# Questionable wca regulations



## Future (May 30, 2021)

hello, like most cubers I love the WCA but I think we can all agree there are some pretty questinonable regulation I think we should tell the WCA which rules we want to change. comment what regulation you think should change below


----------



## PCCuber (May 30, 2021)

9i2) All the results of a round are considered to take place on the last calendar date of the round. If a regional record is broken multiple times on the same calendar date, only the best result is recognized as breaking that regional record.
I think that this should be changed, so that all regional records will be noted, no matter for how long.


----------



## Cubing Forever (May 30, 2021)

PCCuber said:


> 9i2) All the results of a round are considered to take place on the last calendar date of the round. If a regional record is broken multiple times on the same calendar date, only the best result is recognized as breaking that regional record.
> I think that this should be changed, so that all regional records will be noted, no matter for how long.


I feel sad for Keaton and yes, this should be changed.


----------



## povlhp (May 30, 2021)

And can we be allowed to put symmetric marks on center of all pieces of the white face ? Can’t be worse than the hint you get from chipped stickers.


----------



## ruffleduck (May 30, 2021)

None of the events in the poll should be added to the WCA. Mirror blocks is just a 3x3 shape mod and there aren't consistent, well-accepted proportions for the sizes of each layer across the various brands. Master pyraminx just combines two events that are in the WCA, pyraminx and 4x4 (which are two of the worst events IMO). 8x8-10x10 is probably the most pointless out of the three. At least mirror blocks has some shapeshifting stuff going on, and master pyraminx requires somewhat unique fingertricks. 8x8-10x10 is literally just 7x7 but longer. Even 7x7 is already kind of excessive, because it's just a bigger 6x6. Although I think 7x7 should be kept because of the parity (or lack of thereof) makes it more fun for some.


----------



## LBr (May 30, 2021)

zzoomer said:


> None of the events in the poll should be added to the WCA. Mirror blocks is just a 3x3 shape mod and there aren't consistent, well-accepted proportions for the sizes of each layer across the various brands. Master pyraminx just combines two events that are in the WCA, pyraminx and 4x4 (which are two of the worst events IMO). 8x8-10x10 is probably the stupidest out of the three. At least mirror blocks has some shapeshifting stuff going on, and master pyraminx requires somewhat unique fingertricks. 8x8-10x10 is literally just 7x7 but longer. Even 7x7 is already kind of excessive, because it's just a bigger 6x6. Although I think 7x7 should be kept because of the parity (or lack of thereof) makes it more fun for some.


Agreed, but I voted for master pyra just because it was the most sensible of the three


----------



## xyzzy (May 30, 2021)

Future said:


> I think we can all agree there are some pretty stupid regulation


In saying that the regulations are "pretty stupid", you're indirectly also implying that the many people (dozens? hundreds?) involved in writing the regulations were too dumb to think of the objections you could have brought up.

There's usually a deeper reason that [insert regulation you don't like] is the way that it is.

For example:


PCCuber said:


> 9i2) All the results of a round are considered to take place on the last calendar date of the round. If a regional record is broken multiple times on the same calendar date, only the best result is recognized as breaking that regional record.
> I think that this should be changed, so that all regional records will be noted, no matter for how long.


The WCA database does not track the exact clock time at which a solve is attempted. In the event that there are two competitions held on the same day in the same region, and two people break the old regional records _but at different times_, the database won't know who did it first, which is a vital piece of information to determine whether to award only one regional record or to award two. This doesn't even need to involve two competitions; it could even be two people in the same round of the same competition.

Requiring score taking to also include the clock time may significantly slow down competition progress, and there's still the risk of data entry mistakes.

*Edit to clarify*: I don't mean to say that the regulations are perfect or that it'd be presumptuous to make suggestions on how to change them. I'm just saying that, as an evolving document, the WCA regulations have had a lot of the obvious kinks ironed out over the years, and what might seem like an "obvious" suggestion could have non-obvious drawbacks. Maybe it's still a good suggestion! (Or maybe it's not!) The suggestions are definitely still worth discussing, anyhow.

See also: Chesterton's fence.

---



zzoomer said:


> Master pyraminx just combines two events that are in the WCA, pyraminx and 4x4 (which are two of the worst events IMO).


Oh, hard disagree. Master pyraminx solves are indeed somewhat similar to pyraminx solves, but unlike big cubes, it seems that the fastest method for master pyra _isn't_ reduction-based, and even master pyra reduction method isn't all that similar to big cubes reduction method.

It's "like" a 4×4×4 only in the sense that it has three cutting planes per axis (and one of the planes is for the trivial tips!), which seems like a very superficial sense of likeness.


----------



## Future (May 30, 2021)

zzoomer said:


> None of the events in the poll should be added to the WCA. Mirror blocks is just a 3x3 shape mod and there aren't consistent, well-accepted proportions for the sizes of each layer across the various brands. Master pyraminx just combines two events that are in the WCA, pyraminx and 4x4 (which are two of the worst events IMO). 8x8-10x10 is probably the stupidest out of the three. At least mirror blocks has some shapeshifting stuff going on, and master pyraminx requires somewhat unique fingertricks. 8x8-10x10 is literally just 7x7 but longer. Even 7x7 is already kind of excessive, because it's just a bigger 6x6. Although I think 7x7 should be kept because of the parity (or lack of thereof) makes it more fun for some.





LBr said:


> Agreed, but I voted for master pyra just because it was the most sensible of the three


I think you might dislike the new events i offerd but some people might like them


----------



## abunickabhi (May 30, 2021)

Future said:


> hello, like most cubers I love the WCA but I think we can all agree there are some pretty stupid regulation I think we should tell the WCA which rules we want to change. comment what regulation you think should change below


Could you rephrase the thread topic and your comment, to remove the word stupid. 

There are lot of other words that you can use if you want to address or challenge any bylaw or reg.

Also please maintain language on this forum, and do not judge anything without having the full knowledge of it.

Have a nice day!


----------



## Matt11111 (May 30, 2021)

Yeah there really isn't a need to add any bigger cubes than 7x7. Heck, if the list of events only went up to 5x5, I would say at most they should add one of 6x6 or 7x7. Anything bigger than that is just doing the exact same thing but for longer. As for the mirror cube, yeah like people have said, odds aren't good that it'll ever become an event because every brand on the market has different proportions. The solution isn't any different to a 3x3 either, so it wouldn't add anything to the WCA.


----------



## OreKehStrah (May 30, 2021)

povlhp said:


> And can we be allowed to put symmetric marks on center of all pieces of the white face ? Can’t be worse than the hint you get from chipped stickers.


You could just get a custom logo sticker made to have that if you wanted and it would be fine for all sighted events.


----------



## Kit Clement (May 30, 2021)

xyzzy said:


> The WCA database does not track the exact clock time at which a solve is attempted. In the event that there are two competitions held on the same day in the same region, and two people break the old regional records _but at different times_, the database won't know who did it first, which is a vital piece of information to determine whether to award only one regional record or to award two. This doesn't even need to involve two competitions; it could even be two people in the same round of the same competition.
> 
> Requiring score taking to also include the clock time may significantly slow down competition progress, and there's still the risk of data entry mistakes.



Additionally, this gives an inherent advantage to those closest to the date line on the side of the eastern hemisphere in being able to break records before comps start that weekend in other parts of the world. But your point is far more relevant.


----------



## kubesolver (May 30, 2021)

"All the results of a round are considered to take place on the last calendar date of the round."

Is it possible that some competitor is given an extra that takes place on the next day thus delaying any record that happened earlier that round?

My personal least favorite WCA regulation is 


> WCA Competition Requirements Policy
> 2. Location(s)
> 2.3 Competitions will be accepted regarding proximity if there are no other competitions within
> 100 km driving distance and less than 19 days away.



I have heard arguments from Kit on LBL podcast that he'd rather see this regulation even more strict.
If I remember correctly the arguments were that having too many competitions would make average competition smaller, therefor less attractive and possibly less appealing to newcomers and would limit the growth of speedcubing community. There was also an argument that allowing people more record-breaking attempts is somehow undesired.

In my experience the best thing for growth of local communities are fixed frequent (e.g. weekly) local tournaments that attract 10-30 people. The same venue, the same easy organization. An event where a sporadic traveler can meet the locals.

I don't think current bigger comps would suffer from that addition.

I also think it would even out the chances for all good people to get more records. The current situation massively favors people who have means (both in terms of money and time) to travel all over the world / continent attending every possible comp.


----------



## Romy4 (May 30, 2021)

zzoomer said:


> None of the events in the poll should be added to the WCA. Mirror blocks is just a 3x3 shape mod and there aren't consistent, well-accepted proportions for the sizes of each layer across the various brands. Master pyraminx just combines two events that are in the WCA, pyraminx and 4x4 (which are two of the worst events IMO). 8x8-10x10 is probably the most pointless out of the three. At least mirror blocks has some shapeshifting stuff going on, and master pyraminx requires somewhat unique fingertricks. 8x8-10x10 is literally just 7x7 but longer. Even 7x7 is already kind of excessive, because it's just a bigger 6x6. Although I think 7x7 should be kept because of the parity (or lack of thereof) makes it more fun for some.


Yes I agree! I was looking for a “none of the above”option


----------



## Tabe (May 31, 2021)

kubesolver said:


> "All the results of a round are considered to take place on the last calendar date of the round."
> 
> Is it possible that some competitor is given an extra that takes place on the next day thus delaying any record that happened earlier that round?
> 
> ...


I completely agree. The idea that more competitions is a negative makes no sense.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 31, 2021)

povlhp said:


> And can we be allowed to put symmetric marks on center of all pieces of the white face ? Can’t be worse than the hint you get from chipped stickers.


Why would you do this? Even if you did it because of colorblindness, that's already allowed.

As for a regulation I'd like to change, I don't really have any grievances that haven't already been aired in this thread. If I did have one thing to say I would put it out there that 7b is rarely followed (


> 7b) Spectators must remain at least 1.5 meters away from the solving stations when they are in use.


It's really annoying as staff and as a competitor when someone gets right up in front of the table to record a solve or something. I'm not sure how often it happens worldwide, but where I live it used to happen 3-5 times per event. It's very distracting for everyone involved. Thankfully when we started putting those queue barriers in front of the tables people started to back off.

But if adding a regulation is up for game, I'd suggest adding another regulation to Article 7 regarding judges being noisy and distracting. It's happened to all of us, You're just trying to do a solve and your judge happens to be cubing with an extremely loud puzzle. I was doing a 6x6 solve and my judge whipped out a skewb and started spamming sledges. It was beyond distracting. It's already pretty common courtesy to not do this, and often it just takes a staff member, organizer, or delegate to tell a judge to quit it and they stop. But making this into an official regulation can do even more in preventing behavior that's distracting.


----------



## povlhp (May 31, 2021)

I want markers so I can see difference between yellow and white in a room without bright light. If the color blind can mark pieces, why can't we all ? I know there is the suspicion people might make some they can recognize, thus knowing the backside of top pieces. But is this really a problem ? And why should colorblind have an advantage ?


----------



## mookiemu (May 31, 2021)

Center slice moves should count as one turn in fewest moves events.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (May 31, 2021)

mookiemu said:


> Center slice moves should count as one turn in fewest moves events.


They should absolutely not. A slice move is turning 2 layers at once just like a r is really turning L x. Just because M' is one motion does *not* mean it's one move. (I get that r isn't a perfect example because rotations don't count as move but the point was you're just combing multiple thing into one turn.)


----------



## BenChristman1 (May 31, 2021)

Sub1Hour said:


> As for a regulation I'd like to change, I don't really have any grievances that haven't already been aired in this thread. If I did have one thing to say I would put it out there that 7b is rarely followed (It's really annoying as staff and as a competitor when someone gets right up in front of the table to record a solve or something. I'm not sure how often it happens worldwide, but where I live it used to happen 3-5 times per event. It's very distracting for everyone involved. Thankfully when we started putting those queue barriers in front of the tables people started to back off.


At the comps here, they have 2-3 rows of chairs set up the required 1.5 meters away from the competitors, and it seems to keep the problem under control very well. Just make it clear at the beginning of every comp that you can’t go past the front row of chairs. If your local comps aren’t doing this, it might be something to being up to the delegates/organizers.


Sub1Hour said:


> But if adding a regulation is up for game, I'd suggest adding another regulation to Article 7 regarding judges being noisy and distracting. It's happened to all of us, You're just trying to do a solve and your judge happens to be cubing with an extremely loud puzzle. I was doing a 6x6 solve and my judge whipped out a skewb and started spamming sledges. It was beyond distracting. It's already pretty common courtesy to not do this, and often it just takes a staff member, organizer, or delegate to tell a judge to quit it and they stop. But making this into an official regulation can do even more in preventing behavior that's distracting.


Even though it’s never happened to me, I have seen this happen before, and I’m really disappointed in the people that do it. (Also, sorry for your experience; I assume that the skewb was an Aoyan, and that’s a _really_ noisy cube.) People shouldn’t have a cube or their phone out while they are judging, because that’s just really rude. I definitely agree that a regulation should be added to prevent this.


----------



## mookiemu (May 31, 2021)

Thecubingcuber347 said:


> They should absolutely not. A slice move is turning 2 layers a once just like a r is really turning L x. Just because M' is one motion does not men it's one move. (I get that r isn't a perfect example because rotations don't count as move but the point was you're just combing multiple thing into one turn.)


It all depends on how you look at it. If I turn just the center slice without turning the two sides, it's just one move. That's no different than an R turn. If you turn the right layer and the other two layers don't move, it's just one one move. But by the logic employed in making a center slice turn count as two moves even if the other two slices don't move is no different than counting a right turn as two moves even if the other two slices don't move. I can't really see the difference. If that's the case, why not then consider a cube turn as three moves? After all, all three slices are turning. It's all perspective.


----------



## ruffleduck (May 31, 2021)

mookiemu said:


> If that's the case, why not then consider a cube turn as three moves? After all, all three slices are turning. It's all perspective.


A "cube turn" (which is actually just called a rotation) doesn't change the state of the cube at all and exists only as a convenience. It's easier for many to write y R U R' U' than to have to convert it into B U B' U', for example.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 31, 2021)

mookiemu said:


> Center slice moves should count as one turn in fewest moves events.


If this was to be done, it should have been done from the beginning. It changes everything that has to do with FMC strategies/cube theory


----------



## minxer293 (May 31, 2021)

If you want a regulation changed, make a proposal about it on the WCA Forum. You'll have a much better chance of it actually being considered if you make a serious proposal there, rather than just stating your opinion in a random forum.


----------



## kubesolver (May 31, 2021)

minxer293 said:


> If you want a regulation changed, make a proposal about it on the WCA Forum. You'll have a much better chance of it actually being considered if you make a serious proposal there, rather than just stating your opinion in a random forum.


It isn't a random forum.
And it's a perfect place to discuss what regulation people dislike without actually starting political campaign to change them.

E.g I think it's a great place for me to state my dislike for the competition frequency limit. I should and would do much more research into the rationale behind this rule before posting an actual proposal to change it on the wca forum


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 1, 2021)

kubesolver said:


> In my experience the best thing for growth of local communities are fixed frequent (e.g. weekly) local tournaments that attract 10-30 people. The same venue, the same easy organization. An event where a sporadic traveler can meet the locals.
> 
> ...
> 
> I also think it would even out the chances for all good people to get more records. The current situation massively favors people who have means (both in terms of money and time) to travel all over the world / continent attending every possible comp.



Many people would see this as a major downside to lowering the competition frequency restrictions. Not all areas would be able to support weekly official events (venue availability, delegate availability, etc.), and so the frequency at which someone would get to compete would vary greatly. This is already true, but would be even more exaggerated if restrictions were dropped. Hyper-frequent comps were becoming more common in many places, but I distinctly remember Poland in 2014 having competitions nearly every weekend somewhere in the country, with many of the top competitors attending all of them. For that time, this was significantly more than most (if not all) other areas of the world. This was one of the reasons that the proximity policy was put in place - to help standardize access to competitions. Additionally, having hyper-frequent competitions (i.e. weekly) would honestly make competitions feel less like competitions. Competitions are set up to give you a handful of chances to break records or your own bests, which puts some amount of pressure on those solves and makes them feel more special. Having them every week in the same location doesn't make them feel so special anymore, and cheapens the atmosphere of that competition. 

Honestly, the current restrictions don't really get in the way of holding too many competitions that wouldn't have otherwise happened in my delegating experience. It was more of an issue in more populated areas (eastern US, some parts of Europe, etc.), but the rules have significantly relaxed since being introduced, and there are still ways to circumvent the restrictions if you have good reasons (e.g. non-overlapping events, twin competitions). It seems to me though that your main argument is that we should hold competitions far more regularly as if they were more like club meetings, but I strongly disagree with that notion.


----------



## kubesolver (Jun 1, 2021)

For some background: I am also from Poland and indeed the frequent competitions system is quite common here. I personally had quite a few competitive hobbies and most of them have enjoyed weekly or even more frequent local competitions. The others didn't due to too small player base (e.g. I was the only Go player in my hometown).



Kit Clement said:


> Having them every week in the same location doesn't make them feel so special anymore, and cheapens the atmosphere of that competition.


Yes, but.
It introduces an extra lower tier of competition that feels more like a friends meeting than huge convention.
That doesn't cheapen the atmosphere of those bigger convention-like events in any way.
World champs will always feel super-special regardless of how many weekly comps are there all over the world.



Kit Clement said:


> Additionally, having hyper-frequent competitions (i.e. weekly) would honestly make competitions feel less like competitions.
> (...) which puts some amount of pressure on those solves and makes them feel more special.


People do thousands solves a week. Few competitive solves every week will still feel special and those at major comps even more special.

In European football top players play 50 competitive games per year, and sometimes 3 games per week at the peak of the season. Each of these games definitely feels like a serious competition both to players and to thousands people watching them.



Kit Clement said:


> Competitions are set up to give you a handful of chances to break records or your own bests,


OK. I misunderstood that.
I thought the WCA competitions are in place to make sure the solves are performed and the records are broken under fair, standardized conditions and not to limit the ability of people to break records.



Kit Clement said:


> It seems to me though that your main argument is that we should hold competitions far more regularly as if they were more like club meetings, but I strongly disagree with that notion.


Yes, that's exactly my argument and thanks for taking your time to address it.


----------



## mookiemu (Jun 1, 2021)

kubesolver said:


> It isn't a random forum.
> And it's a perfect place to discuss what regulation people dislike without actually starting political campaign to change them.
> 
> E.g I think it's a great place for me to state my dislike for the competition frequency limit. I should and would do much more research into the rationale behind this rule before posting an actual proposal to change it on the wca forum


Exactly! Thank you. I am a Fewest Moves hobbyist and I am fond of center slice moves. But, I have no intention of competing. So it would be silly for me to submit a formal request. That doesn't mean I can't vent on a forum like this. On a side note, if I use center slice moves and count them as half turns, I average about 25-30 moves. lol.



WarriorCatCuber said:


> If this was to be done, it should have been done from the beginning. It changes everything that has to do with FMC strategies/cube theory


I know. It's just wishful thinking on my part.


----------



## Tabe (Jun 1, 2021)

Kit Clement said:


> Many people would see this as a major downside to lowering the competition frequency restrictions. Not all areas would be able to support weekly official events (venue availability, delegate availability, etc.), and so the frequency at which someone would get to compete would vary greatly.


I don't see why this would be a concern of the WCA. Artificially limiting the number of competitions in this manner seems to go directly against the WCA mission:



WCA Mission Statement said:


> Our mission is to have more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair and equal conditions.


I suppose the argument would be that "fair and equal conditions" would be violated by having very frequent comps in one area and less-frequent comps in another. I would argue that it's pretty clear "fair and equal conditions" in the mission statement is referring to the conditions of the competitions themselves - rule structure, scrambles, and so forth.



Kit Clement said:


> This was one of the reasons that the proximity policy was put in place - to help standardize access to competitions.


I don't see why this is a concern. It seems wrong to punish areas that can support frequent competitions simply because another area is not. Maybe the one area should work on growing their competitor base so they CAN support more comps?



Kit Clement said:


> Additionally, having hyper-frequent competitions (i.e. weekly) would honestly make competitions feel less like competitions.


Again, I don't see why this would be a concern of the WCA, especially when "more competitions" is right in the mission statement.



Kit Clement said:


> Competitions are set up to give you a handful of chances to break records or your own bests, which puts some amount of pressure on those solves and makes them feel more special. Having them every week in the same location doesn't make them feel so special anymore, and cheapens the atmosphere of that competition.


Disagree. They're still competitions, there's still pressure. 

More frequent competitions would grow the number of cubers, something that is directly in line with the mission of the WCA.

The major drawback to increasing competitions is access to delegates but that's a WCA issue. Currently, people are actively discouraged from trying to become delegates. Increased competitions would create a need for more delegates but would also increase the pool of people who could do the job.


----------



## xyzzy (Jun 1, 2021)

Tabe said:


> Currently, people are actively discouraged from trying to become delegates.


Wait, what? Do you have more details on this? (I guess I'm a bit out of touch.)


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jun 1, 2021)

povlhp said:


> I want markers so I can see difference between yellow and white in a room without bright light. If the color blind can mark pieces, why can't we all ? I know there is the suspicion people might make some they can recognize, thus knowing the backside of top pieces. But is this really a problem ? And why should colorblind have an advantage ?


If you can’t tell the difference then use my color scheme and your problem will be solved


----------



## Tabe (Jun 1, 2021)

xyzzy said:


> Wait, what? Do you have more details on this? (I guess I'm a bit out of touch.)


When I asked what the process was for becoming a delegate, specifically "How can I become a delegate?", the answer was "The best way to not become a delegate is to ask how to become a delegate."


----------



## Future (Jun 2, 2021)

kubesolver said:


> "All the results of a round are considered to take place on the last calendar date of the round."
> 
> Is it possible that some competitor is given an extra that takes place on the next day thus delaying any record that happened earlier that round?
> 
> ...


I can relate to this for I only go to comp about once a year because i live in small district off the cost of holland and dont have the time to got to comps which are hours away


----------



## cometcubes (Jun 3, 2021)

4b3e) 5x5x5 Cube, 6x6x6 Cube, 7x7x7 Cube, and Megaminx: sufficiently many random moves (instead of random state), at least 2 moves to solve.

...what?


----------



## ruffleduck (Jun 3, 2021)

Iblfhk said:


> 4b3e) 5x5x5 Cube, 6x6x6 Cube, 7x7x7 Cube, and Megaminx: sufficiently many random moves (instead of random state), at least 2 moves to solve.
> 
> ...what?


Those cubes are scrambled with random moves, and not random state. It would be computationally too taxing to generate a random state scramble for those cubes. Despite not being random state, the chances of getting a 2-mover on those puzzles are astronomically low. So that's not something you have to worry about.


----------



## Porcupine01 (Jun 3, 2021)

You cant use a smartcube, even if its dead/not paired to anything


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jun 3, 2021)

Porcupine01 said:


> You cant use a smartcube, even if its dead/not paired to anything


But there’s not a good way to tell if a smart cube’s battery is dead. Also, why use a smart cube if hardware for normal cubes is better?


----------



## Porcupine01 (Jun 3, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> But there’s not a good way to tell if a smart cube’s battery is dead. Also, why use a smart cube if hardware for normal cubes is better?


I'm just saying, why cant you use one, not that you would,but why cant you?


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jun 3, 2021)

Porcupine01 said:


> I'm just saying, why cant you use one, not that you would,but why cant you?


Once again, because it’s hard to tell if a smart cube is dead or if it’s not connected. It’s better to just play it safe and not allow them.


----------



## the dnf master (Jun 3, 2021)

Do any of you know someone who has competed as stateless?


----------



## ORTEGA (Dec 7, 2021)

The most important thing in a comp is that everyone gets the same chances obviously and in blind there's something that goes kinda against that.
When lifting the cover, your cube can be in any given orientation while commonly in blind methods everybody has one and only orientation ( color neutral blind might be a thing but...). So sometimes your hear a cuber say " I had good luck it was directly in the orientation I like".
I would like for the blind events with fixed centers to see it change so you can inform your judge which orientation you like or the scrambler even.
I don't know how practical it would be and we might need some regulated notations for it like :
Y for yellow
W for white
R for Red
G for Green
B for Blue
O for Orange 
and then you put it up like this: G-W => Green front and White Top
I know there are custom colored and scheme cubes so it would be a bit difficult.


----------



## GenTheThief (Dec 7, 2021)

ORTEGA said:


> The most important thing in a comp is that everyone gets the same chances obviously and in blind there's something that goes kinda against that.
> When lifting the cover, your cube can be in any given orientation while commonly in blind methods everybody has one and only orientation ( color neutral blind might be a thing but...). So sometimes your hear a cuber say " I had good luck it was directly in the orientation I like".
> I would like for the blind events with fixed centers to see it change so you can inform your judge which orientation you like or the scrambler even.
> I don't know how practical it would be and we might need some regulated notations for it like :
> ...


Why limit it to the blind events? If I got my cube given to me in my preferred orientation in any event that would save me a second in inspection and possible let me inspect further. What about in 4BLD? There are no set centers but some people would get lucky and gave more pieces solved in their given orientation.

While it may seem unfair that some people get lucky, because everyone has the same chance of getting their preferred orientation, this is an unnecessary change that only adds extra work to the competition staff. In addition, think about the logistical mess that would occur if someone _didn't_ get their cube in their preferred orientation --you would have to verify that the cube wasn't in the orientation in the first place and that the competitor hadn't simply done a rotation if they picked it up, and then give them an extra. Think about how easy that would be to abuse, for example you saw some twisted corners you could tap the cube for a y rotation and then complain that it wasn't in your preferred orientation. You would get an extra attempt and avoid a bad scramble. That sounds like a massive hassle just to equalize a rotation that takes 0.5 seconds.


----------



## ORTEGA (Dec 7, 2021)

I assumed it would be difficult but never thought about abusing it, meh .
Forgive my zeal


----------



## Sajwo (Jan 2, 2022)

ORTEGA said:


> The most important thing in a comp is that everyone gets the same chances obviously and in blind there's something that goes kinda against that.
> When lifting the cover, your cube can be in any given orientation while commonly in blind methods everybody has one and only orientation ( color neutral blind might be a thing but...). So sometimes your hear a cuber say " I had good luck it was directly in the orientation I like".
> I would like for the blind events with fixed centers to see it change so you can inform your judge which orientation you like or the scrambler even.
> I don't know how practical it would be and we might need some regulated notations for it like :
> ...



It used to be like that for years. You could request your cube to be placed in a specific orientation in all BLD events including MBLD. They switched to random orientation around 2013. I do not agree with you that not everyone get the same chances though, because you could always be color neutral. Don't know how hard it would be in 3BLD, but I don't think it should even matter.


----------



## eyeoh (Apr 19, 2022)

I'm gradually getting more serious with 3bld (serious enough anyway that I now use 3-Style) and luck with starting orientation is the least of my concerns. If preset orientations were to be a thing, it'd just make organising of the event more difficult/cumbersome (think clock*). This in turn would make organisers and delegates less willing to put on 3bld as a regular event.

* I like clock, but it wasn't until I scrambled for the first time that I realised how 'stressful' it is to set everything up behind the scenes - frankly, it's more relaxing to do official clock solves on stage than it is to scramble it. Scrambling clock at home is easy enough, but having to do it from a (shared) sheet with 7 rows of scrambles in a not-entirely predictable order (i.e., clocks coming in after various attempts) is less straightforward to do quickly with high accuracy unless you're around sub-10 or so. Oh also, even though most clock competitors now use the QiYi clock, setups between them vary wildly and some are way too gummy/lubey to my liking, so that's another compounding factor that means I scramble slower at comp than at home. Anyway, this is clock; but just a point to highlight that seemingly small changes can affect a lot of things down the track.


----------

