# WCA Regulations 2014 Draft Released



## Sa967St (Dec 28, 2013)

View the draft on the WCA website: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/2014-draft/

You can view a complete list of differences at GitHub: https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/compare/2014-draft
For a summarized list of main changes, visit the announcement draft at https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/112.

Changes are based on public discussions, with Board voting on proposals for controversial changes (proposals include pros, cons, and community support/concerns -- they can be found by following the GitHub links).

If you disagree strongly with a change, feel free to discuss it in the appropriate thread or email the WRC. However, note that this probably won't change anything unless you introduce a strong issue that we hadn't considered.

However, we would benefit from a lot of people looking at the changes before they go official. If you find any mistakes, or have suggestions for improving any part of the changes, please let us know.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 28, 2013)

Changes that I expect competitors will care the most about:


 Skewb added as an event.
 New rules about permitted puzzles/logos. See my post in the logo thread for more information.
 1/2 for multi BLD will be DNF (old 1/2 results stay valid).
 Fewest Moves can now be held as "Mean of 3".
 Means of 3 for 3x3x3 BLD will be ranked, and records will be recognized (including retroactively).
 Pre-signing for an attempt will now get you a DNS. Make sure you actually verify the result before signing.

Go here to view more details: https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/112


----------



## Mikel (Dec 28, 2013)

Will Mean of 3 for FMC be ranked and records recognized retroactively? If no, then why do it for 3x3 BLD and not FMC?


----------



## cubizh (Dec 28, 2013)

Means of 3 for 3x3BLD is only to be ranked, not to be recognized officially. 
Competitors will not have the possibility to compete under that format...


----------



## TiLiMayor (Dec 28, 2013)

Count me in for the Spanish translation..


----------



## shelley (Dec 28, 2013)

Mikel said:


> Will Mean of 3 for FMC be ranked and records recognized retroactively? If no, then why do it for 3x3 BLD and not FMC?



Are there existing mean of 3 FMC results to recognize retroactively?


----------



## Mikel (Dec 28, 2013)

shelley said:


> Are there existing mean of 3 FMC results to recognize retroactively?



Yes.

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/misc/missing_averages/


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 28, 2013)

Mikel said:


> Yes.
> 
> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/misc/missing_averages/



The thing is with FMC means of three as that there aren't many of them at all, and competitions as they are now are very unlikely to have two attempts at FMC, let alone three. BLD is most usually run with three attempts as it is, so it makes a lot more sense to recognise BLD means than FMC means.
On top of this, the number of people to date with BLD means is 364, as opposed to 31 people with FMC means.
The total number of to-date BLD means is 883, as opposed to FMC's 49 means.


----------



## Mikel (Dec 28, 2013)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> The thing is with FMC means of three as that there aren't many of them at all, and competitions as they are now are very unlikely to have two attempts at FMC, let alone three. BLD is most usually run with three attempts as it is, so it makes a lot more sense to recognise BLD means than FMC means.
> On top of this, the number of people to date with BLD means is 364, as opposed to 31 people with FMC means.
> The total number of to-date BLD means is 883, as opposed to FMC's 49 means.



I know this, but if it is in the proposed regulations to allow mean of 3 to be held for FMC, I think past mean of 3's should be retroactively recognized if that seems to be the standard (or at least that's what they are doing for 3x3 BLD). 

The WCA might already be planning on recognizing past FMC mo3 results, but I never saw it explicitly mentioned, so I wanted to bring it up.


----------



## Yuxuibbs (Dec 29, 2013)

> 3a4) All pieces of a puzzle (ignoring stickers/tiles) must be made of the same consistent material (e.g. a single color of plastic).



So fangshi illusions aren't legal anymore?  
Would having black 57mm caps on a primary fangshi be legal (caps are black so everything on the outside looks like a black cube but the internals are all primary)? You don't see the primary plastic until you start turning the puzzle.

What about the Moyu Lingpo? All the internals are primary plastic and the outside is white/black/etc


----------



## cubizh (Dec 29, 2013)

Mikel said:


> I know this, but if it is in the proposed regulations to allow mean of 3 to be held for FMC, I think past mean of 3's should be retroactively recognized if that seems to be the standard (or at least that's what they are doing for 3x3 BLD).


I don't think retroactively recognizing results is a good policy, because the event have not previously occur, officially, so it would be an inconsistency that could taint the future credibility of the event. It's better to rank when everyone has a fair chance under the same rules and regulations.

Regarding BLD, I somewhat frown upon mixing an unofficial ranking with official results, given the fact that there's not an option for organizers and competitors to actually compete under Mo3 rules. It would allow a different type of event without actually having to undercut any of the current way things were done, by adding 3BLD to 9b2).
But the change in 9b2a) seems to be a step in the opposite direction which (to me) just makes this impossible in a very unnecessary way.
So, I see no problem in retroactively "recognizing" these results, because it's unofficial.
Still, looking at those ranks can be helpful for people see how accurate/innacurate solvers they are.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 29, 2013)

I also don't like the idea of retroactive results for FMC mo3. It was not an official event format, and in many cases, the 3 solves were not even considered to be part of the same round. The vast majority of competitions holding FMC did not do 3 solves because they did not have time or did not think anyone needed more than one. At least for BLD it was always understood that a typical round has 3 attempts.

EDIT: and in response to 3a4, I think almost every 3x3x3 I've ever had has had a core of a different color than the rest of the puzzle. Is this illegal now? Where can I buy dozens of white or black cores?

EDIT 2: "The "Best of 3" round format has been removed as an option for events that have a "Mean of 3" format."? Does this mean that for something like 3BLD we now have to rank by Mean of 3? Isn't this exactly what we wanted to *avoid* when including a mean? Surely 28 31 DNF is better than 2:50 2:40 3:20.




Lucas Garron said:


> Pre-signing for an attempt will now get you a DNS.


I'm sorry, but this is a crazy rule - far too harsh, especially since you cannot UN-sign with pen, and indeed, signing is a subconscious habit of some people by now, which most judges will not know to stop. I understand you want to stop people doing this, but immediately and irrevocably DNSing one or more solves as a penalty? That's pretty major. Especially with the wording of the rule - sign "or otherwise mark"... so if the delegate is strict enough this could include marking up the score sheet, having a signature that goes out of the box, or of course signing the wrong box by mistake. Do we really want to have to tell people "I'm sorry, we have to DNS this next solve because you signed the sheet wrong, I know you really want to do the solve but those are The Rules"? Does anyone else see the problem here?

Rules like this make me feel we are valuing rigid adherence to the rules over actual solving skill. We're humans, we all make errors, and we should forgive the errors of others. Stepping slightly out of line should not be enough to lose you a solve or kill your chances at the event entirely. It's not fair and it's not fun.


----------



## TMOY (Dec 29, 2013)

qqwref said:


> IEspecially with the wording of the rule - sign "or otherwise mark"... so if the delegate is strict enough this could include marking up the score sheet, having a signature that goes out of the box, or of course signing the wrong box by mistake. Do we really want to have to tell people "I'm sorry, we have to DNS this next solve because you signed the sheet wrong, I know you really want to do the solve but those are The Rules"? Does anyone else see the problem here?



Wow. Are there actually delegates who are stupid enough to DNS someone only because his signature went out of the box ? If someone ever does this to me, I think I'll just DNS the rest of the comp and go back home as a sign of protest.

About signing the wrong box, it's another story. If your judge has written your time on the, say, 1st attempt line and you sign the 2nd attempt box instead of the 1st, then you're simply not paying attention to what you're doing and you deserve the DNS the same way as the DNF you get when you do the wrong alg at the end of your solve and then stop the timer carelessly.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Dec 29, 2013)

TMOY said:


> If your judge has written your time on the, say, 1st attempt line and you sign the 2nd attempt box instead of the 1st, then you're simply not paying attention to what you're doing and you deserve the DNS the same way as the DNF you get when you do the wrong alg at the end of your solve and then stop the timer carelessly.



I don't foresee myself signing the wrong box, however at a cubing competition I don't think that your results should be tainted by an accidental error with a pen.

Intentionally pre signing every box (what we are trying to get away from) is very different to accidentally signing the wrong box.


----------



## TMOY (Dec 29, 2013)

You're supposed to sign only after the judge has written down the time. And if you're actually unable to sign the box located on the same line as the written time and sign on the line below instead, then you're probably drunk.


----------



## cubizh (Dec 29, 2013)

qqwref said:


> EDIT 2: "The "Best of 3" round format has been removed as an option for events that have a "Mean of 3" format."? Does this mean that for something like 3BLD we now have to rank by Mean of 3? Isn't this exactly what we wanted to *avoid* when including a mean? Surely 28 31 DNF is better than 2:50 2:40 3:20.


3BLD is not affected directly by this since it's not an event under 9b2), so it will only affect Rubik's Cube: With Feet, Rubik's Cube: Fewest Moves, 6x6x6 Cube, and 7x7x7 Cube. 
But "forcing the hand" for all Best of 3-attempts to be Mean of 3's makes the potential addition of 3BLD to this category (as an option to organizers) very improbable in the near future.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 30, 2013)

3h2: Would it be better for "the cube" to instead read "the puzzle"?


----------



## ~Adam~ (Dec 30, 2013)

TMOY said:


> And if you're actually unable to sign the box located on the same line as the written time and sign on the line below instead, then you're probably drunk.



Is there a rule about being intoxicated?
I don't remember there being one.
I've been trying my best not to force the WCA's hand on that one =)


----------



## Mikel (Dec 30, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> Is there a rule about being intoxicated?
> I don't remember there being one.
> I've been trying my best not to force the WCA's hand on that one =)




2k) The WCA Delegate may disqualify a competitor from the competition (i.e. from all events of the competition) if the competitor:
2k1) Fails to check in or register in time for the competition.
2k2) Is suspected of cheating or defrauding the officials during the competition.
2k2a) The WCA Delegate may disqualify any suspected results.
*2k3) Behaves in a way that is unlawful, violent or indecent; or intentionally damages venue facilities or personal property within the venue.*
*2k4) Interferes with, or distracts others during, the competition.*
2k5) Fails to abide by WCA Regulations during the competition.


I think 2k already covers the bases if a competitor does anything that would be the effect of being intoxicated.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Dec 30, 2013)

So, there is no rule about being intoxicated. TMOY, being too drunk to sign the correct box shouldn't effect your results IMO =)


----------



## DrKorbin (Dec 30, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> So, there is no rule about being intoxicated. TMOY, being too drunk to sign the correct box shouldn't effect your results IMO =)



Being too drunk to exec wrong PLL and stop the timer shouldn't affect your results too.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Dec 30, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> Being too drunk to exec *the correct* PLL and stop the timer shouldn't affect your results too.



The point I'm making is that an accident with a score sheet which has nothing to do with your solving shouldn't effect your results.

See my previous posts.


----------



## mande (Dec 30, 2013)

Is it not possible to have mean of 2 as a format for FMC as well?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 31, 2013)

DNS for pre-signing: No competitor should have the natural instinct to sign for future solves. We just want to warn competitors who have been doing that because they tried it once and no Delegate has stopped them.

So, no one should get a DNS unless they're trying to do the wrong thing. We're giving ample warning, and Delegates should be able to handle honest accidents.



Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> 3h2: Would it be better for "the cube" to instead read "the puzzle"?


Fixed, thanks.



cubizh said:


> 3BLD is not affected directly by this since it's not an event under 9b2), so it will only affect Rubik's Cube: With Feet, Rubik's Cube: Fewest Moves, 6x6x6 Cube, and 7x7x7 Cube.
> But "forcing the hand" for all Best of 3-attempts to be Mean of 3's makes the potential addition of 3BLD to this category (as an option to organizers) very improbable in the near future.



The WCA/Board can decide on any changes they want. If the community is interested in mean of BLD competitions without forbidding best of 3 competitions (which is unfortunately very inconsistent), we can create a new Regulation to handle this case.



mande said:


> Is it not possible to have mean of 2 as a format for FMC as well?



No. If you read 9b3, you'll see that Mean of 2 is not an official round format. It's also much simpler if only one kind of mean is ranked per event (else you'd have to compare means of 2 with means of 3, or have two mean rankings).


----------



## yoinneroid (Dec 31, 2013)

I'm not totally sure about this, and have me wondering for the whole year of 2013, is solving on a mat a must for feet solving?
I'm usually faster on a hard surface than on the mat (since I don't have one to practice on at home), however since I translate the regs last layer, I thought I read something about solving on the mat is a must somewhere, but then I can't recall the part that made me think so nor can I find it.


----------



## cubernya (Dec 31, 2013)

One thing I would like to see is the statement that .5 rounds up for times over 10 minutes. Some places teach round even, which could cause irregularities. It is given in the example, but not clearly stated.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 31, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> One thing I would like to see is the statement that .5 rounds up for times over 10 minutes. Some places teach round even, which could cause irregularities. It is given in the example, but not clearly stated.



How is _"x.5 becomes x+1"_ not clear?

And what places teach "round even"? If you mean what I think you mean, then I very much doubt many cubers even know that idea.


----------



## Sa967St (Dec 31, 2013)

Thread closed.

The final version for January 1, 2014 has been released: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?45641-WCA-Regulations-2014


----------

