# WCA Regulations 2014



## Lucas Garron (Dec 31, 2013)

See here for the announcement: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/2014-01-01

The current Regulations are always available from https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/
For an exact list of changes from 2013 to 2014, view differences on GitHub.
For a summarized list of changes, please visit the full announcement.



Here are the main changes from the summarized list, along with justifications:


Skewb has been added as an official event. (#102 / 66d6da9)
Skewb is interesting and practical, and there is significant community interest.

Regulations about permitted puzzles have been clarified: Thick tiles or painted/printed colors are no longer allowed instead of (thin) tiles/stickers. Stickers/tiles must be indistinguishable by feel for BLD. Permissible logos have been clarified. (#13, #33 / cd138cd)
This allows competitors and Delegates to come to consistent decisions about what puzzles are allowed.

For Rubik's Cube: Multiple Blindfolded, a single solved cube will be considered DNF. Existing results are still recognized/ranked. (#105 / 5660ed5)
This requires competitors to satisfy the intent of the event. In particular, it prevents competitors from attempting 2 with the intention of solving only 1.

Rubik's Cube: Fewest Moves may now be held using a "Mean of 3" round format. (#81 / dc182c8)
This reduces the role of luck in FMC for large competitions that can hold 3 attempts.

For Rubik's Cube: Blindfolded "Best of 3" rounds, rankings and records of the mean will be recognized. This also applies to existing "Best of 3" results. (#111 / 5660ed5)
There is significant interest in recognizing these results. Since it does not change the round format, it does not require competitors to change their competition strategy for placing in competition.

The "Best of 3" round format has been removed as an option for events that have a "Mean of 3" format. (#109 / 2685170)
Both formats take roughly the same resources, so the preferred format should be used. Almost all competitions followed this in 2012 and 2013.

Competitors who "pre-sign" for future attempts will now receive DNS results. (#63 / 692fec6)
This requires competitors to acknowledge every attempt, in the spirit of Regulation A7c.

Qualification rounds have been removed. (#49 / 49fa8c1)
Only two competitions have used qualification rounds since 2010. (at the discretion of the Delegate).

Megaminx has been added to the list of puzzles that scramblers do not need to correct if they are scrambled incorrectly (#61 / fcba232)
Rescrambling takes significant time, errors are more subtle and do not have a large effect on difficulty of the scramble.

Organizers/Delegates must keep physical competition records at least one month. (#78 / e12b7c7)
This sets a standard time frame for being able to check transcription mistakes.


----------



## Tim Major (Jan 2, 2014)

There currently is a discussion regarding the retroactive awarding of FMC and 3bld mo3 on facebook here: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10202805133628212&id=1196941266&__user=100001795414490 

If someone on a computer could screen shot it for people without Rowe on their list/non facebook users.

Basically, several people find it stupid to award records like this as the introduction of means changes the event strategy. Another concern is the motive of Sebastien (and to a lesser extent Noah) to push for these means. 

An argument I have against this, currently there are few 4 and 5bld means as most competitors do a "safe" solve then two rushed solves. If 4 and 5bld means are to follow, it rewards people for not doing the events "properly" (going for the fastest times)

Anyway, just thought this discussion should be on speedsolving too.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Jan 2, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> [*]Competitors who "pre-sign" for future attempts will now receive DNS results. (#63 / 692fec6)
> 
> This requires competitors to acknowledge every attempt, in the spirit of Regulation A7c.



It seems like this is unnecessary, the reinforcement of a rule just because it's a rule. It seems at the heart of the regulation, it is an attempt to make sure there are no disagreements or corrections after the solve and round is completed. It makes more sense to say that someone who signs in advance automatically waives their right to disagreement and any errors that they discover later that might be perceived as disadvantageous. This in itself I feel should result in more observance of the rule. 

The procedure and regulations of this procedure should exist to help the competitor, not hinder their average. If someone accidentally signs in advance the consequence should not be a DNS as that is too harsh. If some consequence should be determined to still be necessary, I suggest a +2 penalty to each solve that was signed in advance.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jan 2, 2014)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> It seems like this is unnecessary, the reinforcement of a rule just because it's a rule. It seems at the heart of the regulation, it is an attempt to make sure there are no disagreements or corrections after the solve and round is completed. It makes more sense to say that someone who signs in advance automatically waives their right to disagreement and any errors that they discover later that might be perceived as disadvantageous. This in itself I feel should result in more observance of the rule.
> 
> The procedure and regulations of this procedure should exist to help the competitor, not hinder their average. If someone accidentally signs in advance the consequence should not be a DNS as that is too harsh. If some consequence should be determined to still be necessary, I suggest a +2 penalty to each solve that was signed in advance.



I don't think competitor signing is needed at all. Judges should sign in case there's a case of bad handwriting or something.

I think that as soon as the competitor leaves the immediate area around the table, the competitor is considered to have agreed with the final time.

The argument that someone could sabotage your times is silly. There are plenty of ways to sabotage a competitor, this doesn't do much to prevent it.


----------



## antoineccantin (Jan 2, 2014)

> Regulations about permitted puzzles have been clarified: Thick tiles or painted/printed colors are no longer allowed instead of (thin) tiles/stickers. Stickers/tiles must be indistinguishable by feel for BLD. Permissible logos have been clarified. (#13, #33 / cd138cd)


I've seen many people on facebook extremely discouraged by this new rule, as many top megaminxer use tiles, which are now not competition legal.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Jan 2, 2014)

Also, shouldn't the regulation specify that if the competitor forgets to sign after the solve, it would be considered a DNS? In order to make sure they follow through with A7c right?


----------



## cubernya (Jan 2, 2014)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> Also, shouldn't the regulation specify that if the competitor forgets to sign after the solve, it would be considered a DNS? In order to make sure they follow through with A7c right?



DNF, since the solve did happen.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 3, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> There currently is a discussion regarding the retroactive awarding of FMC and 3bld mo3 on facebook here: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10202805133628212&id=1196941266&__user=100001795414490
> 
> If someone on a computer could screen shot it for people without Rowe on their list/non facebook users.


I've sent this to the Board.

Also, I had assumed that it was clear that past records that are not also *current* records should not be recognized. The Board is discussing this.



Tim Major said:


> Basically, several people find it stupid to award records like this as the introduction of means changes the event strategy. Another concern is the motive of Sebastien (and to a lesser extent Noah) to push for these means.



I don't know quite what to say about that. The thing is, cubing has always been a volunteer community, where things happen because someone cares to make them happen.
Despite lots of complaining and throwing out vague suggestions, very few people helped move things along.
In particular, Noah handled this great: emailed the Board early with clear arguments, and started a thread with a vote that showed clear community interest.



Tim Major said:


> An argument I have against this, currently there are few 4 and 5bld means as most competitors do a "safe" solve then two rushed solves. If 4 and 5bld means are to follow, it rewards people for not doing the events "properly" (going for the fastest times)



Yeah, but 4BLD and 5BLD shouldn't be affected.




PhillipEspinoza said:


> It seems like this is unnecessary, the reinforcement of a rule just because it's a rule. It seems at the heart of the regulation, it is an attempt to make sure there are no disagreements or corrections after the solve and round is completed. It makes more sense to say that someone who signs in advance automatically waives their right to disagreement and any errors that they discover later that might be perceived as disadvantageous. This in itself I feel should result in more observance of the rule.
> 
> The procedure and regulations of this procedure should exist to help the competitor, not hinder their average. If someone accidentally signs in advance the consequence should not be a DNS as that is too harsh. If some consequence should be determined to still be necessary, I suggest a +2 penalty to each solve that was signed in advance.







PhillipEspinoza said:


> Also, shouldn't the regulation specify that if the competitor forgets to sign after the solve, it would be considered a DNS? In order to make sure they follow through with A7c right?


Apart from the fact that a DNS is impossible once you begin an attempt (it would have to be DNF), A7c1 would apply. The Delegate would be in charge of making sure both the judge and the competitor sign the scoresheet. If a competitor absolutely refused to sign, they'd probably be disqualified from the competition.

One problem with automatically DNFing solves in this case is that it allows a competitor to exclude an attempt from their results (without doing silly things like doing extra moves after stopping the timer). That's arguably against the spirit of how we do things.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jan 3, 2014)

Lucas et al.:
Thanks for putting this together. Look how much work these guys put into this: https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/compare/diff-base-2013...official-2014-01-01#files_bucket
Seriously, thanks guys!


----------



## Noahaha (Jan 3, 2014)

If the system is working the way it should be, there should be no need to question anyone's motives. So many people are involved with making any decision that there must be a very good reason outside of the selfishness of one person.

I will gladly admit that I pushed for 3BLD mo3s to be recognized out of somewhat selfish reasons. It wasn't for one tiny record though. It was because I felt that 3x3 blindfolded would be a better and more interesting event if not everything was based on single. Over the course of a year I discussed this idea with a lot of other blindfolded solvers, and they all urged me to try to make it happen. Yes, this will improve my experience of cubing, but it was only able to pass because many other people felt the same way.

I cannot speak for Sebastien, but he expressed a similar frustration: single involves a lot of luck, while mo3 involves more skill. I am positive that he wanted FMC mo3s because it would improve his and other people's experience of the FMC event, not simply for the retroactive WRs.


EDIT:
While I do not care that much about the retroactive WRs, I understand why people don't like them. I have an idea for a way to not have retroactive WRs, but also not start from scratch: The current WRs will not be recognized, but you cannot break the WR without breaking the current best results ever.


----------



## Sebastien (Jan 3, 2014)

Noahaha said:


> I cannot speak for Sebastien, but he expressed a similar frustration: single involves a lot of luck, while mo3 involves more skill. I am positive that he wanted FMC mo3s because it would improve his and other people's experience of the FMC event, not simply for the retroactive WRs.



You speak for me pretty well though. The frustration you mention does not only apply to me, but to many other passionate FMC solvers as well. This has been around for years now. Being in the best position to do so, I took care of this and I'm very happy now, that FMC can finally be held under the same fair conditions as other events. the fact that I benefit from this change is unfortunately a bad coincidence, but no reason for me for not doing what I objectively consider the right thing to do. I have been as passionate about lots of other topics as well this year and in the past that are not personally related to me at all.

Honestly, I am not suprised that there are now some conspiracy theorists out there questioning mine and Noah's motives, but knowing better I can't really care.


----------



## KiwiCuber (Jan 3, 2014)

antoineccantin said:


> I've seen many people on facebook extremely discouraged by this new rule, as many top megaminxer use tiles, which are now not competition legal.



^This
A lot of the top minxers use tiles and it could completely ruin how they solve to switch to stickers, this could discourage some and hurt the event


----------



## qqwref (Jan 3, 2014)

1) Am I reading this right - NOBODY from North America has ever completed an FMC mean of 3?

2) The facebook thread looks to be deleted, which I am not OK with. If the WCA is supposed to make decisions with the help of the community, how come many very important things are kept secret?

3) Is it possible that some organizers will not hold FMC when they otherwise would have, because they feel like it's not worth doing if they can't make time for a 'full' round (with an average)? For instance, we are allowed to hold Best of 1 or 2 in 7x7x7, but in the competitions I've been to nobody seriously considered that, and if there was not enough time for a mean of 3 in 7x7x7 they would just not run the event whether or not there was interest.

4) In Ac72, when exactly is "the judge [...] finished recording the result"? Suppose they write the time, then the competitor signs, then the judge realizes the solve actually had a penalty and adds on the +2=[new time] at the end of the result. Or, suppose if the judge writes the result, the competitor signs, and then slightly later the judge modifies the scoresheet to make it clearer to read. How about the competitor signing before the judge does? Do these give the competitor a DNS? Of course we would probably not want to give them a DNS if we saw this, but a literal interpretation of the rules may suggest we have to. Let's instead decide that if a competitor signs the result before it is written they are considered to have automatically accepted the result the judge writes down.


----------



## Bob (Jan 3, 2014)

qqwref said:


> 1) Am I reading this right - NOBODY from North America has ever completed an FMC mean of 3?
> 
> 3) Is it possible that some organizers will not hold FMC when they otherwise would have, because they feel like it's not worth doing if they can't make time for a 'full' round (with an average)? For instance, we are allowed to hold Best of 1 or 2 in 7x7x7, but in the competitions I've been to nobody seriously considered that, and if there was not enough time for a mean of 3 in 7x7x7 they would just not run the event whether or not there was interest.



1) Correct. I have competed in 112 competitions. Of those, I have competed in FMC 27 times--21 were best of 1 and six were best of 2. Every competition that was a best of 2 was a competition that lasted multiple days. Those are extremely uncommon in North America, which brings me to...

3) I would be surprised to see any competition have FMC with a mean of 3 in North America, with the exception of a US National competition. It just simply isn't worth dedicating 3 hours to FMC. I don't expect this to have any impact on North American competitions whatsoever.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Jan 3, 2014)

qqwref said:


> 2) The facebook thread looks to be deleted, which I am not OK with. If the WCA is supposed to make decisions with the help of the community, *how come many kept secret?*



Is it possible to have board messages public?
If so, what are reasons for not doing so?


----------



## Noahaha (Jan 3, 2014)

qqwref said:


> 2) The facebook thread looks to be deleted, which I am not OK with. If the WCA is supposed to make decisions with the help of the community, how come many very important things are kept secret?



I don't think this is being kept secret. It was Rowe's Facebook status, so he was the one who deleted it. I think he had a pretty good reason to as well.

Here's what I can remember from the post:
-Lots of people said that retroactive WRs are unfair because the people who got them did not know they were (and probably other reasons).
-People also said that FMC retroactive WRs are especially unfair because so few competitions have help FMC mo3, due to the fact that FMC mo3 has not been official.
-Some motives were questioned a little bit.
-Some minor changed regulations were brought up.
-A few people mentioned their disappointment at Skewb being added as an event.

Most of the points in there are ones brought up in this thread and other threads in the regulations forum.


----------



## Schmidt (Jan 3, 2014)

Why are painted cubes not allowed anymore? An even coat of paint should not feel any different than a sticker.


----------



## AlexMaass (Jan 4, 2014)

> Regulations about permitted puzzles have been clarified: Thick tiles or painted/printed colors are no longer allowed instead of (thin) tiles/stickers. Stickers/tiles must be indistinguishable by feel for BLD. Permissible logos have been clarified. (#13, #33 / cd138cd)
> This allows competitors and Delegates to come to consistent decisions about what puzzles are allowed.


Does this mean my Fangshi 2x2 with no logo is no longer allowed? Just wanted to make sure.


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 11, 2014)

4d4 and 12g1 contradict each other:



4d4 said:


> Clock is scrambled beginning with the darker colour "insert" in front (out of the 2 possible scrambling orientations) and 12 o'clock pointing up.





12g1 said:


> The puzzle is oriented with 12 o'clock on top, and either side in front.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 11, 2014)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> 4d4 and 12g1 contradict each other:



No? Clock is scrambled _beginning with_ one side on in front, and flipped to the other side at some point.


----------



## TiLiMayor (Jan 13, 2014)

Is the spanish translation being taken care of by anybody at all?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 13, 2014)

TiLiMayor said:


> Is the spanish translation being taken care of by anybody at all?



Not that I'm aware of. Go ahead.

I see you're from Colombia.
With Portuguese, we had to split into two versions (European and Portuguese). If there's a similar distinction for Spanish in different parts of the world, let us know when you send it.


----------



## TiLiMayor (Jan 13, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Not that I'm aware of. Go ahead.
> 
> I see you're from Colombia.
> With Portuguese, we had to split into two versions (European and Portuguese). If there's a similar distinction for Spanish in different parts of the world, let us know when you send it.



Differences could only be on style and Spain specific terms or expressions.. Colombian 'accent' is said to be the most neutral of all, but whatever..
Edit: I'll try to make a full re-translation, being as literal as possible with the english counterpart.


----------



## Sajwo (Jan 14, 2014)

Sum of ranks official - what do you guys think about this idea?


----------



## TMOY (Jan 14, 2014)

Not a good idea, because of lack of balance (gives too much weight to the most popular events)


----------



## Ollie (Jan 14, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> Sum of ranks official - what do you guys think about this idea?



It depends what you mean by official, how would someone be recognized as first 'officially'? And how would it be any different to what is currently here at the moment?


----------



## kinch2002 (Jan 14, 2014)

I've requested for it to be shown on everyone's profile before. I think it would be a nice addition to the profiles. It's already a 'ranking' as such so I dont understand the 'official' idea.

With regards to the weighting, I havent seen a perfect system yet. Indeed it currently weights popular events a lot, while not competing in difficult events such as 5bld is not 'punished' much. I've calculated proportional sum of ranks before, but then events with less people are weighted quite a lot. One could argue that having a high ranking in an event with less people does indeed indicate all-rounded-ness so it's not a problem at all.


----------

