# Puzzle Changes: painted/printed colours and 1.5mm tiles for all puzzles



## Lucas Garron (Apr 4, 2014)

In essence, the WRC and Board are making the changes from the grace period permanent.

Read here for details: https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/166

I know some of you were hoping for more, but this more pragmatic for now.

For the future, we're still willing to consider good proposals for "anything goes", or to allow specific things like stickerless cubes.
However, this requires a lot of careful work, which WRC members are unlikely to spend much time on right now. In addition, we need a better process to handle controversial changes (e.g. a fair draft/revision period and something like a majority vote by the Delegates). If you'd like to work on either of these, please try to continue the discussion in another thread, or contact the WRC.

Edit: official announcement: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/2014-04-03


----------



## megaminxwin (Apr 4, 2014)

So, theoretically, someone could go in a competition with a mini DianSheng or something, with painted colours, and it would be competition-legal?

Why was it banned anyway?


----------



## Carrot (Apr 4, 2014)

I just realised: 
3d2) ... Each colour on the puzzle must be clearly distinct from the other colours.

Would this be allowed or would I need to resticker?:


----------



## megaminxwin (Apr 4, 2014)

Carrot said:


> I just realised:
> 3d2) ... Each colour on the puzzle must be clearly distinct from the other colours.
> 
> Would this be allowed or would I need to resticker?:
> View attachment 3834



I imagine that would be fine. It's still distinctive, and it's not like a Rubik's Icon or anything.


----------



## Carrot (Apr 4, 2014)

megaminxwin said:


> I imagine that would be fine. It's still distinctive, and it's not like a Rubik's Icon or anything.



I'm refering to the top face, there's 4 grey stickers and rest is white


----------



## megaminxwin (Apr 4, 2014)

Carrot said:


> I'm refering to the top face, there's 4 grey stickers and rest is white



Ah. Right. Yeah, you should probably resticker that, I didn't even notice...


----------



## Lucas Garron (Apr 4, 2014)

megaminxwin said:


> So, theoretically, someone could go in a competition with a mini DianSheng or something, with painted colours, and it would be competition-legal?



Not just theoretically! They definitely are allowed to, as long as the paint is not worn down too much.



megaminxwin said:


> Why was it banned anyway?


Read the "Painted/Printed Colors" section in the GitHub issue link.



Carrot said:


> I just realised:
> 3d2) ... Each colour on the puzzle must be clearly distinct from the other colours.
> 
> Would this be allowed or would I need to resticker?:
> View attachment 3834


Depending on the lighting, perhaps a Delegate might be fine with it, but yeah, you should probably resticker that.

(Just to give a concrete example, suppose you have a 3x3x3 with BOY where yellow is hard to distinguish from white. A state (F2 R2)3 away from solved might look like solved, which could mean that you have a lot of options for cross. Perhaps this is not as straightforward for Megaminx, but the colors should still be distinct.)


----------



## Carrot (Apr 4, 2014)

megaminxwin said:


> Ah. Right. Yeah, you should probably resticker that, I didn't even notice...



Well, "should probably" sounds like it would be a good idea to do it. I am asking if the megaminx is competition legal, because I figured having a grey I can't distinguish from white actually gives me an advatange as I won't get distracted by grey pieces during the solve (white is faster to recognise than grey), and I know my F2L pieces so well, that I would never recognise an F2L corner by the white side, but instead by the adj stickers of white, so it doesn't even bother me when I have to look for white pieces.

(I did resticker the grey, but I would like to go through this hypothetical, but realistic example)

Ohhh yeah I should probably mention before someone says something stupid: The solved state is still unique (and very easy to recognise) as their is no intersection of the groups of adj colours to grey and white sides.

Hehe, lucas answered me before I finished typing this, I called what he was going to say! 

Edit: (I just figured people may say something about the lighting, just assume it looks like that IRL)


----------



## Stefan (Apr 4, 2014)

So whether I can compete in Megaminx depends on the mood of the delegate (cause of the slightly "too thick" Meffert tiles). Not exactly happy about that, but it's at least better than being always forbidden.



Lucas Garron said:


> Edit: official announcement: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/2014-04-03



The "Guidelines" link goes to an obsolete version (and clicking "Regulations" there gets you to an obsolete version of the regulations).


----------



## Erik (Apr 4, 2014)

So... this is the end of Sébastiens draft? (http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...s-quot-Anything-Goes-quot-(WCA-Puzzle-Policy))

I think the draft (with some minor tweaks) was perfectly fine to implement and strongly disagree with the argument that it would need "intricate details" (had to google that) to be implemented.

p.s. not happy about the exception for megaminx. Either allow it for all puzzles or for none. This doesn't make sense. Just the fact that these tiles occur "mostly" in megaminx doesn't mean that it can't occur at other events (or would suddenly be illegal for that matter). 
Depending on the mood of the delegate (and depending of wether he has such a thing on him: http://www.promotionalpromo.com/Upfiles/Prod_q/Ruler___Calibration_Ruler_7056.jpg) I can compete in 4x4 or not. Also I think it's a bad idea that something that is announced is in force from the second it was announced. Otherwise I would have for instance practiced on a different 4x4 for this weekend's competition.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Apr 4, 2014)

Stefan said:


> So whether I can compete in Megaminx depends on the mood of the delegate (cause of the slightly "too thick" Meffert tiles). Not exactly happy about that, but it's at least better than being always forbidden.


If any delegate does so, let the WRC know.

We're going to send out some details to the Delegates.




Stefan said:


> The "Guidelines" link goes to an obsolete version (and clicking "Regulations" there gets you to an obsolete version of the regulations).


Thanks. Fixed now.




Erik said:


> So... this is the end of Sébastiens draft? (http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...s-quot-Anything-Goes-quot-(WCA-Puzzle-Policy))
> 
> I think the draft (with some minor tweaks) was perfectly fine to implement and strongly disagree with the argument that it would need "intricate details" (had to google that) to be implemented.


It's not the end, but we are not adopting it for now.

I disagree that it's ready, but that's not a conversation for this thread. As I mentioned, feel free to continue discussing it.



Erik said:


> p.s. not happy about the exception for megaminx. Either allow it for all puzzles or for none. This doesn't make sense. Just the fact that these tiles occur "mostly" in megaminx doesn't mean that it can't occur at other events (or would suddenly be illegal for that matter).


Everyone would be unhappy about some variant of this. However, since almost everyone was concerned specifically about Megaminx, we felt is was reasonable to address that directly.



Erik said:


> Depending on the mood of the delegate (and depending of wether he has such a thing on him: http://www.promotionalpromo.com/Upfiles/Prod_q/Ruler___Calibration_Ruler_7056.jpg) I can compete in 4x4 or not. Also I think it's a bad idea that something that is announced is in force from the second it was announced. Otherwise I would have for instance practiced on a different 4x4 for this weekend's competition.


Actually, tiles over 1.5mm were not for 4x4x4 allowed in the past. From the 2010-2012 Regulations:



> 3f)	Stickers/tiles/textures/paint must not be thicker than 1.5 mm, or the generally available thickness for non cube puzzles.



If your tiles are just a bit thicker, no Delegate should ever allow them.
The intention is now a bit more clear: thick tiles are not allowed, except on Megaminx (for legacy reasons). The WRC sees thick tiles as a slight unfair advantage.

I'm sorry for the slightly quick announcement. Tim wasn't available for updating the Regs, and I have had a busy period. Everyone's differing, emotional view points also made me wary of spending too much time on anything than replying to concerns on the other thread.
I posted in the other thread as soon as I was working on this. In addition, everything is basically unchanged from the grace period. Discussions for alternatives can still continue.


----------



## reyrey (Apr 5, 2014)

Just to make something clear:
3d) Puzzles must have coloured parts, which must be one of the following: coloured stickers, coloured tiles, coloured plastic, or painted/printed colours. All coloured parts of a puzzle must be made of a similar material.
3h2) Puzzles whose coloured parts are visible inside the puzzle are not permitted.

So basically, like before, stickerless cubes (e.g http://www.dayancube.com/sites/defa...an-5-ZhanChi-3-3-3-Brain-Teaser-23-Cube-3.jpg) are still illegal, right?
(Colors are noticeable from inside)

Seems to come from that, and also from how 3h2 changed:
3h2) Puzzles whose face colours are visible inside the puzzle (e.g. "stickerless cubes" with colored plastic instead of stickers/tiles) are not permitted.
to
3h2) Puzzles whose coloured parts are visible inside the puzzle are not permitted.
Which just removed the example, which is exactly the same rule.


----------



## Dene (Apr 6, 2014)

Yes, "stickerless" cubes are still illegal.

The rule was modified because there is at least one example of a cube around now with plastic tiles: the new Rubik's brand cube.


----------



## Erik (Apr 7, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Everyone would be unhappy about some variant of this. However, since almost everyone was concerned specifically about Megaminx, we felt is was reasonable to address that directly.



This does not make sense to me whatsoever. Why would someone be upset if tile thickness was 2mm for instance?



Lucas Garron said:


> Actually, tiles over 1.5mm were not for 4x4x4 allowed in the past. From the 2010-2012 Regulations:
> 
> If your tiles are just a bit thicker, no Delegate should ever allow them.
> The intention is now a bit more clear: thick tiles are not allowed, except on Megaminx (for legacy reasons). The WRC sees thick tiles as a slight unfair advantage.



The issue of how to measure took the delegates at De Wilg Open this weekend hours of their time. Because of the announcement the delegates felt the need to actually measure my tiles. One of the delegates went to a hardware shop to find something with which he could determine thicknessess of 0.1 millimeters. He did not find anything. How do you plan this to be enforced? Equip all delegates with metric laser measurement devices?

In the end we ended up comparing tiles from a mefferts megaminx to my 4x4 tiles. The final decision was made solely by estimating by eye that the tiles were equally thick. If I wanted to be really annoying I could've said this is not the appropriate way to do it, since no form of measuring took place and there was no proper way it could be proven that the tiles in question were too thick. Since I did not want to waste any further time of the delegates I decided I settled for borrowing one of Geert's cubes. (reminder: "innocent until proven otherwise")

I would like to ask you again why you kept these unlogical, unpractial and incosistent regulations even though the majority of the delegates did not agree on this. This was the perfect opportunity to settle things straight and make some improvements.

Again: banning unproven theoretical advantages is neither fair, nor practical. To me and a lot of others this sounds like the way of thinking of a *theoretical m**athematician *rather than the way of thinking that should be applied: fair, easy to enforce, logical, practical.

p.s. kinda funny that about 3 board members and like 20 delegates did not catch this possible illegal cube then. Btw cubes like this: http://www.mefferts.com/products/photos/233_big.jpg have been widely used in a possible illegal way by numerous cubers as well then for 4x4 and 5x5.


----------



## GoldenPhoenix (Apr 21, 2014)

One question I have, is why something stickerless would need to be banned, it takes approx. (within .001 seconds) the same amount of time to misalign the layers to check the back as it does to tilt the cube slightly to see the back side. In addition, it takes longer to realign the layers and then start an alg than to simply start the algorithm. Tilting the cube is a simple thing to do, and the algorithm can be started from the tilted position, whereas the misalignment of layers is (or at least seems to be) slightly clunky and hindering for the start of new turns. If it is because of misalignment during inspection time, turning of the layers is illegal during such time anyway.


----------



## Rocky0701 (Apr 22, 2014)

GoldenPhoenix said:


> One question I have, is why something stickerless would need to be banned, it takes approx. (within .001 seconds) the same amount of time to misalign the layers to check the back as it does to tilt the cube slightly to see the back side. In addition, it takes longer to realign the layers and then start an alg than to simply start the algorithm. Tilting the cube is a simple thing to do, and the algorithm can be started from the tilted position, whereas the misalignment of layers is (or at least seems to be) slightly clunky and hindering for the start of new turns. If it is because of misalignment during inspection time, turning of the layers is illegal during such time anyway.


That is a great question. One that cannot be answered, because the "no stickerless" rule is dumb.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Apr 22, 2014)

Let's try summing things up.



GoldenPhoenix said:


> One question I have, is why something stickerless would need to be banned, it takes approx. (within .001 seconds) the same amount of time to misalign the layers to check the back as it does to tilt the cube slightly to see the back side. In addition, it takes longer to realign the layers and then start an alg than to simply start the algorithm. Tilting the cube is a simple thing to do, and the algorithm can be started from the tilted position, whereas the misalignment of layers is (or at least seems to be) slightly clunky and hindering for the start of new turns. If it is because of misalignment during inspection time, turning of the layers is illegal during such time anyway.



Well, they they haven't really been explicitly banned; they've just never been allowed. We need a good reason to change the policy to start allowing them, and the reasons have never been "good enough". In order to keep it practical for Delegates and competitors to judge what is legal, we have usually stayed conservative if there anything controversial about some feature (i.e. advantage) of a puzzle.

Aligning/misaligning layers or tiling the cube does take time, but that is not the only concern. The WRC/Board aren't a single entity with an overbearing opinion, but *concerns might include*:
- It is definitely possible to see "back" colors on the last layer more easily from holding the puzzle from some angles.
- It is possible to see the back colors of F2L edges while turning the top.
- The larger amount of color on each side (and no interior "plastic") color make it simpler to see the colors.

Any of these may be used to your advantage intentionally or unintentionally. Since the this could be unconscious, and cannot be blind-tested, it would be very hard to prove/disprove whether it makes a difference in your solving.

In addition, I have to keep bringing up *the fallacy that if something doesn't save the competitor a lot of time then it should be allowed*. (To pick an example off the wall: allowing a competitor to bring a list of ZBLL algs to the table also probably wouldn't save them time, but I think most people would agree that this should not be allowed.)

Competitors use cubes because they like them, which you can think of has having their favorite "advantages" over, say, a stock Rubik's brand. Some of these, like a better mechanism and lubing, have always been okay.
Perhaps people just like "stickerless" cubes because they literally prefer not to have stickers. Maybe a better version of the new Rubik's speedcubes would satisfy them.
Or maybe they actually prefer seeing colors more easily. (This may not be a conscious thing; it may be that the cube "feels" faster and easier to use. My stickerless cube definitely felt that way when I first tried it.) In that case, *these cubes *do* give them an advantage over regular cubes*. For all we know, some competitors would benefit from this advantage, and we haven't explicitly decided that this is okay.

It's already hard enough to judge whether the advantages of current stickerless cubes are fair -- partially because we don't have definitions (e.g. fair compared to what?).
If we make a reckless change to allow them, we might find ourselves having to decide this all over again. Even if we want to have an "anything goes" policy, the Regulations might get more complicated -- or their interpretations could.
(What if someone makes a cube with cubies that are so rounded that you can almost always see the back side?)

So, to answer your "question" more directly: *Because they have always been "banned". They can provide some advantages, and the Board/WRC have not conclusively decided that it is fair to allow competitors to have those potential advantages. Part of this is the motivation to keep the Regulations as simple as possible, so that they are easier to interpret (especially for Delegates).*



Rocky0701 said:


> That is a great question. One that cannot be answered, because the "no stickerless" rule is dumb.


It *can* be answered. There are reasons on both sides.

I could also call your statement dumb, and that wouldn't get us anywhere.



Things can change, but we need to have productive discussions. Those belong in other threads right now.
I'm trying to get WRC stuff going so that stickerless cubes (and/or general puzzle changes) will be put to a Delegate vote this year.


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 22, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Things can change, but we need to have productive discussions. Those belong in other threads right now.
> I'm trying to get WRC stuff going so that stickerless cubes (and/or general puzzle changes) will be put to a Delegate vote this year.



I'm wondering what the response would be from speed cubers if you asked them anonymously "If stickerless cubes were allowed, would you likely use them in competition." The results would be interesting.


----------



## Erik (Apr 22, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Things can change, but we need to have productive discussions. Those belong in other threads right now.
> I'm trying to get WRC stuff going so that stickerless cubes (and/or general puzzle changes) will be put to a Delegate vote this year.



First of all: it would be nice to get some kind of feedback on my previous post. The delegates at the competition and me think these issues need further discussion.

Second. Thanks for informing us about this github item. Transparency is a necessary step in improving the WCA to a better functioning body. Delegate voting is a way to get some decisions on 50-50 items. Though delegate voting is a step in the right direction to more fairness and 'democracy' I do urge the WRC/WCA to rethink about delegate voting. Not because I think it's bad, but because I think there are better groups of cubers to have the "right to vote" than all delegates. 

I am conviced a significant number of delegates does not posses the necessary knowledge or/and experience or/and skill to be able to make the right choices here. There are a lot of experienced cubers out there whose opinion is much more valuable than those delegates I am talking about. Interpreting regulations and making decisions based on regulations is a whole different world than actually understanding the community and even another world than knowing what is good for the community.




DeeDubb said:


> I'm wondering what the response would be from speed cubers if you asked them anonymously "If stickerless cubes were allowed, would you likely use them in competition." The results would be interesting.



Define "speed cubers". If you would ask all speedcubers what they think about adding 2x2 OH+BLD while underwater you might as well get more than 50% pro, even though it would be a horrible event to add for a gazillion reasons.


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 22, 2014)

Erik said:


> Define "speed cubers". If you would ask all speedcubers what they think about adding 2x2 OH+BLD while underwater you might as well get more than 50% pro, even though it would be a horrible event to add for a gazillion reasons.



Actually, I was thinking the other direction. It's not necessarily desired, but I think many cubers would feel like they would be at a disadvantage NOT using it, so many would feel forced to switch.

EDIT: I also think you are making a pretty strong assumption about the intelligence and foresight of the average speed cuber  I really don't think many would be pro underwater OH BLD


----------



## Erik (Apr 22, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> Actually, I was thinking the other direction. It's not necessarily desired, but I think many cubers would feel like they would be at a disadvantage NOT using it, so many would feel forced to switch.
> 
> EDIT: I also think you are making a pretty strong assumption about the intelligence and foresight of the average speed cuber  I really don't think many would be pro underwater OH BLD



Just to be clear: I do think stickerless cubes should be allowed!

About the intelligence and foresight: Maybe I do, but then again, maybe not. Most cubers are not even 16+ nowadays (not that a 15 year old can't be intelligent). I sadly don't have the possibility to do some proper statistical analysis right now, but it wouldn't suprise me if 95% of all cubers haven't even attended 5 competitions. Also: the vast majority of cubers don't really care that much about how things are organized, they just want to have fun and solve their cubes.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Apr 22, 2014)

Erik said:


> First of all: it would be nice to get some kind of feedback on my previous post. The delegates at the competition and me think these issues need further discussion.



The current answer: Those puzzles should not be legal.
If you want to insist on using tiles close to 1.5mm, fine; make the Delegate go measure it. But the intention is to disallow such thick tiles, except for Megaminx.
(Vincent suggested to make the transition as simple as possible for the grace period/2013, so we kept 1.5mm. Otherwise, it would be 1mm.)

"Further discussion" of our future policy for puzzles will hopefully be led by Kit Clement in the next few months.



Erik said:


> Though delegate voting is a step in the right direction to more fairness and 'democracy' I do urge the WRC/WCA to rethink about delegate voting. Not because I think it's bad, but because I think there are better groups of cubers to have the "right to vote" than all delegates.
> 
> I am conviced a significant number of delegates does not posses the necessary knowledge or/and experience or/and skill to be able to make the right choices here. There are a lot of experienced cubers out there whose opinion is much more valuable than those delegates I am talking about. Interpreting regulations and making decisions based on regulations is a whole different world than actually understanding the community and even another world than knowing what is good for the community.



I also have several concerns about Delegate voting. However:

Delegates have the most experience with the Regulations and how to enforce/interpret them.
Delegates are already a specially vetted set of people involved with the WCA.
Delegates are privy to more detailed discussions on the Delegates list, often related to specific incidents that can addressed with Regulation changes (I don't like this, but I'm not sure we can change that very soon).
Delegates represent wide *international* experience.

We can revisit this once we have general user accounts on the WCA website. (In particular, that might allow us to get more impartial information about "community opinion".)
But I think Delegate votes are the best choice for now.


----------



## GoldenPhoenix (Apr 23, 2014)

> It's already hard enough to judge whether the advantages of current stickerless cubes are fair -- partially because we don't have definitions (e.g. fair compared to what?).
> If we make a reckless change to allow them, we might find ourselves having to decide this all over again. Even if we want to have an "anything goes" policy, the Regulations might get more complicated -- or their interpretations could.
> (What if someone makes a cube with cubies that are so rounded that you can almost always see the back side?)



You make a good point, with the whole post, but with this part in particular. This also explains why pillowed cubes are not allowed. I simply think (possibly erroneously) that an advantage so slight is less of a factor of solving time and more of a factor of data absorption. There is a physical limit to how fast the cube can actually be turned by a human being, and how fast humans can process data, there gets to be a point, which I think we have reached, or at least gotten close to, that picking up data sooner will not result in a faster time because the instructions through the nervous system take time to be executed, rendering the acquisition of such data at a higher speed moot. (in short, I doubt that anyone will make it below a 4 second solve, and i find it highly unlikely that the current record will be beaten any time soon, the ease of knowing the state of the puzzle won't change the speed noticeably)


----------



## Erik (Apr 23, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> The current answer: Those puzzles should not be legal.
> If you want to insist on using tiles close to 1.5mm, fine; make the Delegate go measure it. But the intention is to disallow such thick tiles, except for Megaminx.
> (Vincent suggested to make the transition as simple as possible for the grace period/2013, so we kept 1.5mm. Otherwise, it would be 1mm.)
> 
> "Further discussion" of our future policy for puzzles will hopefully be led by Kit Clement in the next few months.



You failed to answer the core of my post at all. I don't see any justification or remotely good reason in keeping it the way it is besides "it's easy because it is the way it already is". I'm seriously starting to doubt if the WRC is actually understanding the community or know what is good for it. 
And thanks for the advice, next time I will make the delegate(s) measure (which is practically impossible to do as I explained before).




> I also have several concerns about Delegate voting. However:
> 
> Delegates have the most experience with the Regulations and how to enforce/interpret them.


You can most definitely not say this about a significant number of delegates. There are delegates who didn't even visit many more than 5 competitions. Mostly it's just the fact that they seem responsible and happen to live in a certain place which make them delegate. I'm not saying they can't do their job, but that there are more suited people.



> Delegates are already a specially vetted set of people involved with the WCA.



Yes, this is a practical advantage I agree.



> Delegates are privy to more detailed discussions on the Delegates list, often related to specific incidents that can addressed with Regulation changes (I don't like this, but I'm not sure we can change that very soon).


I'm not happy about this either. From what I have heared from several delegates though is that these discussions are mostly only led by a couple of delegates and that the vast majority doesn't say a word.



> Delegates represent wide *international* experience.


*laughs* this is a total non-argument. While this is true for the handfull of experienced delegates, most delegates merely delegate comps in their own country or the direct bordering countries. I don't need to tell you there are some competitors who have been to over 10 countries and 100+ competitions who are not a delegate.


Btw. Fun fact: this would mean that of the WRC only Vincent would be able to vote ;-)


----------



## Lucas Garron (Apr 23, 2014)

Erik said:


> You failed to answer the core of my post at all. I don't see any justification or remotely good reason in keeping it the way it is besides "it's easy because it is the way it already is". I'm seriously starting to doubt if the WRC is actually understanding the community or know what is good for it.
> And thanks for the advice, next time I will make the delegate(s) measure (which is practically impossible to do as I explained before).



The justification *is* that our puzzle policy is conservative.

I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but unfortunately I haven't really heard of anyone else in the community who really wants to use thick tiles for anything but Megaminx.
In particular, I created a poll in this subforum after people complained about the 2014 changes. Only 4 out of 108 people voted that they use a puzzle with tiles over 1mm.



Erik said:


> You can most definitely not say this about a significant number of delegates. There are delegates who didn't even visit many more than 5 competitions. Mostly it's just the fact that they seem responsible and happen to live in a certain place which make them delegate. I'm not saying they can't do their job, but that there are more suited people.


But these are specifically the people whose job it is to understand and enforce the Regulations. Even if they don't have so much experience, they have had to make sense of the entire Regulations and enforce them
I'm not inherently against other people, but this is a "pre-vetted" aspects of the Delegates.



Erik said:


> From what I have heared from several delegates though is that these discussions are mostly only led by a couple of delegates and that the vast majority doesn't say a word.


Yeah, that part is also annoying. It's pretty hard to know if a change would impact an isolated region of the world if those people don't frequent English-speaking forums and their Delegate doesn't respond on the list.

(It was really hard to get information on whether anyone in the world really uses , [r], * rotations for FMC.)



Erik said:



*laughs* this is a total non-argument. While this is true for the handfull of experienced delegates, most delegates merely delegate comps in their own country or the direct bordering countries. I don't need to tell you there are some competitors who have been to over 10 countries and 100+ competitions who are not a delegate.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood; perhaps I was ambiguous.

I don't mean that every Delegate has wide international experience; I meant that Delegates as a whole represent international experience.
By necessity, if something has happened at a competition in the world, *some* Delegate should know about it.
Delegates are also a fairly small set of people for whom this property (at least one member knows about any given part of the world) applies.

(Also, Delegates *on average* certainly have more international experience than most competitors.)



Erik said:



Btw. Fun fact: this would mean that of the WRC only Vincent would be able to vote ;-)

Click to expand...

I don't inherently mind that. It wouldn't even affect the vote much either way.

But I believe the votes should be public, and that every Board/WRC member should required to vote in order to disclose their stance.
(This is stated in the issue I linked to.)

If you care particularly much about Delegate voting, feel free to start a separate thread. We'd be happy to hear alternative proposals that are practical to implement, not too controversial, and wouldn't take too much time/work while we are already trying to set up Delegate voting.*


----------



## Erik (Apr 24, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> The justification *is* that our puzzle policy is conservative.
> 
> I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but unfortunately I haven't really heard of anyone else in the community who really wants to use thick tiles for anything but Megaminx.
> In particular, I created a poll in this subforum after people complained about the 2014 changes. Only 4 out of 108 people voted that they use a puzzle with tiles over 1mm.



I think Conversvative is just a hollow phrase here, maybe you still didn't really get what I was asking or argumenting (maybe I didn't explain well enough). Also I think you overestimate my own "win" here (it's not like I don't have other 4x4's). The thing I am worried about here is the way the decision was made (according to the delegates at the competitions there was a lot of negative feedback internally, which you ignored) and the reasons it was made for. The fact that the WRC made this decision even though it is totally impractical, has resistance among the delegates and in lesser amounts the plain unfairness are the reasons. 

Btw, the irony/hypocricy of not wanting to bad puzzles which suddenly have "0.x mm too thick" tiles, but thinking it is ok to let all delegates vote (suited or not), is not to be missed here.



> But these are specifically the people whose job it is to understand and enforce the Regulations. Even if they don't have so much experience, they have had to make sense of the entire Regulations and enforce them
> I'm not inherently against other people, but this is a "pre-vetted" aspects of the Delegates.



Just because it is their job, doesn't mean they are the best at doing it and certainly does not mean they are the best at doing something beyond enforcing regulations. You know as well as I do that the country/state the competitor lives in is a huge, if not the main, reason someone gets to be a delegate. For example Arnaud van Galen would be a great delegate, but he isn't because there are already 2 delegates in the Netherlands.



> Yeah, that part is also annoying. It's pretty hard to know if a change would impact an isolated region of the world if those people don't frequent English-speaking forums and their Delegate doesn't respond on the list.
> 
> (It was really hard to get information on whether anyone in the world really uses , [r], * rotations for FMC.)
> 
> ...


*

Access to knowledge about what is going on is just a result of the non-transparent way of the WCA-organisation itself. It does in no way garuantee that all delegates actually do know about what is going on (or has been going on for the past years).




(Also, Delegates *on average* certainly have more international experience than most competitors.)

Click to expand...


This claim is totally vague, unmeasurable and most importantly totally irrelevant. I think you know my point is that there are some competitors who's opinion is more valuable than those of some delegates. Maybe you don't like this since it means the WCA is not perfect, but it is the truth and it'd be a shame and another sign of lack of.




If you care particularly much about Delegate voting, feel free to start a separate thread. We'd be happy to hear alternative proposals that are practical to implement, not too controversial, and wouldn't take too much time/work while we are already trying to set up Delegate voting.

Click to expand...


Here it is: "use the right people for the right tasks to get the right result". Maybe this doesn't exactly suit your much time/work thing, but you shouldn't be scared of doing the right thing, just because it is not easy.*


----------



## Lucas Garron (Apr 24, 2014)

Erik said:


> Here it is: "use the right people for the right tasks to get the right result". Maybe this doesn't exactly suit your much time/work thing, but you shouldn't be scared of doing the right thing, just because it is not easy.



That quoted phrase almost sounds like an instruction to be politically manipulative.

In any case, we are *not* scared of doing the right thing just because it isn't easy.
Some of the 2014 changes were because they are the "right thing", not the popular/easy thing.
And right now, given the strong community preference for stickerless puzzles, we're trying to do the "right thing" by taking the time to get the puzzle regs right, instead of just putting into effect an "anything goes" change that might cause trouble down the line.

Responding a lot on this forum is also not "easy", but it is the right thing, because means our process/stance becomes more transparent about anything someone asks.


In any case, I've responded a lot on this thread.
If you'd like to discuss the puzzle policy, that is alright, but please focus on how to improve it instead of criticizing the past/current policy.
If you'd like to continue talking about Delegate voting, please post here or contact the WRC/Board.


----------



## Erik (Apr 24, 2014)

Not sure what you mean by "politically manipulative", I tried to compress exactly what is necessary into a single sentence. It may sound like common sense, but it looks like it is not being followed consistently. I'll look forward to further discuss in the other thread.

It is very nice to see that the discussion about for example stickerless cubes is continuing, I will do my best to contribute something to it.

I am sad though, that it is apparently not possible to get a clarification for the way things went. You failed to comment on my arguments/questions, and make me feel the WRC just does what it wants without needing to justify itself to the community or even their own delegates. 

The rules about tiles were quite ok and made sense, until you starting changing them back and forth. The only thing that was not right in the regulations was that the exception was only for megaminx. After all, other puzzles use about the same thickness of tiles as well (I've seen 3x3, 4x4, 5x5's, pyraminxes etc equiped with these). All delegates however did either not know or did not care about this. In reality the "or generally available thickness" rule applied for all puzzles (not only non-cubic) and was maintained this way, by all delegates and board members (afaik nobody ever got their cubes banned for their tile thickness). The way to improve the regs is to get rid of the exception and for example allow the "generally available thickness" for all puzzles. In this case criticizing/removing it = improving it.

Btw I do appreciate the fact that you respond a lot.


----------

