pieces are molded and colored. But if you're bindfolded, it doesn't matter.


----------



## DrKorbin (Oct 31, 2012)

You can't do moves but turning on <45 degrees is not move. You just turn a face a little bit.


----------



## emolover (Oct 31, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> honestly it's a lot easier to remove them from BLD than to add them in to everything else.



Why would it be so difficult to add them to every event?


----------



## HEART (Oct 31, 2012)

Who would honestly do that? 

OH man guys, today i was trying to memo, and it took me so long, if only i could turn a layer a little bit to speed it up.


----------



## CHJ (Oct 31, 2012)

Good! I think some consistency with cube banning is helpful, and i personally hate them anyway


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Oct 31, 2012)

People with many stickerless cubes may be able to turn them into stickered cubes which are legal, but that's still a huge inconvenience for people who bought them when they were told they were legal.


----------



## shelley (Nov 1, 2012)

Credit to Yohei Suzuki:



> 1. Prepare 6 6-color stickerless cubes.
> 2. Disassemble all 6 cubes.
> 3. Gather the same colors.
> 4. Assemble!!
> 5. Get 6 normal body cubes!! Red body, white body...


----------



## Ickathu (Nov 1, 2012)

good. Glad to see this officially verified by the board.


----------



## Sa967St (Nov 1, 2012)

Wonderful.


----------



## musicninja17 (Nov 1, 2012)

There really could be a rule about, you know, since you can't make turns on the cube during BLD memo, the being able to see more sides thing is NULL.


----------



## Noahaha (Nov 1, 2012)

musicninja17 said:


> There really could be a rule about, you know, since you can't make turns on the cube during BLD memo, the being able to see more sides thing is NULL.



No it's not. In fact, if you're not turning the cube it is even easier to see on more sides than you should since everything isn't all blurry and fast.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 1, 2012)

Glad to see that the rules are now uniform 

As for them being allowed, I don't think it matters too much either way. However, this is a nice direction for the WCA to take as far as allowing stuff goes.


----------



## brandbest1 (Nov 1, 2012)

I don't really mind this rule, it's just that now I have to take extra good care of my cubes and put my mini zhanchi in its box when i'm not using it. Plus, I have to resticker my cubes constantly because of the damage I do to them.


----------



## Fire Cuber (Nov 1, 2012)

Umm, The MBLD WR Holder Quits. Not good

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?39100-Bye-)


----------



## Godmil (Nov 1, 2012)

moralsh said:


> many MBLDers may have to re-sticker 20 or 30 cubes very often, which I think is a PITA.



How many MBLD attempts must you do to require restickering 20-30 cubes 'very often'?


----------



## sneaklyfox (Nov 1, 2012)

Just wait until they manufacture a stickerless cube that has only black on the inside surfaces...

Edit: I meant "black" as in any uniform colour. I just think black because I prefer black cubes...


----------



## pjk (Nov 1, 2012)

Erik said:


> Good decision, it's really weird they would be allowed for some events but not allowed for others. Theoretically you could still get an advantage if you just do a small turn that disaligns the layers but not counts as a full move: you could see the colour of the piece from the side then. Of course this is negligible. As a matter of fact I'd like to have them legal for ALL events, but it's better to ban them for all events than only for some.
> 
> For those with many of them and doing multiblind: if you have 6 you can just rebuild to 6 legal cubes of just 1 colour of plastic.


But in BLD you're not allowed to turn the puzzle while you can still see it, so that shouldn't be an issue unless that rule is violated. I see no reason for banning stickerless puzzles in BLD.

And the "for consistency" from the WCA doesn't make sense either. What exactly does the WCA mean by this?


----------



## Henrik (Nov 1, 2012)

sneaklyfox said:


> Just wait until they manufacture a stickerless cube that has only black on the inside surfaces...
> 
> Edit: I meant "black" as in any uniform colour. I just think black because I prefer black cubes...



Has been done !

By two manufactures: C4U and Gans-cube

http://cube4you.com/cube4you-interchangeble-bright-tile-cube-nib-black-p-224.html?cPath=26_33
and
http://lightake.com/detail.do/sku.3x3x3_PVC_Type_A_Gans_Puzzle_Magic_Cube_Black-37517


----------



## SirWaffle (Nov 1, 2012)

I want to know how did they come to a conclusion that stickerless cubes give a faster memo time. If anything I thing stickerless cubes should be encouraged in blind solving because I have stickered cubes that have damage on the sticker that can just barely be felt but not seen and of course that can't happen with a stickerless cube.

Edit:I think that a stickered cube vs a stickerless cube is like a marked and unmarked deck of cards. There are ways that you can easily make a deck of cards look brand new but there are markings all over it, that only a single magician can see. Tha same goes for a stickered cube. A cuber can mark a stickered cube in such a way that only they know and use to cheat in blind solving.


----------



## BlueDevil (Nov 1, 2012)

pjk said:


> But in BLD you're not allowed to turn the puzzle while you can still see it, so that shouldn't be an issue unless that rule is violated. I see no reason for banning stickerless puzzles in BLD.









You can see the orange, but on a stickered cube you would not be able to. Stickerless helps in bld because the color of a piece can be viewed better, and without as much of a rotation of the cube.


----------



## cubernya (Nov 1, 2012)

BlueDevil said:


> Spoiler: image
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But I can still use 1.5mm thick tiles, which IMO is much worse than stickerless cubes

I could care less if the WCA allows stickerless cubes


----------



## izovire (Nov 1, 2012)

WCA's fault for allowing them in the first place... oooops!

I can agree with this decision because mistakes are made at competitions sometimes. Some people might get away with solving a stickerless on normal solves by accident. Last comp. I went to I had to remind 3 people that they could not use their stickerless for normal solving. Even though I think there's no advantage or it's very negligible. 

What if circular stickers help people memo better than square stickers? Would this be a problem? hehe


----------



## musicninja17 (Nov 1, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> No it's not. In fact, if you're not turning the cube it is even easier to see on more sides than you should since everything isn't all blurry and fast.



I really don't see your point. I see the other people's points about being able to see the colors through the gaps between the centres and edges, but I was talking about making turns (like URLFBD type) not cube rotations. There's not much difference in color area on a face between stickerless and stickered, not enough to make a huge difference imo. I don't believe that was the reasoning behind the ban.


----------



## Noahaha (Nov 1, 2012)

musicninja17 said:


> I really don't see your point. I see the other people's points about being able to see the colors through the gaps between the centres and edges, but I was talking about making turns (like URLFBD type) not cube rotations. There's not much difference in color area on a face between stickerless and stickered, not enough to make a huge difference imo. I don't believe that was the reasoning behind the ban.



I was talking about the fact that you can see back colors without seeing the back.


----------



## HEART (Nov 1, 2012)

Also, if stickerless are banned because they help memo faster, ( meaning eventually solving faster ) shoudn't the edge grips on the dayan minx be banned to? They help solve/grip easier, to me there is almost no difference.


----------



## Sebastien (Nov 1, 2012)

pjk said:


> But in BLD you're not allowed to turn the puzzle while you can still see it, so that shouldn't be an issue unless that rule is violated.



Of cause you are allowed to _turn_ faces during memorization. You are just not allowed to make _moves_.



pjk said:


> And the "for consistency" from the WCA doesn't make sense either. What exactly does the WCA mean by this?



Please use a dictionary if you don't know what _consistency_ means. If you do, then I can't see how you could not know why that decision is consistent in the given context.



SirWaffle said:


> I want to know how did they come to a conclusion that stickerless cubes give a faster memo time.



No one ever claimed that. Just stop reading official statements wrong.


----------



## ducttapecuber (Nov 1, 2012)

HEART said:


> Also, if stickerless are banned because they help memo faster, ( meaning eventually solving faster ) shoudn't the edge grips on the dayan minx be banned to? They help solve/grip easier, to me there is almost no difference.



I see your point, but a dayan mexaminx's ridges help to grip, in a way its like having textured tiles that help you grip better. While on stickerless cubes it is easier to see the colors. Easier to see and easier to grip are separate things.


----------



## samchoochiu (Nov 1, 2012)

HEART said:


> While consistency is nice, the reason for banning them in other events besides BLD becomes void when it enters BLD. They're banned also because when a layer is turned, you can see the other color of pieces because the way the pieces are molded and colored. But if you're bindfolded, it doesn't matter.



True, however another problem is that you can see certain colors that you should not be able to see with a stickerless cube. For example in this picture you can clearly see the blue side of the cube http://farm9.static.flickr.com/8020/7536546668_e190072a57.jpg
I hope you now understand why the problems with stickerless cubes are applicable to BLD events.


----------



## HEART (Nov 1, 2012)

Yeah that would indeed be a problem, now what agitates me more so is how they let this go for so long? If it was really that obvious you'd think they'd just go ahead and ban it as soon as possible.


----------



## SirWaffle (Nov 1, 2012)

> No one ever claimed that. Just stop reading official statements wrong


If it wasn't conclusive then why did they pass the rule? They should not have passed it if they didn't have a conclusive reason to.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Nov 1, 2012)

SirWaffle said:


> If it wasn't conclusive then why did they pass the rule? They should not have passed it if they didn't have a conclusive reason to.



From what I understand, It was passed to resolve the inconsistency with allowing stickerless cubes for BLD events and not for others. This makes sense, they should either be usable for everything or nothing imo.


----------



## Ollie (Nov 1, 2012)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> From what I understand, It was passed to resolve the inconsistency with allowing stickerless cubes for BLD events and not for others. This makes sense, they should either be usable for everything or nothing imo.



Here here 

Now to sort out the +2 rule (commence debate.)


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Nov 1, 2012)

I've still never seen anyone give a detailed decription of what the 'basic concept' of the cube is, or more importantly a suitable justification of any such definition. I raised this point in a previous thread but it went ignored. It's only because the WCA haven't actually defined this that they have to give numerous examples of what an extension to the 'basic concept' is in the regs, to explicitly cover any cube they happen to feel doesn't comply with their probably arbitrary and unexplained idea of what constitutes an acceptable cube. Unless I've just overlooked it?


----------



## tim (Nov 2, 2012)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> I've still never seen anyone give a detailed decription of what the 'basic concept' of the cube is, or more importantly a suitable justification of any such definition.



From my point of view the "basic concept" of a puzzle consists of
a) the possible moves/mechanics of the puzzle
b) solved/unsolved states

Finding a proper definition for the "basic concept" which covers the current rules/decisions is probably impossible or at least very hard. But adding arbitrary rules for visibility of pieces/markings is just asking for trouble (especially since tiles are actually allowed.)
On the other hand, the WCA regulations aren't supposed to be a place to cover every corner case there is (otherwise they'd become an unmaintainable mess in no time). So we probably have to live with these "arbitrary" decisions by the WCA board or get rid of all ambiguous rules which will lead to other strange things like people using transparent cubes for example.

/edit: I'm sorry for this poorly written text. I somehow couldn't express my thoughts more clearly...


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 2, 2012)

SirWaffle said:


> If it wasn't conclusive then why did they pass the rule?



Just in case.


----------



## bgdgyfer (Nov 2, 2012)

Now I can`t use a stickerless guhong or zhanchi in BLD. :-(


----------



## mrpotatoman14 (Nov 2, 2012)

I think it's good for the sake of consistency.


----------



## StephenC (Nov 2, 2012)

I think that the argument that you should disallow stickerless cubes for consistency, is unreasonable unless the V-cube 7 is also disallowed. Pillowed cubes are not allowed in any other events, and the ShengShou is now widely available and used. I think that many people have bought stickerless cubes specifically for multi-blind, just like the people that have bought the V-cube 7 for 7x7. I just figured that I would give my opinion on the matter, as it looks as though nobody else has brought this up.


----------



## yoruichi (Nov 2, 2012)

seems like a dumb rule


----------



## CarlBrannen (Nov 2, 2012)

While I don' t have a dog in this race (no BLD, no stickerless), I think it would be nicer bring the restriction in over a longer period of time. Maybe 2013.


----------



## musicninja17 (Nov 2, 2012)

Devil's advocate time! ...Well, since our eyes are spaced farther apart than the length of a cube, we can see more than 3 sides at once anyway, right?


----------



## uniacto (Nov 2, 2012)

musicninja17 said:


> Devil's advocate time! ...Well, since our eyes are spaced farther apart than the length of a cube, we can see more than 3 sides at once anyway, right?



that's true, but it sorta depends on the person.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 2, 2012)

StephenC said:


> I think that the argument that you should disallow stickerless cubes for consistency, is unreasonable unless the V-cube 7 is also disallowed.



Give them a chance. Stickerless cubes have been out a lot longer than good cubic 7x7s.


----------



## antoineccantin (Nov 2, 2012)

Does this mean the current 3BLD and MultiBLD WRs are invalid?


----------



## Michael Womack (Nov 2, 2012)

If stickerless Cubes were never banned for BLD then the BLD solver won't do any thing like purposely put vinyl stickers on one side another smooth tiles another texured tiles or chipped/peel stickers so there fingers can feel what the sticker is.


----------



## Fallen Apart (Nov 2, 2012)

Law does not work backwards... at least in my country


----------



## Michael Womack (Nov 2, 2012)

Fallen Apart said:


> Law does not work backwards... at least in my country



What dose this have to do with WCA?


----------



## Kian (Nov 2, 2012)

antoineccantin said:


> Does this mean the current 3BLD and MultiBLD WRs are invalid?



No.


----------



## prażeodym (Nov 3, 2012)

Well done WCA, You lost -10 points for dumbest decision of the month. My quation is why I can use v cube 7x7 if it is pillowed, and I can see WHILE SOLVING THE CUBE more than 3 sides. Or maybe I should take very small cube, so I could see more than 3 sides because I have 2 eyes?

Ok, if it is really true, and every blindfold cuber see more than they should see using colored cube then my quation is:
Why cubers can't make their jobe easier? 
I mean why we can lubricate cubes for example? It definitly helps us. In my oppinion, every cube should be legal. If You see more than 3 sides - good to You, mb it will help You get better times. Upgraded corners help You while solving megaminx? Weren't they made for it? 

Not every cuber will like colored cube, and not for everyone it will help (mb for someone normal cube will be better, does it mean that we have to ban it?). If pillowed cubes would be legal, I don't think every cuber will change their cube, because You can see more than 3 sieds. For most of then, normal cubic shape will be better to turn faster (because it is very uncomfortable to turn it fast, like on pillowed 2Vcube).

BTW greeting for every one who thinks that it possible to see colors on cube bettwen pices while solving it fast. It have to really decrease Your times!

Edit:
I forgot about this:
View attachment 2463


----------



## cubernya (Nov 3, 2012)

For everybody: I emailed the board on this, and this is the response I got from Ron:

Hi all,

I actually hate these discussions. I just do not understand why people keep on discussing this matter when there is an easy solution: just use "normal" cubes. There are many good cubes!
There must be a boundary for what is allowed and what isn't. There are definitely examples of cubes that WOULD give an advantage, or would change the way we solve. Maybe this specific cube does not give a big advantage, but at least the regulation is better than making a complex regulation of what is allowed and what isn't.

Have fun,

Ron


----------



## Noahaha (Nov 3, 2012)

Here is my argument against everyone who agrees with stickerless cubes being allowed for BLD but not normal solving:

*The advantage of seeing more than three sides of the cube at a time, INSIGNIFICANT as it may be, is still GREATER than the advantage of seeing colors mid-turn during a sighted solve.*

So, if you are going to argue with this, PLEASE argue that stickerless cubes should be allowed for all events and not just BLD (although I do not support this opinion), since the argument for removing stickerless cubes from BLD is a DIFFERENT argument from the INITIAL reasoning for removing them from sighted solving. 

Thank you.

EDIT: 1000 - Not really proud of this for some reason.


----------



## Isaac Paurus (Nov 3, 2012)

Ridiculous.


----------



## musicninja17 (Nov 3, 2012)

uniacto said:


> that's true, but it sorta depends on the person.



Well then, we have to regulate that too then, don't we? Gives some people an unfair advantage. 
Additionally, I would have to say they need to ban pillowed 7x7's for sake of consistency if they're truly worried about that.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 3, 2012)

I think the only reason they haven't banned pillowed 7x7x7s yet is that they need to wait longer to make sure everyone has a decent SS.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Nov 3, 2012)

I find it interesting to read the arguments on both sides. But personally, I don't really care that they are banned because I don't do BLD or have a stickerless cube. But I suppose that if they were made legal in competition then I would probably get a stickerless to see if they really feel smoother or if I can use them properly/get used to how they look. I think I prefer the classic look...


----------



## StephenC (Nov 3, 2012)

qqwref:


> I think the only reason they haven't banned pillowed 7x7x7s yet is that they need to wait longer to make sure everyone has a decent SS.



So how long do we wait for that to happen? Why does the same argument not apply to multi-blind? Should we not wait until all multi-blind participants that have bought stickerless cubes, have bought stickered and otherwise legal cubes? Or do we allow people that had stickerless cubes before the regulation to continue using them? Surely you mean to say that we should wait until the majority of 7x7 participants have a SS. We could never wait for all of them to get a SS before enforcing the regulations, as there will probably always be a few people that do not want to get a SS. I am fairly convinced that you meant the majority of 7x7 participants, not all of them.

I think that most 7x7 participants already have a ShengShou. I request that you view this poll for evidence of my argument POLL. I think that most of the people in this poll would use a SS 7x7 in competition. While I don't really think that the advantage of the pillowing of the V7 gives much advantage, it does violate the regulations (or at least it is inconsistent, since pillowed cubes are not allowed in any other event).

If we do not allow people to use stickerless cubes because of the negligible advantage, then we certainly have to apply the same reasoning to using pillowed cubes. The point here is that this is inconsistent, and that we should apply the regulations equally. 

I think that we should be as consistent as possible, and harshly apply the regulations. I think that it would be better for us to change the regulations, then allow them to be infringed in certain circumstances. I think that this calls for a change in policy. Under the current regulations, both stickerless cubes and pillowed cubes should not be allowed. This is a stupid rule, and instead of trying to argue that it is not being violated, we should change it.

We need a better definition of "the basic concept of a puzzle." I don't think that there is anybody that would argue that a stickerless GuHong is not a 3x3, nor do I think that there is anybody that would argue that the V7 is not a 7x7. A spherical 3x3 is still a 3x3, as is a stickerless 3x3. I think that the WCA would gladly welcome regulations that were better defined, and that more people are happy with. We should come up with a set of changes to the regulations that we are all happy with, and then petition the WCA to change them.


----------



## prażeodym (Nov 3, 2012)

Most Cubers have bought colored cubes for blind, because they didn't want to change stickers and have problems with this (because if any sticker will be diffrent, You have to change it for blind because it could help You). Mb they should ban all cubes exept Rubik's studio one, so we could taste fantastic rules from 1982


----------



## Carrot (Nov 3, 2012)

just ban pillowed 7x7x7s now...


----------



## studzien (Nov 3, 2012)

What is really bad about this decision is creating a bad precedent of changing any rules in any way without any real argument just for the sake of consistency.
To believe in WCA's good intentions would be the most convenient here, but its expectancy of 'bellyfeeling' the new regulations simply disallows to do so.


----------



## pepkin88 (Nov 3, 2012)

I'd like to post some of my thoughts and opinions on this subject:

Some said that you can avoid rotating cube while memorizing in BLD with the colored cubes. I don't agree with that. Although I'm not a top BLD cuber, I think that the delicate tint of shadow in a colorful environment doesn't tell you anything. And even if it does, you HAVE to rotate the cube to be sure what color it is. It isn't speedsolving, you won't reaffirm the color after a couple of turns. You have to know the color or you get DNF.
Why so short time to adapt the new regulations?
I think that consistency is the least important aspect here. If some regulations are hurting some cubers (with no impact on others) in a cause of consistency, they shouldn't be implemented.
In my opinion WCA is going the wrong way and is starting to be inconsistent itself.
What is wrong in “getting the advantage”? Is that some cubes will be used more frequently than others? We already have that with DaYans over Rubik's Studio. Doesn't WCA see that it bans more and more cubes in sake of mere vision about the perfect cube? First were transparent cubes, than colored ones, now colored ones second time, in the future pillow cubes and probably also these with tiles (they also grants you vision of the back faces, especially in Megaminx). These are also 3x3, their mathematical properties are the same, the same cases, the same solved state, the same way to tell whether it is solved, the same turns you can make, the same methods you solve them with.
So maybe is it a historical reason? The first cubes were Rubik's Studio, today we have DaYans, they are very different that the old cubes, even more different is a Void Cube with cross with centers inside, which is still legal on the competitions. So no, today cubes are different than, the original ones.
So why put the border in cubes and allows ones and ban others? Are these “bad cubes” increase human skills, have they an autosolving mode, do they help with recognizing and blink the cubies you are currently looking for, do they use the engine to rotate faces faster? Of course not. They are just regular cubes with the possibility to identify the back colors. They even require more skill from solver, who wants to take full advantage of his cube. What happened to the meaning of the competitive sports? Faster, higher, stronger, remember?


Just one more:


theZcuber said:


> For everybody: I emailed the board on this, and this is the response I got from Ron:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> ...


Pardon me, but this statement sounded to me like “We know the best, we are doing it for your good, so just shut up.”
At least I know now that the democracy isn't welcome.


----------



## Meep (Nov 3, 2012)

Just to throw it out there, the regulations never did have an exception for BLD. Whether you're looking at it or not while solving, the basic concept of the puzzle has been enhanced. Regardless of whether you can take advantage of the partial-turn color visibility or not, it can debated whether it should have been allowed in the first place.

I feel the problem they're trying to address was the ambiguity of the regulations (from reading Ron's e-mail above) in addition to possibly consistency.


----------



## arcio1 (Nov 3, 2012)

I have one simple question for everyone who keeps saying that banning stickerless cubes is good decision because those cubes help with anything: SO WHAT?!
If it was allowed, everyone could use it, so everyone would have same advantage, SO.. it wouldn't be unfair to anybody! Using stickered dayan cubes is an advantage, too, because they turn better than e.g. Rubik's brand cubes. So it should be banned, too, shouldn't it..?
And "for consistency" isn't an argument.


----------



## prażeodym (Nov 3, 2012)

I think that Magics will be removed just to have "consistency" of rules, then some other weird events like feet and OH and blind, just to simplify the rules.


----------



## Schmidt (Nov 4, 2012)

So I can't use this cube for BLD anymore?!?





Oh well.


----------



## TMOY (Nov 4, 2012)

Meep said:


> Just to throw it out there, the regulations never did have an exception for BLD.


And that's IMHO definitely a bad thing. The requirements are not the same for speed and for BLD. And I've already had cubes accepted for speed but rejected for BLD at the same comp, which is always annoying. At least if it was set in the rules then things would be clear.

Personally I would prefer complex but solid rules over rules which are simple only for the sake of simplicity and which create more problems than they are solving. But maybe that's just me.


----------



## pjk (Nov 5, 2012)

Sebastien said:


> Of cause you are allowed to _turn_ faces during memorization. You are just not allowed to make _moves_.


So I can do R4 and U4 during memo? Have you seen anyone do this, and if so, why? Or do you mean you can turn, just not over 45 degrees?



Sebastien said:


> Please use a dictionary if you don't know what _consistency_ means. If you do, then I can't see how you could not know why that decision is consistent in the given context.


Of course I know what consistency means in general, but in this case it is very vague. Consistency of puzzles? Consistency of colors, plastic, what? Because stickerless was banned from 3x3 speedsolve we should ban it from blind? That shouldn't be a valid reason by any means; they are two different events with different rules. Let's be honest, stickerless in blind hardly gives any advantage at all. What is the point of consistency in this situation?


----------



## JasonK (Nov 5, 2012)

pjk said:


> So I can do R4 and U4 during memo? Have you seen anyone do this, and if so, why?



In what way is U4 not a move? If a move means "turning a face more than 45 degrees", then U4 is definitely one.


----------



## Petro Leum (Nov 5, 2012)

it was stupid and it is stupid, but at least the rules are clear now.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 5, 2012)

Delegates / Board members / and WRC members had different reasons for supporting this decision.

In my opinion, the most important thing is that the rules are clear and fair.
It's much clearer to define which puzzles are allowed, and have those rules apply to all relevant events. That includes consistency for stickerless cubes.

Colored-plastic stickerless cubes show extra information while solving (e.g. during a turn), and the consensus of WCA officials is that stickerless cubes should not be allowed.
In the end, decisions like this are arbitrary, but the point is that the rules should be fair to all competitors in all countries. For that, we just need to agree on *some* conventions for which puzzles are allowed, and which are not.

(Hopefully, the new format of the Regulations + Guidelines will help with that, as tricky as it is to try to put those together.)


----------



## A Leman (Nov 6, 2012)

Since my only great cube is a colored cube, this is disappointing. What about Marcel’s WR's? Should they be null because he was retroactively cheating? Do people honestly think his records are so unassailable just because of the cube he used? I seriously doubt it.


----------



## ThomasJE (Nov 6, 2012)

A Leman said:


> Since my only great cube is a colored cube, this is disappointing. What about Marcel’s WR's? Should they be null because he was retroactively cheating? Do people honestly think his records are so unassailable just because of the cube he used? I seriously doubt it.



There is a rule covering that. Let me find it...

EDIT:


> 9i3) If the regulations for an event are changed, then the old regional records stand until they are broken under the new regulations.


----------



## AustinReed (Nov 6, 2012)

I am very happy with this decision. I do believe coloured cubes give an advantage, even if it's very slight. I want the rules to be as consistent as they can be, and it's the step in the right direction.


----------



## samchoochiu (Nov 6, 2012)

AustinReed said:


> I am very happy with this decision. I do believe coloured cubes give an advantage, even if it's very slight. I want the rules to be as consistent as they can be, and it's the step in the right direction.


I'm glad I have found someone that supports this change for the exact same reasons I do.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Nov 27, 2012)

How can the speedsolving community get the minutes for all of the WCA rule change meetings that addressed this issue?


----------



## Vincents (Nov 27, 2012)

Part of the entire controversy arose because when the stickerless cubes first came out, Delegates in different areas of the world made different rulings on their legality, in accordance how they best felt the Regulations should have been interpreted. This inconsistency was then partially rectified (banned in speedsolve), and some officials felt that a ban in speedsolve covered a ban in BLD, but other officials differed in opinion.

Later, the status if stickerless cubes was clarified and communicated to all Delegates. Due to the earlier confusion, we decided to release a public announcement to reduce confusion (e.g. people showing up with the expectation that their cubes would be allowed, only to have Delegates turn them down).

So, in essence, our situation arose from judgment calls. Much as how in the law, different judges will interpret laws in different ways (e.g. for those of you well-versed in American history, study the history behind the Second Amendment), different Delegates ruled differently (in our analogy, District courts ruled differently). This was escalated (appealed, for those of you still keeping up with the analogy, up to the Circuit and Supreme Court level). Finally, a clarification (ruling) was made.

And in response to hcfong, basically there wasn't really a decision made. Some officials believed the DaYan stickerless cubes were illegal across all events. Others thought they might be okay in BLD, but after further consultation and research, it was clear that they should be not be used in all events.

Marcell's (I might be getting the number of l's wrong) case seems to be brought up a lot. To those who point to his case, I'll just say this:
I believe the Regulations should apply equally to world record holders and first-time competitors. A difference in skill should, and does, not engender differing treatment in the eyes of the Regulations.


----------



## StephenC (Nov 27, 2012)

And the V-cube 7? Can people use that? I would have thought that that would not be allowed because it is pillowed. I understand why it is not banned, but I don't understand how the same logic does not apply to stickerless cubes for blind. I regret that I am bringing this up again, but I would like to know why this is not taken seriously?


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Nov 27, 2012)

StephenC said:


> And the V-cube 7? Can people use that? I would have thought that that would not be allowed because it is pillowed. I understand why it is not banned, but I don't understand how the same logic does not apply to stickerless cubes for blind. I regret that I am bringing this up again, but I would like to know why this is not taken seriously?



I think the confusion comes from the fact they aren't being banned now, but rather weren't legal in competitions to begin with. They should have been banned in all events, including BLD events since the initial banning of them from speed events. What's happening now is a public announcement of this to try and actually set the rules straight (I think)


----------



## StephenC (Nov 27, 2012)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> I think the confusion comes from the fact they aren't being banned now, but rather weren't legal in competitions to begin with. They should have been banned in all events, including BLD events since the initial banning of them from speed events. What's happening now is a public announcement of this to try and actually set the rules straight (I think)



But can't the same reasoning apply to the V-cube 7? I think that it does, and that if stickerless cubes are banned then they should be banned as well. If you will allow me to extend the reasoning, they could have also been illegal from the beginning. 

Actually, if you just exclude the part about BLD events, the statement makes perfect sense when you think about it in the context of the V7.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Nov 27, 2012)

StephenC said:


> But can't the same reasoning apply to the V-cube 7? I think that it does, and that if stickerless cubes are banned then they should be banned as well. If you will allow me to extend the reasoning, they could have also been illegal from the beginning.
> 
> Actually, if you just exclude the part about BLD events, the statement makes perfect sense when you think about it in the context of the V7.



The V-7 isn't banned because it was the original 7x7x7 cube, so it doesn't violate this:


WCA Reg 3h said:


> No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle.


 Since the pillowed 7x7 is the original, the basic concept of a 7x7 is pillowed. Also, banning the V-cube would place a monopoly on 7x7 by SS, which I personally think would be very unfair for those who either don't want an SS or Already have a V-cube. Also, If the V-7 was banned since the beginning, there wouldn't be a 7x7x7 event, since there would be no legal cube when it was introduced.


----------



## StephenC (Nov 27, 2012)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> The V-7 isn't banned because it was the original 7x7x7 cube, so it doesn't violate this: Since the pillowed 7x7 is the original, the basic concept of a 7x7 is pillowed. Also, banning the V-cube would place a monopoly on 7x7 by SS, which I personally think would be very unfair for those who either don't want an SS or Already have a V-cube. Also, If the V-7 was banned since the beginning, there wouldn't be a 7x7x7 event, since there would be no legal cube when it was introduced.



I agree that the V7 it is not enhancing the basic concept of that puzzle, but not that the basic concept of a 7x7x7 cube is one that is pillowed. The V7 was the first commercially produced 7x7x7 cube, but probably not the first one ever. That said, I think that the basic concept of a puzzle has nothing to do with the first puzzle of that order that was made.

Current enforcement of regulations would suggest that pillowing puzzles is an enhancement of the basic concept of that puzzle. I think that we should not be making an exception from that for the V7. I think that pillowed puzzles should be allowed in all events, since I think that pillowing a puzzle does not enhance the basic concept. In my opinion, the basic concept of a puzzle does not involve how many pieces are visible at all. 

There is a precedent for the banning of puzzles that people want to use. People had bought stickerless cubes for BLD, so there is clearly no issue with not allowing people to use puzzles that they had bought for an event. I think that that was unfair. People have bought lots of stickerless cubes, and (in the wake of the clarification) have decided to take them apart and assemble sets of cubes of a uniform color will still have to buy stickers. If you buy decent quality stickers, that can add up to quite a sum of money. You shouldn't argue that people that have bought the V-7 should not be required to buy a new cube, if you are going to argue that people with stickerless cubes should disassemble, reassemble, and then sticker all of their cubes. That is really unfair. 

I don't want a monopoly, but if the regulations are to be enforced equally, the V-7 should not be allowed. Anyway, v-cubes have tried everything in their power to gain a monopoly, which I think was very unfair. 

We made the exception because it was the only 7x7x7 available, but it isn't anymore. Since it isn't, I think that we should enforce the regulations equally and ban it.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 27, 2012)

http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=924&p=5424#p5255

Cubic 7x7x7 is now widely available.

We should discuss the issue, but I doubt WRC/WCA want to rock the boat with VCubes.


----------



## ThomasJE (Nov 27, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=924&p=5424#p5255
> 
> Cubic 7x7x7 is now widely available.
> 
> We should discuss the issue, but I doubt WRC/WCA want to rock the boat with VCubes.



What do you mean with 'rocking the boat with VCubes'? If they get annoyed with the banning of the V7, tough.


----------



## StephenC (Nov 27, 2012)

Does this not perhaps deserve a new thread? I think that it might be a little to off topic for this one, and it would be good to have it discussed.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 27, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> What do you mean with 'rocking the boat with VCubes'? If they get annoyed with the banning of the V7, tough.



You are not the WCA.


----------



## A Leman (Nov 27, 2012)

Question: I just got a black guhong in the mail to replace my colored guhong in comp, but after a corner and edge mod, my cube is still not as good because the core is not as good yet and the Centerpieces sometimes lock-up at 45degrees. My solution was to put the new black pieces on the old core and swap center caps. I can't even tell that It has colored centers. Is this okay by regulations? It is Black and stickered on the outside. Does it matter what is happening in the inside or do I have to wait until the centers become less crappy?


----------



## StephenC (Nov 27, 2012)

What would the implications be?


Kirjava said:


> We should discuss the issue, but I doubt WRC/WCA want to rock the boat with VCubes.



Do you mean that people would be irritated/frustrated by a ban? Or do you mean that they do not want their paypal accounts to be attacked  ? Would you clarify this a little bit? 

Also, I think that Thomas was referring to WCA member's response to the suggested ban. Not the WCA board member's reaction, since that would be their decision.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Nov 27, 2012)

Why is it that every discussion thread about the WCA turns into a debate about something completely different that people disagree on. If you want to continue the 7x7 discussion, start a new thread.



A Leman said:


> Question: I just got a black guhong in the mail to replace my colored guhong in comp, but after a corner and edge mod, my cube is still not as good because the core is not as good yet and the Centerpieces sometimes lock-up at 45degrees. My solution was to put the new black pieces on the old core and swap center caps. I can't even tell that It has colored centers. Is this okay by regulations? It is Black and stickered on the outside. Does it matter what is happening in the inside or do I have to wait until the centers become less crappy?



If you can't see the colours of the centres when you turn, I think it's okay. Not sure though.


----------



## StephenC (Nov 27, 2012)

I am new to posting. What section would the proposed new thread go under? And would the title "Proposed ban of pillowed 7x7x7 cubes in official WCA competitions" be acceptable?


----------



## ThomasJE (Nov 27, 2012)

StephenC said:


> Also, I think that Thomas was referring to WCA member's response to the suggested ban. Not the WCA board member's reaction, since that would be their decision.



That is right. I would personally like to see the banning of V7's. If we ban stickerless cubes in BLD for the sake of consistency, why can't we ban pillowed V7's for the sake of consistency?



StephenC said:


> I am new to posting. What section would the proposed new thread go under? And would the title "Proposed ban of pillowed 7x7x7 cubes in official WCA competitions" be acceptable?



I would say more along the lines of 'Should we ban pillowed 7x7's?'


----------



## StephenC (Nov 27, 2012)

A poll possibly? What section would I put it under?


----------



## ThomasJE (Nov 27, 2012)

StephenC said:


> A poll possibly? What section would I put it under?



Constructive Speedcubing Discussion


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 27, 2012)

I mean that the WCA might not want to cause any friction between themselves and VCubes.


----------



## Meep (Nov 27, 2012)

The stickerless cube 'ban' isn't so much a ban but rather clarifying something that shouldn't have been allowed in the first place. The V-7 has been implied to be allowed as it was the only 7x7 available when the 7x7 event was introduced. Whether it shouldn't be allowed now is another thing, but using the stickerless cube as a reason seems silly.


----------



## Michael Womack (Nov 27, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> What do you mean with 'rocking the boat with VCubes'? If they get annoyed with the banning of the V7, tough.



Some people Like the pillowed 7x7 also they still have there's from the time before the SS7x7 came out.


----------



## ducttapecuber (Nov 27, 2012)

Here is my point with banning pillowed 7x7's compared to banning stickerless cubes in BLD:
First thing is that stickerless cubes are banned in normal solving because of obvious cheating capabilities. Stickerless cubes where still allowed in BLD because that particular "advantage" did not apply to BLD solving. I do see the advantage of memo-ing a stickerless cube however 4 out of 5 serious BLD solvers use stickerless because they don't have to change these stickers. Having the colored plastic gives a slight advantage to memo-ing but not greatly. I do however believe that there was no need for the ban; however I understand why the ban was put into place. As compared to the pillowed v7 you have a different advantage; you can slightly see the stickers better. I feel that this is not great enough or important enough to completely ban the first 7x7 available. Think of the immediate consequences of banning it:
1. You know that Verdes (v-cube owner) will throw a fit and sue Shengshou (he has a very big temper)
2. Shengshou is the only cubic 7x7, therefore creating a cubing monopoly. (which are illegal in the US)
3. This would cause a *huge* decrease in 7x7 competitors.
4. This would anger many people
Just to name the big ones

This pillowed v-cube was the first 7x7. It was revolutionary with its pillowed design, Verdes figured out a way to make a 7x7 with it being structurally sound. Banning the v7 is like banning a Rubik’s 4x4 because it has a different mechanism. [B*]That is all the pillowed is*, a revolutionary mechanism[/B]

Just think about the consequences of banning the pillowed v7 before you do.

-Ducttapecuber


----------



## qqwref (Nov 28, 2012)

ducttapecuber said:


> 2. Shengshou is the only cubic 7x7, therefore creating a cubing monopoly. (which are illegal in the US)


Uh, no. There is no law against monopolies, just against situations where a monopoly uses its power to prevent competition in an unfair way. I think it's pretty clear here that any other cube company could start producing cubical 7x7s if they wanted to and had the resources. 



ducttapecuber said:


> Banning the v7 is like banning a Rubik’s 4x4 because it has a different mechanism. That is all the pillowed is, a revolutionary mechanism


Pillowing isn't a "mechanism", it's a shape - a shape which, according to some people, provides an advantage to solvers when compared to the more natural cube design. The revolutionary part of the V-cubes design was the way the puzzle would remain stable even if the puzzle was thrown against a hard surface, some pieces were removed, or very inaccurate turns were made. There is absolutely nothing in the mechanism itself that prevents the V-cube company from producing a cubic 7x7 with the exact same outer dimensions as the Shengshou one.


----------



## piece popper (Dec 19, 2012)

It's totally pointless to ban such cubes in any event.


----------



## BenVdd (Dec 19, 2012)

Main arguments against banning pillowed 7x7 :
1) First of its kind for x-amount of years meaning it was the only one that could be used for the event.
2) If you ban it alot of ppl will quit because they own a pillowed 7x7.

my counter arguments. :
1)There shouldnt have been a 7x7 event before a cubic shaped 7x7 was mass-produced. 
the pillowed 7x7 being the first massproduced one did not change "the basic concept of a 7x7" from cubic to pillowed. and therefor should be illegal under current rules.
No one can honestly say they thought the first mass produced 7x7 puzzle would be pillowed and therefor the basic concept of a 7x7 cannot be a pillowed version.

2) This should not be a reason to break the rules, instead it could be a potential reason to alter the rules so that the 7x7 pillowed version can become legal.


----------



## CubeRoots (Dec 19, 2012)

solution could be just cut out any rule about puzzles not being allowed to make more pieces visible. If wca truly followed that logic mini cubes should be banned too. Too many contradictions, and too many people disagree with wca ( a majority imo) on this matter. Pisses me off


----------



## Meep (Dec 19, 2012)

BenVdd said:


> my counter arguments. :
> 1)There shouldnt have been a 7x7 event before a cubic shaped 7x7 was mass-produced.
> the pillowed 7x7 being the first massproduced one did not change "the basic concept of a 7x7" from cubic to pillowed. and therefor should be illegal under current rules.
> No one can honestly say they thought the first mass produced 7x7 puzzle would be pillowed and therefor the basic concept of a 7x7 cannot be a pillowed version.



7x7 was added to the regulations _after_ the pillowed one was mass produced. It has nothing to do with the 'basic concept of a 7x7' predicting whether it's going to be pillowed or not when it's created. What some people are getting at is that the pillowed 7x7 arguably defined what the 'basic concept of a 7x7' is. People aren't saying that it changed the basic concept to itself, but rather it started the basic concept.


----------



## BenVdd (Dec 19, 2012)

Meep said:


> ... People aren't saying that it changed the basic concept to itself, but rather it started the basic concept.



How did producing a 7x7 start a basic concept of a puzzle. 

If you imagine a higher order puzzles that are not produced yet. You would imagine them to be cubic. But yet you say that this would not "start" it's basic concept? The basic concept would only be "started" as soon as someone makes it?


----------



## Meep (Dec 19, 2012)

BenVdd said:


> How did producing a 7x7 start a basic concept of a puzzle.
> 
> If you imagine a higher order puzzles that are not produced yet. You would imagine them to be cubic. But yet you say that this would not "start" it's basic concept? The basic concept would only be "started" as soon as someone makes it?



Before people ever thought 7x7s would ever be mass produced or part of competitions, they probably envisioned a cubic one. But _after_ they were mass produced, the pillowed one was what was widely accepted as 'the 7x7 Rubik's Cube.' This was the time when they were considered to be added to competitions, and likely what people pictured when writing the regulations. We don't know for sure, but it's debatable.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 19, 2012)

I think the situation was more along the lines of "the only available pillowed 7x7 breaks the rules, so in order to make the event possible we'll allow it until there's a good alternative".


----------



## BenVdd (Dec 19, 2012)

Meep said:


> Before people ever thought 7x7s would ever be mass produced or part of competitions, they probably envisioned a cubic one. But _after_ they were mass produced, the pillowed one was what was widely accepted as 'the 7x7 Rubik's Cube.' This was the time when they were considered to be added to competitions, and likely what people pictured when writing the regulations. We don't know for sure, but it's debatable.



And thats the reason why i stated that there shouldn't have been a 7x7 event untill a 7x7 that fell under the rules was produced.


----------



## piece popper (Dec 20, 2012)

Why don't you just put transparent stickers on a stickerless cube and call that a stickered cube?


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 20, 2012)

piece popper said:


> Why don't you just put transparent stickers on a stickerless cube and call that a stickered cube?



Because the technical problem with stickerless cubes would still be there.


----------



## piece popper (Dec 20, 2012)

What is the technical problem? What if the first cube ever made was painted instead of stickered?


----------



## antoineccantin (Dec 20, 2012)

piece popper said:


> What is the technical problem? What if the first cube ever made was painted instead of stickered?



The problem with stickerless cubes is not that there are no stickers, but that you can see the colours on other sides without directly looking at it.


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 20, 2012)

piece popper said:


> What is the technical problem?



The problem is that you are only supposed to receive a specific amount of information when looking at a face of a cube, being the colors on that side of the cube. With a stickerless cube you are able to see the stickers of adjacent sides without actually looking at them. The differences between cubes should be in what they look like and in the way they turn, not in how they can be used. 



piece popper said:


> What if the first cube ever made was painted instead of stickered?



What if the first baseball players used metal bats?


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 21, 2012)

> This is mainly an argument against stickerless cubes being banned for everything but BLD. They give just as much of an advantage in BLD as in regular solving, so they should be banned for neither or for both. I personally think they should be banned for both because of this advantage they give, but at the very least the rules should be consistent for BLD and non-BLD events, and this is why I support the complete banning of stickerless cubes.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Dec 21, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> > This is mainly an argument against stickerless cubes being banned for everything but BLD. They give just as much of an advantage in BLD as in regular solving, so they should be banned for neither or for both. I personally think they should be banned for both because of this advantage they give, but at the very least the rules should be consistent for BLD and non-BLD events, and this is why I support the complete banning of stickerless cubes.



Not saying I'm supporting or opposing this, but consistency isn't a really good argument. There are plenty of differences between BLD and normal solving.


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 21, 2012)

PatrickJameson said:


> Not saying I'm supporting or opposing this, but consistency isn't a really good argument. There are plenty of differences between BLD and normal solving.



Of course there are, but my point is that in this case the advantage applies to both and therefore it is an inconsistency in the rules to have different rules for each regarding stickerless cubes.


----------



## Owen (Dec 21, 2012)

I don't understand the community's obsession with stickerless cubes. You can't change the color scheme, you're stuck with one brightness, and only one company even makes them.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Dec 21, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> Of course there are, but my point is that in this case the advantage applies to both and therefore it is an inconsistency in the rules to have different rules for each regarding stickerless cubes.



Ah, nevermind, thought you were for the opposite. Carry on.


----------



## samchoochiu (Dec 21, 2012)

CubeRoots said:


> solution could be just cut out any rule about puzzles not being allowed to make more pieces visible. If wca truly followed that logic mini cubes should be banned too. Too many contradictions, and too many people disagree with wca ( a majority imo) on this matter. Pisses me off



how does a mini cube make more pieces visible to a solver?


----------



## BenVdd (Dec 21, 2012)

the smaller the cube the easier it is to see the sides without a rotation


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 21, 2012)

BenVdd said:


> the smaller the cube the easier it is to see the sides without a rotation



False. The same amount of rotation is necessary in either case.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 21, 2012)

Actually, because we have two eyes, it really is easier to see both L and R at once on a smaller cube. As long as it's smaller than the distance between your eyes you should be able to do it.


----------



## googlebleh (Dec 21, 2012)

qqwref said:


> Actually, because we have two eyes, it really is easier to see both L and R at once on a smaller cube. As long as it's smaller than the distance between your eyes you should be able to do it.



Wow, hadn't thought of that before.

Also, I'm not sure if anyone has proposed this yet, but in order to make stickerless cubes legal, couldn't you just use a permanent marker wherever the colors meet (like putting black lines that resemble black plastic on a "regular" cube)? That way there's no worry about seeing the back colors so it can still be used for BLD.


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 21, 2012)

googlebleh said:


> Wow, hadn't thought of that before.
> 
> Also, I'm not sure if anyone has proposed this yet, but in order to make stickerless cubes legal, couldn't you just use a permanent marker wherever the colors meet (like putting black lines that resemble black plastic on a "regular" cube)? That way there's no worry about seeing the back colors so it can still be used for BLD.



That's a little sloppy, but the equivalent thing would be to have a stickerless cube that just has color where the stickers would be.


----------



## googlebleh (Dec 21, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> That's a little sloppy, but the equivalent thing would be to have a stickerless cube that just has color where the stickers would be.



I had thought of that too, but then we'd have to request that the manufacturers change their production process. Although it would be sloppy, at least people would be allowed to use the cubes they already bought :/ Especially for those into MBLD who bought tons.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 21, 2012)

Owen said:


> I don't understand the community's obsession with stickerless cubes. You can't change the color scheme



It's even easier to change the colour scheme on them than on normal stickered cubes.


----------



## BenVdd (Dec 21, 2012)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> False. The same amount of rotation is necessary in either case.


False. You have 2 eyes


----------

