# Regulations Discussion at Worlds (Saturday Lunch)



## Lucas Garron (Jul 22, 2013)

Anyone is always welcome to talk to the WRC about the Regulations, including at competitions.

Since there will be a *lot* of competitors at Worlds, would anyone be interested in something slightly more structured?
For example, we could plan to meet for lunch one day, or get together in the corner of the room during the unofficial competition.

Mainly, I feel like a lot of competitors have *some* sort of questions or suggestions about the Regulations, and it would be nice to encourage them to bring it up at Worlds. (Other than saying "just go find Vincent/Lucas and talk to them".)


Would anyone be interested in this?
Or does anyone have another suggestion for using the fact that everyone will be at Worlds to improve the rules that define our sport?

UPDATE, July 24, 2013:

We now have a scheduled room for this. We'll be meeting in one of the Skyboxes at lunch (12:30) on Saturday.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jul 22, 2013)

I think this could be a pretty good thing to do, and I would probably turn up if it happened. While personally there's only a couple of things that I think I would bring up, I would be more than happy to join in with the discussion on other issues.

Also as a side point, if you wanted this discussion streamed on the live feed, we can set that up, but I realise that you may not want it as well.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 22, 2013)

I think I've brought up all the issues I've cared about, but I would certainly attend such a meeting if I'm available.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Jul 22, 2013)

the only thing i think should be changed is DNFs on M slices.


----------



## Ranzha (Jul 22, 2013)

I'd attend! =D


----------



## Yellowsnow98 (Jul 22, 2013)

Ross The Boss said:


> the only thing i think should be changed is DNFs on M slices.



I know right.
That's pretty much the only thing that would discourage me from switching to Roux. That and CMLL recognition.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Jul 23, 2013)

Yellowsnow98 said:


> I know right.
> That's pretty much the only thing that would discourage me from switching to Roux. That and CMLL recognition.


the recognition is actually really easy. you just need to know what to look for


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jul 23, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> I think this could be a pretty good thing to do, and I would probably turn up if it happened. While personally there's only a couple of things that I think I would bring up, I would be more than happy to join in with the discussion on other issues.
> 
> Also as a side point, if you wanted this discussion streamed on the live feed, we can set that up, but I realise that you may not want it as well.



I'm not sure it's a streaming kind of thing. Although now that you mention it, a Regulations-themed CubeCast may not be such a terrible idea.



Ross The Boss said:


> the only thing i think should be changed is DNFs on M slices.



It's probably more likely that we'll remove +2 alignment penalties altogether, partially because of such inconsistencies. However, I am more than willing to be blabbed at by people with different opinions, or explain the weird historical reasons for certain Regulations.



Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> I'd attend! =D



You just want to add Skewb, right? 
Definitely a good thing to talk about, though.


----------



## Vincents (Jul 23, 2013)

Lucas linked me to this thread. Thanks for getting the word out, Lucas.

I will also be available for questions and comments.


----------



## BillyRain (Jul 23, 2013)

Cubing whilst judging shoud be forbidden worldwide. That is all.


----------



## Renslay (Jul 23, 2013)

Unfortunetly I can't go, but I have a topic to discuss:

In the scramble of the BLD, add a random cube oriantation to the end of the scramble. For example, the scramble is F R2 D' B (...) R2 F' x y'.

This should eliminate (or decrease) the advantage of "if you solve the cube with white on top, green on front, then probably you don't have to rotate the cube first, because most of the time the cube is already in that orientation before you." This is negligible during a regular solve (since inspection time doesn't count to the result), but not in BLD; it could save half a second. I always felt a bit discriminated because I learned BLD with white top, orange front.

The regulation currently says only "A2e) The judge places the puzzle onto the mat in an arbitrary orientation (...)". Which is usually eqivalent to the original one.


----------



## Goosly (Jul 23, 2013)

Renslay said:


> because most of the time the cube is already in that orientation before you."



'most of the time'? Scramblers place the cube in the box, add the scoresheet, judge picks it up, goes to the table and flips the box to place it on the table. I'd say most of the time yellow would become the color on top then, with front being pseudo-random.

But I agree that the orientation should either be fully random or whatever the competitors wants


----------



## Renslay (Jul 23, 2013)

Goosly said:


> Scramblers place the cube in the box, add the scoresheet, judge picks it up, goes to the table and flips the box to place it on the table.



I saw many times this: scrambler put the cube on the score sheet, judge checks the sheet, put the box on the sheet/cube, goes to the table, pulls out the sheet from under the cube/box. Cube orientation remains.

But I admit, the way you described happens many times as well.


----------



## Sa967St (Jul 23, 2013)

Lucas Garron said:


> Ranzha V. Emodrach said:
> 
> 
> > I'd attend! =D
> ...



I'll also attend to discuss skewbs.


----------



## Emily Wang (Jul 23, 2013)

since i'm not going to be there:

6x6 average of 5 pleeeaaase?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jul 23, 2013)

Renslay said:


> The regulation currently says only "A2e) The judge places the puzzle onto the mat in an arbitrary orientation (...)". Which is usually eqivalent to the original one.



So, the problem with this is that we would need to force all scramblers and judges to make sure to coordinate orientations. That's yet another thing for them to worry about, and easily get wrong. And if they do, what should be the consequence?

One possibility is to do a "best-effort": do a random rotation, then send the cube out and hope it's random enough by the time it reaches the competitor. But even adding cube rotations to the end of scrambles can be discouraging to scramblers who are not particularly used to that notation. And some competitions have trouble finding enough of those.

Certainly another good thing to discuss.


----------



## Ranzha (Jul 23, 2013)

Lucas Garron said:


> You just want to add Skewb, right?
> Definitely a good thing to talk about, though.



Not just about Skewb >_>


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 23, 2013)

Emily Wang said:


> 6x6 average of 5 pleeeaaase?



yes please


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jul 24, 2013)

Since we sort of have critical mass, let's try to set a time.

The schedule is rather packed, but how about during the unofficial competition on Friday at 9pm, in some corner of the room?


----------



## Vincents (Jul 24, 2013)

Lucas Garron said:


> Since we sort of have critical mass, let's try to set a time.
> 
> The schedule is rather packed, but how about during the unofficial competition on Friday at 9pm, in some corner of the room?



I'm also willing to talk Friday during my lunch break at 1 pm, if it's decently fast.


----------



## HEART (Jul 24, 2013)

Ross The Boss said:


> the only thing i think should be changed is DNFs on M slices.



Man part of me wants to agree, like Lucas said aswhell +2's could possibly just be removed altogether. I like the function of the +2 system, but some cases ( such as the m slices ) is just annoying to be called a dnf. M slices are a big part of BLD and isn't that uncommon.


----------



## Yuxuibbs (Jul 24, 2013)

(I don't really pay attention to discussions like this) What would happen if the +2s were removed? would it be no penalty even if it's 1 move off or DNF because it's 1 move off?



Spoiler



Can clock not be either no penalty or DNF? is there a way to add +2 to clock? (I know this sounds crazy)


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jul 24, 2013)

Jim helped me schedule a room for this. We'll meet at 12:30pm on Saturday, in one of the Skyboxes on the second floor. Anyone is welcome to attend and talk about any aspect of the Regulations + Guidelines.
If we get quite a few people, I will moderate the discussion.

(I'm updating the first post to reflect this.)


----------



## Ton (Jul 24, 2013)

BillyRain said:


> Cubing whilst judging shoud be forbidden worldwide. That is all.



I know what you mean, but with a tight schedule and only two groups , cubers practice for the next round/group while judging. I force all cubers to judge else a small group will just sit and let others do the judging 
So I understand what you refer to , It would not be needed/we could forbid it if there are little breaks between each events/round so there is room and time for all to practice between events/rounds
Drawback means less events in the total competition....


----------



## Ross The Boss (Jul 25, 2013)

i dont think that the plus two should be removed. i just think that the M layer should be treated the same as any other layer seeing as pretty much everyone does M as one finger trick and not something like R r'.


----------



## Ton (Jul 25, 2013)

Renslay said:


> Unfortunetly I can't go, but I have a topic to discuss:
> 
> In the scramble of the BLD, add a random cube oriantation to the end of the scramble. For example, the scramble is F R2 D' B (...) R2 F' x y'.
> 
> ...



For multilpe blindfold scramble I always orientate or put the cube as on the scramble sheet, as I need to check sometimes 20+ scrambles if they are correct. If all scramblers did a random layout, it would impossible for me to check if the cubes are correctly scrambled for multiple blindfold.

For BLD in general it is semi random, but most of the time the yellow will be on top , you may have a point here for BLD , interesting issue as with BLD the start orientation has affect on a total solve


----------

