# Magnet cube should not be legal for BLD events



## Weston (Dec 11, 2016)

When putting magnets into a cube, one has to take care that the orientation of every pair magnets is correct. If you put a pair of magnets in reversed, then in many unsolved positions, some of the magnets will be repelling while others are attracting. This makes the solved position of the cube have a large amount of tactile feedback, while other positions of the cube have less tactile feedback. This means that if magnets are inserted "improperly", then if someone is solving BLD they know that if the magnetic "clicks" in their current cube state are "weak", then they can determine that the cube is not solved.


----------



## Coolster01 (Dec 11, 2016)

Interesting, yeah I think I agree with this.


----------



## Berd (Dec 11, 2016)

If you're magnetic cube is popping then you're doing it wrong.


----------



## Weston (Dec 12, 2016)

Berd said:


> If you're magnetic cube is popping then you're doing it wrong.


I don't recall saying anything about popping.


----------



## Berd (Dec 12, 2016)

Weston said:


> I don't recall saying anything about popping.


I'm not sure what you mean then?


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Dec 12, 2016)

This suggests that incorrectly made magnetic cubes could potentially give some advantage, but I think at most you could tell if it wasn't solved if you really practiced trying to judge how it feel and take a large pause to examine the turning at the end of an attempt to check. You couldn't tell for definite that it was solved since presumably more than one state would have the same configuration of magnets as the solved position. This doesn't apply to correctly made magnetic cubes though.

Also:
1) it doesn't allow you to determine the exact state of the cube
2) uneven magnetic interactions will make the cube perform much worse than a similar cube with correct/no magnets
3) you can tell the difference between different stickers if they are chipped a little, if you practice that sort of thing and take a while to check them during the solve, and slightly chipped stickers are allowed (generally speaking). Presumably because using such clues to get information about the current state of the puzzle is both slow and would look very suspicious.

In short, I really don't see this being an issue: I don't think any sane person would try to get an advantage this way, they would have to be really slow to get an advantage, they wouldn't get much of an advantage, and it would probably look obvious that they were doing something they shouldn't.

However, maybe there's something important that I missed, and I've not actually tried a magnetic cube.


----------



## Weston (Dec 12, 2016)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> This suggests that incorrectly made magnetic cubes could potentially give some advantage, but I think at most you could tell if it wasn't solved if you really practiced trying to judge how it feel and take a large pause to examine the turning at the end of an attempt to check. You couldn't tell for definite that it was solved since presumably more than one state would have the same configuration of magnets as the solved position. This doesn't apply to correctly made magnetic cubes though.
> 
> Also:
> 1) it doesn't allow you to determine the exact state of the cube
> ...


It would look suspicious unless done skillfully. I don't see why it has to look suspicious. Judges also aren't always directly looking under the folder at the cube while it's being solved. 

1. So? That doesn't mean that it can't give you a big avantage
2. Thats opinion. In events like MBLD, who cares if a cube turns a little worse?
3. Chipped stickers are technically disallowed.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Dec 12, 2016)

So since I can make one side looser than the rest, should we ban all cubes that can have adjustable tensions from bld?

Edit: As well 3J is a regulation already in place and can ban this at delegate discretion if the puzzle is not correctly magnetized.


----------



## Weston (Dec 12, 2016)

Jaysammey777 said:


> So since I can make one side looser than the rest, should we ban all cubes that can have adjustable tensions from bld?


That is another problem with current BLD regs.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Dec 12, 2016)

Weston said:


> That is another problem with current BLD regs.


See my above post with the edit, 3j bans this.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Dec 12, 2016)

tbh the regs are just there for the sake of being regs. Anyone can easily cheat using chipped stickers or loose tensions if they want, it's not like a judge is going to actually enforce it


----------



## AlexMaass (Dec 12, 2016)

I think that this possible abuse could possibly be prevented by testing magnetic cubes when they are used for bld, if they are uneven it should be possible to easily distinguish that its not solved


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 12, 2016)

Hay Weston!

I won't divulge too much of their private information, but during legislation, BLD cheating was tested by the WCA Regulations Committee (WRC), and was definitely taken into account during their deliberation on magnetic puzzles.

Laura even tested her own combination of magnets for this, and this has definitely been considered by the upper committees.


----------



## Loiloiloi (Dec 12, 2016)

I'm all for strict enforcement of the rules. Thankfully in recent times we haven't had too many people cheating fast times and I think we should try our best to keep it that way. BLD in my opinion is one of the events that is easier to cheat in, and correct me if I'm wrong but I believe a WR came from cheating 3 times in BLD. So yeah, strict regs is fine for BLD in my opinion.

Edit: Ninja'd by the Tran Man himself. Well, I guess if the WRC has concluded this to be unlikely.


----------



## AlexMaass (Dec 12, 2016)

Loiloiloi said:


> I'm all for strict enforcement of the rules. Thankfully in recent times we haven't had too many people cheating fast times and I think we should try our best to keep it that way. BLD in my opinion is one of the events that is easier to cheat in, and correct me if I'm wrong but I believe a WR came from cheating 3 times in BLD. So yeah, strict regs is fine for BLD in my opinion.
> 
> Edit: Ninja'd by the Tran Man himself. Well, I guess if the WRC has concluded this to be unlikely.


btw it was a lot more world records than that, and also was a few thousand USD worth of prize money from worlds


----------



## Loiloiloi (Dec 12, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> btw it was a lot more world records than that, and also was a few thousand USD worth of prize money from worlds


From BLD alone?


----------



## AlexMaass (Dec 12, 2016)

Loiloiloi said:


> From BLD alone?


yeah he did all 4 BLD events


----------



## Weston (Dec 12, 2016)

4Chan said:


> Hay Weston!
> 
> I won't divulge too much of their private information, but during legislation, BLD cheating was tested by the WCA Regulations Committee (WRC), and was definitely taken into account during their deliberation on magnetic puzzles.
> 
> Laura even tested her own combination of magnets for this, and this has definitely been considered by the upper committees.


Thats great to hear. As long as this was/is being discussed, then thats enough for me.


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Dec 12, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> btw it was a lot more world records than that, and also was a few thousand USD worth of prize money from worlds



Which worlds?


----------



## AlexMaass (Dec 12, 2016)

FastCubeMaster said:


> Which worlds?


worlds 2007 lol


----------



## newtonbase (Dec 12, 2016)

A lot of people will put magnets in non central positions on the face of a cubie so I'm pretty sure that would make it possible to tell if you had flipped edges. It would be easier to check your memo though.


----------



## mark49152 (Dec 12, 2016)

Isn't the point of a magnetic cube to improve turning accuracy, throughout the whole solve, not just the final turn into solved position? I don't see how a correctly-made magnetic cube should feel different in certain unsolved states. A cube that feels different at different times would be horrible to solve.

Of course, a cube could be deliberately made incorrectly for the purpose of cheating, but as others have said, that's not an argument against the legality of magnetic cubes and should be dealt with elsewhere in the regs along with uneven tensions and other means of cheating.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 12, 2016)

You can even argue that using different types of cubes in MBLD should not be allowed since it allows you to tell which cubes are which.


----------



## Chree (Dec 12, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> You can even argue that using different types of cubes in MBLD should not be allowed since it allows you to tell which cubes are which.



You COULD argue these things, but they tell you nothing about whether the different cubes are actually solved or not. The point of the OP is that magnets could potentially tell you, at the very least, that your cube is not solved yet. And that qualifies as "extra information".

It's possible to install magnets that could tell you the orientation of the puzzle, say placing magnets in one center piece and then in a few edges, but nothing for the corners. This is the same reason we don't allow elevated logos for BLD puzzles, so we could add something akin to Reg3l2, but I think Reg3j covers this.

Laura's testing during the WRC deliberation was, as far as I read, cursory. She tested a couple of the obvious configurations that were being talked about and determined that the advantages were not significant. She could not, however, rule out the possibility of a significant advantage being attained through other configurations, and in fact later, after sharing her support for magnetic puzzles, took a step back and shared her hesitation about making any sort of announcement calling all magnetic puzzles 'WCA legal'. The discussion never formally concluded.

Since then, the community has devised lots of additional and potentially illegal configurations. I think it's obvious that there are illegal configurations of magnets in puzzles, especially taking consideration of their use for BLD... but Reg3j bans most (if not all) of these configurations. So I'm not convinced that there needs to be any change to the regulations, and I certainly don't think magnets should be banned, even for BLD. We didn't ban all logos for BLD, just raised/tactile ones. But in this brave new world of magnetically enhanced puzzles, and their growing ubiquity, we should remain vigilant. The discussion and experimentation should continue.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Dec 14, 2016)

But the regulations already do cover this situation. No changes are necessary.


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. orientation or identity of pieces), compared to an unmodified version of the same puzzle.

There's also this regulation which can be used to help enforce the one above

3k) Puzzles must be approved by the WCA Delegate before use in the competition.


----------



## Chree (Dec 14, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> But the regulations already do cover this situation. No changes are necessary.
> 
> 
> 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. orientation or identity of pieces), compared to an unmodified version of the same puzzle.
> ...



There is an opinion floating around out there that *3h* and some of the guidelines drawn from it are enough to ban magnets altogether. I used to be on that side of the fence, but arguments making use of how we accept other puzzle modifications and things like ball bearings in pyraminx brought me back.

As for *3k*, in practice, does this really happen all that often? I know it DID happen for Drew Brads just before achieving the WR pyra average (because of magnets, ironically enough), but at a normal non-regional comp, I don't think I've ever seen it used. The most I've seen is a scrambler picking up a puzzle with nasty stickers and calling a delegate over for a ruling.


With that in mind, here's a possible way that magnets could be in an illegal configuration: say you've installed only one very strong magnet pair connecting the UB Edge to the UBL Corner. This would provide tactile feedback after completing a BLD solving using M2. If you feel the magnets click on your last move, it could be considered more likely that you've successfully cycled the M slice/don't have parity/whatever. It still doesn't guarantee that you'll get a successful BLD attempt, but you've given yourself a hint to help along the way. You don't need your eyes or your memory to know at least 2 pieces are solved relative to one another, which makes this an illegal configuration.

The only chance that a scrambler would notice this is if they felt it while scrambling. But if the first move in the scramble breaks the pair, and at no other point during the scrambler sequence do those pieces meet in the same orientation, there's a decent chance the scrambler will never notice. You could argue that the feeling of the pair breaking will be obvious to the scrambler, but when they're really busy and just trying to get through scrambling everything in front of them, it's possible the scrambler could attribute such tactile feedback to a small lockup, gummy lube, or just it not being a very good cube... and you've successfully "cheated".

So the question could be asked, since there is such a thing as an illegal configuration of magnets, is that enough to ban all magnets? I don't think so. Once again, I think the regs already cover this. So if we added yet another regulation specific to magnets, I don't see a qualitative difference between a competitor breaking 2 regulations instead of just 1 that we already had. But I'm open to being persuaded back to the other side of the fence if a good enough argument exists.


----------



## biscuit (Dec 14, 2016)

Chree said:


> There is an opinion floating around out there that *3h* and some of the guidelines drawn from it are enough to ban magnets altogether. I used to be on that side of the fence, but arguments making use of how we accept other puzzle modifications and things like ball bearings in pyraminx brought me back.
> 
> As for *3k*, in practice, does this really happen all that often? I know it DID happen for Drew Brads just before achieving the WR pyra average (because of magnets, ironically enough), but at a normal non-regional comp, I don't think I've ever seen it used. The most I've seen is a scrambler picking up a puzzle with nasty stickers and calling a delegate over for a ruling.
> 
> ...



I guess you could argue that the delegate is giving the responsibility of checking cubes to the scrambler.

3h really does cover this kind of thing. Enforcement could be an issue, but I hardly think that's a reason to disallow magnetic cubes as a whole.

In regards to your example, the stronger magnets will still be stronger with other magnets, just not quite the same effect. I haven't really played around with magnetic cubes that much, but I think that'd be noticeable if you keep on having a stronger magnet(s) during scrambling. Than the Delegate gets a Migraine.


----------



## Chree (Dec 14, 2016)

biscuit said:


> I guess you could argue that the delegate is giving the responsibility of checking cubes to the scrambler.
> 
> 3h really does cover this kind of thing. Enforcement could be an issue, but I hardly think that's a reason to disallow magnetic cubes as a whole.
> 
> In regards to your example, the stronger magnets will still be stronger with other magnets, just not quite the same effect. I haven't really played around with magnetic cubes that much, but I think that'd be noticeable if you keep on having a stronger magnet(s) during scrambling. Than the Delegate gets a Migraine.



You might've misunderstood my example... the UBL->UB magnet pair would be the ONLY magnet pair in the entire cube. There would not be other "weaker" magnets anywhere else. So there's not need to discern "weak pull" from "strong pull", it's just be "pull" or "no pull". I can edit the original post to make that more clear.


----------



## biscuit (Dec 14, 2016)

Chree said:


> You might've misunderstood my example... the UBL->UB magnet pair would be the ONLY magnet pair in the entire cube. There would not be other "weaker" magnets anywhere else. So there's not need to discern "weak pull" from "strong pull", it's just be "pull" or "no pull". I can edit the original post to make that more clear.


Ah okay. That's certainly illegal as it stands, but figuring that out could be difficult.


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Apr 17, 2017)

Jaysammey777 said:


> So since I can make one side looser than the rest, should we ban all cubes that can have adjustable tensions from bld?


Yeah you can tell the sides, but if you forgot a corner or an edge, you can create a system to tell if what the piece is.


----------



## Fábio De'Rose (Apr 18, 2017)

Mastermind2368 said:


> Yeah you can tell the sides, but if you forgot a corner or an edge, you can create a system to tell if what the piece is.



IMO anyone sufficiently skilled to come up with such a system, apply it consistently _and not get caught_, is most likely too busy working on actual 3BLD to devise a way of cheating; In short, it would not be worth the effort and the risks involved.

Anyone who does BLD at a reasonable level knows that it wouldn't make sense and not be the least worth putting all this effort just for the sake of an official succesful solve (well below one's average) instead of a DNF.

Also, even _if_ one were to succeed thuswise, I honestly cannot imagine a situation where a cheater (abusing tensions and or magnetic configurations) could come even close to a real world class BLDer. Even to an average one, to be honest.

PSA: I noticed this thread is pretty old already. It was "bumped" and that's how I saw it, so apologies if I'm unknowingly breaking any rules. If that is the case, please let me know.


----------



## lucarubik (Apr 18, 2017)

this would be for MBLD, i totally used to use different brands of cubes to help me in mbld, is that against the rules? dam, the wca has evolved hasnt it


----------



## Fábio De'Rose (Apr 18, 2017)

Using different cubes is ok. It doesn't give you any real advantage against other competitors; It's just a safety net for some people (myself included, since I'm very much a beginner in Multi) in order to know which cube is it, in case you get lost.

Being able to tell "Oh, this is cube 5, I meant to pick up cube 4" doesn't count as cheating, but picking up a cube and somehow telling it had one twisted edge to go before you move on, on the other hand, would be cheating indeed.


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Apr 18, 2017)

Fábio De'Rose said:


> MO anyone sufficiently skilled to come up with such a system, apply it consistently _and not get caught_, is most likely too busy working on actual 3BLD to devise a way of cheating; In short, it would not be worth the effort and the risks involved.


I disagree. What if you signed up for BLD on the Wednesday before a comp on that Saturday? You look up Noah Arthurs' and learn 3OP for corners, M2 for edges. You could have something as simple as If an edge and corner are both orientated the don't repel. Heck this could be very useful if you used POOP.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Apr 18, 2017)

Mastermind2368 said:


> I disagree. What if you signed up for BLD on the Wednesday before a comp on that Saturday? You look up Noah Arthurs' and learn 3OP for corners, M2 for edges. You could have something as simple as If an edge and corner are both orientated the don't repel. Heck this could be very useful if you used POOP.


If the scramblers are anything decent, they will notice the cube feels really weird and call the delegate over. No problem. 

Also, minor thing, you probably mean OP (popular beginner BLD method) rather than 3OP (outdated intermediate BLD method).


----------



## lucarubik (Apr 18, 2017)

Fábio De'Rose said:


> Using different cubes is ok. It doesn't give you any real advantage against other competitors; It's just a safety net for some people (myself included, since I'm very much a beginner in Multi) in order to know which cube is it, in case you get lost.
> 
> Being able to tell "Oh, this is cube 5, I meant to pick up cube 4" doesn't count as cheating, but picking up a cube and somehow telling it had one twisted edge to go before you move on, on the other hand, would be cheating indeed.


oh so thats legal? see i used to make up some really weird sentences for my mbld, so rooms not really my thing, not even outdoor rooms, that defenetly shouldnt be allowed, i used to just touch my old F2 and the sentence would come up, on the other hand that F2 was a popping machine
something as simple as jumping between stickered and stickerless cubes is giving huge advantadges


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 6, 2018)

lucarubik said:


> oh so thats legal? see i used to make up some really weird sentences for my mbld, so rooms not really my thing, not even outdoor rooms, that defenetly shouldnt be allowed, i used to just touch my old F2 and the sentence would come up, on the other hand that F2 was a popping machine
> something as simple as jumping between stickered and stickerless cubes is giving huge advantadges


I don't think that would be legal at all. Rule 3h isn't really meant to apply to multiple cubes, but I would say that alternating between stickered and stickerless cubes is making additional information available to the competitor. I understand that stickered/stickerless isn't a modification, but it still gives additional information so together with 3k that should indeed be enough to stop this behavior.
To benefit from this, would you order the cubes after removal of the cover(s) because you couldn't rely on the scramblers to scramble them in your preferred order.


----------



## lucarubik (Aug 6, 2018)

AvGalen said:


> I don't think that would be legal at all. Rule 3h isn't really meant to apply to multiple cubes, but I would say that alternating between stickered and stickerless cubes is making additional information available to the competitor. I understand that stickered/stickerless isn't a modification, but it still gives additional information so together with 3k that should indeed be enough to stop this behavior.
> To benefit from this, would you order the cubes after removal of the cover(s) because you couldn't rely on the scramblers to scramble them in your preferred order.


ye its definitely an edge and if its not allowed that should be clear, im sure people like my boy luis have answered thsi question multiple times, it probably shouldnt be allowed just to keep things easier although there should be some room for people that is really tight on cubes and cant afford to use the same brand, i know you dont want to do this with a rule, you want to be able to write it down with all detail, but thats why we have judges too right? not just to make sure rules are being aplied but also to interpretate them
you shouldnt be stopped from attempting multibld just cause you have different cubes, even if everybody knows its gonna be a slight edge for you, i never ment to use my f2 to give myself an edge, i just happened to have an f2 that turned fine. Maybe it should be forbidden after all. it would be a bummer of a solution but the best solution


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 6, 2018)

lucarubik said:


> but thats why we have judges too right? not just to make sure rules are being aplied but also to interpretate them


It should be delegates that interpret rules and make such decisions, not judges!


lucarubik said:


> you shouldnt be stopped from attempting multibld just cause you have different cubes, even if everybody knows its gonna be a slight edge for you, i never ment to use my f2 to give myself an edge, i just happened to have an f2 that turned fine. Maybe it should be forbidden after all. it would be a bummer of a solution but the best solution


A *great* rule catches all the problems without causing any unwanted pain or side-effects while still being concise. I would surely allow different cubes during multi-blind, but I wouldn't allow alternating stickerless with stickered. This is impossible to catch in a *great* rule though. I really like the combination of 3j and 3k and wish more rules were written like that. Luckily there isn't much cheating in cubing because there is so little to gain from that


----------



## lucarubik (Aug 7, 2018)

AvGalen said:


> It should be delegates that interpret rules and make such decisions, not judges!
> 
> A *great* rule catches all the problems without causing any unwanted pain or side-effects while still being concise. I would surely allow different cubes during multi-blind, but I wouldn't allow alternating stickerless with stickered. This is impossible to catch in a *great* rule though. I really like the combination of 3j and 3k and wish more rules were written like that. Luckily there isn't much cheating in cubing because there is so little to gain from that


yes but that j rule is still pretty vage and while my f2 had the same shape and no stickers difference it was so obvious that it was my f2 that the sentence of its memo would come up to my brain cristal clear, like it was magic just by jugling the r layer a bit, I think its a hard problem to be attacked, if we indeed want to attack it
I dont think most of the cubers that use this technique do it to get and edge, and if they do they are open about it


----------



## leeo (Aug 24, 2018)

I magnetized my main BLD solving cube after removing the logo sticker. I appreciate the feel and took careful steps to be sure all the positions feel the same.

I would think that the scrambler would be able to easily feel if a magnet is missing or misoriented. I hope that I may keep the magnets for BLD.


----------



## VDel_234_ (Sep 1, 2018)

Personally, I don't think that it would give someone a certain advantage. Probably because of the fact that when speedsolving, blind included, that the person solving doesn't really notice the magnets all that much, as their mostly in place to make puzzles a bit more stable. Also, I think most people who have magnetic puzzles probably bought them pre-made (i.e Cubicle Labs, SCS Cosmic, magnetized from the manufacturer, etc).


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 3, 2018)

VDel_234_ said:


> Personally, I don't think that it would give someone a certain advantage. Probably because of the fact that when speedsolving, blind included, that the person solving doesn't really notice the magnets all that much, as their mostly in place to make puzzles a bit more stable. Also, I think most people who have magnetic puzzles probably bought them pre-made (i.e Cubicle Labs, SCS Cosmic, magnetized from the manufacturer, etc).


It would absolutely give an advantage, otherwise there would be no reason to have magnets. However it wouldn't be an *unfair *advantage.
The problem that is discussed here is not if it would give an advantage, but if it could be abused to give an advantage. My 2 cents are that abuse is already covered by different rules so magnets in general should be fine


----------

