# WCA 2016 Regulation Change Ideas



## peedoo72 (Jan 2, 2016)

Title says it all, If you want a change in the WCA then put it here. If you like someone's idea, quote it and put "+1". Maybe WCA will implement these changes in 2016!!


----------



## penguinz7 (Jan 2, 2016)

remove feet. don't hate me people


----------



## Jbacboy (Jan 2, 2016)

Add an event. Idc which


----------



## AlexMaass (Jan 2, 2016)

remove clock

totally no bias with me hating clock


----------



## jonlin (Jan 2, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> remove clock
> 
> totally no bias with me hating clock



Totally not :^)


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jan 2, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> remove clock
> 
> totally no bias with me hating clock



what's wrong with clock?


----------



## Berd (Jan 2, 2016)

I think the M slice +2 rule should be changed, but that's just me.


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 2, 2016)

Jbacboy said:


> Add an event. Idc which



No. Just no.

We already have enough (maybe even too many) official events. 

Maybe we could add 1 or 2 more if there would be some very popular puzzles that people widely solved competitively already (but even then I'm not sure if we should) BUT just saying "add an event because I want moar events. I don't even care what event it will be" is just flat out nonsense to me.



Also for removing clock I have mixed feelings:
1. I really think it shouldn't be an event because it's not a twisty puzzle at all.
2. I hate the idea of removing events because some people have used many many hours practising those events and just randomly deciding that "your event is removed and all your practise was futile after all" seems really unfair to me...


----------



## AlexMaass (Jan 2, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> what's wrong with clock?



I hate it.

I'm slow at it, I'm not a fan of the turning compared to other WCA puzzles, and recognizing where the arrows are pointing exactly is slow compared to other WCA puzzles.


----------



## Sajwo (Jan 2, 2016)

I thought this would be serious thread, but it seems that a lot of people just want to mock on the events that they don't like/they suck in them (sad true)

- Feet format should be changed into av5
- 4BLD and 5BLD events should have recognised mo3 in official rankings


----------



## Myachii (Jan 2, 2016)

Sajwo said:


> - Feet format should be changed into av5



I'm more towards removing Feet in general, but if it isn't removed then it should definitely be changed to Ao5. If you pop during a solve it's basically game over. Same with twisted pieces.

All the other events have enough support to be kept imo.


----------



## AlexMaass (Jan 2, 2016)

Sajwo said:


> I thought this would be serious thread, but it seems that a lot of people just want to mock on the events that they don't like/they suck in them (sad true)
> 
> - Feet format should be changed into av5
> - 4BLD and 5BLD events should have recognised mo3 in official rankings


I'm not really mocking clock at all, I'm just stating why I'm not a fan of clock.

I guess adding an average of 5 format is reasonable, if organizers disagree with this, then don't hold a comp with feet average of 5, do best of 1, 2, 3, or even 0.

Also, median of 3 could be a possible idea, but I'm not sure about this


----------



## Cale S (Jan 2, 2016)

add 4BLD/5BLD mo3

everything else is fine


----------



## penguinz7 (Jan 2, 2016)

Sajwo said:


> I thought this would be serious thread, but it seems that a lot of people just want to mock on the events that they don't like/they suck in them (sad true)
> 
> - Feet format should be changed into av5
> - 4BLD and 5BLD events should have recognised mo3 in official rankings


I'm not sure who specifically you're talking about, but I'm in no way "mocking on" feet. I am serious that it should be removed. There's been a fair bit of controversy on it ever since it was added, there are several aspects of it I don't like, but that's not my entire reasoning. Avg5 would be a good alternative though..


----------



## muchacho (Jan 2, 2016)

Berd said:


> I think the M slice +2 rule should be changed, but that's just me.



Apparently not totally alone on this one.


----------



## ZZTrooper (Jan 2, 2016)

Berd said:


> I think the M slice +2 rule should be changed, but that's just me.



+1 For the roux users, which I am not one of.


----------



## Sajwo (Jan 2, 2016)

ZZTrooper said:


> +1 For the roux users, which I am not one of.



That would make totally no sense. It would also ruin some of the FMC results, because R L' is now considered as 2 moves (as it should be..)

-1


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 2, 2016)

Sajwo said:


> That would make totally no sense. It would also ruin some of the FMC results, because R L' is now considered as 2 moves (as it should be..)
> 
> -1



R L would still be considered two moves haha

Even though I use roux, I dont really care about the whole argument about M slice off being +2 and not DNF. if I get a plus two, then its gonna be the worst solve and I really dont care (since it would be no different than having a DNF). If its not somehow my worst solve, then thats my fault.


----------



## Sajwo (Jan 2, 2016)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> R L would still be considered two moves haha
> 
> Even though I use roux, I dont really care about the whole argument about M slice off being +2 and not DNF. if I get a plus two, then its gonna be the worst solve and I really dont care (since it would be no different than having a DNF). If its not somehow my worst solve, then thats my fault.



M is the same as x' R L', it would have to apply also to FMC.


----------



## penguinz7 (Jan 2, 2016)

Sajwo said:


> it would have to apply also to FMC.



Why? Not all 3x3 regulations apply to FMC.


----------



## muchacho (Jan 2, 2016)

M not being considered only 1 move comes from when doing it in 1 move was not "possible" because of the hardware?


----------



## Goosly (Jan 2, 2016)

penguinz7 said:


> Why? Not all 3x3 regulations apply to FMC.



+2 is for one-move-away-from-solved. If M off is a +2, then M is one move, which changes FMC.

Unless we make the +2 rule even more complicated.


----------



## Genius4Jesus (Jan 2, 2016)

Making M moves one move would also change optimal solutions, making certain (and previously legal) scrambles illegal.


----------



## MTGjumper (Jan 2, 2016)

Goosly said:


> +2 is for one-move-away-from-solved. If M off is a +2, then M is one move, which changes FMC.
> 
> Unless we make the +2 rule even more complicated.



Playing Devil's advocate for a second: it's really not that difficult to add in a clause saying that M/M'/M2 are each considered to be one move for the purpose of noon-FMC events, while emphasising that these are all considered two moves for the purpose of FMC.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 2, 2016)

penguinz7 said:


> Why? Not all 3x3 regulations apply to FMC.



well that would be changing the WCA metric from OBTM to STM which would affect all events of the specific puzzle, in this case 3x3


----------



## penguinz7 (Jan 2, 2016)

Goosly said:


> +2 is for one-move-away-from-solved. If M off is a +2, then M is one move, which changes FMC.





PenguinsDontFly said:


> well that would be changing the WCA metric from OBTM to STM which would affect all events of the specific puzzle, in this case 3x3


I'm not saying we should count M as one move, and saying we should let the definition of a +2 accommodate M moves. A +2 definitely does not specifically mean one move away from solzed. It is just a penalty given for doing something in a solve that is "incorrect".


----------



## Goosly (Jan 2, 2016)

penguinz7 said:


> A +2 definitely does not specifically mean one move away from solzed.



There are indeed a lot of +2 rules, but this is _the_ +2 rule for unsolved states, which actually does mention "one move":
_10e3) If one move is required, the puzzle is be considered solved with a time penalty (+2 seconds)._


----------



## Sajwo (Jan 2, 2016)

People just want more friendly regulations and to have easier on official attemts. It's totally fine as it is. It is also fair, even if you think it's not. You want a +2 when a cube is 2 moves away from solved, but you all are totally fine with the fact that +2 on 2x2 ruins everything. Shouldn't it be +1?


----------



## penguinz7 (Jan 2, 2016)

Sajwo said:


> People just want more friendly regulations and to have easier on official attemts. It's totally fine as it is. It is also fair, even if you think it's not. You want a +2 when a cube is 2 moves away from solved, but you all are totally fine with the fact that +2 on 2x2 ruins everything. Shouldn't it be +1?


Who said we are fine with +2's for 2x2? I completely agree with you here in thinking that it should be a +2. That issue just hadn't been brought up yet.



Goosly said:


> There are indeed a lot of +2 rules, but this is _the_ +2 rule for unsolved states, which actually does mention "one move":
> _10e3) If one move is required, the puzzle is be considered solved with a time penalty (+2 seconds)._



Yeah, I understand that, but again I'm not saying we should count an M as one move, but instead change this reg to include M moves.

This issue is getting a fair bit of controversy. but I think if we stay open-minded and try to consider what would be best for everyone we may be able to come up with a solution. Any new regulation or event added/removed can be argued about and not everyone will always agree, but I think if we stay open-minded and try to consider what would be best for everyone we can come up with a better solution.

Maybe we should make a poll on this, there seems to be a pretty even number of people who disagree/agree.


----------



## Sajwo (Jan 2, 2016)

penguinz7 said:


> Yeah, I understand that, but again I'm not saying we should count an M as one move, but instead change this reg to include M moves.
> 
> This issue is getting a fair bit of controversy. but I think if we stay open-minded and try to consider what would be best for everyone we may be able to come up with a solution. Any new regulation or event added/removed can be argued about and not everyone will always agree, but I think if we stay open-minded and try to consider what would be best for everyone we can come up with a better solution.



Regulations is not about being best for everyone (you mean for Roux users), they are about being logic and fair. If you want regulations to be good of all the people, let's just remove the +2 rule and replace it with a +0.25


*edit; I agree with the pool thing. We should collect all the ideas and put them all in a new thread with a pool*


----------



## muchacho (Jan 2, 2016)

It would be more logic if 1 move away from being solved were a DNF instead of +2. Problem solved.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jan 2, 2016)

Sajwo said:


> People just want more friendly regulations and to have easier on official attemts. It's totally fine as it is. It is also fair, even if you think it's not. You want a +2 when a cube is 2 moves away from solved, but you all are totally fine with the fact that +2 on 2x2 ruins everything. Shouldn't it be +1?



I'm at a competition right now. They made 2x2 have a 6 second soft cutoff (which imo was way too harsh, even if we were behind schedule). My first solve was bad, I got an 8. On my second solve, I got a 4. Except, it was a +2, and I didn't make a 6 second cutoff because of a +2. This is stupid. I personally think that cutoffs should just be to make the competition run smoother, and not to make competitors not be able to compete just because. If someone gets a +2, maybe it should be considered as the normal time for cutoff purposes? Probably bad idea.


----------



## penguinz7 (Jan 2, 2016)

Sajwo said:


> Regulations is not about being best for everyone (you mean for Roux users), they are about being logic and fair. If you want regulations to be good of all the people, let's just remove the +2 rule and replace it with a +0.25



Yes, they are very much about being logical and fair. But isn't that what we're trying to fix? In a Roux solve, an M move is pretty much equivalent to a U move. They're both AxF's. So to make it fair shouldn't we make them an equal penalty? To be honest I don't know why so many of you are against this idea, the only way it could effect us non-rouxers is people who use roux would get a tiny tiny bit faster. But if most people are against this idea, then that's fine, I don't think very many people care very much. 

Smaller penaltys for pyra/skewb too!


----------



## Sajwo (Jan 2, 2016)

penguinz7 said:


> Yes, they are very much about being logical and fair. But isn't that what we're trying to fix? In a Roux solve, an M move is pretty much equivalent to a U move. They're both AxF's. So to make it fair shouldn't we make them an equal penalty? To be honest I don't know why so many of you are against this idea, the only way it could effect us non-rouxers is people who use roux would get a tiny tiny bit faster. But if most people are against this idea, then that's fine, I don't think very many people care very much.
> 
> Smaller penaltys for pyra/skewb too!



Because the only reason for making such an exception in the +2 rule is that... it would be nice. There are no other, logical reasons


----------



## penguinz7 (Jan 2, 2016)

Sajwo said:


> Because the only reason for making such an exception in the +2 rule is that... it would be nice. There are no other, logical reasons



I was thinking it would make things a little more fair for Roux users, but thinking about it a litte more, I doubt more then a handful care at all.Other then that you are completely right. Wait what's a handful of roux users?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 2, 2016)

+2 for slices cause they are 1 move when speedsolving.

You can keep the FMC with OBTM if you want but STM makes way more sense for speedsolves.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Jan 2, 2016)

Feet ao5, 4bld and 5bld mo3, add an event (like cuboid or mts or mirror blocks or anything), don't make changes that limit competitors.

For those wishing to remove events that they aren't even good at: some people are good at these events, let them speak, if they thinks it's a dumb event and should be removed, then it probably should. (Good example: Magic/master magic)

My view on +2: remove it, but that's not even physically possible with the attitude of Cubers. It's a good rule as is, nuff said. Also: if M was +2, what about for big cubes? Would Uw U' be +2? What about Uw U' Dw' D? Or 3U U'?


----------



## AlexMaass (Jan 2, 2016)

3x3 slice moves should count as +2, they don't even give penalties for it in 2x2, totally unfair /s

But seriously, I guess making slice moves +2 would be okay, not sure if M2 should have +2 too (maybe +4) .

Would this affect not just NxNxN puzzles, but also Square-1 and Pyraminx. 

Having this for feet could be a bad idea, since its hard to do a slice move sub-2, so people would just +2.


----------



## Matt11111 (Jan 2, 2016)

Make solves off by slice moves a +2, remove Clock and feet, if a cube pops, you should get an extra attempt (accidents happen, my dad's idea, not mine), add an event for some sort of small, non-trivial cuboid, add a shape mod as an event, forget about cutoff times (again, my dad's idea, he thinks that you should be able to finish your average no matter how badly you do, but THE SCHEDULE. OH MY, THE SCHEDULE WILL BE SO OFF).


----------



## Cale S (Jan 2, 2016)

Matt11111 said:


> if a cube pops, you should get an extra attempt



"This solve is really bad, if I pop my cube I'll have an extra attempt and get a better solve"


----------



## penguinz7 (Jan 2, 2016)

Matt11111 said:


> if a cube pops, you should get an extra attempt (accidents happen, my dad's idea, not mine),



what's to stop people from popping their cube in purpose if they get a bad solve?

edit: ninja'd


----------



## Ronxu (Jan 2, 2016)

Add teraminx and remove 3x3. +4 penalty for using roux or hoya. 4 rounds of feet is mandatory for all competitions. Ban Feliks because I can't WR.


----------



## cubernya (Jan 2, 2016)

Sajwo said:


> - Feet format should be changed into av5
> - 4BLD and 5BLD events should have recognised mo3 in official rankings


Agree on both points.


----------



## Matt11111 (Jan 3, 2016)

Cale S said:


> "This solve is really bad, if I pop my cube I'll have an extra attempt and get a better solve"



OK, it was my dad's idea, not mine. I told him that. Just thought I would include it.


----------



## Dene (Jan 3, 2016)

This spamthread is completely pointless. 

Also, it was decided recently that nothing will change with feet, so no, it won't be removed, nor made to average of 5.

And middle slices will not be made +2. More likely +2 for misalignment will be removed entirely, but the WCA Board don't yet have the courage to implement it.


----------



## AlexMaass (Jan 3, 2016)

Dene said:


> This spamthread is completely pointless.
> 
> Also, it was decided recently that nothing will change with feet, so no, it won't be removed, nor made to average of 5.
> 
> And middle slices will not be made +2. More likely +2 for misalignment will be removed entirely, but the WCA Board don't yet have the courage to implement it.


When/where was this decided? 

I'd be quite pissed if they removed +2 (I definitely wouldn't be the only one). I actually do think they should implement +2 for middle slices.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 3, 2016)

Dene said:


> This spamthread is completely pointless.



I wouldn't say "completely pointless".

But to anyone participating in this thread, please note that simply stating your opinion doesn't help very much. A single +1 doesn't really tell us anything, either.
Some things you can do to make a better case:


Give objective arguments in favor of a change.
Address arguments against the change.
Give *concrete* evidence about how many competitors would be positively affected by the change. (A poll helps, but the speedsolving.com population is biased to English-speaking cubers and Americans in particular.)
Don't just randomly suggest new events. Very few events make for good, serious ideas.
If you are serious about a particular idea, give it a separate thread with a focused discussion.

That said, you're welcome to throw out random half-baked ideas. But don't be surprised if they get ignored.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Jan 3, 2016)

Lucas Garron said:


> Give *concrete* evidence about how many competitors would be positively affected by the change. (A poll helps, but the speedsolving.com population is biased to English-speaking cubers and Americans in particular.)



+1, removing of an event literally doesn't help anyone, 4bld 5bld mo3 are already a thing that are kept on a seperate wca page, we are at this skill level as a community and it should be reconfirmed for those who have achieved his accomplishment.

But at the same time this mindset wouldn't remove +2 which is morally right IMO, but I would rather being it competitors than severely hurting others by removing an event, that's just to drastic and sad at this point in time.


----------



## ryanj92 (Jan 3, 2016)

people who think that a slice move away should be +2: do you think inner slices (a single slice, or multiple adjacent slices) on 4-7 should be +2 also? and also for OH and feet, where a slice move no longer 'feels' like a single move? i'm curious 

(also, imagine the implications of a cube off by an M2 now being valid for BLD )


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Jan 3, 2016)

Matt11111 said:


> if a cube pops, you should get an extra attempt (accidents happen, my dad's idea, not mine)


Article 5:


regulations said:


> In 'Average of 5' or 'Mean of 3' rounds solves with a puzzle defect may be exchanged by an extra attempt, depending on the announcement for the competition. There may be maximum 1 extra attempt per round.


Oops, sorry, that was the 2005 regulations I was looking at.

More seriously, that was tried and gotten rid of. For one thing, people realized that, even if popping isn't intentional, it's your own fault if you can't control your cube. And then people started making their cubes less poppy, and people got used to it. Also, yeah, the potential for abuse is really high. I can't remember any specific incidents where this happened as I wasn't a delegate back then, but I'm sure there would be incidents every week if we brought back pops.



Matt11111 said:


> forget about cutoff times (again, my dad's idea, he thinks that you should be able to finish your average no matter how badly you do, but THE SCHEDULE. OH MY, THE SCHEDULE WILL BE SO OFF).



Most venues don't really like it if you ask them to stay 3 hours late, so keeping to the schedule kinda matters.


----------



## DGCubes (Jan 3, 2016)

As far as new events go, I'm on the minority that thinks we should have more. TeamBLD, some cuboids, and maybe a shape-mod or two would be pretty nice, just to name a few basic ones.

As far as actual regulation changes go, I agree that 4BLD and 5BLD means should be recognized. Why are they not? It's just about the most impressive thing possible in cubing, and the people who do it aren't even officially acknowledged. 

I feel like they should change the requirements for scramble length as well. The fact that it is possible (albeit insanely unlikely) to get a 2 move 3x3 scramble in competition just seems wrong, especially because more simple events like 2x2 and Pyraminx require 4 and 6 moves respectively. I would argue that a 2 move scramble on 7x7 is MUCH more noticeable (even obvious to non-cubers) than a 2 move scramble on 2x2 (which is still easily noticeable, but not as much). It just seems wrong then that a 2 move scramble on 3-7 is allowed, yet 4 moves is necessary for 2x2. It just seems like reverse logic to me. Sure, it's unlikely, but imagine if it happened. The world records would become pointless.

That's about it. The WCA does seem to know what they're doing.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Jan 3, 2016)

As much as I'd love to see team bld, it'd be hard to implement with 2 people getting the result. Just a new change up that is unique and interesting, but I don't think our system would take well.


----------



## mitch1234 (Jan 3, 2016)

I haven't been on the forums in a while so seeing the first few pages of this thread was a horrible horrible read.

I would like to suggest a regulation about spectators. At US Nationals 2015 the amount of spectators greatly out numbered the competitors. During 3x3 and one handed events I had an extremely difficult time just getting to the competing area. Now this might have just been a natural because of the set up but I think if we can get parents/ spectators to sit down that would reduce competitor anxiety and congestion for competitors to walk. 

Here is the suggestion: If spectators are not following regulations with a minimum distance of 1.5 meters then the delegate can order all spectators to be seated and if they stand in front of a table to spectate a competitor after the delegate has given the warning for spectators to only sit then they will be asked to leave the venue. 

Parents that encourage their son/daughters hobby are great, but as an organizer I get very angry when parents are standing right in front of the table filming their child of a large ipad. 

I know this is kind of a strange suggestion but I found the spectator area at nationals to be a hazard and there should be something done about it to avoid things like that in the future.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 3, 2016)

Jaysammey777 said:


> +1, removing of an event literally doesn't help anyone, 4bld 5bld mo3 are already a thing that are kept on a seperate wca page, we are at this skill level as a community and it should be reconfirmed for those who have achieved his accomplishment.
> 
> But at the same time this mindset wouldn't remove +2 which is morally right IMO, but I would rather being it competitors than severely hurting others by removing an event, that's just to drastic and sad at this point in time.



Just to clarify, I didn't mean to imply that every change needs to benefit someone directly because they like it.
.
Removing events can help the WCA focus on the best set of events. (Although I personally don't believe we need to remove any current event. *Maybe* feet, but there's still a small core of people who take it seriously.)
And I personally believe removing +2 alignments is the right thing to do, because it's better for everyone. But that's not a discussion to be had here.

Basically, don't just say "I like this change". Explain why other should like it.

Anyhow, please do keep +1 and sarcastic posts off threads in the Regulations subforum.


----------

