# Towards "Anything Goes" (WCA Puzzle Policy)



## Lucas Garron (Feb 1, 2014)

For a long time, the de facto policy has been to be fairly conservative about what puzzles are allowed, to prevent competitors from introducing puzzles with new (possibly unfair) advantages. The 2014 Regulations were meant to clarify and simplify things. There has been a lot of community discussion about this, particularly on speedsolving.com. While it would be easy to address the the major concern (tile thickness) with a simple change, the WCA is taking this as an opportunity to rethink the overall policy on puzzles. 

Sébastien has worked to combine the input of the community and WCA delegates in a draft proposal that attempts to allow as many reasonable puzzles as possible.
The current proposed changes can be viewed here.

The main points from the proposal are:


> - As before, Regulation 3m is the most important regulation of Article 3: if a puzzle fulfills all other regulations, the puzzle can be used in competition.
> - Some vague/impracticable terms like "basic concept of a puzzle" or "make any additional information available" have been removed without replacement. As a direct result (3m), puzzles that have not been allowed for a long time would be allowed in the future, i.e. "pillowed" cubes or "stickerless" cubes.
> - Justification: Simplification and consistency. While those puzzles do undeniably provide a *theoretical* advantage because of making more information visible, a *practical* advantage is very questionable and at most marginal and thus negligible.
> - A thickness limit for tiles is no longer defined.
> ...



However, the proposal needs some work in order to be as clear as possible. For example, it needs to be how plastic color and sticker color interact (if I have a cube with colored stickers, may it have white pieces and black centers? White pieces except black LL? Stickers colored in the same pattern as the plastic?). It should be clear how to evaluate the legality of future puzzles without "delegate discretion".

*If you care about this issue, please help us figure out something practical and fair.* In particular, it would be good to know if there are things that the proposal hasn't thought to address.


----------



## blade740 (Feb 1, 2014)

I strongly support this proposal.


----------



## brian724080 (Feb 1, 2014)

Sounds awesome. Just because there is a slight advantage, doesn't mean that you'll use it. It's not practical to get fast via these methods anyway.


----------



## kcl (Feb 1, 2014)

This is a huge leap forward. Definitely an excellent idea.

Honestly, if you really wanted to cheat with a stickerless cube, it would waste too much time to make you fast anyway.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Feb 1, 2014)

I'm not sure I found this anywhere else in the regulations, but wouldn't Taking out "the basic concept of the puzzle" make it to where additional moves can be made? I may be wrong, and his could be addressed elsewhere in the regs.

Edit: I do like this proposal. It appeals to the general public.


----------



## Sebastien (Feb 1, 2014)

3a3 addresses that as before.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 1, 2014)

Yes, I definitely like this idea. Especially in the case of mass-produced puzzles, as long as someone's cube is the same puzzle as everyone else's, there is no *unfair* advantage. We should still keep the following (at least):
- no new moves are possible
- all normal moves are possible
- all moves must be done manually by the solver
- puzzle does not display any information other than the position of the pieces and possibly a static logo
- each face of the puzzle has one color that is clearly distinct from that of the other faces
- for BLD: it must not be easy to quickly distinguish between two pieces of the same type by touch alone
most of which is of course covered in 3a3.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 1, 2014)

brian724080 said:


> Sounds awesome. Just because there is a slight advantage, doesn't mean that you'll use it. It's not practical to get fast via these methods anyway.


That's the main philosophical decision here. I personally disagree with it a little, but it's better to have *some* sort of clean philosophy/policy.



Jaysammey777 said:


> Edit: I do like this proposal. It appeals to the general public.


That's sort of the wrong reason, though. It's not really about making a popular change as much as the *right* change.
But since a lot of people just want to use their puzzles (think WCA motto) and there is no major intent to turn this sort of thing to an unfair advantage at the moment, people's preferences should figure heavily.


----------



## Mollerz (Feb 1, 2014)

I feel like this is the right change definitely. It felt too specific beforehand, but this allows everyone to use said "advantage" that was previously stopped beforehand.


----------



## Tim Major (Feb 1, 2014)

Might order one of these in a couple of months: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FCaoQkb4fI

I like the idea of these regulations, but at the same time it may be going too far in the opposite direction. Still, more happy than unhappy with this.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Feb 1, 2014)

I like this as long as with qqwref's suggestion.


----------



## Kit Clement (Feb 1, 2014)

Something people should note about these changes:

- 3d4) The body of a puzzle having coloured stickers, coloured tiles or painted colours to define the colours of its faces is required to have a uniform colour.

This regulation bans all two-toned fangshi puzzles. This is not an intention of the WCA, but instead a consequence of the new regulations not addressing similar pieces (old 3j). This was removed because it technically bans cubes that have pieces with asymmetrical seams (weilong, huanying), which was inconsistent with the actual practice of the WCA. There doesn't seem to be a clear way to fix this, but if you have an idea that is simple and accommodates for both asymmetrical pieces and two toned puzzles, you should propose it.


----------



## Paradox Cubing (Feb 1, 2014)

When will this actually come into effect?


----------



## Sa967St (Feb 1, 2014)

I worry that in the future we may encounter new puzzles that are legal under these new conditions that provide a more than marginal advantage. 

However, I feel this a step in the right direction toward puzzle fairness, since "basic concept of the puzzle" and "additional information" are indeed questionable in meaning, and appear to be the phrases that prevented puzzles like stickerless puzzles from being competition legal. 

I support this proposal.


----------



## Aceofspades2345 (Feb 1, 2014)

This would be tremendous. If stickerless/pillowed cubes do offer an advantage, then this would be available to everyone, and therefore not an issue. I know you don't want to dilute the purity of the event, but this just seems much the better decision.


----------



## Bob (Feb 1, 2014)

I am happy.


----------



## Florin (Feb 1, 2014)

I would really like to use an stickerless cube, I never thought that they would give an advantage, in speed solves. As someone said, everyone could use stickerless cubes, so, if they really think that they have a disadvantage by having a stickered or tiled cube, they could buy a stickerless one instead. 
I don't really care about pillowed cubes, but those should be allowed too. Those cubes aren't even very good, for example the Vcube 3 pillowed, compared to Moyu WeiLong, Gans 3 etc. They really don't give an advantage.


----------



## moralsh (Feb 1, 2014)

I Like this because I don't think the puzzle makers where thinking of unfair advantages on speedsolving when they made the puzzles, let's hope that they continue with the same mentality and they don't try to find the boundaries of the regulations like in Formula 1.

I don't think I'll use pillowed cubes in the future, but I'm certainly going to use stickerless cubes Because I like them and still use them a lot while practicing.

Way to go WRC & WCA!


----------



## Dene (Feb 1, 2014)

moralsh said:


> I Like this because I don't think the puzzle makers where thinking of unfair advantages on speedsolving when they made the puzzles, let's hope that they continue with the same mentality and they don't try to find the boundaries of the regulations like in Formula 1.
> 
> I don't think I'll use pillowed cubes in the future, but I'm certainly going to use stickerless cubes Because I like them and still use them a lot while practicing.
> 
> Way to go WRC & WCA!



This is merely a proposal. This is by no means even close to what the final product will be.


----------



## ThomasJE (Feb 1, 2014)

Dene said:


> Why?



Being able to see *all* last layer stickers can and probably will be used as an unfair advantage by some people.


----------



## stoic (Feb 1, 2014)

I've always supported the previous regulations, and saw the logic behind them (although admittedly "basic concept of the puzzle" maybe wasn't the best phrase to put some of them behind). 
So. A complete about-turn? Ok, I can deal with that. As Keynes said "when the facts change, I change my mind". 
But have the facts changed? Is the possible advantage both theoretical and negligible? Or does the ubiquity of these puzzles negate possible advantage (anyone can get one and use it)? Could the same regulatory effect be gained by simply saying "we allow pillowed and stickerless puzzles" and not specifying tile thickness?
I've nothing against the proposal (in fact, looking at the response so far I'm generally supportive) but *beware of unintended consequences* (which is what this thread is about anyway, I guess). 
So yeah.


----------



## Dene (Feb 1, 2014)

ThomasJE said:


> Being able to see *all* last layer stickers can and probably will be used as an unfair advantage by some people.



So I guess you are also against having tiles of unlimited thickness?

And what about transparent cubes? This proposal does not ban them.


----------



## ThomasJE (Feb 1, 2014)

Dene said:


> So I guess you are also against having tiles of unlimited thickness?



I think the delegate's discretion should be used. Ridiculous tiles should be banned, but tiles like the ones on some megaminxes should be.



Dene said:


> And what about transparent cubes? This proposal does not ban them.



Same point that I made before. Being able to see all stickers at once will eventually be used by somebody.

There are obvious points that should be detailed in the regulations, but the rest should be down to the delegate's discretion.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 1, 2014)

moralsh said:


> I Like this because I don't think the puzzle makers where thinking of unfair advantages on speedsolving when they made the puzzles, let's hope that they continue with the same mentality and they don't try to find the boundaries of the regulations like in Formula 1.



They're thinking of advantages. Sure, some puzzles are just made to look cool, but speedcubes are sold on the fact that they give you advantages.
If this amounts to a smoother internal mechanism, it's always been clear that this is allowable. The problem is when a new puzzle gives a *qualitatively* different advantage, because then there is usually a defensible argument that the advantage is unfair.

My personal worry is that we *will* see an uptick in testing the boundaries, and end up with a more complicated "line" than before. But this is impossible to tell.



ellwd said:


> I've nothing against the proposal (in fact, looking at the response so far I'm generally supportive) but *beware of unintended consequences* (which is what this thread is about anyway, I guess).



Definitely a good way to put it. A lot of people are looking at this as "yay, competitors can now use stickerless/pillowed cubes that they like!", but this is opening the doors to a general policy.



ThomasJE said:


> I think the delegate's discretion should be used.


Unfortunately, "delegate's discretion" is no longer reasonable in 2014.
Whereas the original 2014 change was meant to remove room for Delegate discretion by being specific, I suppose the hope here is that competitors will only bring reasonable puzzles, and Delegate discretion will not be necessary unless a competitor is being egregious.

However, Delegate discretion is undesirable. For any repeating cases, we will either need Delegates to discuss and settle on interpretations (creating a de facto set of complicated rules), or live with a lot of inconsistency. The latter hasn't really worked for us.



(Also, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned anything about logos yet. Is the 2014 change reasonable enough that no one would want to change it? Or has no one actually read the proposed change and wondered if puzzles should stay restricted to one logo?)


----------



## ThomasJE (Feb 1, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Unfortunately, "delegate's discretion" is no longer reasonable in 2014.
> Whereas the original 2014 change sought to reduce this by being specific, I suppose the hope here is that competitors will only bring reasonable puzzles, and Delegate discretion will not be necessary unless a competitor is being purposely egregious.
> 
> However, Delegate discretion is undesirable. For any repeating cases, we will either need Delegates to discuss and settle on interpretations (creating a de facto complicated set of rules), or live with a lot of inconsistency. The latter hasn't really worked for us.



What about moving the puzzle regulations to a new section entitled 'Technical regulations'; again a bit like F1?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 1, 2014)

ThomasJE said:


> What about moving the puzzle regulations to a new section entitled 'Technical regulations'; again a bit like F1?



Ooh, let's move them into a separate article.
Or how about listing the interpretations in a separate document?

Hmm.

A common concern is that the Regulations (esp. regarding puzzles) should not be complicated to understand. It doesn't really matter where they go, but puzzle regulations be as easy as possible for a Delegate/competitor to interpret. That requires being complete and concise.


----------



## irontwig (Feb 1, 2014)

Any reasoning behind removing the poll? If you want to know what the community thinks wouldn't having a poll be helpful? Instead of a crapload of posts consisting of "Sure why not?" and "It's like unfair advantages and stuff".


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Feb 1, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> (Also, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned anything about logos yet. Is the 2014 change reasonable enough that no one would want to change it? Or has no one actually read the proposed change and wondered if puzzles should stay restricted to one logo?)



Originally I did not notice that logos were 3l. Considering WCAs proposal of no logos on even number cubes a while back. I decided to have my own color scheme with no logos. So in some ways I agreed with the 3l even when some of it was not proposed. 

I agree with removing it, because of puzzles such as some mf8 and Mefferts original puzzles have multiple logos. As well when a cuber has his own personal logo that looks pretty cool. Many people do not have an option to resticker sometime, which can cause them not to compete in the event.

3j2 and 3j3 should be kept IMO. But with 3j1 I feel that many one handed cubes are more comfortable the chipped stickers. And eventually if the puzzle is always solve with the same style one handed the markings become very similar and indistinguishable. There is only some time where they are and not comp legal.


----------



## ThomasJE (Feb 1, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Ooh, let's move them into a separate article.
> Or how about listing the interpretations in a separate document?
> 
> Hmm.
> ...



I meant a separate area for each puzzle. Of course there would be repetitions between puzzles, but it allows for more specific rulings for each puzzle and it's an easy reference to check the legality of one particular puzzle.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Feb 1, 2014)

ThomasJE said:


> I meant a separate area for each puzzle. Of course there would be repetitions between puzzles, but it allows for more specific rulings for each puzzle and it's an easy reference to check the legality of one particular puzzle.



I think they are trying to avoid being specific to cause less commotion among the community to still make it fun.


----------



## stoic (Feb 1, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> Might order one of these in a couple of months: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FCaoQkb4fI



Interesting. If we go forward with an "anything goes" regime, how much pillowing could be engineered into a puzzle like this? Could we end up with pyraminxes which don't resemble pyraminxes anymore? And would that be ok?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 1, 2014)

irontwig said:


> Any reasoning behind removing the poll? If you want to know what the community thinks wouldn't having a poll be helpful? Instead of a crapload of posts consisting of "Sure why not?" and "It's like unfair advantages and stuff".



We know that the community "supports" this change. We still expect them to refrain from posts like that.

I removed the poll because I do not want to have the impression that this is a proposal ready to be voted on. While it may have most of the major changes that would be in the final proposal, it needs some work. That's what this thread is for.



ThomasJE said:


> I meant a separate area for each puzzle. Of course there would be repetitions between puzzles, but it allows for more specific rulings for each puzzle and it's an easy reference to check the legality of one particular puzzle.



Perhaps not a bad idea, but that is not how the Regulations are designed right now.
This belongs in an FAQ, but the WCA site is not set up for putting that in a clear place. The Guidelines are the best place right now, but it's unclear what level of detail is currently appropriate.

I'd also like to see a *very* convincing proof of concept that this will not make things more complicated.


----------



## Methuselah96 (Feb 1, 2014)

ellwd said:


> Interesting. If we go forward with an "anything goes" regime, how much pillowing could be engineered into a puzzle like this? Could we end up with pyraminxes which don't resemble pyraminxes anymore? And would that be ok?



Similar to this, could someone use a completely spherical 3x3?


----------



## qqwref (Feb 1, 2014)

Here's an additional idea: perhaps we should only allow puzzles that are freely available (i.e. mass produced now or in the past), or not obviously distinguishable from a freely available type. The idea is that nobody can design their own totally different "closed source" puzzle and then use it in competition to gain a truly unfair advantage. I know of at least one case of someone going against this proposed rule, and while he was already the best solver at the time, it is still something I'd want to prevent going forward.

(By "not obviously distinguishable from a freely available type" I just want to ensure nobody has to go memorizing every type of cube and carefully checking mechanisms. A megaminx with 1.5mm tiles is fine; a megaminx with 10mm tiles is not fine because that is not similar to a mass-produced puzzle, and thus may give an unfair advantage because no other competitor can get a puzzle like that.)




Methuselah96 said:


> Similar to this, could someone use a completely spherical 3x3?


Sure, why not? Have fun getting decent times with it though


----------



## Methuselah96 (Feb 1, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Sure, why not? Have fun getting decent times with it though



Wouldn't that be a big nuisance for the scramblers/judges?


----------



## ThomasJE (Feb 1, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Here's an additional idea: perhaps we should only allow puzzles that are freely available (i.e. mass produced now or in the past), or not obviously distinguishable from a freely available type. The idea is that nobody can design their own totally different "closed source" puzzle and then use it in competition to gain a truly unfair advantage. I know of at least one case of someone going against this proposed rule, and while he was already the best solver at the time, it is still something I'd want to prevent going forward.



I'm against it. If someone wants to go to the trouble of designing their cube, making it, and then the cost, then they should be allowed to use it in competition.

And anyway, it's not an unfair advantage. Everyone has the same opportunity to create their own cube.



qqwref said:


> (By "not obviously distinguishable from a freely available type" I just want to ensure nobody has to go memorizing every type of cube and carefully checking mechanisms. A megaminx with 1.5mm tiles is fine; a megaminx with 10mm tiles is not fine because that is not similar to a mass-produced puzzle, and thus may give an unfair advantage because no other competitor can get a puzzle like that.)



How did he get those tiles? Could someone else independently have got those tiles as well?

And good luck solving a 10mm tiled megaminx.


----------



## rj (Feb 1, 2014)

Love this. Let's do it.


----------



## XTowncuber (Feb 1, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> - As before, Regulation 3m is the most important regulation of Article 3: if a puzzle fulfills all other regulations, the puzzle can be used in competition.
> - Some vague/impracticable terms like "basic concept of a puzzle" or "make any additional information available" have been removed without replacement. As a direct result (3m), puzzles that have not been allowed for a long time would be allowed in the future, i.e. "pillowed" cubes or "stickerless" cubes.
> - Justification: Simplification and consistency. While those puzzles do undeniably provide a *theoretical* advantage because of making more information visible, a *practical* advantage is very questionable and at most marginal and thus negligible.
> - A thickness limit for tiles is no longer defined.
> ...


I am Drew Brads and I approve this message.


----------



## Kit Clement (Feb 1, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> Something people should note about these changes:
> 
> - 3d4) The body of a puzzle having coloured stickers, coloured tiles or painted colours to define the colours of its faces is required to have a uniform colour.
> 
> This regulation bans all two-toned fangshi puzzles. This is not an intention of the WCA, but instead a consequence of the new regulations not addressing similar pieces (old 3j). This was removed because it technically bans cubes that have pieces with asymmetrical seams (weilong, huanying), which was inconsistent with the actual practice of the WCA. There doesn't seem to be a clear way to fix this, but if you have an idea that is simple and accommodates for both asymmetrical pieces and two toned puzzles, you should propose it.



Very surprised that there has been no push back from this. When banning two toned fangshi cubes was proposed last time, there was an uproar. Are people actually reading the proposed regulations and thinking of the potential consequences?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 1, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> Very surprised that there has been no push back from this. When banning two toned fangshi cubes was proposed last time, there was an uproar. Are people actually reading the proposed regulations and thinking of the potential consequences?



No idea. For those who *do* care: You should read over the proposed change as it stands, think of cubes you believe should/should not be legal, and see if there's a mismatch.


----------



## SpicyOranges (Feb 1, 2014)

Would transparent cubes be allowed?


----------



## Sebastien (Feb 1, 2014)

yes.


----------



## Renslay (Feb 1, 2014)

Transparent cubes actually provide a *huge* advantage during Roux Step 4c). Then I wouldn't need to learn BU-prediction.


----------



## ExplodingPie (Feb 1, 2014)

Wouldn't this be a nuisance for people with custom color schemes like me, especially the top cubers? They would be pushed to used stickerless cubes to get an advantage, but the color scheme will change, which can be a problem.


----------



## Yuxuibbs (Feb 1, 2014)

I think it allows unfair advantages when people decide to abuse it (like transparent cubes being useful for roux and having giant tiles so you can see more colors and recognize cases faster). 

Is there a way to re word 3d to allow the fangshi illusion and other cubes? like all edge pieces and corner pieces must be similar in terms of design or something? 
Will the black lingpo and fangshi 2x2 be allowed since the internals are primary but the caps are black?


----------



## Ross The Boss (Feb 1, 2014)

ExplodingPie said:


> Wouldn't this be a nuisance for people with custom color schemes like me, especially the top cubers? They would be pushed to used stickerless cubes to get an advantage, but the color scheme will change, which can be a problem.



sticklers provides no real advantage. you would have to change your recognition/look ahead/turn style to make any use of it and these changes would probably end up slowing you down anyway.


----------



## yockee (Feb 1, 2014)

Personally, I think you should be allowed to use whatever cube works best for you. Since its different for everyone, there really aren't cubes with advantages overall.


----------



## googlebleh (Feb 2, 2014)

yockee said:


> Personally, I think you should be allowed to use whatever cube works best for you. Since its different for everyone, there really aren't cubes with advantages overall.



http://youtu.be/dBJ9hYa-i3w?t=1m
Save solved state. Hit reset button. 1s solve :tu 

There should be _some_ restrictions on what cube you can use, but I agree that we have restricted this section of the regulations a bit too much lately.


----------



## Dene (Feb 2, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> Very surprised that there has been no push back from this. When banning two toned fangshi cubes was proposed last time, there was an uproar. Are people actually reading the proposed regulations and thinking of the potential consequences?



I highly doubt it, which is why I don't think a thread of this format is a good idea.

People are coming along and going "oh look stickerless is going to be legal now yay!" and not putting any more thought into it than that. This is of course completely useless (and I'm glad Lucas removed the poll, because of this).



ThomasJE said:


> I think the delegate's discretion should be used. Ridiculous tiles should be banned, but tiles like the ones on some megaminxes should be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So really, you actually completely disagree with this proposal. Anyway, like Lucas said, "delegates discretion" is no longer gonna swing around here; we need something more concrete.


----------



## Kit Clement (Feb 2, 2014)

Renslay said:


> Transparent cubes actually provide a *huge* advantage during Roux Step 4c). Then I wouldn't need to learn BU-prediction.



I also think that transparent cubes cross a line far greater than stickerless cubes do. If you get a plastic clear enough, it's really not too different than solving this:

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/Ku9Wokolhio/hqdefault.jpg

And in addition to this, what if the undersides of stickers had different colors to give more information? A color for each F2L pair? A color for the last layer? I know we're potentially allowing additional information that stickerless cubes provide, but this really could go too far. I'm no expert in Roux, but Renslay's post worries me as well.


----------



## Erik (Feb 3, 2014)

I don't have much time atm to read all the details, but I speed-read across the main points quickly.

It is nice to see that it actually helps to give feedback to the WRC on a forum like this. A number of people (including myself) have already put a lot of efford in trying to change the general conservative attitude of the regulations in respect to tiles, plastic and logo's. It seems the WRC is finally opening their eyes and see for themselves that theoretical unsignificant advantages are no reason to ban a significant amount of cubes. 

As you might know I was already working on a proposal that would allow all types of stickers, plastic, logo's etc with the support of a significant amount of cubers. I will go through the details of the current proposal later on and might decide to pause working on it until things have cleared up on what will happen next.


----------



## Carrot (Feb 3, 2014)

FINALLY!!! I'll be able to use my beloved pillowed pyraminx :3

I support this


----------



## Sa967St (Feb 3, 2014)

Erik said:


> It seems the WRC is finally opening their eyes and see for themselves that theoretical unsignificant advantages are no reason to ban a significant amount of cubes.


 It was the WCA Board, not the WRC. 

Anyway, I think they were always well aware that pillowed cubes and stickerless cubes don't provide a significant advantage over regular cubes -- it was just that "puzzles that provide more information" was an easy line to draw because there needs to be some clear way to distinguish competition legal puzzles. The changes are being brought up now because with the recent discussions about tile thickness, they have a good opportunity to redraw the line to better reflect puzzles that should be *fair* to use.


----------



## Erik (Feb 4, 2014)

Sa967St said:


> It was the WCA Board, not the WRC.



Really? I don't want to start arguing here, but I can give you numerous posts from WRC members vigorously defending the current regulations. The proposals I saw on github didn't seem to be very pro-anything goes either, up till now...


----------



## ChickenWrap (Feb 4, 2014)

I think pillowed cubes should be allowed. The new pillowed Vcube 6 is great, and how is it any different than allowing a pillowed 7x7? I know the 7x7 was legal at the time since it was the only 7x7 available, but that shouldn't change anything...


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 4, 2014)

Erik said:


> Really? I don't want to start arguing here, but I can give you numerous posts from WRC members vigorously defending the current regulations. The proposals I saw on github didn't seem to be very pro-anything goes either, up till now...



I will still gladly defend the current puzzle regulations as reasonable. I disagree with some of them, but I think they are overall consistent and fair.
(I don't appreciate the implication that the Board/WRC were ignorant and are now "opening their eyes". I'd prefer to stay constructive.)


Since I was responsible for leading the process and actually putting the changes together, I guess most of the responsibility for the 2014 changes lie with me.
A very common theme in 2014 was the inconsistency of Delegate rulings in the face of many puzzles coming out, and the need to make a lot of decisions for new puzzles on a case-by-case basis (e.g. ridged Megaminxes, which actually had a Board announcement to make things clear).

While there was some desire to allow more puzzles, it was commonly accepted that we drew a line. The closest thing we had to a policy was Regulation 3h:



> Modifications that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle are not permitted. Modified versions of puzzles are permitted only if the modification does not make any additional information available to the competitor (e.g. identity of pieces), compared to an unmodified version of the same puzzle.



Delegates had different interpretations of this, so I tried to make sure that we find an intersection of Delegate views on puzzles/plastic/stickers/tiles. My main goal was to end up with something consistent and practical that meets the intention expressed in 3h, while still allowing most puzzles in use. This involved disallowing a small selection of puzzles to make things consistent (although a few puzzles changed from sometimes-disallowed to explicitly allowed, like 2x2x2s with logos).
Apart from the 1.2mm vs. 1mm gap for some Megaminxes, I think that the 2014 Regulations definitely met the goal.



Anything different requires a conscious intent to *change* the policy, which always requires some detailed work. Given that a lot of cubers strongly feel about this, we're now spending the time trying to develop something that is more generous -- this thread is about finding a practical way to do that.

However, this really does take work, and I'm disappointed that so many people are expressing their "2 cents" instead of working on the actual changes that need to be made to the Regulations. This should be a community effort, but no one *actually* started doing anything before Sébastien put this draft proposal together.
And still no one has offered any concrete suggestions about how to deal with colored plastic.


----------



## LarsN (Feb 4, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> And still no one has offered any concrete suggestions about how to deal with colored plastic.



In my opinion Sebastiens suggested draft deals nicely with colored plastic:

_- 3d4) The body of a puzzle having coloured stickers, coloured tiles or painted colours to define the colours of its faces is required to have a uniform colour._

Maybe add "uniform and solid colour" to avoid clear plastic cubes, which I feel may give an unfair advantage. I know this is an attempt to have "anything goes" but clear plastic is taking it too far.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 4, 2014)

LarsN said:


> In my opinion Sebastiens suggested draft deals nicely with colored plastic:
> 
> _- 3d4) The body of a puzzle having coloured stickers, coloured tiles or painted colours to define the colours of its faces is required to have a uniform colour._
> 
> Maybe add "uniform and solid colour" to avoid clear plastic cubes, which I feel may give an unfair advantage. I know this is an attempt to have "anything goes" but clear plastic is taking it too far.



Clear plastic isn't the problem here. Kit has already brought up in this thread that this doesn't allow cubes with colored centers or 2-color-plastic FangShi cubes (see exhibits 3 and 4 in this thread).

Since these were allowed in 2013, I think most people would prefer that these should be included under "anything goes".


----------



## LarsN (Feb 4, 2014)

Suggestions:

_- The design of the puzzle may not provide visual information other than the face colour. (exception: logo)_

exhibit 3: gives information that the centerpiece is a centerpiece, but that information was already given by the centerpiece being in the center. So it would be allowed by above wording.
exhibit 4: no problem here

_- The design of the puzzle may not provide information of piece postion or orientation through touch._

This is to prevent having elevated cross pieces or similar.

The wording may be flawed, but it's simple. It doesn't prevent clear plastic though.


----------



## Erik (Feb 4, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> I will still gladly defend the current puzzle regulations as reasonable. I disagree with some of them, but I think they are overall consistent and fair.
> (I don't appreciate the implication that the Board/WRC were ignorant and are now "opening their eyes". I'd prefer to stay constructive.)



First of all: now I understand Sarah's post even less.

I'm sorry if you felt attacked. My post was actually a compliment about the open-mindedness to concider a drastic change in the direction the Board/WRC is going (of which there were barely any signs before)... No I did not imply the Board/WRC was ignorant, but yes I do think the policy was horrible and yes of course I would like to help to stay constructive as I have been.



Lucas Garron said:


> Anything different requires a conscious intent to *change* the policy, which always requires some detailed work. Given that a lot of cubers strongly feel about this, we're now spending the time trying to develop something that is more generous -- this thread is about finding a practical way to do that.
> 
> However, this really does take work, and I'm disappointed that so many people are expressing their "2 cents" instead of working on the actual changes that need to be made to the Regulations. This should be a community effort, but no one *actually* started doing anything before Sébastien put this draft proposal together.
> And still no one has offered any concrete suggestions about how to deal with colored plastic.



A number of cubers did start working on more than "giving 2 cents". Like I said we were working a proposal ourselves. This simply takes a lot of time. We really needed to have the support of a lot of cubers since a proposal from just myself would probably be thrown in the bin without much comment. Sébastien is in a much better position to get something done in a significantly shorter amount of time. Also, I know at least 2 people applied to be part of the WRC and help you guys out. So please refrain from making false statements that nobody did anything. This does not improve the 'relationship' and any constructive discussions between the community and the WRC I think.

On a side note: maybe your expectations of the form of the input the community should give you are just different. I think it's quite clear which direction the community wanted to go. Is it really our responsibility to provide the exact changes of all regulations? That'd be like politicians expecting the citizens to come up with law-changes, although the question they should be asking is "what do you want?". (yes this is more about the discussions there were after publishing the 2014 regulations)

-----------------
As you wanted some suggestions on the plastic:
There are roughly 2 options you can go with. Either just allow everything (inlcuding transparent cubes, fangshi's and maybe even pieces recognizable with touch), or you have to make some form of restriction. Personally I don't see what would be the problem in just allowing anything (after all everyone has the same 'rights' of puzzle-usage), but I guess you still want to draw some lines. I think the "Border-Case Puzzle Brainstorm thread" is a great way to find out which forms we agree are ok and which are not. *After* we agree on that, we can analyse what restrictions are necessary to implement and think of ways how to implement it in the regulations. (I intentionally bolded "after" since I think it's kinda pointless to start throwing around regulation changes in this thread before we reach a rough consensus on what we actually want to do)

Yes some forms in the brainstorm thread might provide advantages over the cubes we use today (though I only see a usable advantage in transparent cubes), but so what? A transparent cube is still a Rubik's cube. It are still 20 pieces with a marking on it which you have to puzzle together.


----------



## Dene (Feb 4, 2014)

Erik said:


> A transparent cube is still a Rubik's cube. It are still 20 pieces with a marking on it which you have to puzzle together.



But _is_ it? I'm not sure everyone would agree (I don't).


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 4, 2014)

Erik said:


> First of all: now I understand Sarah's post even less.
> 
> I'm sorry if you felt attacked. My post was actually a compliment about the open-mindedness to concider a drastic change in the direction the Board/WRC is going (of which there were barely any signs before)... No I did not imply the Board/WRC was ignorant, but yes I do think the policy was horrible and yes of course I would like to help to stay constructive as I have been.



I suppose I would say we considered. But in our discretion, we went for the more specific approach.

I also wouldn't say the current policy is horrible. Apart from the 1mm Megaminx thing, I have yet to hear of a case where a competitor was seriously affected (i.e. had to give up one of their strongly preferred puzzle for a much less satisfactory alternative).




Erik said:


> A number of cubers did start working on more than "giving 2 cents". Like I said we were working a proposal ourselves. This simply takes a lot of time. We really needed to have the support of a lot of cubers since a proposal from just myself would probably be thrown in the bin without much comment.


That's great to hear!

I wasn't aware of it, though. Sorry if it was in this thread and I missed it.

In any case, any serious proposal (including exact wording changes) sent to the WRC *will* be placed on GitHub. I haven't seen any more than small suggested fixes for particular Regs. Please let me know if you'd like the WRC to be aware of a work in progress.



Erik said:


> Also, I know at least 2 people applied to be part of the WRC and help you guys out. So please refrain from making false statements that nobody did anything.



I told them both that they can do just as much good towards solving this problem whether they're not on the WRC, and they seemed to concur when I told them.
Being on the WRC doesn't mean you get magical powers in being able to figure out how to change the Regulations.
I almost want to say that if not being on the WRC stops them from trying to help create a solution, they shouldn't be on the WRC. Working on something like this would be great evidence that they would be productive on the WRC.

(Kit Clement is a great example of someone who's not on the WRC, but cares enough to take some action and give in

If they'd like to be on the WRC to have some position of authority, or because they care about the upkeep of the entire Regulations as much as discussing the current major issues, I'm always happy to consider it.
(It would really be best to have a process for WRC appointments. I'd also like it to be more of a community-supported thing. But we don't really have time for all that at the moment.)




Erik said:


> On a side note: maybe your expectations of the form of the input the community should give you are just different. I think it's quite clear which direction the community wanted to go. Is it really our responsibility to provide the exact changes of all regulations? That'd be like politicians expecting the citizens to come up with law-changes, although the question they should be asking is "what do you want?". (yes this is more about the discussions there were after publishing the 2014 regulations)


I do understand. However, for lawmakers this is a paid full-time job. 

As for "what the community wanted", everyone just wants their favorite puzzle. Someone wants stickerless and doesn't care about pillowed. Someone wants pillowed, but doesn't and thinks stickerless shouldn't be allowed.
Okay, maybe not exactly that, but it's very hard to judge community interest based on vocal folks on speedsolving.com. And sometimes the right thing isn't about popularity.
I think our only real mistake was having too many of the discussions too close to the Regulations changes. This was because everyone is a volunteer with limited time. I think we can learn from that, but we have the current topics on hand.

Also, this is the second thread about "what do you want?" Do you have suggestions for something else?[/QUOTE]





Erik said:


> As you wanted some suggestions on the plastic:
> There are roughly 2 options you can go with. Either just allow everything (inlcuding transparent cubes, fangshi's and maybe even pieces recognizable with touch), or you have to make some form of restriction. Personally I don't see what would be the problem in just allowing anything (after all everyone has the same 'rights' of puzzle-usage), but I guess you still want to draw some lines. I think the "Border-Case Puzzle Brainstorm thread" is a great way to find out which forms we agree are ok and which are not. *After* we agree on that, we can analyse what restrictions are necessary to implement and think of ways how to implement it in the regulations. (I intentionally bolded "after" since I think it's kinda pointless to start throwing around regulation changes in this thread before we reach a rough consensus on what we actually want to do)


I actually agree, but I think many people don't. Some good arguments from oehter people would be useful here.

At the moment, I'm interested in trying to turn the current proposal into an accurate version of "anything goes". That means the wording needs to be changed to allow FangShis. (For several reasons, I would prefer not to do this myself.)



Erik said:


> A transparent cube is still a Rubik's cube. It are still 20 pieces with a marking on it which you have to puzzle together.


I wish more people would actually be making arguments like that. I personally don't agree with it, but at least it's consistent with "I truly believe anything goes".


----------



## LarsN (Feb 4, 2014)

Is this the wrong place for suggestions?




LarsN said:


> Suggestions:
> 
> _- The design of the puzzle may not provide visual information other than the face colour. (exception: logo)_
> 
> ...


----------



## Erik (Feb 4, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> I also wouldn't say the current policy is horrible. Apart from the 1mm Megaminx thing, I have yet to hear of a case where a competitor was seriously affected (i.e. had to give up one of their strongly preferred puzzle for a much less satisfactory alternative).



Of course this is just my opinion, let's discuss this on IRC or sth since it's getting off-topic here.



Lucas Garron said:


> I told them both that they can do just as much good towards solving this problem whether they're not on the WRC, and they seemed to concur when I told them.
> Being on the WRC doesn't mean you get magical powers in being able to figure out how to change the Regulations.
> I almost want to say that if not being on the WRC stops them from trying to help create a solution, they shouldn't be on the WRC. Working on something like this would be great evidence that they would be productive on the WRC.



I know your reasoning, but I don't fully agree with it. Yes of course we can contribute by making proposals, but like I said, my proposal would probably be thrown in the bin without it being backed up by lots of other cubers. The one currently standing suddenly has support and attention since it didn't come from a random cuber. Also: I think both cubers who applied would actually be able to make some valuable contributions and provide some more info about the way competitions are run all over the world and provide some creative outside-the-box thinking.



Lucas Garron said:


> I actually agree, but I think many people don't. Some good arguments from oehter people would be useful here.
> 
> At the moment, I'm interested in trying to turn the current proposal into an accurate version of "anything goes". That means the wording needs to be changed to allow FangShis. (For several reasons, I would prefer not to do this myself.)
> 
> ...



Great to see you are on board on this. Changing wording however is exactly what I think the WRC is responsible for though, but of course I welcome the request for input here as well.

As Dene showed, there are some differences in what cubers think is ok and not ok. I am a bit confused on what you want to achieve now. Do you:

1. want to work out the current proposal into a 'ready-to activate' version of the regulations? So only want to get suggestions on how to change the wording.
or
2. want to investigate what we think is ok and not ok?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 4, 2014)

LarsN said:


> Is this the wrong place for suggestions?



No, suggestions are great!

I like the idea of talking about the "face color". But it's hard to make this work for arbitrary puzzles without falling back to our old notion of "advantage".
Also, I think the consensus is that restricting *anything* that can be distinguished by feel is rather strict. For example, many competitors would probably prefer to use overlay stickers for sighted solves if they could, even though overlay stickers with just a little bit of wear may be easy to feel (and therefore a significant advantage in BLD).

I definitely like the idea of isolating what information may be provided by stickers/tiles/paint/plastic color, though.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Feb 4, 2014)

It appears that wording a regulation simply and preventing clear cubes is tricky.

Do clear cubes need to be banned?
Should they be banned?


----------



## LarsN (Feb 4, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Also, I think the consensus is that restricting *anything* that can be distinguished by feel is rather strict. For example, many competitors would probably prefer to use overlay stickers for sighted solves if they could, even though overlay stickers with just a little bit of wear may be easy to feel (and therefore a significant advantage in BLD).



You could distinguish between "design" and "wear and tear". That would allow used stickers that has some feel to it, but disallow puzzles with ridges on last layer cubies.

Which puzzles would suffer from not allowing feel that gives away position or orientation, not considering "wear and tear"?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 4, 2014)

Erik said:


> I know your reasoning, but I don't fully agree with it. Yes of course we can contribute by making proposals, but like I said, my proposal would probably be thrown in the bin without it being backed up by lots of other cubers.


I suppose I will still disagree. It certainly won't be thrown on the bin. If your proposal has popular merit, starting a thread on speedsolving.com should be good enough to develop it. If you send something complete enough to the WRC, it will be just as official as Sébastien's proposal.

(As a first example that comes to mind, Noah Arthurs took the effort to make this happen for recognizing BLD means... and he had to work against a mountain of misunderstanding.)



Erik said:


> 1. want to work out the current proposal into a 'ready-to activate' version of the regulations? So only want to get suggestions on how to change the wording.
> or
> 2. want to investigate what we think is ok and not ok?



For the purposes of this thread, I would like to have 1. That would mean we have a good starting point for considering "anything goes" that we can compare tot he current Regulations.

However, I think that such a proposal won't automatically be good enough to adopt. That's why I've started the brainstorming thread. It can help us evaluate the outcome of 1, as well as any particular changes to it.


----------



## CubeRoots (Feb 4, 2014)

this makes me happy and gives me more faith in the WCA


----------



## Logiqx (Feb 4, 2014)

Here's an idea for the mix - re: Two-tone Fangshi and stickerless cubes with stickers:

Look at each face of the solved puzzle. All pieces of a given type on a given face must be identical in shape, colour and texture. This applies to the plastic itself and stickers / tiles / paint.

With the above rule, I don't think the Cross / Line / F2B / F2L / LL / LSE pieces could be made easier to recognise with different plastics. Any attempts would violate the above rule.

The two-tone Fangshis would be allowable under this rule as would stickerless cubes (even with stickers applied).

A slightly more elaborate example... someone might like to have red centre pieces, white edge pieces and blue corner pieces. I believe this would be harmless as the colours would provide no additional information during the solve. The red / white / blue example doesn't violate the above rule but having some blue corners and some green corners would be prohibited as it might provide some advantage.

It might also be necessary to state that all sides of a puzzle be stickered / tiled / painted / ridged in the same way although the texture rule might cover that already.


----------



## stoic (Feb 4, 2014)

cube-o-holic said:


> It appears that wording a regulation simply and preventing clear cubes is tricky.
> 
> Do clear cubes need to be banned?
> Should they be banned?


Should be easy enough to add a specific regulation banning them, eg:

-puzzles made using transparent material are not allowed



Logiqx said:


> Here's an idea for the mix - re: Two-tone Fangshi and stickerless cubes with stickers:
> 
> Look at each face of the solved puzzle. All pieces of a given type on a given face must be identical in shape, colour and texture. This applies to the plastic itself and stickers / tiles / paint.


I was going to say that someone could have eg one tiled face and the rest stickered, until I saw you said this:


Logiqx said:


> It might also be necessary to state that all sides of a puzzle be stickered / tiled / painted / ridged in the same way although the texture rule might cover that already.


Would you consider adding:
-All pieces of a given type on all faces must be identical in shape and texture.


----------



## LarsN (Feb 7, 2014)

Would it be impossible to have a list of WCA approved puzzles? Just brainstorming ...


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 7, 2014)

LarsN said:


> Would it be impossible to have a list of WCA approved puzzles? Just brainstorming ...



Using a whitelist would indeed be impossible.


----------



## Sebastien (Feb 7, 2014)

Definitely not impossible, but not practical at all. A blacklist seems even less pratical to me.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 7, 2014)

Sebastien said:


> Definitely not impossible, but not practical at all. A blacklist seems even less pratical to me.



Impossible to do without disallowing many perfectly valid puzzles.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Feb 13, 2014)

If the regulations do change how long is it likely to take?
Not that I've bought 13 cubes to build 6 stickerless cubes in my colour scheme or anything like that.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Feb 14, 2014)

> I also wouldn't say the current policy is horrible. Apart from the 1mm Megaminx thing, I have yet to hear of a case where a competitor was seriously affected (i.e. had to give up one of their strongly preferred puzzle for a much less satisfactory alternative).



No way. There are people who are into multi BLD that bought over a dozen stickerless cubes and can't use any of them. It's not that the a stickered cube is that much less satisfactory, but that's a lot of money thrown away.


----------



## Logical101 (Feb 14, 2014)

Sebastien said:


> Definitely not impossible, but not practical at all. A blacklist seems even less pratical to me.



But the blacklist\Whitelist would act as a list of puzzles you can definitely can/can't use and if the cube is not on the list the regulations say if it is a usable cube


----------



## Tim Major (Feb 14, 2014)

Yes that is the definition of a blacklist/whitelist.


----------



## Logical101 (Feb 14, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> Yes that is the definition of a blacklist/whitelist.



Then why not?!?


----------



## ThomasJE (Feb 14, 2014)

Logical101 said:


> Then why not?!?



There's so many puzzles out there that it would be realistically impossible to decide and list what ones to allow and what not to allow.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 14, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> Impossible to do without disallowing many perfectly valid puzzles.





ThomasJE said:


> There's so many puzzles out there that it would be realistically impossible to decide and list what ones to allow and what not to allow.



I think a lot of people misunderstand the point of a whitelist here. It would not be about allowing *every* reasonable puzzle; it would be about approving a specific set of puzzles – with the knowledge that some might be excluded, but with the understanding that this would give us some benefits.
Many sports have the notion of approved equipment (sometimes with official suppliers).

Tyson has suggested the possibility of charging a nominal fee per WCA-approved cube. If the WCA had a revenue stream, there'd be an actual budget for big competitions, and the ability to support developing regions. It might also help with the fact that everything is volunteer based – volunteering is good, but it means that some things just don't get done if no one has the interest and time.

No matter how many puzzles would be on such a list (even if it were just Rubik's brand), it would be fair to competitors: everyone has the same opportunity to use those puzzles.
Although I don't currently support this idea, I believe this is actually *reasonable* if the list has sufficient variety, and the puzzles are low-cost enough.

However, as long as competitors bring their own puzzles (which I think should stay that way), it would be tricky to tell if a cube truly counts as approved.
In particular, we'd still have the problem of deciding whether a puzzle matches an approved model. We'd also have to tell what an approved modification is, and it's not possible to judge internal modifications from a quick look.
Since most puzzles would look obviously approved, perhaps things like chipped stickers and looser sides (which are currently relatively tame "loopholes" in puzzle consistency) might become a bigger deal.
So, even though the main intention would be to make it simple for Delegates/competitors to tell if a cube is permitted, perhaps this wouldn't work well.

Apart from that, we'd need a trustworthy set of individuals who have the time to keep up with new puzzles and maintain the list.
And we'd need to make sure the list is actually practical to use, and fair to competitors/manufacturers.

(I won't talk about a blacklist because we sort of already have one. For example, stickerless cubes serve as a blacklist illustration for interpreting the legality of any puzzles with colors visible internally.)

Whether someone should be allowed to use any "reasonable" puzzle is a philosophical point, and I believe there is no objectively correct answer.
However, this freedom has done well for our community so far.

The WRC/Board isn't a single person, so we don't have a single opinion about the whitelist, but we're amenable to the possibility if it's a sufficiently useful solution.
However, it would take a lot of discussion, and it wouldn't just suddenly happen any time soon.

EDIT: Filed issue #157 on GitHub, in case anyone wants to track future activity on this topic.


----------



## Zeotor (Feb 14, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Although I don't currently support this idea, I believe this is actually *reasonable* if the list has sufficient variety, and the puzzles are low-cost enough.


Are you saying that this list would list specific puzzles by name ? If so, it seems better to list types of puzzles. For example, the list could just state that puzzle's body (usually plastic) must be only one color, or that puzzles with transparent plastic are not allowed. The same kind of thing could be done for stickers other accessories. Any puzzle or accessory that wasn't on the whitelist would have to be approved before it could be used in an official competition.

Doing it like that would mean that these lists wouldn't have to be continually updated as new models or brands of puzzles are released. They would probably only have to be updated when a new type of puzzle is available. For example, stickerless cubes and ones with two different colors of plastic haven't always been available.

EDIT: I hope that this doesn't take the thread off-topic.


----------



## Lchu613 (Feb 14, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> I think a lot of people misunderstand the point of a whitelist here. It would not be about allowing *every* reasonable puzzle; it would be about approving a specific set of puzzles – with the knowledge that some might be excluded, but with the understanding that this would give us some benefits.


Ah, so just going back to a "category" whitelist instead of a individual whitelist.


----------



## Sebastien (Feb 14, 2014)

Lchu613 said:


> "category" whitelist



in other words: Regulations.


----------



## Lchu613 (Feb 14, 2014)

Indeed. Those were my thoughts. Not exactly a new whitelist so much as a renaming.


----------



## (X) (Feb 15, 2014)

I find it absolutely horrific that this is the direction that the WCA regulations may head in. This suggestion does not promote equal conditions for cubers with different equipment, and it can possibly lead to a similar situation as we have had with megaminxes. With megaminxes, especially before the dayan megaminx, you had to have a tiled mefferts puzzle to be able to compete at high levels. This was fair enough, but I can imagine a similar situation with 3x3 and other puzzles, where you would have to have a stickerless cube in order to get an advantage. 

I find it really strange that cubers trivialize the allowing of stickerless cubes in a sport that is so much about margins and really pushing yourself to improve even the slightest bit. I would really hate to see stickerless cubes take over the cubing scene as I fear they will do. I firmly believe this will change the way of solving, and give *unfair* advantages. To get technical, look-ahead, at high speeds, is all about glimpsing the right pieces at the right time. If you glimpse more pieces/ stickers you obviously have an advantage.
I am really surprised not more people feel this is a change that takes away from the simple and classical part of the sport, which I know I appreciate very much. 

To summarize, I think allowing more puzzle variation is bad and will make speedcubing more about equipment and also change the solving as we know and love it today.

EDIT: I am talking about stickerless cubes where you can spot the backside of a piece by while turning the cube. I am also against plastic tiles that are as thick as / thicker than mf8- megaminx tiles for the same reasons that are stated above.


----------



## kcl (Feb 15, 2014)

(X) said:


> I find it absolutely horrific that this is the direction that the WCA regulations may head in. This suggestion does not promote equal conditions for cubers with different equipment, and it can possibly lead to a similar situation as we have had with megaminxes. With megaminxes, especially before the dayan megaminx, you had to have a tiled mefferts puzzle to be able to compete at high levels. This was fair enough, but I can imagine a similar situation with 3x3 and other puzzles, where you would have to have a stickerless cube in order to get an advantage.
> 
> I find it really strange that cubers trivialize the allowing of stickerless cubes in a sport that is so much about margins and really pushing yourself to improve even the slightest bit. I would really hate to see stickerless cubes take over the cubing scene as I fear they will do. I firmly believe this will change the way of solving, and give *unfair* advantages. To get technical, look-ahead, at high speeds, is all about glimpsing the right pieces at the right time. If you glimpse more pieces/ stickers you obviously have an advantage.
> I am really surprised not more people feel this is a change that takes away from the simple and classical part of the sport, which I know I appreciate very much.
> ...



Are you trolling? If you aren't you have clearly never topped 7 TPS. You honestly cannot see the hidden pieces at that speed. Besides that, any cuber with really good lookahead will know what those pieces are without having to stop and look.


----------



## Stefan (Feb 15, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Are you trolling? If you aren't you have clearly never topped 7 TPS. You honestly cannot see the hidden pieces at that speed. Besides that, any cuber with really good lookahead will know what those pieces are without having to stop and look.



You might not want to talk down like that to someone who is faster than you...


----------



## kcl (Feb 15, 2014)

Stefan said:


> You might not want to talk down like that to someone who is faster than you...



I'm not intending to talk down to him, but I find it shocking that he believes stickerless cubes can provide an advantage, especially considering his average.


----------



## Methuselah96 (Feb 15, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> I'm not intending to talk down to him, but I find it shocking that he believes stickerless cubes can provide an advantage, especially considering his average.



Can you prove that stickerless cubes cannot provide an advantage?


----------



## kcl (Feb 15, 2014)

Methuselah96 said:


> Can you prove that stickerless cubes cannot provide an advantage?



Can you prove that they do? If they did it still would not provide an advantage due to the fact that everybody is able to use them. 

I'm going to compare the "advantage" stickerless cubes provide to air friction in physics. You rarely actually bother to account for air resistance in physics, at least the type you perform in school. It's negligible, which is exactly the point I mean to make with stickerless cubes.


----------



## (X) (Feb 15, 2014)

No, I am not trolling. I am very passionate about cubing, while I am not the most active forum member I felt I really had to address this issue.

anyway, the fact that you are not noticing the difference is not the point. I think that even if it's just a theoretical advantage (not saying that it is) stickerless cubes should still be illegal because of the possible advantage and the fact that it differs so much from the original Rubik's cube design. Here I agree with Dene on the point that a transparent 3x3 cube is in fact not the same puzzle, for speedsolving purposes, as a Rubik's cube. 

I would love to see some really fast people's opinions on the matter. Even though the difference in performance may be minimal at top levels of speedsolving, a possible advantage for intermediate cubers is also a bad thing for the sport, in my opinion.

EDIT: And as I already mentioned in my original post, it's all about glimpsing the pieces at the right time (which is possible at high speeds, even if you are not aware of it yourself).

A glimpse is enough.


----------



## XTowncuber (Feb 15, 2014)

(X) said:


> in a sport that is so much about margins and really pushing yourself to improve even the slightest bit.



No, not really. Sure, we try our hardest to be the best, but it's not like we're desperately trying to cut off hundredths of a second by adjusting our cubes. Most of the top cubers will tell you that it's the cuber, not the cube. 

You still have not addressed how a stickerless cube gives an advantage when anyone can purchase one. Heck, if you really wanted one you could probably just borrow one from another competitor. 

I don't see how extreme corner cutting is ok, but this somehow wouldn't be.


----------



## moralsh (Feb 15, 2014)

(X) said:


> the fact that it differs so much from the original Rubik's cube design.



I personally think that Fangshi differs a lot more from the original rubik's cube than a stickerless DaYan and that the anti-popping mechanisms of the latests models pose a greater advantage for almost every cuber than the possibility of a glimpse of a piece, this is all a matter of perspective. I am way faster with my weilong than with any stickerless cube that I have.

To me, the only real advantage a stickerless cube has is that you don't have to sticker it and if they become legal and people start using them massively I'll bet it'll be because of that reason and not because of the advantage they give during the solve.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 15, 2014)

Thanks for your comments, (X). I wish more people would consider your viewpoint without criticizing it based on opinion.

The main difficulty with that argument is that it expresses a worry about something that *may or may not happen* to our sport, and unfortunately it's impossible to know. In practice, it's also likely to be subtle.



XTowncuber said:


> You still have not addressed how a stickerless cube gives an advantage when anyone can purchase one.



An advantage needs a standard of comparison, and we're mostly considering advantages that puzzles may have over the original manufactured versions.

If the rules are sufficiently clear, everyone enjoys the same advantages – no one has an *additional* advantage because of a loophole.
However, the current topic is about trying to decide what advantages should be officially permitted.

I have explained several times why a stickerless cube gives an advantage. The question is if this advantage is reasonable.

Also, just because something is allowed for all competitors doesn't mean we should allow it. It would be fair (or in your terms, "wouldn't give anyone advantage") to let everyone bring a printed sheet of algorithms to the solving station, but I don't think anyone would argue that we should do this.


----------



## (X) (Feb 15, 2014)

I mostly agree with what you say Lucas, and I'm glad that someone share or at least understand my concern. However, it seems to me that some of the motivation behind wanting to allow stickerless cubes is wanting a simplification of the regulations. I do not think this is worth the price of changing, even slightly, how we speedsolve.

Also, I would really like to know more about the decision making, and maybe get in on the discussion. Is there a better channel for that, should I send a mail to delegate who participates in the discussion?

@XTowncuber 
The point is that legalizing stickerless cubes in my opinion changes (even if it's not much) the way you can speedsolve a cube, and I'm against changing the nature of speedsolving from what it has been originally. I do not doubt that stickerless cubes will be easily available for everyone that would want to use one.

Also, as many fast cubers will agree on, trying to explain what you do when you look ahead is very hard. Few people can tell exactly what they are looking at at a specific time and as long as there is a possibility that you can gain an advantage I think it is not worth the risk to allow stickerless cubes.


----------



## (X) (Feb 15, 2014)

moralsh said:


> I personally think that Fangshi differs a lot more from the original rubik's cube than a stickerless DaYan and that the anti-popping mechanisms of the latests models pose a greater advantage for almost every cuber than the possibility of a glimpse of a piece, this is all a matter of perspective. I am way faster with my weilong than with any stickerless cube that I have.
> 
> To me, the only real advantage a stickerless cube has is that you don't have to sticker it and if they become legal and people start using them massively I'll bet it'll be because of that reason and not because of the advantage they give during the solve.


 
I understand what you say, but the difference is that a black weilong does not differ from the original *idea* of a Rubik's cube. If you don't consider the twisting of corners (which I am not a big fan of) the weilong is the exactly same puzzle as the idea of the original Rubik's cube. This is not the case with either a transparent or a stickerless cube, although the advantage of those cubes may be less.


----------



## uberCuber (Feb 15, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Thanks for your comments, (X). I wish more people would consider your viewpoint without criticizing it based on opinion.



What does that even mean? His viewpoint is also an opinion, this whole argument is over opinion, how else is one supposed to address it? At any rate, he doesn't seem any more willing to accept the other side than many people are to accept his.


----------



## Erik (Feb 17, 2014)

This whole discussion about 'possible unfair advantages' is quite irrelevant I think. First of all the last few posts are quite off-topic since as Lucas said in this thread he was looking for ways to adjust the wording of the proposal, so not discuss the 'direction we are heading' I am a bit surprised Lucas got himself on the sidetrack here as well. I'm not a mod, but I would like to see this discussion (including this post) moved to a seperate thread.

The most discussed advantages of variants we are discussing are theoretical and unproven, and only are concidered an 'unfair advantage' because it differs from people's own definition of what is a Rubik's cube. 

So the *first* *question* I would ask is: is it against the idea of an original Rubik's cube? Following my own definition I would say stickerless cubes, transparent cubes etc. most definitely are Rubik's cubes. The more interesting (but still quite irrelevant) one here is: does Ernö Rubik think stickerless cubes are not Rubik's cubes? As it is quite hard to contact the man we can only guess here. I think he already considers normal Weilong cubes as not Rubik's cubes. He really does not like anything that differs a lot from the normal cubes from Rubiks.com even if the mechanism is the same. Yes I met him a few times, he wouldn't even sign Rama's cube which had a purple side because it was different (it was a normal Rubik's brand). Of course this does not have much to do with his definition of a Rubik's cube at the time he invented it, but it gives some perspective on the irrelevant discussion. When he invented the Rubik's cube I am quite sure that because of the sheer design it was impossible or highly impractical to produce cubes with coloured plastic to recognize the faces, the same goes for transparent cubes and Weilongs. His original idea was just about a cube, with some markings on it to identify the pieces, that could move around without falling apart. How to identify which piece is which? I think at the time of the invention he really did not care at all.

To conclude the first question I'd say: probably not, but if you asked Rubik himself he would probably like to see only Rubik's brand cubes at competitions.

Then regardless of what you think about the first question, there is an important *second question* we have been discussing: is there an unfair advantage?
Firstly, the word advantage has been used in a couple of different ways in these discussions. An advantage compared to what or whom? As long as everyone is allowed to use the same puzzles there will never be an unfair advantage where some competitors have better conditions than others. An advantage over previously used puzzles and regulations then? Well, these have always been there. Competitors from 2003 did not have Weilongs, better organised competitions, better solving methods, more forgiving +2 regulations and did not have nice lube. On the other side they might have had longer inspection time, would only get a +2 when they are an M away from solved, less scramble filtering etc.
So what I want to say here is: there always have been and always will be changes that will influence the conditions that provide an advantage or disadvantage compared to previous competitions.

So the question about an advantage or not is quite irrelevant I think. To answer it anyway about stickerless cubes: probably not. But if it turns out they provide any advantage at all, it might as well (or even more likely) be because the 'stickers' cover 100% of the surface, which make recognizing easier because there is no base-plastic interfering, and not because of the colours on the inside of a cube (which I think you are not able to see or use anyway if you are turning faster than like 1 TPS).

But for the sake of argument: let's say stickerless cubes actually provide a 2% speed improvement and let's say this is solely because of the colours on the inside. Let's see what the cubing world then look like: the 3x3 single World Record has now improved from 5.55 to 5.44, Faz now did the 2-7 relay in 6:06, people doing BLD with stickerless cubes have even less chance of cheating by feeling and... that's about it. Big deal...


----------



## Dene (Feb 17, 2014)

Erik said:


> Big quote



I think what is more relevant than asking about the original idea of the Rubik's cube, is to ask "does it conform to what people think of when they think of a Rubik's Cube?" In this case the answer could be very different.


----------



## Tim Major (Feb 17, 2014)

I have to agree with Dene. Why consider Erno's definition. Seems he'd have quite a biased anti-change viewpoint.

Rubik's cube has supposedly sold 350million units, the only noncubers who have cubes seem to have $2 cubes, not Rubik's. 

I like the previous definition, with no inherent visual advantage over a typical Rubik's cube, such as a cube allowing you to see extra stickers. Also obviously banning cubes that make new moves possible, or anything automated.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 17, 2014)

I feel like the root of (X)'s argument is just that he doesn't want things to change. He likes to compete with the current equipment and thinks that better equipment would somehow ruin the sport. But that's not true, and cubes have clearly improved over time. When I started the best you could get was a Rubik's DIY (unless you were willing to get expensive cubes from Hungary or find a 1980s cube on eBay), and then later the Type F introduced good corner cutting, and nowadays the variety of really good cubes is just staggering. Even if stickerless cubes do provide enough of an advantage that people will need to use them to compete (and I really don't think they do), it is just another hardware improvement of the same type we have continuously seen since 2003. Stickerless cubes, among other types, ought to be considered just another hardware option - after all, isn't the point of all these options to let people use the cube they are best with, within reason?

Essentially, I'd say there's no reason to artificially try to hold that process back. Technological improvement has happened in many sports, and cubing is no different. In tennis, professionals used wooden rackets until the 70s/80s when metal and alloy frames started to take over, and now you'd be laughed at for using a wooden one. Should they have forbidden metal rackets because they provided an advantage (and violated the idea of what a racket is), or is it good that they allowed them and thus let the sport move forward?


----------



## Stefan (Feb 17, 2014)

Erik said:


> But for the sake of argument: let's say stickerless cubes actually provide a 2% speed improvement and let's say this is solely because of the colours on the inside. Let's see what the cubing world then look like: the 3x3 single World Record has now improved from 5.55 to 5.44, Faz now did the 2-7 relay in 6:06, people doing BLD with stickerless cubes have even less chance of cheating by feeling and... that's about it. Big deal...





qqwref said:


> Essentially, I'd say there's no reason to artificially try to hold that process back. Technological improvement has happened in many sports, and cubing is no different. In tennis, professionals used wooden rackets until the 70s/80s when metal and alloy frames started to take over, and now you'd be laughed at for using a wooden one. Should they have forbidden metal rackets because they provided an advantage (and violated the idea of what a racket is), or is it good that they allowed them and thus let the sport move forward?



Just to also show an example of technology giving a 2% advantage being banned:

_"the [LZR Racer swimsuit] reportedly can lower racing times for a competitor by 1.9 to 2.2 percent. This and other high performance body suits have since been banned from FINA competitions."_
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer


----------



## Sebastien (Feb 17, 2014)

To come back to topic, here is a proposal to fix the problems with 3d4 of the initial proposal:



> 3d4) The faces of a puzzle must not have any deviation in colour among each other besides the coloured stickers, coloured tiles, painted colours or coloured plastic used to define the colours of the faces.



or (same, but written differently):



> 3d4) The faces of a puzzle must not have any deviation in colour among each other besides their different colours, defined by either coloured stickers, coloured tiles, painted colours or coloured plastic (see 3d).



This clearly allows all uniform variants of differently coloured cube bodies, i.e. differently coloured center pieces, a cube with black edges and white corners or the Fansghi Illusion - everything you can't gain advantage from. Meanwhile, stuff like white cubes with black LL pieces etc. is clearly forbidden. 

I proposed this a while back on the delegate mailing list already, but I was told, that this wouldn't fix the problem. I can't see why though. If I am missing something, please help me out.


----------



## Clarkeeyyy (Feb 17, 2014)

Stefan said:


> Just to also show an example of technology giving a 2% advantage being banned:
> 
> _"the [LZR Racer swimsuit] reportedly can lower racing times for a competitor by 1.9 to 2.2 percent. This and other high performance body suits have since been banned from FINA competitions."_
> -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer



Although this is a perfectly good example of a 2% advantage being banned, people should keep in mind that it wasn't the suit which caused the ban. 

"The combined effects of the LZR both compressing the body and trapping air for buoyancy led to many competitors who used the LZR wearing two or more suits for an increased effect. This led to some claiming that the LZR was in effect 'technological doping.'"

This shows that it was banned due to competitors abusing the suit by wearing multiple and compressing their own bodies.


----------



## Stefan (Feb 17, 2014)

Clarkeeyyy said:


> This shows that it was banned due to competitors abusing the suit by wearing multiple and compressing their own bodies.



Then why didn't they just ban wearing multiple?


----------



## Clarkeeyyy (Feb 17, 2014)

Stefan said:


> Then why didn't they just ban wearing multiple?



I don't know, I just wanted to add this to the discussion.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Feb 17, 2014)

New Technology can make us better, so why not use it? Do you wish to hinder what humans are possible of doing? not using technological advancements is like having matches, but take an hour to make a fire the long way. Just pointless.


----------



## Stefan (Feb 17, 2014)

Weird (that video). If those body suits introduced in 2008 are _"the most significant speed skating advancement to date"_, then why hasn't the world record been broken since 2007?


----------



## Erik (Feb 17, 2014)

Sebastien said:


> To come back to topic, here is a proposal to fix the problems with 3d4 of the initial proposal:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for looking more into this and actually contributing to what Lucas' goal of this thread was. Obviously by specifically stating colour you might still get some touchy cubes (which I dont have a problem with, but I think the majority does).

@Stefan: I don't think this one of a million example where a change was not allowed actually has any significant meaning in this discussion at all. I do think it was a bad decision to ban them.


----------



## Methuselah96 (Feb 17, 2014)

Erik said:


> Thanks for looking more into this and actually contributing to what Lucas' goal of this thread was. Obviously by specifically stating colour you might still get some touchy cubes (which I dont have a problem with, but I think the majority does).
> 
> @Stefan: I don't think this one of a million example where a change was not allowed actually has any significant meaning in this discussion at all. I do think it was a bad decision to ban them.



Do you approve of performance-enhancing drugs?


----------



## Dene (Feb 18, 2014)

I think a look at Formula 1 is a much better case for hardware-performance regulations. Anyone that even vaguely keeps up would know that things are constantly being banned for a range of reasons. It isn't about hindering progress - it's about choosing which limitations you wish to impose on a sport. 

For example, why not have a football which magnetises towards the goal box? Well, that's obvious: because the ball would score itself, and this kind of defeats the purpose right?

Limitations are necessary not to prevent progress, but to define a sport.


----------



## mark49152 (Feb 18, 2014)

Visibility of face colours on the inside surface of edges is an artifact of the construction of stickerless cubes, not a design feature.

Just curious, but if the question was whether it should be permitted on a uniform colour cube to deliberately mark the inside surface of edges to match face colours, e.g. by painting, would people's opnions be the same?


----------



## Sebastien (Feb 18, 2014)

Erik said:


> you might still get some touchy cubes



could you elaborate on this? I simply don't understand what you're refering to.


----------



## Erik (Feb 18, 2014)

Sebastien said:


> could you elaborate on this? I simply don't understand what you're refering to.



Sure: 
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...-Brainstorming&p=950193&viewfull=1#post950193



> #15 #16 #20 #26 #28 #30 goes against 3d2: 3d2) The colours of puzzles must be solid, with uniform texture and one uniform colour per face. Each colour on the puzzle must be clearly distinct from the other colours. Exception: a logo (see [Regulation 3l](regulations:regulation:3l)). #26 depends on how you see a 'face'. #28 because you could argue that texture refers to 'feeling a difference' which would be possible here. If you want to enforce 'no feeling' I suggest adding the words 'size and shape' and also 'a uniform colour and feel' or something like that to a few of the regulations.




Reading the proposal (including and excluding your additions) I think it's not clear that the puzzle itself must have a uniform form. The only thing that has to be uniform according to the proposal is "the colours of puzzles". Like in my quote I suggest adding words like 'size and shape' and/or 'uniform colour or feel' or something like that. Would seal the deal on a few puzzel variants


----------



## Sebastien (Feb 18, 2014)

Ok, got it. No, in contrast, I'm explicitely in favour of ignoring Shape. Our current regulations do in theory disallow many puzzles (which are generally still allowed in practise, violating the regulations) because of minor marking that distinguish similar pieces from each other.


----------



## (X) (Feb 18, 2014)

Is there anywhere to actually discuss if the issue of whether to introduce these rules into the regulations or not, or has that already been decided?


----------



## cubernya (Feb 19, 2014)

(X) said:


> Is there anywhere to actually discuss if the issue of whether to introduce these rules into the regulations or not, or has that already been decided?



This thread (AFAIK). I am sure there are discussions among the delegates as well, but that is not for us to be part of


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 19, 2014)

(X) said:


> Is there anywhere to actually discuss if the issue of whether to introduce these rules into the regulations or not, or has that already been decided?



There has not been. This is just the process of trying to see what the community has to say/contribute.

(Personally, I do not support this change as-is, but I think the general idea has merit given community preference.)


----------



## Dene (Feb 19, 2014)

(X) said:


> Is there anywhere to actually discuss if the issue of whether to introduce these rules into the regulations or not, or has that already been decided?



This process is only just beginning and you have time to contribute. I know it's a big ask, but it would be very welcome if you could come up with your own set of regulations as an opposing view to what is proposed in this thread.


----------



## Sebastien (Feb 19, 2014)

(X) said:


> Is there anywhere to actually discuss if the issue of whether to introduce these rules into the regulations or not, or has that already been decided?



As Lucas said, this is not yet decided. The goal of this thread was to bring this proposal to a reasonable state, to make it a valid option, that it ain't yet because of soem weak points that need to be fixed.

However, the same goes for our current regulations.



theZcuber said:


> This thread (AFAIK). I am sure there are discussions among the delegates as well, but that is not for us to be part of



Actually, there aren't really any internal discussions since the topic was moved to here.


----------



## elrog (Feb 22, 2014)

I would support this proposal if some changes were made.
* - *Cubes should have to have an opaque body. This would ban transparent cubes and keep people from putting lights that can shine through the plastic inside certain pieces. 
- All cubes should have to have a uniform coloring system (such as only stickers, only tiles, only colored plastic, or only paint). This has been said before, but I thought I'd say it again.

This is my interpretation of part of what (X) was trying to say that was not understood by some:
- While it is true that everyone can use stickerless cubes if they provide an advantage, this would make everyone use stickerless cubes in order to not have a disadvantage.

This being said, allowing stickerless cubes contradicts the whole "Anything goes" idea if they do indeed provide an advantage. I personally do not think stickerless cubes provide a feasible/useable advantage.

Also, I do think that discussion about what changes may be made to cubes in the future should be discussed here, as it would affect the proposed regulations.

I would make the suggestion that all shape mods are allowed provided that the shape has the same planes of symmetry as the original puzzle, but what about shape mods that change what is visible? I do not think pillowed cubes are a big deal, because you can see more sides from looking at one side, but you cannot see the back layer on any side at the same time. The amount of gained visibility equals the lost visibility. What I'm worried about is a cube that has the corners brought out or edges sunk in. This could allow you to see colors on the back corners that you couldn't see before if colored a certain way. Should this be added as a rule as well as limiting the number of stickers to the number of stickers originally on the puzzle (54 for the 3x3x3)? What if a sticker were made large enough to fold over an edge of the puzzle (I'm not talking about an actual edge piece)? If you said they couldn't fold a sticker over an edge, what if the edge were rounded to the point it can no longer be called an edge?

Sorry if the above paragraph is hard to understand. I don't know how to put what I'm talking about in words any better than that.


----------



## Dene (Feb 22, 2014)

elrog said:


> Sorry if the above paragraph is hard to understand. I don't know how to put what I'm talking about in words any better than that.



I can understand it clearly. And like some others in this thread, you don't actually support the "anything goes" ideal at all. Instead of thinking about how you might modify this proposal, why not try and roughly describe how you would make a proposal of your own? It certainly sounds like you have a reasonably clear idea of what you think should be allowed. This would contribute a lot more to the discussion.


----------



## elrog (Feb 27, 2014)

Dene said:


> And like some others in this thread, you don't actually support the "anything goes" ideal at all.


The original proposal in this thread was to be towards anything goes, not actually anything goes. Nobody thinks we should allow anything and everything. What I said still in the direction of anything goes compared to the current regulations, just like every proposed idea in this thread. Also, how am I supposed to write a large list of regulations when there are parts I don't really care about. (Like BLD. No offence to anyone.)


----------



## Dene (Feb 28, 2014)

elrog said:


> The original proposal in this thread was to be towards anything goes, not actually anything goes. Nobody thinks we should allow anything and everything. What I said still in the direction of anything goes compared to the current regulations, just like every proposed idea in this thread. Also, how am I supposed to write a large list of regulations when there are parts I don't really care about. (Like BLD. No offence to anyone.)



Lol I don't mean re-write the whole regulations, just the relevant parts regarding puzzles.

And what you were proposing sounded rather restricting to me. The proposal in this thread really is attempting to get as close to allowing anything as possible. You seem to be somewhere in the middle, and I don't want others to get confused about whether you (or others) actually support this proposal or not.

It isn't about the general idea (being more liberal with what we allow), it is about this specific proposal, and what you think about it.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Apr 3, 2014)

Just to give some progress, since the grace period is up:

The WRC/Board have spent some time discussing the options.

While Sébastien's proposal is in the right spirit, the whole discussion has shown that *any* set of puzzle Regulations will require intricate details (and clarifications for edge cases). While there is a philosophical point behind allowing arbitrary puzzles, most competitors' real concern is that they want to use certain specific puzzles they like.

We're currently finalizing changes to allow printed/painted colors (in light of the fact that such speedcubes are now being mass-produced) and thicker Megaminx tiles, which were the main concerns about 2014 Regulations.
This will bring the Regulations more in line of our goal to allow nearly all popular puzzles from 2013 to remain legal.
(To be explicit, this means two-color FangShis will also remain allowed for the time being.)

I'd like to emphasize that this is a pragmatic decision, not a permanent ruling. We're going to look at allowing other specific "advantages" like stickerless cubes.
However, this will require some work to make sure that we don't allow anything overly broad when we introduce them.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Apr 22, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> We need a good reason to change the policy to start allowing them, and the reasons have never been "good enough".



They save money on stickers.

No piece can be distinguish by touch.

New competitors who arrive at a competition who's only speed cube is a stickerless can actually use them.
(I know people are meant to read the regs before going to their 1st comp but that situation does occur)


The only reason not to allow them seems to be, 'It goes against Ernö's original idea of what a Rubik's cube is'.

Is that a good reason? He never put any thought into how the design could be optimised to produce the fastest times. It was just an engineering project and spacial awareness challenge iirc.



Lucas Garron said:


> Perhaps people just like "stickerless" cubes because they literally prefer not to have stickers. Maybe a better version of the new Rubik's speedcubes would satisfy them.



So people who like stickerless cubes have to wait for a good cube which looks like the new Rubik's brand speed cube?

This process also adds to the production cost which we would see amplified by the time it gets to the consumer. I believe C4U released an expensive cube just like the new Rubik's about 4 years ago.

The reason why company's make stickerless cubes is because they sell well and almost cost the same to produce. If that cost goes up it's likely sales will drop and they will stop producing them.

This is obviously pure speculation but fairly logical IMO.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Apr 23, 2014)

cube-o-holic said:


> They save money on stickers.


In an age where new speedcubes 1) come out frequently, 2) turn really well, and 3) are fairly affordable, how many people keep their cubes long enough and restiker them frequently?

I understand that cubes/shipping are more expensive for some countries, and that not everyone has a income with a large discretionary budget (kids in particular), but I think enabling competitors to "save money on stickers" is a weak argument.
If someone can get some actual numbers on this, that would be useful.



cube-o-holic said:


> No piece can be distinguish by touch.


That's actually a great argument in favor.
(I wonder why I haven't seen anyone state it before.)



cube-o-holic said:


> New competitors who arrive at a competition who's only speed cube is a stickerless can actually use them.
> (I know people are meant to read the regs before going to their 1st comp but that situation does occur)


I think it is definitely fair to require competitors to use cubes that meet our standards.

In case someone brings a disallowed cube (which happens for a variety of reasons), there is usually someone else who can lend them one.



cube-o-holic said:


> The only reason not to allow them seems to be, 'It goes against Ernö's original idea of what a Rubik's cube is'.
> 
> Is that a good reason? He never put any thought into how the design could be optimised to produce the fastest times. It was just an engineering project and spacial awareness challenge iirc.


Is that a bad reason? The event is about solving Rubik's Cubes, so we should be restricting competitors to a some definition of what a Rubik's Cube is.

The question, of course, is what that definition should be.



cube-o-holic said:


> This is obviously pure speculation but fairly logical IMO.


That... doesn't make any sense?
If you believe your argument, put your weight behind it.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Apr 23, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> If you believe your argument, put your weight behind it.



I foolishly left that in, in retrospect. Thanks for reading. I hope I brought up a couple of points worth mentioning.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Apr 23, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> how many people keep their cubes long enough and restiker them frequently?


Me



Lucas Garron said:


> In case someone brings a disallowed cube (which happens for a variety of reasons), there is usually someone else who can lend them one.



But that is not in their best interest.


Regarding definitions, nobody know what they are talking about (see sexy move thread).

Regarding can't feel for pieces, this argument was brought up in the logos thread

Sorry, on a phone, didn't want to do the tedious work it takes to break up a post


----------



## Mollerz (Apr 23, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> In an age where new speedcubes 1) come out frequently, 2) turn really well, and 3) are fairly affordable, how many people keep their cubes long enough and restiker them frequently?
> 
> I understand that cubes/shipping are more expensive for some countries, and that not everyone has a income with a large discretionary budget (kids in particular), but I think enabling competitors to "save money on stickers" is a weak argument.



I resticker my cubes quite a lot, and I know a ton of people who hate restickering but I force them to due to regulations.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Apr 24, 2014)

I've started a semi-official list of reason for/against stickerless puzzles: https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/177



cube-o-holic said:


> I hope I brought up a couple of points worth mentioning.


Yeah, you motivated me to start that list, in case anyone else brings up good points we didn't already have in our mind.


----------



## Mollerz (Apr 24, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> I've started a semi-official list of reason for/against stickerless puzzles: https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/177
> 
> 
> Yeah, you motivated me to start that list, in case anyone else brings up good points we didn't already have in our mind.



Another thing you have to remember about the "advantage" of seeing stickers from the side/back whilst looking at the front: At high speeds it is extremely difficult to see, and does not necessarily take less time than normal. A couple of the fastest cubers, Feliks, Mats and Bill spring to mind on this matter, they already do not pause when transitioning from F2L-OLL-PLL on current stickered cubes so again, no difference. I agree this can be easily used at much slower speeds, but the advantage gained is completely minimal. 

Also, another thing, and I think this is the most important point in my mind. Everyone has that advantage, but I doubt that many will switch purely for this advantage. The majority of people that will switch from stickered to stickerless cubes will be those who have stickerless cubes already as their main but are forced to use stickered in competition.

Also with this, I do think pillowed cubes should be allowed as well.


----------



## AmazingCuber (Apr 24, 2014)

Everyone says that sticker less cubes don't provide advantages, but why does everyone want them allowed and why is everyone faster with them? I personally think that the advantage is definitely there, it's just unconscious.


----------



## TMOY (Apr 24, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> In an age where new speedcubes 1) come out frequently, 2) turn really well, and 3) are fairly affordable, how many people keep their cubes long enough and restiker them frequently?



People who do multi with a large number of cubes for example. When a new speedcube gets released, I don't buy 10 or 12 of them at once, I buy one or eventually two and continue to use my older cubes for multi as well.


----------



## Erik (Apr 24, 2014)

AmazingCuber said:


> Everyone says that sticker less cubes don't provide advantages, but why does everyone want them allowed and why is everyone faster with them? I personally think that the advantage is definitely there, it's just unconscious.



Personally I like stickerless cubes because they are perfect. Perfect in the sense that there are 0 flaws in the stickers, there is nothing interfering, no black plastic behind the stickers. And still I never managed to get faster with them than any non-stickerless cube ;-)

And yes, also that you never need to buy new stickers is nice. Not because it costs money, but just because it's a pain to change stickers. That's what I like about tiles as well.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 24, 2014)

"The WCA puzzle policy has always been conservative" - I don't think so. Before stickerless and pillowed cubes were not popular or even mass-produced, in practice you could use pretty much any mass-produced cube as long as it was stickered with a single color on each side. For the time this was extremely competitor-friendly, and the only other official group suggesting rules on what cubes were allowed was Seventowns with its "official Rubik only" policy. Remember, the WCA is just over a decade old; the only tradition is the one we make.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Apr 24, 2014)

AmazingCuber said:


> Everyone says that sticker less cubes don't provide advantages, but why does everyone want them allowed and why is everyone faster with them? I personally think that the advantage is definitely there, it's just unconscious.



I am no faster with a stickerless cube however a stickerless is my main. Erik brought up most of the reasons why I like mine but I will add that I take it everywhere with me. It gets thrown in a bag and no damage can be done to stickers. It might get placed down in liquid and it wipes clean instead of having to replacing stickers. Simply it is more convenient.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Apr 24, 2014)

CoenRox36 said:


> Although someone may not purposely cheat they might sub-consciously spot the piece quicker or give a great special awarness on the stickerless cube (as well as pillowed puzzles) causing slightly quicker times.



Cheat? Is it cheating to use a WeiLong instead of a Rubik's brand? Both are legal and one is obviously far superior.

If stickerless cubes were allowed to be used in competition everyone would have the option to use them.
Would everyone switch to stickerless?
I highly doubt it. The advantage really isn't that great if even measurable.

If the issue is 'people might be quicker with them' then surely that's a good thing. That's what we are all trying to achieve. However, I spend half of my solves using stickerless cubes and my times don't appear to vary. I know I'm only one data point but I would personally love to see if anyone can take advantage of this potential boost to times. I don't expect this to happen.


----------



## AvGalen (May 6, 2014)

I really see no reason for all this debate about unfair advantages. If anyone can buy/create/use that puzzle it is not unfair!
In my opinion we should allow all puzzles as long as the concept for solving them is the same as the original. I know this is vague, but I really don't think it needs any other explanation because we also have the "competitors should behave in good spirit" rule. Leave all those rules behind and let common sense and delegates handle the rest. Yes, that means some arbitrary decisions will be made so results will not be 100% comparable but that really shouldn't stop us from having fun at competitions.

If someone can make a 3x3x3 "compatible" puzzle that allows the solver to feel the colors, rotate almost frictionless with the flick of a finger without ever popping and nicely aligns while allowing extreme cornercutting, and even somehow allows you to see all pieces all the time I don't think that would be a problem. I think that would be great and would be progress for our hobby/sport. All equipment in other sports change all the time and so should our puzzles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clap_skate


> Unlike in traditional skates where the blade is rigidly fixed to the boot, clap skates have the blade attached to the boot by a hinge at the front. The clap skate was used first in the 1984/1985 skating season. It was, however, not until the late 1990s that the idea was taken seriously. In the 1996/1997 season, the Dutch women's team started using the skates with great success. The rest of the skating world soon followed suit, causing a torrent of world records to be broken in the following seasons, including the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan.


However, a bicycle should stay a bicycle and not become a motorbike. And a discuss should not change shape and weight to become a spear. These are elementary concepts that everyone understands would change a sport too fundamentally.

So that is that, all that is left is to worry about blindfolded


----------



## AmazingCuber (May 6, 2014)

I totally agree with the last post. I believe that the WCA faces a very crucial decision regarding the future of the organization. Should we stay strictly with the original Rubik's design, or shall we allow variances and advancement in the technology behind this sport? These variances may have advantages, but doesn't everyone have access to them? Doesn't a competitor who uses a Zhanchi have an advantage over someone using a Rubik's brand? This advantage is exactly the same principle as the ones we are discussing now, but the only difference is that a Zhanchi still looks like a Rubik's brand, while a stickerless cube does not. There haunts the question of how we will allow for development beyond the original cube, especially in this very fast growing sport in this modern era. There are of course pros and cons for this developing mindset, but here are some thoughts of mine. 

First of all, I believe that existing speedcubers would benefit from anything goes. Of course we will need regulations to keep a cube a cube, but who doesn't like the practicability of never having to replace stickers (except sticker shops)? Also, with many events coming to their limits, hardware changes are needed to bring fresh wind into the top competitors (this is very debatable, but frankly, it's like this in many other sports).

There are possible cons to this though. An example: when I used a pillowed cube as my main and cubed in front of other people, there were always comments about the pillowedness – things like "In my childhood the cubes were totally different". While this is very two-sided and may cause interest, I believe it detracts from the public appeal of speedcubing. It won't be the puzzle that everyone has already failed at and knows about, but something "weirdish". This might lower the interest in starting to cube, which could be very catastrophic to such a developing sport. 

Overall, I believe that a change in mindset is needed to accomplish further development to this sport. This switch can't just be done quickly though. We need thorough thought on how we can deal with some problems that may trouble the decision, such as maintaining the public appeal of speedcubing. There also must be found the very thin line of what cubes to allow and what not, even in "anything goes" (such as ones with servo motors, etc., we will need to think into the future and how far we will go).
I sincerely hope that this very interesting discussion will continue. I would be very glad on input from others on this question of mindset.

Thanks!


----------



## AvGalen (May 6, 2014)

I just checked the rules for running a marathon. As for equipment they basically said "no weels" and that was that. If someone would come on blades or stelts that would immediately get noticed by others and prohibited under a "unfair sportmenship" rule. This is a sport where the skills of the person are MUCH more important than the equipment, so quite comparable with cubing.
Formula 1 is the opposite. There are details for everything and although technical advancements are a big stated goal of F1 there is a very fine line for what is actually allowed. This is a sport where the skills of the person are important (of course), but the equipment is even more important, so not really comparable with cubing.
If someone would like to participate with this megaminx I would want to allow it. And if someone can make it better than the original I would celebrate that inventor and buy one myself, get motivated to practise and improve myself. Sports get better because of this cycle and as long as the products are "generally available", or selfmade, and don't violate the "unfair sportmanship" rule it is all fine by me


----------



## tim (May 6, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> I just checked the rules for running a marathon. As for equipment they basically said "no weels" and that was that.



Could you please provide a link?

I found this:



> Athletes may compete barefoot or with footwear on one or both feet.
> The purpose of shoes for competition is to give protection and
> stability to the feet and a firm grip on the ground. Such shoes,
> however, must not be constructed so as to give an athlete any unfair
> ...



at http://www.iaaf.org/about-iaaf/documents/rules-regulations (IAAF Competition Rules 2014-2015).

That's even stricter than any puzzle regulation we ever had.


----------



## AvGalen (May 7, 2014)

tim said:


> Could you please provide a link?
> ...
> That's even stricter than any puzzle regulation we ever had.


The link you asked for : http://www.marathonkuching.com/rules-regulations, rule 11.

From another link they basically link to the IAAF rules that you post, but also say:
* Article 4 The Participant must run along the track set out by the Organiser in a manner that is usual for track and field events. He must be recognisable as a Participant.
* Article 6 The Participants must comply with instructions from the Organiser, and/or persons who, based on their clothing or other physical characteristics, appear to belong to the organisation of the Organiser. 
* Article 7 The Organiser is entitled to disqualify a Participant and/or take a Participant out of the competition if he does not comply with these competition regulations or displays unsporting or improper behaviour or if it is deemed necessary on medical grounds or for an orderly progression of the Event. 
* Article 27 In all cases for which these regulations do not provide the Organiser will make the final decision.

I also like the IAAF rule about assistance:
the use of any technology or appliance that provides the user with an advantage which he would not have obtained using the equipment specified in the Rules.
The rules about shoes seem very short and precise and could be compared to our rules about cubes.
However I don't like the IAAF rules about spikes, they seem to be EXTREMELY detailed for no good reason, just like our rules about stickers/tiles.
(These IAAF rules are interesting because they also cover multiple different, but partly overlapping events, just like the WCA)


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (May 7, 2014)

I do not have a problem with the idea of stickerless cubes allowing better lookahead. Or transparent cubes, if that helped. Or using a mirror to see the back. (Yes, it's a terrible idea in practice, but that's irrelevant to the point I'm making) The puzzle element of cubes is knowing how to manipulate the pieces well. I have no problem with someone saving themself an occasional peek on B, because I don't think that's part of what the puzzle should be. The thing restricting your speed should be your solving skill, not your physical inability to look at the entire puzzle at once. 

That said, the idea of a stickerless cube improving lookahead is pretty silly. For example, the second image in Lucas's list showing the theoretical advantage given by stickerless cubes really is not going to help anyone. The perspective shown in that picture is not one applicable to speedcubing. The picture shows nothing but the U face. Nobody solves looking at the U face only. Instead, we solve looking at U, F, and either a bit or R or L. The only circumstance where we're discussing the stickerless cube presenting an advantage is one where the solver would be disadvantaged by too many other things for it to be worth it.

In summary,

The only advantage stickerless cubes could provide is one that solvers SHOULD be allowed to have.
Everyone will have equal opportunity to use the cubes to their advantage. No single person is unfairly advantaged. 
And none of it matters because they DON'T provide an advantage.


----------



## AvGalen (May 7, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> ...
> In summary,
> 
> The only advantage stickerless cubes could provide is one that solvers SHOULD be allowed to have.
> ...


and the thing that everyone keeps forgetting: We are looking at the cube with 2 eyes, so if you use a small enough cube (legal) you can see 4 faces anyway (L U F R). I think it is entirely clear that all the cons are hypothetical and all the pros are real


----------



## Michael Womack (Jul 1, 2014)

cube-o-holic said:


> They save money on stickers.
> 
> No piece can be distinguish by touch.
> 
> ...




I agree with you. Also there are many young cubers who are ages 7-12 who buy a stickerless cube as there first true speedcube but didn't know that there not allowed in comps. Plus those young cubers don't have much money to buy a new cube once it's time to compete same goes with the stickers. When I first started I didn't really buy stickers for my cubes and my first speedcube was a stickerless guhong v1. But now with a good majority of the new speedcubes that comes out there will most likely be a stickerless version if the design of the cube allows it.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jul 1, 2014)

I was wondering something about people who have cubes with chipped stickers. Don't they have the ability to recognize what piece they are looking at just by seeing the chip in the sticker without having to see the other side (either consciously or subconsciously)? Isn't that much more of an advantage than any stickerless cube gives with recognition?


----------



## Michael Womack (Jul 1, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> I was wondering something about people who have cubes with chipped stickers. Don't they have the ability to recognize what piece they are looking at just by seeing the chip in the sticker without having to see the other side (either consciously or subconsciously)? Isn't that much more of an advantage than any stickerless cube gives with recognition?



For me that's not a problem. Also for someone like Feliks or Mat's since there super fast when they are turning the colors/stickers pass by there eyes in a fraction of a second so it's not a problem for them.


----------



## maps600 (Jul 2, 2014)

Michael Womack said:


> For me that's not a problem. Also for someone like Feliks or Mat's since there super fast when they are turning the colors/stickers pass by there eyes in a fraction of a second so it's not a problem for them.



There is a limit to how different the stickers can each be on a competitor's cube. However, trying to remember each sticker and the colors behind it while solving would probably take longer than just looking at the whole piece, itself.


----------



## Michael Womack (Jul 2, 2014)

maps600 said:


> There is a limit to how different the stickers can each be on a competitor's cube. However, trying to remember each sticker and the colors behind it while solving would probably take longer than just looking at the whole piece, itself.



Exactly my point. So it's not going to be a big issue.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jul 2, 2014)

maps600 said:


> There is a limit to how different the stickers can each be on a competitor's cube. However, trying to remember each sticker and the colors behind it while solving would probably take longer than just looking at the whole piece, itself.



If you solve thousands of times and you know the edge piece with the green sticker chipped has red on the other side, that would become pretty automatic, I think. It seems like it would be much more of an advantage than the peeks a stickerless cube might give.


----------



## AmazingCuber (Jul 2, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> If you solve thousands of times and you know the edge piece with the green sticker chipped has red on the other side, that would become pretty automatic, I think. It seems like it would be much more of an advantage than the peeks a stickerless cube might give.



And that is why it's not allowed! There is a regulation saying that stickers must be in good condition. It makes much sense to read the current regulations before complaining about them, or even proposing new ones!


----------



## DeeDubb (Jul 2, 2014)

AmazingCuber said:


> And that is why it's not allowed! There is a regulation saying that stickers must be in good condition. It makes much sense to read the current regulations before complaining about them, or even proposing new ones!



I know it's in the regs, but the language is vague, and I've seen plenty of videos of comps with cubers using quite chipped stickers.

EDIT: 

Here it is from the regs:

3j) Puzzles must be clean, and must not have any markings, elevated pieces, *damage, or other differences that significantly distinguish any piece from a similar piece*. Exception: a logo (see Regulation 3l).
3j1*) Puzzles are permitted to have reasonable wear, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.*
3j2) Definition: Two pieces are similar to each other if they are identical in shape and size, or mirrored in shape and identical in size.
3j3) Corrugated/textured parts which allow the orientation of pieces to be distinguished by feel are not permitted for blindfolded events.

Tough to really say how much wear is "reasonable", and how distinguishable is "significant", so that's up to the discretion of the judges, I suppose, but some of the puzzles that have been allowed in comps definitely have considerably chipped stickers that could allow for them to be distinguishable.


----------



## Michael Womack (Jul 2, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> I know it's in the regs, but the language is vague, and I've seen plenty of videos of comps with cubers using quite chipped stickers.



It really depends on how badly the stickers are.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jul 2, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> Tough to really say how much wear is "reasonable", and how distinguishable is "significant", so that's up to the discretion of the judges, I suppose, but some of the puzzles that have been allowed in comps definitely have considerably chipped stickers that could allow for them to be distinguishable.



As you said, it's a judgment call, and every delegate has their own level of judgment. Also, sometimes the delegate isn't at the scrambling table when puzzles get taken up, and can't check every single puzzle. Personally, I tend to be a bit conservative when it comes to permissible sticker wear. And as you said, this is arguably equivalent to the advantages of a stickerless cube - this is among the reasons we concluded that the potential advantages of a stickerless puzzle aren't so significant.


----------



## Future Cuber (Jul 2, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> If you solve thousands of times and you know the edge piece with the green sticker chipped has red on the other side, that would become pretty automatic, I think. It seems like it would be much more of an advantage than the peeks a stickerless cube might give.



The sticker chips more if you do a 1000 solves & again to memorise
you do a 1000 solves and sticker chips
LOL


----------

