# Controversial: Table abuse in OH should be banned



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Mar 6, 2022)

Hello fellow speedcubers. I took a 3 years break from speedcubing. In the meantime I was mastering my english skills and developing my business. Now I have more time for my biggest passion and I would like to take some big steps in improving our sport and community.

Some of you might find this a little bit controversial, but I just can't stand it anymore.

*Table abuse in OH speedsolving is straight up cheating*.

For years now people used table in official attempts, most notably one-handed, megaminx (LL step) and master magic in the past. It was never an issue.

But times change. In the recent years there was a rapid growth od roux method popularity.
Some of people started to wonder if CFOP is really the only viable option. Speedsolving.com user "5BLD", also known as Alexander Lau got sub7 ao100, sub6 official single and Championship title at Euro's 2014 using roux method. It was clear at that point that you could get fairly fast with it.

At the time it was common knowledge that Roux for OH is literally the worst method you can choose, because you had to perform M-slice moves with ancient hardware.

But they didn't stop there and at some point they found a way to take advantage of WCA regulations that were written over a decade earlier.

The method is commonly described as "table abuse". They place the cube at around 45 degree angle at the stackmat with DR edge touching the table. Using that technique you could easily perform M-slice moves that were previously impossible.

But should it be legal? Obviously not. The event is called "one handed", not "one handed and a table". At that point it's not much of a difference between OH and TH, because they simply use the table to hold the cube for them. It simply acts like second hand.

If you ask Roux Method Speedsolver (which I will now refer to as "rouxer") to solve the cube one-handed but without table, they won't be able to do it as fast.

WCA mission is to have more people competing after *fair and equal conditions*. They do have *unfair advantage over CFOPers* because of the method they use and WCA regulations they take advantage of.

Obviously it's hard to completely ban the use of a table in speedsolving. You should not be punished for accidentally dropping your cube. The best OH speedcuber in the world, Max Park is also known to use the table, but in a different manner. He sometimes touches the stackmat with his cube to improve his grip. But by no means it makes him faster. He actually wastes at least a second on average because of that. Rouxers on the other hand use it to gain speed, which is obviously unfair.

Table abuse for Roux OH-speedsolving should be forbidden and determined wheter it's fine or abusive by the WCA Delegate overseeing the competition.

Let me know what do you think. I have more interested topics to share in the near future.


----------



## GenTheThief (Mar 6, 2022)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> Hello fellow speedcubers. I took a 3 years break from speedcubing. In the meantime I was mastering my english skills and developing my business. Now I have more time for my biggest passion and I would like to take some big steps in improving our sport and community.
> 
> Some of you might find this a little bit controversial, but I just can't stand it anymore.
> 
> ...


As a ZZ solver, I admit I am equally as disheartened as you are with the rise and impending dominance of the roux method in the only good 3x3 based event, OH.

However, I fundamentally disagree with your argument. I don't have time to pick apart this entire post right now but I'll give you some thoughts:
1. Based on your logic with the regulations being unfair against cfop, I posit that +2 penalties are unfair against roux because they don't allow for slice penalties, which are instead counted as DNFs. Should we allow slice penalties to make it fair to the roux method?

2. The WCA does not restrict people to a certain method. If a new technique is discovered, such as a faster PLL algorithm or OH roux with table abuse, then it is only the fault of the competitor for not taking full advantage of their resources. It cannot be unfair to a CFOPer because being a CFOPer is not an inherent quality of a person - the competitor can simply switch methods.

3. I don't get what you mean in saying that Max's table abuse makes him slower. You might think he would have adapted and only used the table to make it faster? And even so, how is this unfair? If a roux user can make good use of the table and a cfop user cannot, then that is simply the cfop user making a worse decision - it has nothing to do with fairness.


----------



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Mar 6, 2022)

I will analyse your response later that day, but +2 for slice moves is not an option because its 2 moves, not one.


----------



## Athefre (Mar 6, 2022)

As arguments go in everything in life:

"I'm a Roux user so I will think of arguments for why what I do is right."
"I'm not a Roux user so I will think of arguments for why what Roux users do isn't right."

Be willing to find faults in yourself and the things you like.

When I, and probably people that aren't aware of the puzzle community, think of "one handed solving", I imagine someone using a single hand and just their fingers to turn the layers of the cube. Let's say I place my other hand flat on the table palm down then use the back of that hand as the surface for which to use the table abuse technique. Is that still one handed solving? The regulation says that the puzzle can't come in contact with other parts of the body while applying moves. However, the hand becomes a surface. What if someone has a prosthetic hand where the back of the hand is a flat surface?

Is the use of the table for layer alignment in CFOP and other non-Roux methods necessary or should solvers focus on perfecting their turning since, inherently, one handed solving isn't going to be as accurate as two handed? Is the use of the table "simple assistance" or is it actually "One hand and one table solving"?


----------



## Thom S. (Mar 6, 2022)

You know, my OH Times for the last 4 years(probably because my last OH solve was in 2019) is at 1:30. I use VH and table abuse more than you can see any rouxer do. Should I be banned as well?


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Mar 6, 2022)

While I'm not an OH'er, I'll still give my opinion on this.
Imagine cubers like speedrunners and OH'ing like a game. I always love how speedrunners find ways to exploit the 'rules' of the game to improve their times. In this case, it's table abuse.
I think it adds to the meta and if roux is the only viable OH method because of it, then so what? Roux is not very hard to learn, and properly doing slice moves w/ table (abuse) is (I would expect) a skill that needs to be practiced.
As for the "one handed" or "one handed + table" question, it is your personal opinion for which it is.
Also, changing the rules would mean invalidating hundreds or thousands of official times, which is certainly an issue.


----------



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Mar 6, 2022)

Thom S. said:


> You know, my OH Times for the last 4 years(probably because my last OH solve was in 2019) is at 1:30. I use VH and table abuse more than you can see any rouxer do. Should I be banned as well?



Are you performing moves that are impossible/really inefficient to do without the table? I guess no, that was my point.


----------



## Sevilzww (Mar 6, 2022)

wdym lol? cfop users do equal if not more table abuse than rouxers do
and how is roux table abuse at all different from cfop table abuse? they're still using the table and "touching stackmat" is pretty much the same thing
roux table abuse takes practice and not an instant advantage, people can use table and still wouldn't be able to do the moves properly so you actually have to learn to flick and pull properly and also being able to doubleflick for M2
table also does not act like a second hand, rouxers practice eidos in order to avoid doing inefficient single flicks for U2s
if roux should be banned for table abuse, then that's unfair advantage on your part if cfop users are still able to do it in competitions


----------



## UNO_FASY (Mar 6, 2022)




----------



## OreKehStrah (Mar 6, 2022)

This is quite frankly a bad argument.
How can you say Max uses the timer to help improve grip and then say it doesn't make him faster? That's 100% a contradiction.

Plus, people are turning faces DIRECTLY on the table, including Max.
With Roux, the actual pieces being turning are the M and U layer, which are suspended in the air and are turned in the air. Only the bottom edge is placed on the table to brace it, just like how Max would brace the cube against the timer.


----------



## turtwig (Mar 6, 2022)

Conceptually, I think you could make the case to ban tabling, as long as it was applied equally. Perhaps most people without prior knowledge OH would consider tabling to be "cheating," which even many cubers did in the past, which is probably the most compelling case for banning it (something like that tabling violates the spirit of "one-handed"). If it was always explicitly banned, I would consider it a reasonable rule. However, I wouldn't support banning it retroactively. Firstly, because it would invalidate too many times and the times affected would be next to impossible to determine. Secondly, I find OH more interesting now that Roux has been made viable (and I expect most people to share this opinion). Ultimately, the rules of a competition should help make it more interesting.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Mar 6, 2022)

I'm with most people here. Table abuse has been around for so long it's already fully integrated into OH; records, methods, people have all developed around it. To ban it would mean that the current records would possibly never be broken, save for a reset of all records. Either way , it would be unfair and a huge hassle to ban table abuse.


----------



## Brouxt Force (Mar 6, 2022)

Your argument just seems to say "Screw the Roux solvers, CFOP is better and needs to dominate as many events as possible." As a Roux solver whose main event is OH, you can see why I have a problem with this.

Also, this may just be my personal experience, but I have never seen my table turn my cube.


----------



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Mar 6, 2022)

Well, I am not surprised by your negativity. Whether you like it or no, table abuse does not make much sense.



Sevilzww said:


> if roux should be banned for table abuse, then that's unfair advantage on your part if cfop users are still able to do it in competitions



After deep reflection I agree with that. The solution in that case is to completely ban table abuse from all events.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 6, 2022)

I wish table abuse had been banned from the start. To me OH is just a dexterity trick event, no different from feet, and a rather boring one at that, so anything that helps make it a challenge is an improvement. We allowed "floor abuse" with feet because it's nearly impossible to solve with feet without the floor. But that's not true with OH. I always solve OH with no table abuse, and I always get upset, even in competition, when the cube touches the table before the cube is solved, since to me that feels like a DNF.

But all that being said, the ship sailed long ago. OH has become ingrained in the community as what it is today, and it makes no sense to change it. Now it is a matter of personal choice. You and I can keep doing OH in the air, while nearly everyone else abuses the table.


----------



## Silky (Mar 6, 2022)

The way that I see it is that we shouldn't punish innovation. Things like this make the event more interesting and varied which I don't think is a bad thing. For a sports analogy think of the Olympic high jump. For someone that has never seen the event they would expect that to clear the bar you need t jump 'normally' but going back to the bar is still as equally difficult and skillful and by no means do I donthink it any less impressive. The idea that it doesn't meet someone's expectation of the event, I don't think this holds. This is a completely subjective argument.. I could say that using algorithms is cheating because it isn't 'really' solving the cube or that blindfolded memorization is cheating because you're using you eyes in the solve. It ultimately will come down to interpretation. As far as fitting into the 'spirit' of OH, table abuse is still extremely difficult to master having more difficult finger tricks than TH and is ultimately still slower. Also the world record is still held by a CFOP solver so it isn't as if it completely invalidates other techniques/methods. If table abuse was also a TH technique and equally as fast then there might be an argument because it would mean that there would be no difference between TH and OH which defeats the purpose of have two separate events. 

Also would this be an issue if it was slower than CFOP? My guess is probably not which shows a bit of a bias.



Mike Hughey said:


> I wish table abuse had been banned from the start. To me OH is just a dexterity trick event, no different from feet, and a rather boring one at that, so anything that helps make it a challenge is an improvement. We allowed "floor abuse" with feet because it's nearly impossible to solve with feet without the floor. But that's not true with OH. I always solve OH with no table abuse, and I always get upset, even in competition, when the cube touches the table before the cube is solved, since to me that feels like a DNF.
> 
> But all that being said, the ship sailed long ago. OH has become ingrained in the community as what it is today, and it makes no sense to change it. Now it is a matter of personal choice. You and I can keep doing OH in the air, while nearly everyone else abuses the table.


Perhaps we should consider the perspective of the table? Kinda messed up that we allow the violent assault of these beautiful creatures. Pretty sure that comiting violence is against the rules in the WCA. #RouxersAreAbusers


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 6, 2022)

Issues with BLD events, OH and credibility of whole databse [DISCUSSION]


I read WCA regulations over and over again and this is something I need to speak about. There are so many issues with all BLD events and OH that we should do something about this. So, as you know the regulations doesn not always make sense. For example in the past literally nobody would think...




www.speedsolving.com





I've already said my piece in the posts in the older thread (thanks, past me), so no need for me to reiterate my opinions.


----------



## unirox13 (Mar 6, 2022)

Ah... The politics of speed solving lol. This thread was an interesting read. However, I think I'll stick with solving for fun and figuring out new(to me) non- WCA puzzles.


----------



## Billabob (Mar 6, 2022)

Table abuse is an issue that warrants discussion every now and then but I don't understand why you're mentioning Roux so much? If it gets better results then it's a better method. There is no discrimination in Mathematics. Much like how CFOP is better than Beginner's, some methods require a lower average movecount and lend themselves to more ergonomic algorithms. The goal is to solve the cube as quickly as possible, not to CFOP the cube as quickly as possible. We should absolutely be encouraging method diversity and developing new techniques for other methods. As long as they're actually feasible for speedsolving at a high level, which Roux has recently been proving to be the case


----------



## Sevilzww (Mar 7, 2022)

Silky said:


> Perhaps we should consider the perspective of the table? Kinda messed up that we allow the violent assault of these beautiful creatures. Pretty sure that comiting violence is against the rules in the WCA. #RouxersAreAbusers






 cope


----------



## SH03L4C3 (Mar 7, 2022)

I find assembling a cube one-handed easier than solving it, so I smash my cube on the table, breaking the cube so I can assemble it. I will attach a video of my habit:








hgsdkjgGANTHROWCSH.mp4







drive.google.com





Ill admit, I'm not proud of it, but it gets good averages.


----------



## j727s (Mar 7, 2022)

I kind of think its too late to remove it because a lot of the records have already been set with it


----------



## qwr (Mar 7, 2022)

Aren't there like 20 other threads about this over the past decade


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Mar 7, 2022)

qwr said:


> Aren't there like 20 other threads about this over the past decade


Probably.
This would make the funniest sub-forum ever


----------



## Thom S. (Mar 7, 2022)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> Are you performing moves that are impossible/really inefficient to do without the table? I guess no, that was my point.


Well, I use the table do do U, R, F, B, L, D, M moves, so I never lift the cube, but I HAVE tried M moves completely without the table and it worked, so my point still stands.

Banning using the table would draw Roux away from OH and that would make OH really bland with only CFOP being used because CFOP = always good. Do you want that?


----------



## UNO_FASY (Mar 7, 2022)

Sevilzww said:


> cope


wtf CFOP OH abused the table


----------



## Sevilzww (Mar 7, 2022)

UNO_FASY said:


> wtf CFOP OH abused the table


not unfair advantage lol!!!


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Mar 7, 2022)

Spoiler



Or you could just use Petrus


----------



## Jupilogy (Mar 7, 2022)

Am I the only one who remembers that table abuse used to be illegal before the WCA specifically decided to legalise it? 

They're not going to change their mind; allowing table abuse was a deliberate choice and not an accident. Just accept it.


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 7, 2022)

Jupilogy said:


> Am I the only one who remembers that table abuse used to be illegal before the WCA specifically decided to legalise it?


Let's see:
2004-2007: explicitly banned
2008-2010: explicitly allowed
2013: no mention (editing oversight)
2014 onwards: explicitly allowed (in guidelines, not the main regulations document)

It was about fourteen years ago when table abuse became explicitly allowed – legal table abuse is older than quite a number of the members here, come to think of it.


----------



## Swagrid (Mar 7, 2022)

xyzzy said:


> legal table abuse is older than quite a number of the members here


Legal table abuse, unlike most cubers on Discord, is old enough to use Discord.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 7, 2022)

xyzzy said:


> Let's see:
> 2004-2007: explicitly banned


I loved that just one hand was allowed for inspection as well as solving. I've always tried to follow this rule in competition personally as well.


----------



## TheSilverBeluga (Mar 8, 2022)

WCA regulations are, and should be, made independently of any method meta that currently exists. Being a CFOPer versus being a Rouxer is not an immutable characteristic; complaining that a regulation isn't fair to one of them is like complaining that a card game tournament isn't fair to someone who brought a bad deck. The "under fair and equal conditions" part of the mission statement is to make sure that people aren't at a disadvantage because of things they _can't_ change. A rule that would break this would be something like "all 3x3x3 puzzles should measure 56x56x56 mm," which causes people with small hands to have an inherent disadvantage.

You also have a fairly ludicrous point that CFOPers (you mention Max Park specifically) actually lose time by using the table. So here's a question for you: if this is the case, why do they do it?
This is admittedly a rhetorical question, because you don't lose time doing it. The alternative isn't not regripping, it's regripping without using the table. Which is slower.

I am also somewhat frustrated by your response to many of these arguments:



Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> Whether you like it or no, table abuse does not make much sense.


You made points, they made counterpoints, and you didn't even address them, but instead stated that your opinion is correct; this is not phrased as a statement of opinion.


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 8, 2022)

TheSilverBeluga said:


> WCA regulations are, and should be, made independently of any method meta that currently exists.


I agree with the rest of your post, but this statement in particular shouldn't be taken as a given.

The WCA exists to serve the cubing community, and as such, it absolutely _should_ take into account what the cubers actually do in solves. For instance, hypothetically, introducing a new regulation at this point that would greatly advantage one popular method over another popular method (… e.g. banning table abuse) would almost certainly not happen unless it greatly improves some other aspect of the competition (e.g. does it make judging more consistent?). However, if said new regulation somehow only affects oddball methods barely used by anyone, there should be a much lower barrier to introducing it.

It's interesting that you bring up card games. My understanding is that when certain cards are discovered to be too overpowered / game-breaking, especially in unforeseen ways, they do get banned for later tourneys. It might not necessarily be that players are unfairly disadvantaged (assuming it's not a rare card, everyone could just stuff it in their deck to even the field), but that it makes the tournament less interesting, fun or exciting. To be clear, I don't think this specific situation is a good analogy to banning table abuse, but it's some precedent that rule changes _can_ be made to accommodate changes in the meta.


----------



## TheSilverBeluga (Mar 8, 2022)

xyzzy said:


> I agree with the rest of your post, but this statement in particular shouldn't be taken as a given.
> 
> The WCA exists to serve the cubing community, and as such, it absolutely _should_ take into account what the cubers actually do in solves. For instance, hypothetically, introducing a new regulation at this point that would greatly advantage one popular method over another popular method (… e.g. banning table abuse) would almost certainly not happen unless it greatly improves some other aspect of the competition (e.g. does it make judging more consistent?). However, if said new regulation somehow only affects oddball methods barely used by anyone, there should be a much lower barrier to introducing it.
> 
> It's interesting that you bring up card games. My understanding is that when certain cards are discovered to be too overpowered / game-breaking, especially in unforeseen ways, they do get banned for later tourneys. It might not necessarily be that players are unfairly disadvantaged (assuming it's not a rare card, everyone could just stuff it in their deck to even the field), but that it makes the tournament less interesting, fun or exciting. To be clear, I don't think this specific situation is a good analogy to banning table abuse, but it's some precedent that rule changes _can_ be made to accommodate changes in the meta.


You make some good points, and I probably should have elaborated more. What I was trying to say was that the regulations shouldn't play favorites - given that I don't think roux table abuse is a whole lot worse than CFOP table abuse, his argument comes across as saying that table abuse should be banned because rouxers use it, which isn't helped by the way he phrases things.



Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> At the time it was common knowledge that Roux for OH is literally the worst method you can choose, because you had to perform M-slice moves with ancient hardware.
> 
> But they didn't stop there and at some point they found a way to take advantage of WCA regulations that were written over a decade earlier.



Also, regarding the card game comparison: yeah, it's not a perfect analogy, but I think the key difference is that card games are a zero-sum game, whereas speedcubing is not. The times you get with your method are not made worse by more people choosing to use a faster method than you. If speedcubing were a competitive meta like a card game where strategy dominance is a concern, CFOP would have been banned 15 years ago lol


----------



## abunickabhi (Mar 9, 2022)

Is there table abuse in Mehta method?


----------



## Thom S. (Mar 9, 2022)

abunickabhi said:


> Is there table abuse in Mehta method?


Asking the real questions.


----------



## Silky (Mar 9, 2022)

abunickabhi said:


> Is there table abuse in Mehta method?


Is there table abuse in 5-style?


----------



## abunickabhi (Mar 10, 2022)

Silky said:


> Is there table abuse in 5-style?


Table abuse is not enough. There is finger abuse in 5-style. Doing 5-style fingertricks for a long period of time can give you carpal tunnel.


----------



## cuberswoop (Apr 7, 2022)

Imsoosm said:


> Well honestly, if you argue Roux users are illegal because of the M moves they need to execute, some OH CFOP users also do M moves, and they need the table to assist them too. For example, H perm requires M moves, and if you don't use the M move alg, it would significantly lower your times. And I don't agree with OH being OH with a table. The table is not turning the cube for you, it's still your hand doing it, the table only acts as an assist.


Just ban every method except for Petrus.


----------



## Thom S. (Apr 7, 2022)

Imsoosm said:


> How does Petrus work lol I'm not familiar with it
> I thought it still needs OLL and PLL?


Theoretically real Petrus(using that term losely) was proposed to do what we now call COLL + EPLL. The Irony in that using M moves as well is not lost on me.


----------

