# WCA Regulations 2012



## Lucas Garron (Dec 7, 2011)

Hello everyone,

Tyson has tentatively put me in charge of the regulations for 2012. I would like to pass that duty off to someone else, but for now I'm going to get the discussions started.
The official discussions, of course, take place in the WCA Regulations forum. Most changes should be discussed there before being added to the regulations.

However, this forum is a more practical place for discussion, with many more active members, so I'm creating this thread. Since this can pile up pretty fast, I'm asking that you add any concerns to this new wiki page.

*If you are discussing an old topic*, please find any old posts that are related to it, and add them to the wiki page. The feel free to revive the thread(s) and post here with a few comments.

*If you believe you have a new topic*, please post here to ask if it's really new, and then, if you really want to, create a new thread for it (not in the WCA competitions subforum, though) and link to it here and in the wiki.

Feel free to use this thread to talk *about* all the regulation topics. Try to keep any specific details in threads about those topics, and not here.
Please be realistic and constructive while discussing the 2012 regulations. Jokes and uninformed posts are *not* welcome. While I value everyone's opinion, I reserve the right resort to heavy moderation if you are not acting constructive at all. But I know we can all be serious and dignified, right? 

Let's get going!



Note: Discussions about new events is currently on hold as of late December 2011. See this post in this thread..


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 7, 2011)

Is there a chance of Skewb actually happening or is that dead now?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 7, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Is there a chance of Skewb actually happening or is that dead now?


There's definitely a chance. We would need the proper regulations (mostly just a scrambler), and some indication that this is a worthwhile to make an official worldwide event. It should be considered a serious concern that the WCA has tried to be careful about adding events. Adding one event singles it out as important compared to the other that were not added, and puts new pressure on organizers to host it.

I suspect that we will have a proposal for Square-1 (regulation changes and supporting reasons), and it will be up to the board to decide whether to accept the event. If you're strongly in favor of Skewb, feel free to create a thread that essentially puts together such a proposal.


----------



## Carrot (Dec 7, 2011)

MUST... MAKE... SKEWB... PROPOSAL! 

I would love to see Skewb being an official event, we had it as an unofficial event at my last comp :3


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 7, 2011)

It think there's quite a few things on the WCA forum that have been discussed, and even sometimes a general consensus reached, but nothing ever got changed within the regs. I don't have time to trawl through the forum right now, but off the top of my head I can think of a few such as: Pyraminx tips falling off, some sort of a statement about never filtering easy scrambles, new scramblers being implemented, new gen stackmat timer having 3d.p....etc you get the idea.

I shall also use this post to ask the question 'Who actually has the authority to change the regs?' I assume only the board, but for them to come to well-informed decisions they would have to read through a lot of material posted by people. WCA forum isn't always particularly active, and this forum only covers the views of the English-speaking community.


----------



## r_517 (Dec 7, 2011)

kinch2002 said:


> I shall also use this post to ask the question 'Who actually has the authority to change the regs?' I assume only the board, but for them to come to well-informed decisions they would have to read through a lot of material posted by people. WCA forum isn't always particularly active, and this forum only covers the views of the English-speaking community.


In my opinion anyone can give suggestions, but these suggestions should be both practical and accepted by majority in advance, before any actual changes are made in the finalised version.


----------



## r_517 (Dec 7, 2011)

I asked Ron about some ambiguous regulations in Multi-BLD. Let's say a competitor decides to take 3 cubes. He finishes the 3 cube in 29:59, with one cube finished with +2 penalty, one cube finished with no penalty and one DNF. Ron said this would be counted as 2/3, and time will be 30:00. It makes sense to me but I think there must be some people having different opinions here


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Dec 7, 2011)

r_517 said:


> I asked Ron about some ambiguous regulations in Multi-BLD. Let's say a competitor decides to take 3 cubes. He finishes the 3 cube in 29:59, with one cube finished with +2 penalty, one cube finished with no penalty and one DNF. Ron said this would be counted as 2/3, and time will be 30:00. It makes sense to me but I think there must be some people having different opinions here


 
Related to this^, what about +2 on more than one cube? How are those meant to be dealt with and also in the above scenario, would the time still be 30:00?


----------



## r_517 (Dec 7, 2011)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Related to this^, what about +2 on more than one cube? How are those meant to be dealt with and also in the above scenario, would the time still be 30:00?


 
Yes I also asked Ron about this. It will still be 30:00, because in the current regulations, solving 3 cubes can't exceed 30 minutes.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 7, 2011)

Surely it should be DNF.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 7, 2011)

kinch2002 said:


> I shall also use this post to ask the question 'Who actually has the authority to change the regs?' I assume only the board, but for them to come to well-informed decisions they would have to read through a lot of material posted by people. WCA forum isn't always particularly active, and this forum only covers the views of the English-speaking community.


Only the WCA board can change the regulations. In the past, this has meant that Ron read through the WCA forums and tried to update the rules according to consensus.
The idea this year is to have a Regulations Committee of 2-3 people that operates like any standards committee. As many people could help with the regulations who wanted, but the Regulations Committee would put together a revised version of the regulations to the WCA board. The board is the one with the power to approve it, but the Regulations Committee would be responsible for ensuring that the proposal matched community consensus.

I don't know if I'll be one of those 2-3 people, but I'm starting it off here by asking the community to assemble their concerns. Yes, speedsolving.com is only English-speaking, but it is the largest and most international forum where such discussion can take place. Hopefully, most people with constructive comments can get their views represented here so that they are represented in the WCA forum discussion that leads to a final revision.


----------



## Erik (Dec 7, 2011)

Lucas Garron said:


> Only the WCA board can change the regulations. In the past, this has meant that Ron read through the WCA forums and tried to update the rules according to consensus.
> The idea this year is to have a Regulations Committee of 2-3 people that operates like any standards committee. As many people could help with the regulations who wanted, but the Regulations Committee would put together a revised version of the regulations to the WCA board. The board is the one with the power to approve it, but the Regulations Committee would be responsible for ensuring that the proposal matched community consensus.
> 
> I don't know if I'll be one of those 2-3 people, but I'm starting it off here by asking the community to assemble their concerns. Yes, speedsolving.com is only English-speaking, but it is the largest and most international forum where such discussion can take place. Hopefully, most people with constructive comments can get their views represented here so that they are represented in the WCA forum discussion that leads to a final revision.


 
It sounds like a good idea that some people would get involved with this more actively and structured than has been done by the board or Ron alone. Also from the perspective that the WCA is something that has power because of the community, not the WCA that has power over the community. Lots of questions arise immediatly though:

Will this Regulations Committee already be active this year? Who is part of this committee? How do you get selected as member of this committee? Is 2-3 people enough? How would the committee present the results of the yearly investigation? Etc.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 7, 2011)

Erik said:


> Will this Regulations Committee already be active this year? Who is part of this committee? How do you get selected as member of this committee? Is 2-3 people enough? How would the committee present the results of the yearly investigation? Etc.


This is still to be figured out, since Tyson put it into motion only last night. As of right now, all the delegates have been informed that work is starting, and it's likely that any of them who are interested will be involved with the process.
The actual committee will probably be like the IAC: a small group of people (selected by the board) who communicate directly with the board and administer the discussions and assemble the proposal.

Will the committee be active in 2012? Hopefully. We'll see about getting out the 2012 regulations first.
Who is part of this committee? Probably anyone with enough responsibility who can commit time.
How do you get selected as member of this committee? Contact the WCA board if you're interested in being a significant part of this.
Is 2-3 people enough? For the actual WCA communications? I think yes.
How would the committee present the results of the yearly investigation? I have in mind that they would publicly propose a new version of the regulations, with a full list of changes and each change supported by citations about how consensus was reached.


In short, something like this:
- Everyone in the community may discuss.
- Any responsible people can get involved in discussing the details of making changes in the regulations.
- 2-3 people are responsible for making everything comes together for the WCA.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Dec 8, 2011)

I had an idea for a change in regulations for multiBLD:

-The maximum time allowed for solving is 10*(number of cubes), not exceeding 60 minutes.
-Time penalties can be added to solves so that they exceed this time limit.

in this scenario, 3/3 in 29:58 with all +2'd is a final time of 30:04


----------



## Forte (Dec 8, 2011)

Random consideration: how about cutting +2 from BLD altogether? I just remember at Vancouver Open when I didn't undo a setup move in the middle of solving edges, but all the other edges weren't on that layer, so it was +2. I think things like that should warrant a DNF, but that might just be me.


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 8, 2011)

Forte said:


> Random consideration: how about cutting +2 from BLD altogether? I just remember at Vancouver Open when I didn't undo a setup move in the middle of solving edges, but all the other edges weren't on that layer, so it was +2. I think things like that should warrant a DNF, but that might just be me.



Then you'd not be allowing for people who stop the timer too fast and end up with a move out or something (or the dropping of the cube misaligned a layer) - in which case if you're not allowing that then you shouldn't allow any +2s in sighted solving either.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 8, 2011)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> I had an idea for a change in regulations for multiBLD:
> 
> -The maximum time allowed for solving is 10*(number of cubes), not exceeding 60 minutes.
> -Time penalties can be added to solves so that they exceed this time limit.
> ...


 
I think I remember that this was suggested in the WCA Forum thread a long time ago, shortly after Ron gave his "ruling". I really like this approach - I think it makes the most sense.


----------



## TMOY (Dec 8, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> I think I remember that this was suggested in the WCA Forum thread a long time ago, shortly after Ron gave his "ruling". I really like this approach - I think it makes the most sense.


 
I second that too. The purpose of time limits is to make competitions manageable, not to punish people, and following that logic the decision of DNFing someone or not for exceeding the time limit should be based on the actual length of the solve before penalties are added, not after.


----------



## Dene (Dec 10, 2011)

Just something I thought about when catching up on the WCA forums. In this post here it is brought up that there is one (and there are actually many more) regulations which serve as guidelines and not actual regulations. I think it would be worth removing these "regulations" from the WCA regulations, and creating a new "guidelines" section, to which these sorts of regulations can be moved to. Any thoughts?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 10, 2011)

Dene said:


> Just something I thought about when catching up on the WCA forums. In this post here it is brought up that there is one (and there are actually many more) regulations which serve as guidelines and not actual regulations. I think it would be worth removing these "regulations" from the WCA regulations, and creating a new "guidelines" section, to which these sorts of regulations can be moved to. Any thoughts?


I've been advocating this for a long while. Unless someone objects with a good argument, or offers a good alternate structure, I will try to ensure that the regulations get split into the actual Regulations and a Guidelines document. There is already a proposal in progress that incorporates this, but I'm waiting to hear back from the WCA board before posting it on the forums for public feedback.


----------



## danthecuber (Dec 12, 2011)

Inevitably, the generation 3 Speedstacks timers will need to be used at competitions, as generation 2 timers are no longer sold on http://www.speedstacks.com/ . Since these timers have accuracy of up to 3 decimal places, what has been considered as to how to deal with this new accuracy?


----------



## Stefan (Dec 12, 2011)

Lucas Garron said:


> split into the actual Regulations and a Guidelines document


 
Can that Guidelines document also include decisions like which pillowed/colored cubes can be used in which events? I've been thinking of creating an FAQ page to list official decisions for such questions that aren't really obvious from the regulations but that shouldn't be explicitly covered in the regulations.


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 12, 2011)

This thread will be heavily moderated.

Well pretty much every single proposal for 2011 is going to carry over to 2012 considering nothing was changed. As Daniel said earlier, quite a few measures were approved but nothing was done. A lot were just simple changes in language, etc

-Abolishing the position of "main judge" and just replacing them with the delegate, as this ends up happening all the time anyway. 

- Abolishing 2h
2h) Competitors must be fully dressed. Competitors may dress in jeans, pants, shorts, slacks, skirts, foot-wear, T-shirts or dress shirts. Hats may be worn. Clothes must not display vulgar language or have inappropriate pictures.

as it is overly specific and technically invalidates all barefoot feet solves. Also all of these things are inherently covered under 2f
2f) Competitors must obey venue regulations and conduct themselves in a manner considerate of others at all times during the competition and while at the competition venue.

- Clarification of conflict between A6d and A6e, using this video as an example of conflict http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCG1tp3dLrc
# A6d) The competitor must fully release the puzzle before stopping the timer. Penalty: 2 seconds.
# A6e) The competitor must not touch or move the puzzle until the judge has inspected the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=939

- Clearer definition of scrambling orientation and ambiguity of "lightest color."
http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=941

- Defining scrambling orientation for non-cubic puzzles, such as pyraminx. The WCA scrambler outputs with Red on front and Blue on bottom, and I suggest this be adopted as the scrambling orientation for pyraminx. Megaminx should be scrambled with white top, and the lightest adjacent green in front. Etc.

- Possible further clarification of Magic solved states http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=950

- I'd like the WCA clock scrambler to produce horizontal scrambles, as it is now the scrambles are horrendous to read.

More to be added later.


----------



## Carlos (Dec 12, 2011)

I have a propose concerning the OH event. I think that cubers should not be able to use the table while solving. I've seen some arguments saying that it is not an advantage to the fast cubers, only for the beginners, which would not make big difference. Although, we have seen lately that even some WR has been set while using the table.


----------



## ben1996123 (Dec 12, 2011)

Carlos said:


> I have a propose concerning the OH event. I think that cubers should not be able to use the table while solving. I've seen some arguments saying that it is not an advantage to the fast cubers, only for the beginners, which would not make big difference. Although, we have seen lately that even some WR has been set while using the table.



I think this was added in the 2011 regulations, and pretty much everyone does it, so I doubt it will be removed.


----------



## whauk (Dec 12, 2011)

and why is this a problem?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 12, 2011)

That's no argument.
You provided no reason for why table use should not be allowed. None at all.


----------



## Dene (Dec 13, 2011)

ben1996123 said:


> I think this was added in the 2011 regulations, and pretty much everyone does it, so I doubt it will be removed.


 
History of regulation changes
For your reference, changes to 2009 regulations:
Art. C1b1 removed. Using surface should also be possible for one-handed solving. There is no big advantage. [standardisation, clarity]


----------



## okayama (Dec 13, 2011)

Is there a possibility of a "Mean of 3" format for 333FMC?
There have been some "Best of 3" competitions for FMC, but I believe "Mean of 3" is better than "Best of 3".

I like that a person with short solutions on average win, not a person with just a single lucky solution.

EDIT: Of course I don't mean deletion of "Best of X" formats, but mean just addition of "Mean of 3". This provides an option for organizers. Is there a major hurdle for the addition?


----------



## Carlos (Dec 13, 2011)

*about the OH without using table*

Yeah, I actually didn't post any argument because we already discussed about this here in the forum and I thought it just needed to be remembered now that is the right moment to make the changes.

Someone said "pretty much everybody does it". They "probably" does it because it's allowed, which don't prove rather this is right or wrong.

My point is that OH is supposed to be an event that makes the speedsolving more difficult/fun in a different way, and as we are totally able to solve without a surface (which doesn't aply in the feet event), I think the difficulty of not touching anywhere should be included in the competition. Is it just me or using table looks so "handicap"?

For example, if a OH world record holder gets invited to a tv show or something and get to show his skills, it looks very "wrong" to me that the truth is for him to think/say: "oh, sorry, I know it's called just 'one-handed', but I can only show my best if you provide a table for me".


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 13, 2011)

One major problem with changing the table use rule is that all of the old averages/singles were under looser guidelines, thus bringing about an instance like "OLD MULTIBLD." What's your suggestion concerning this?


----------



## Rpotts (Dec 13, 2011)

If you can't use the table what happens if you drop the cube? DNF?


----------



## Carlos (Dec 13, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> One major problem with changing the table use rule is that all of the old averages/singles were under looser guidelines, thus bringing about an instance like "OLD MULTIBLD." What's your suggestion concerning this?



I think that doing this 'old multi bld' thing would not be a good option because there are so many records and it would take a lot of effort to separate (as the records set before the rule change will be counting as the new rule), and this is not a very big/important change as it was in the multi bld. I suggest ignoring (yes...) that it was different before as it was ignored when using the table began to be allowed. I know that exists the difference, but it is the best option I thought and in my opinion we should correct it this as soon as possible, so in the future this won't be a problem anymore. More time not changing = the bigger the problem of changing some day.



Rpotts said:


> If you can't use the table what happens if you drop the cube? DNF?


 
No, it would work exactly as it was before. The judge is perfectly capable of telling rather the cube was dropped (which is not a problem) or the cuber is taking advantage of the table.


----------



## Dene (Dec 13, 2011)

Carlos said:


> No, it would work exactly as it was before. The judge is perfectly capable of telling rather the cube was dropped (which is not a problem) or the cuber is taking advantage of the table.


 
That's putting a lot of responsibility on the discretion of the judge, especially if someone solves with the cube very close to the surface anyway.


----------



## Rpotts (Dec 13, 2011)

Yea, what if they only hold the cube a few inches above the table, partially lose grip of the cube so it hits the table but they are still holding it, and the make a turn before they completely pull if back up into their hand?


----------



## Carlos (Dec 13, 2011)

Huh? When you drop, the cube gets totally off of your hand, and it's not worth to do this when you are simply trying to align layers. I don't think this is a problem, the rules didn't allow using the table before and nobody had complaints about what you are saying.


----------



## hcfong (Dec 13, 2011)

Before I start a new thread for this, I just want to see if people want to discuss amending regulation 1e2) All competitors should be available for judging, if needed by organisation team. Penalty: disqualification of the competitor for the competition.

I know it's not really a regulation that affects the solve directly, but it is there to help a competition to move on. I think the wording is ambigious, because 'should' indicates a strong preference, rather than an absolute requirement, and still there is a penalty. 

The issue is that I've seen people simply refuse to judge, even after repeated calls by the organiser or WCA delegate, and I've never seen someone being disqualified for that. Okay, I'm quite inexperienced in terms of competitions, but I doubt anyone has ever been disqualified for refusing to judge. 

So, my proposal would be to change the wording of this regulation, and possibly for 1f2, either to making it an absolute requirement by replacing 'should' with 'must', or removing the penalty.

If you want to discuss this, let me know and I'll consider opening a new thread for this.


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 13, 2011)

okayama said:


> Is there a possibility of a "Mean of 3" format for 333FMC?
> There have been some "Best of 3" competitions for FMC, but I believe "Mean of 3" is better than "Best of 3".
> 
> I like that a person with short solutions on average win, not a person with just a single lucky solution.
> ...


Out of interest, do you know how many comps have had 3 round of FM? I agree that mean can be a much better measure but is it really practical to have so many rounds?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 13, 2011)

Dene said:


> Using surface should also be possible for one-handed solving. There is no big advantage.


 
Funny.


----------



## Dene (Dec 13, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Funny.


 
Well, to be fair, Piti doesn't use the surface from what I've seen.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 13, 2011)

I average about 20 with the table. 

I average above 30 without it.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 13, 2011)

Dene said:


> Well, to be fair, Piti doesn't use the surface from what I've seen.


 
Why are you using Piti as an example? Because the other fast solvers *do* use the table?
Other than exceptions such as roux users, I don't think banning the use of a table would add more than a second on average to solve times, but the problem doesn't lie with time, but with the rules. It would be too difficult to enforce, especially as many judges only know the basics (it's hard enough to find judges as you, as an organizer, would know). If we're making judging more difficult, where will we find judges to staff one of the most popular events.
You can't exactly say any issues is for a delegate's discretion, as we aren't filming all solves.

Edit: ^ no, very on-topic


----------



## Dene (Dec 13, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> Why are you using Piti as an example? Because the other fast solvers *do* use the table?
> Other than exceptions such as roux users, I don't think banning the use of a table would add more than a second on average to solve times, but the problem doesn't lie with time, but with the rules. It would be too difficult to enforce, especially as many judges only know the basics (it's hard enough to find judges as you, as an organizer, would know). If we're making judging more difficult, where will we find judges to staff one of the most popular events.
> You can't exactly say any issues is for a delegate's discretion, as we aren't filming all solves.
> 
> Edit: ^ no, very on-topic


 
I used Piti as an example because he was the previous average WR holder. I thought that would get my point across.


----------



## irontwig (Dec 13, 2011)

okayama said:


> Is there a possibility of a "Mean of 3" format for 333FMC?
> There have been some "Best of 3" competitions for FMC, but I believe "Mean of 3" is better than "Best of 3".
> 
> I like that a person with short solutions on average win, not a person with just a single lucky solution.
> ...


 
I would prefer Median of 3 rather than mean; (34, 31, 40) beating (28, 27, DNF) doesn't seem right, especially if the DNF is because of something silly like a misplaced apostrophe. Most competition would of course have just one attempt, but having three for continental/world championships makes sense.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 13, 2011)

Carlos said:


> For example, if a OH world record holder gets invited to a tv show or something and get to show his skills, it looks very "wrong" to me that the truth is for him to think/say: "oh, sorry, I know it's called just 'one-handed', but I can only show my best if you provide a table for me".


 
He's still using only one hand, not two. That's why it's called one-handed, the emphasis is on "one", not on "handed".

Do you think an actual one-handed person (who only has one hand) would never do things on a table?


----------



## bamilan (Dec 13, 2011)

irontwig said:


> I would prefer Median of 3 rather than mean; (34, 31, 40) beating (28, 27, DNF) doesn't seem right, especially if the DNF is because of something silly like a misplaced apostrophe. Most competition would of course have just one attempt, but having three for continental/world championships makes sense.


 
Misplaced apostrophe is like doing a wrong PLL and stop the timer on 3x3.
Btw FMC could be mean of 3. You get all the 3 scrambles at the same time, and you have 1 hour for all of them.


----------



## TimMc (Dec 13, 2011)

bamilan said:


> Btw FMC could be mean of 3. You get all the 3 scrambles at the same time, and you have 1 hour for all of them.



Is 20 minutes per cube enough to try to get each solve down to 20 moves or less?

At what point does Fewest Moves event start becoming an event where competitors are more concerned about speed and averages over determining the fewest moves?

Tim.


----------



## irontwig (Dec 13, 2011)

TimMc said:


> Is 20 minutes per cube enough to try to get each solve down to 20 moves or less?



I assume you 30 moves, of course if you get less time your solutions will probably be longer. A good mean would probably be low-30s-ish. FMC is about speed too in the sense that time management is important.


----------



## okayama (Dec 13, 2011)

kinch2002 said:


> Out of interest, do you know how many comps have had 3 round of FM? I agree that mean can be a much better measure but is it really practical to have so many rounds?



AFAIK:

Clermont Open 2009
PKU Fewest Moves 2010
Java FMC Cube Day 2010 (Firstly 3 rounds were planned, but it ended up with 2 rounds.)
Beijing Footsteps 2011
Alania Open 2011
Dolmen Open 2011
China FM 2011 Beijing
China FM 2011 Shanghai
China FM 2011 Xi'an
China FM 2011 Shenyang
China FM 2011 Zhengzhou
China FM 2011 Guangzhou
Puy de Dome Open 2011
So many times in China. 
Planned in Japan next year.
I've heard that Erik Akkersdijk will plan 6-round FMC in the future. 

Again, this doesn't force organizers to hold 3-round (or more) FMC, but just provides an option for organizers.
`Not so practical for organization of a standard competition' should not be a reason for rejection of Mean of 3...



irontwig said:


> I would prefer Median of 3 rather than mean; (34, 31, 40) beating (28, 27, DNF) doesn't seem right, especially if the DNF is because of something silly like a misplaced apostrophe. Most competition would of course have just one attempt, but having three for continental/world championships makes sense.


 
Yeah, I agree. But there's no such a format currently in WCA...



> 9f3) All counted results and averages/means are measured in natural numbers, with averages/means rounded to the nearest tenth (x.04 becomes x.0, x.05 becomes x.1).


I found this statement in the WCA regulation. Is the latter statement probably intended for FMC with Mean of 3?


----------



## Carlos (Dec 14, 2011)

Stefan said:


> He's still using only one hand, not two. That's why it's called one-handed, the emphasis is on "one", not on "handed".
> 
> Do you think an actual one-handed person (who only has one hand) would never do things on a table?


 
Following this logic you may accept that the cuber can be helped by another one during the solve (getting a piece that popped or whatever how), since an actual one-handed person may be helped by others to do their stuff.


----------



## Sebastien (Dec 14, 2011)

okayama said:


> Is there a possibility of a "Mean of 3" format for 333FMC?
> There have been some "Best of 3" competitions for FMC, but I believe "Mean of 3" is better than "Best of 3".
> 
> I like that a person with short solutions on average win, not a person with just a single lucky solution.
> ...


 
The best format for most events is obviously Average of x with x --> infinity. But unfortunately Average of 5 for FMC is as infeasable during competitions as Average of 100 for 3x3x3.

Probably Mean of 2 or Mean od 3 should be allowed for FMC? I would definately love that!


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 14, 2011)

I am going to close all of the threads that are about adding or removing events. Several people have suggested that the WRC should avoid controversial changes (like adding removing/events) in favor of correcting a lot of other important issues. It seems clear now that this is going to be the only productive course of action.

We will look at event changes soon enough, but I'd like to ask that we focus on other important changes first. Unless it relates to an important point about another change, please refrain from discussing the addition/removal of any official events, in any thread.

The threads about events can be reopened in early 2012 when we are at leisure to discuss them.

For reference, here are the threads I'm closing:

 Team BLD
 Magics
 Skewb


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 14, 2011)

Does this imply that the events will not be added/removed for 2012?
EDIT: Rather, does this mean that these events will not be added/removed for 2012 as they are to be further discussed?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 14, 2011)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Does this imply that the events will not be added/removed for 2012?
> EDIT: Rather, does this mean that these events will not be added/removed for 2012 as they are to be further discussed?


Depends what you mean with "for 2012". There is not necessarily going to be a single document that is the only "2012 Regulations". There will probably be a first version at the beginning of the year. After that, but still in early 2012, it should still be possibly to discuss events and add/remove them in an amended version.

See the WRC Proposal for how that might all work.


----------



## okayama (Dec 14, 2011)

Sébastien_Auroux said:


> The best format for most events is obviously Average of x with x --> infinity. But unfortunately Average of 5 for FMC is as infeasable during competitions as Average of 100 for 3x3x3.
> 
> Probably Mean of 2 or Mean od 3 should be allowed for FMC? I would definately love that!


Oh, if possible Mean of 2 also sounds nice.


----------



## Florian (Dec 14, 2011)

Sébastien_Auroux said:


> The best format for most events is obviously Average of x with x --> infinity. But unfortunately Average of 5 for FMC is as infeasable during competitions as Average of 100 for 3x3x3.
> 
> Probably Mean of 2 or Mean od 3 should be allowed for FMC? I would definately love that!


 
At many competitions there is a problem with time management, so every competition who wants to held it as mean of 2 would have need to "waste"(not really waste but FMC cost a lot of time seeing that it's only one solve) one hour more.

@Onehand solving 
I don't see any reason to have the rule "don't use the table", there are basically only reason for "you can use the table"
Especially when you pick up the point that you sometimes accidently drop the cube.
In Feliks former average world record: 14.41 the third solve would be DNF and the fourth solve would be DNF.

@Skewb I never solved a Skewb, but i think it's pretty easy to add Skewb because there wouldn't be any regulation problems.


----------



## Erik (Dec 14, 2011)

Just for the record, I formulated 2 proposals in this thread: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...at-in-feet-and-in-general&p=685074#post685074

- Creating fairness for the used surface in feetsolving
- Obliging the use of the stackmat-mat in general (not only the timer)


----------



## okayama (Dec 14, 2011)

Florian said:


> At many competitions there is a problem with time management, so every competition who wants to held it as mean of 2 would have need to "waste"(not really waste but FMC cost a lot of time seeing that it's only one solve) one hour more.


As I said before, time-management is not a point to be discussed.
There have been lots of FMC events with "Best of 2" and "Best of 3" so far,
and organizers cannot select "Mean of X" just because of the current regulation.
Not because of time-management.

If time-management is a problem, why is "Best of 3" legal, and "Mean of 3" illegal?

AGAIN, this doesn't force organizers to hold 2- or 3-round (or more) FMC,
but just provides an option for organizers.


----------



## TimMc (Dec 15, 2011)

*Proposal: Copy/paste A3d1 as A6a2*

I'd like to propose that A6a become A6a1 and A3d1 be copy/pasted as A6a2.



A3d1 said:


> The puzzle must rest on the mat, not on the timer part of the Stackmat.



_Penalty: disqualification of the solve._

Why?

At the end of a solve it's inconvenient for the judge when the puzzle lands:

On the ground and off the stage.
Under another chair or table.
In the crowd.
On another table/mat.

It's also inconvenient when a competitor hits the table so hard that the puzzle bounces off it and onto the ground before the judge has confirmed that it's in a solved state. Perhaps A6e already covers this case.

Thoughts?

Tim.


----------



## Zoé (Dec 15, 2011)

For pyraminx, we should clarify if tips are a functional piece or not. 
I have seen people arguing that it was because it could turn and therefore it was functional on the other hand some other people say that when a tip falls off, it is only the "cap" that falls off, and that the functional part that allows it to turn is still attached to the puzzle.

If we consider that the whole tip is the functional part then it means a tip falling off is DNF.
If not, then it is only a +2
Whenever that happened to me, it was always judged as a +2, but I heard that some delegates have already DNFed people for it.... 
So I think we should make it clear which of the two it should be for more fairness in the future.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Dec 19, 2011)

Updated the wiki page with the current discussions, is there any way we could implement a progress chart or similar so people can see how the discussions of proposals are going, or is nothing happening until the WRC is fully set up?


----------



## uriel rubik (Dec 28, 2011)

I commented this with Tyson, and I think it is important that I comment this here. I don't know if there should be a penalty, or not. But this has to be clarified in the regulations.

Maybe it has already happened in competition. In the ones I've delegated not, but it's not like imposible that it happens.

What should be done if a non-visible inner piece of a cube pops out? Like in a 4x4 x-cube, or ss, or even on a 6x6. If they don't put it back, it should be DNF? Or doesn't have a penalization. Or, what happens if the piece pops out when you do your last move, and you stop the timer with the cube like that.

What do you guys think?


----------



## Goosly (Dec 28, 2011)

@uriel rubik

There's a regulation that says you do not need to repair popping "non-functional" pieces. So if a 3x3 center cap falls off, you can leave it and you won't get a penalty. Inner pieces don't affect the solved state of the puzzle, so no penalty. 

EDIT:
_5b5) If, after the solve, non functional parts of the puzzle are still defect (like a centre cap of a cube) or not fully rotated (like a 5x5x5 centre piece twisted in its spot), but the puzzle is otherwise unambiguously solved, the puzzle is considered solved. (discretion of the main judge)_


----------



## uriel rubik (Dec 28, 2011)

Ohh, so it is covered there? Then, it would be the same for an inner pop of a 2x2?

Thanks


----------



## hcfong (Dec 28, 2011)

I'm not so sure that it's not a penalty. Non-visible doesn't necessarily mean non-funtional. If an inner piece of the cube pops, the internal structure of the cube, which in my opinion is definitely functional, is compromised and I assume therefore that it should be repaired before stopping the timer to avoid DNF.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 28, 2011)

Even though it sucks, I've counted them as DNF. If it's popped out, it's a DNF, even if the sides of the puzzle are all solid.


----------



## Dene (Dec 28, 2011)

@Ranzha I actually already brought this up on the WCA forum in response to a post made by Shelley, and I also mentioned it at the delegates meeting at WCs. I would DNF it as it seem to be a functional piece. Personally I am of the opinion that we should not distinguish between functional and non-functional pieces to remove ambiguity and rogue cases, and treat all as DNF. It is the competitors fault if their caps always fall off - use paper or glue them in.;


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 28, 2011)

Dene said:


> @Ranzha I actually already brought this up on the WCA forum in response to a post made by Shelley, and I also mentioned it at the delegates meeting at WCs. I would DNF it as it seem to be a functional piece. Personally I am of the opinion that we should not distinguish between functional and non-functional pieces to remove ambiguity and rogue cases, and treat all as DNF. It is the competitors fault if their caps always fall off - use paper or glue them in.;


 
Yeah, I agree. All the pieces comprise the puzzle. In order for the puzzle to work properly and correctly and be suitable for competition solving, all the pieces must be present. For instance, if one tried giving a 3x3 missing a centre cap to be scrambled, it wouldn't be accepted. If caps fall off, it's the competitor's fault because they're handling the cube and it's their responsibility.
This point really ought to be clarified in the regs.


----------



## jonlin (Jun 18, 2012)

There's a flaw in regulation that has to be verified.
A4b) The competitor must place his hands flat on the elevated sensor area of the Stackmat, with his fingers touching the sensors and with palms down. Penalty: 2 seconds.
There are people who's hands aren't like... right, like Emerson.
So maybe change it to:
A4b: The competitor must place his fingers on the elevated sensor area of the Stack mat, palms down, unless you have a disability prohibiting you to do so. Penalty: 2 seconds.


----------



## drewsopchak (Jun 19, 2012)

jonlin said:


> There's a flaw in regulation that has to be verified.
> A4b) The competitor must place his hands flat on the elevated sensor area of the Stackmat, with his fingers touching the sensors and with palms down. Penalty: 2 seconds.
> There are people who's hands aren't like... right, like Emerson.
> So maybe change it to:
> A4b: The competitor must place his fingers on the elevated sensor area of the Stack mat, palms down, unless you have a disability prohibiting you to do so. Penalty: 2 seconds.


There are no special privileges in cubing.


----------



## hcfong (Jun 19, 2012)

jonlin said:


> There's a flaw in regulation that has to be verified.
> A4b) The competitor must place his hands flat on the elevated sensor area of the Stackmat, with his fingers touching the sensors and with palms down. Penalty: 2 seconds.
> There are people who's hands aren't like... right, like Emerson.
> So maybe change it to:
> A4b: The competitor must place his fingers on the elevated sensor area of the Stack mat, palms down, unless you have a disability prohibiting you to do so. Penalty: 2 seconds.



2s2)	For competitors with physical disabilities, judges may give help with starting and stopping the timer.

11d)	If the WCA regulations are not fully clear or if the incident is not covered by the WCA regulations, then the main judge must make his decision based on fair sportsmanship, after consulting the WCA delegate.

I think this should cover this. As fo 11d, I know this is not really an incident, but it is something that's not specifically addressed in the regulations, but the idea is the same. There is a WCA delegate, who can be consulted in such cases and can use his discretion to make a fair decision to allow such people to compete.


----------



## shelley (Jun 19, 2012)

We shouldn't have to rewrite every regulation to cover every possible disability or unusual circumstance. In cases like these we rely on the judge/delegate's reasonable judgement.


----------



## Yuxuibbs (Jun 20, 2012)

How does WCA define nationality? 

I want to change my country to USA but depending on which delegate I talk to the definition changes enough to have the country alternate between China and USA almost every single time. I'm sure if it's by citizenship a couple hundred/thousand people would have to change their country.


----------



## hcfong (Jun 20, 2012)

Yuxuibbs said:


> How does WCA define nationality?
> 
> I want to change my country to USA but depending on which delegate I talk to the definition changes enough to have the country alternate between China and USA almost every single time. I'm sure if it's by citizenship a couple hundred/thousand people would have to change their country.



I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I think this might answer your question.

2e)	Competitors must be able to show a passport/id-card during registration at the location to prove their identity.
2e1) Competitors may represent the country that they have the nationality of.
2e1a) The eligible countries are defined by Wikipedia List of sovereign states ("Internationally recognized sovereign states" and "Other states").
2e2) Competitors with more than one nationality may change representing a country in their first competition of a calendar year.

But what do you mean by that "if it's by citizenship a couple hundred/thousand people would have to change their country"? Can you give examples (without using people's names)?


----------



## JasonK (Jun 20, 2012)

hcfong said:


> But what do you mean by that "if it's by citizenship a couple hundred/thousand people would have to change their country"? Can you give examples (without using people's names)?


I'll give the example of myself. I live in Australia and have done for quite some time now. I'm a permanent resident of Australia, with the intention to become a citizen in the near future. I've competed as an Australian in WCA competitions. But I am still technically only a citizen of the United Kingdom. The word 'nationality' isn't very well-defined, so I decided to register myself under the country I live in. If it was by citizenship only, I'd have to change my registration.

I agree that this rule needs clarification - there are plenty of people who do not have citizenship of the country they reside in.


----------



## Bob (Jun 20, 2012)

WTF2L? said:


> I'll give the example of myself. I live in Australia and have done for quite some time now. I'm a permanent resident of Australia, with the intention to become a citizen in the near future. I've competed as an Australian in WCA competitions. But I am still technically only a citizen of the United Kingdom. The word 'nationality' isn't very well-defined, so I decided to register myself under the country I live in. If it was by citizenship only, I'd have to change my registration.
> 
> I agree that this rule needs clarification - there are plenty of people who do not have citizenship of the country they reside in.



In general, what we do here in the US is to just assume all competitors at our competitions are USA. If somebody wants to represent a country other than USA, they need to prove citizenship of that country--usually by presenting a passport. Yeah, this does mean that there are perhaps quite a few people representing USA that do not have citizenship, but it would be overly tedious and demand too much time to verify that every competitor at every competition has citizenship. And what if a competitor didn't have proof of citizenship on them? Would we turn them away and not let them compete? Of course not. In general, most people have citizenship of the country in which they are living. And if they don't, they can either keep their mouth shut and claim citizenship anyway or show us that they are indeed a citizen of a different country.


----------



## hcfong (Jun 20, 2012)

Bob said:


> In general, what we do here in the US is to just assume all competitors at our competitions are USA. If somebody wants to represent a country other than USA, they need to prove citizenship of that country--usually by presenting a passport. Yeah, this does mean that there are perhaps quite a few people representing USA that do not have citizenship, but it would be overly tedious and demand too much time to verify that every competitor at every competition has citizenship. And what if a competitor didn't have proof of citizenship on them? Would we turn them away and not let them compete? Of course not. In general, most people have citizenship of the country in which they are living. And if they don't, they can either keep their mouth shut and claim citizenship anyway or show us that they are indeed a citizen of a different country.



So, even if someone declares him/herself as a citizen of another country than the USA on the registration form, you will still register him on the WCA database as USA if he can't show a passport? (assuming it's his/her first competition and doesn't have a WCA profile yet(


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 20, 2012)

Wow, before reading this post I have never thought that some people could not understand "nationality" as "citizenship". I'm pretty sure that people need to enter their nationality according to their passport/id-card.

There was a case in Germany a year ago where it was revealed, that a competitor who had always competed with German nationality had never had a German passport but an Italian one. So his nationality in the WCA Database was changed and his record history got retroactively changed as well.

@WTF2L?: If you have no Australian passport/id-card, then you should have for sure registered for UK.

@Bob: This is a terrible attitude! You should always check passport/id-cards (which also give information about nationality) of newcomers to make sure, they are registered correctly. The are supposed to have this with them, as it is clearly within the WCA regs.


----------



## DrKorbin (Jun 20, 2012)

Sebastien said:


> Wow, before reading this post I have never thought that some people could not understand "nationality" as "citizenship".


In Russian language, "nationality" means exactly "membership of a nation in the sense of ethnic group". Probably in some other languages too.


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 20, 2012)

I see, this needs to be clarified.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 20, 2012)

Sebastien said:


> @Bob: This is a terrible attitude! You should always check passport/id-cards (which also give information about nationality) of newcomers to make sure, they are registered correctly. The are supposed to have this with them, as it is clearly within the WCA regs.



I realize this is generally not too difficult in Europe, but this can be quite challenging in the USA. For one thing, we tend to have many people here who have never owned a passport, and driver's licenses generally don't show nationality. I suppose birth certificates are an option, but they are difficult to carry around and often not easily accessible for the competitor, and of course they don't have a picture. For another thing, we have many competitors who are very young (I'd say the median age at Dixon last weekend was probably 14 or 15 - have to go with median instead of average because I would skew the average so much!), so there we must rely on parents to show identification, and they often do not have any form of identification other than birth certificate, which won't have a picture to verify that they're the person being checked.


----------



## Hippolyte!!! (Jun 20, 2012)

I totally agree with Sebastien concerning the nationality definition, and reading that people could register with a nationality they haven't (if they can have it, see my last point) surprised me.
But contrary to you, and even after reading that, I'm still again passport checking. I will always want competition with a friendly ambience, and can't imagine myself asking an identity paper, whatever it could be.
For me, this is for official things, and I don't want to doubt of everyone. I assume that everyone is honest, and unless something is really weird, I prefer having a few liars in the database than annoying evryone at a competition. In fact, I never see someone asking an ID at a cube competition. Besides, and as you've already point out, few people always have ID with them, and passport aren't needed to travel in the european union.
So if a delegate want to ask a passport at a competition I organize, I can't tell anything, but I would never do it. Moreover, as you allude there's a problem concerning undocumended people. That's different to have moving like WTF2L, and it involve political opionions that I will not expose here, but that's another argument for me to not ask passport.


----------



## Vincents (Jun 20, 2012)

I could be totally wrong, but I don't think you can get a driver's license unless you have a SSN, which would mean that if you have a driver's license, that makes you a US citizen, permanent resident, or temporary working resident.

Also, out here in California we tend only to check for new competitors. After we've verified you for the first time, we only ask you bring ID again if you are changing nationalities.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 20, 2012)

Vincents said:


> I could be totally wrong, but I don't think you can get a driver's license unless you have a SSN, which would mean that if you have a driver's license, that makes you a US citizen, permanent resident, or temporary working resident.



Right, but that means many people with licenses are not citizens, and apparently citizenship is being equated to nationality, so a driver's license really doesn't tell you anything. And well over half of our 48 competitors at our most recent competition didn't have a driver's license, since they were too young.


----------



## Yuxuibbs (Jun 20, 2012)

Does permanent resident or living in the country for almost your whole life count as nationality?


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 20, 2012)

depends on how nationality is defined. If you read the last couple of posts you will see that this is currently the question...


----------



## DrKorbin (Jun 20, 2012)

Hippolyte!!! said:


> I'm still again passport checking.



I guess you mean you're again*st* passport checking?
This is the only way for organizers to make sure that a competitor is not banned on WCA. If I am banned then I can attend a competition from another country where no one knows me, being registered under the false name.


----------



## Bryan (Jun 20, 2012)

shelley said:


> We shouldn't have to rewrite every regulation to cover every possible disability or unusual circumstance. In cases like these we rely on the judge/delegate's reasonable judgement.



Also, such instances are probably noted in the delegate's report to the WCA board, so if the WCA board doesn't agree with how it was handled, they can provide feedback for the next time. If they really don't agree, they could invalidate the results, but I doubt a delegate would come up with a solution so bad that it would happen.



Vincents said:


> I could be totally wrong, but I don't think you can get a driver's license unless you have a SSN, which would mean that if you have a driver's license, that makes you a US citizen, permanent resident, or temporary working resident.





http://www.usa.gov/Topics/Foreign-Visitors-Driving.shtml said:


> If you are going to reside in the U.S., you can get a U.S. driver's license once you are in the U.S., but it may take several months to obtain a U.S. driver's license.



A lot of foreign exchange students will get their driver's license when they come to the US because it saves them thousands of dollars getting it in Europe.


----------



## Hippolyte!!! (Jun 20, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> I guess you mean you're against passport checking?


Yes, sorry for that.:fp


DrKorbin said:


> This is the only way for organizers to make sure that a competitor is not banned on WCA. If I am banned then I can attend a competition from another country where no one knows me, being registered under the false name.


WCA bans are not so frequent. I don't think that your example is very likely. And a good competitor will be recognized. Maybe I'm too optimistic.


----------



## Bob (Jun 21, 2012)

hcfong said:


> So, even if someone declares him/herself as a citizen of another country than the USA on the registration form, you will still register him on the WCA database as USA if he can't show a passport? (assuming it's his/her first competition and doesn't have a WCA profile yet(



Yes.

@Sebastien: I think it is much more likely in Europe that people have such identification than in the USA. My brother is 24 and still does not have a passport. The only ID cards that are common here are drivers licenses, but not even everybody has one of those. Especially, think about this. About half of all competitors are children with no identification at all. How would you verify citizenship for them? Should we require that they present a birth certificate?

Please understand that at USA competitions, ALMOST ALL competitors are US citizens. It is much less common for competitors to travel from other countries than it would be for a European competition, for example. It makes a lot of sense to do so in Europe, but here I do not think it is as necessary and more often just a waste of time.

Whoops! I didn't see that there were more replies after yours on a different page. I think this was already addressed.


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 21, 2012)

Yes...thanks for clarifying that kind of situation because I couldn't imagine it was like this. :S


----------



## cubernya (Jun 21, 2012)

Bob said:


> Yes.
> 
> @Sebastien: I think it is much more likely in Europe that people have such identification than in the USA. My brother is 24 and still does not have a passport. The only ID cards that are common here are drivers licenses, but not even everybody has one of those. Especially, think about this. About half of all competitors are children with no identification at all. How would you verify citizenship for them? Should we require that they present a birth certificate?
> 
> ...



Bob: Do you require proof of citizenship/nationality if they say that they are from Canada? Just wondering, especially considering the significant number of Canadians at northeast competitions


----------



## shelley (Jun 21, 2012)

Bob said:


> Please understand that at USA competitions, ALMOST ALL competitors are US citizens. It is much less common for competitors to travel from other countries than it would be for a European competition, for example. It makes a lot of sense to do so in Europe, but here I do not think it is as necessary and more often just a waste of time.



It should also be mentioned that honestly, the only negative result of someone lying about his nationality would be getting an easy NR that he doesn't deserve. Nobody's going to falsely claim US citizenship to get an easy NR.


----------



## Bob (Jun 21, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> Bob: Do you require proof of citizenship/nationality if they say that they are from Canada? Just wondering, especially considering the significant number of Canadians at northeast competitions



If they've never competed before, sure. If they are a Canadian citizen, they should have some proof of this anyway. You need a passport to cross the border now, don't you?


----------



## cubernya (Jun 21, 2012)

Bob said:


> If they've never competed before, sure. If they are a Canadian citizen, they should have some proof of this anyway. You need a passport to cross the border now, don't you?



No, actually, you don't. According to the US, all you need is a birth certificate (just an example, you could have some thing else) if you are a minor. Then we come to the problem of not having identification _because_ they are a minor. As others have brought up, there's no way to know if a birth certificate is valid or not, so that gets nowhere


----------



## vcuber13 (Jun 21, 2012)

but i would assume a parent or guardian would accompany a minor to another country, and they would need a passport. i think it can be assumed that if the parent or guardian have a canadian passport the minor is a resident of canada


----------



## Bob (Jun 21, 2012)

LOL ok so there is an exception is for minors? Are minors without passports permitted to cross without a parent/guardian?


----------



## cubernya (Jun 21, 2012)

vcuber13 said:


> but i would assume a parent or guardian would accompany a minor to another country, and they would need a passport. i think it can be assumed that if the parent or guardian have a canadian passport the minor is a resident of canada



Again, not necessarily true. There are other travel documents that are valid, some of which don't even have photos on it (IIRC). Plus, what if the guardian is not part of their family (which is legal even if crossing borders). Then you have no proof that the competitor has citizenship, only that the non-relative has citizenship.


----------



## Bob (Jun 21, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> Again, not necessarily true. There are other travel documents that are valid, some of which don't even have photos on it (IIRC). Plus, what if the guardian is not part of their family (which is legal even if crossing borders). Then you have no proof that the competitor has citizenship, only that the non-relative has citizenship.



At this point, the situation is just getting ridiculous. If you'd like, I'll admit defeat:

If there is a competitor signed up for a competition I'm delegating that has never competed before and is a minor and has crossed into the United States from Canada but does not possess a passport, but instead another travel document that does not have a photo on it, and is accompanied by a non-relative guardian, then I cannot verify his/her citizenship.


----------



## cubernya (Jun 21, 2012)

Bob said:


> the situation is just getting ridiculous.



Not really. To be completely honest, I've crossed the Canadian border (from the US, not Canada) with another person's family. It really isn't that complicated, but there has to be a definitive way in the regs to get around this sort of stuff. One option is simple changing must to should.


----------



## Bob (Jun 21, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> Not really. To be completely honest, I've crossed the Canadian border (from the US, not Canada) with another person's family. It really isn't that complicated, but there has to be a definitive way in the regs to get around this sort of stuff. One option is simple changing must to should.



...or...



shelley said:


> We shouldn't have to rewrite every regulation to cover every possible disability or unusual circumstance. In cases like these we rely on the judge/delegate's reasonable judgement.


----------



## vcuber13 (Jun 21, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> Not really. To be completely honest, I've crossed the Canadian border (from the US, not Canada) with another person's family. It really isn't that complicated, but there has to be a definitive way in the regs to get around this sort of stuff. One option is simple changing must to should.



but again, i think it can be assumed if your accompanied by a resident of a country (that can be proved) you can use that country as yours

idk how to say this but, accompanied in the sense of a guardian/someone over 18 with a passport.


----------



## shelley (Jun 21, 2012)

The whole passport thing really relies on the idea that cubers are trustworthy people. There are many younger competitors who don't have a passport or even any official form of ID, and we just have to trust that they and their parent/guardian are good people who aren't going to lie about where they're from. Similarly, it's not like most of us have the technology or knowledge to distinguish a real passport from a really good counterfeit.

In summary, don't be a jerk. If you feel the need to lie about your nationality just to get a NR for a country with very few cubers, that's just sad.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 21, 2012)

It's actually pretty tough to get a passport in the US. My family all got one many years back and it was a pretty big deal full of bureaucracy and stuff. Certainly not something I'd expect most competition attendees to be able to do, especially random teenagers. In an ideal world it would be great to check everyone, but in practice I think requiring identification would just prevent a lot of one-competition-ever competitors from taking part. And we do have a lot of those.

I do agree with Shelley, though, that at least in the US there's not much point to worrying about citizenship. If someone wants to get the NR for a weird country then it makes sense, but if they're competing in the US they basically have no chance of getting any kind of record unless they're well known, so it doesn't hurt anyone to assume they're in the US. I'm sure in Europe the situation is totally different as there are a lot of relatively small countries and any competition is likely to have people who've taken a train or car over from a nearby one.


----------



## keyan (Jun 27, 2012)

What happens when a solve is being timed with both a stackmat and a stopwatch and when the solve is finished the judge realizes the stackmat shows 0.XX? If XX is greater than 06, then the time should be DNF. But does this depend on the stopwatch time? If the stopwatch shows more than ten minutes, then the stackmat time would've been irrelevant. Does the validity of the solve depend on the solve time? If XX is less than 06, can the competitor ask for another solve? Would the stopwatch have to show a time less than ten minutes for the competitor to get a new solve? 

Competitors regularly bring extra cubes to their solving station, practicing between solves and such. Suppose a competitor is participating in 4BLD. A solved cube sitting on the table could help direct them regarding the correct location of pieces during memorization.


----------



## Bob (Jun 27, 2012)

keyan said:


> What happens when a solve is being timed with both a stackmat and a stopwatch and when the solve is finished the judge realizes the stackmat shows 0.XX? If XX is greater than 06, then the time should be DNF. But does this depend on the stopwatch time? If the stopwatch shows more than ten minutes, then the stackmat time would've been irrelevant. Does the validity of the solve depend on the solve time? If XX is less than 06, can the competitor ask for another solve? Would the stopwatch have to show a time less than ten minutes for the competitor to get a new solve?
> 
> Competitors regularly bring extra cubes to their solving station, practicing between solves and such. Suppose a competitor is participating in 4BLD. A solved cube sitting on the table could help direct them regarding the correct location of pieces during memorization.



I'm hoping to see that .06 rule removed from the regulations. It's user error, not a timer malfunction. If it IS a timer malfunction, then it can be replicated, and you will usually see that the lights will turn on while hovering near the timer, causing the stopped time. I believe this .06 rule has been used to intentionally get new scrambles for bad cases, but of course there is no way to prove it.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 31, 2012)

The new Regulations and Guidelines are now available at http://worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/.
See Vincent's thread for more details.


----------

