# Do's and Don'ts during FMC



## Erik (Sep 9, 2014)

Hello,

I want to clear up some thing about things you can and cannot do during FMC. This is not a proposal. This is partly because not everyone is aware of it (even delegates), or because I am not sure myself whether things are allowed or not. If you are into FMC this might be an interesting read.

*1. Obligation of using the FMC notation sheet*
Background: Many of you are familiar with this handy piece of paper which has the scramble and some instructions on it, along with fields to fill in your name and 10 _ spots per line to write your moves (and rotations). This sheet makes it easier to check solutions and is a nice reminder of the way your solution has to be written down. 
At Euro's 2014 we all got a FMC notation sheet, after which I wondered if we were obliged to use this. Oliver Perge (delegate) thought we had to, although I am convinced we don't. 

I asked this, because sometimes your solution is on your 'notes sheets' and you don't have time to write down the solution on the 'official' notation sheet, or sometimes it can happen you write down your solution on the 'official' sheet and find a better solution. In both cases it's perfectly reasonable to not hand in your solution using the FMC notation sheet.

After checking the regs and discussing this issue with several other delegates I have come to the conclusion that it's not obligatory to use the FMC notation sheet, but it's recommended as it makes checking the solution easier. It's very important though, to make clear what is part of your solution and what isn't (ex: by putting a big circle around your solution, or by striping through any notes that are not part of your solution). Also: don't forget to write down your name on the 'notes sheet' if you choose to hand this one in. 

Btw: maybe E2c should state: "within or at 60 minutes" instead of "at". It would spare a guideline.

*2. The use of any other objects than your cubes*
The regs say you can use your 3 Rubik's cubes, paper, pens and coloured stickers (does white count as a colour as well?...). It does not say anything about a stopwatch or, mobile phone as a stopwatch, food or water. Still this part is a bit vague. At Euro's 2014 Henrik (delegate and judge for FMC) had us put our cell phones on the ground to prevent us using them. I am convinced we don't have to follow such instructions as long as we don't use our phones.
Whether we can use a stopwatch to keep track of the time or not, or use your mobile phone as one is also not clear to me. Sometimes the orga team even provides stopwatches on the tables and sometimes competitors bring stopwatches themselves.

*3. Use of cubes and stickers*
These questions came to my mind during FMC at German Nats. I checked them with the regs and am pretty sure my answers are correct, although some delegates might find this counterintuitive (especially the 2nd question)

- can we write on our cubes/stickers? (I think we can) The regs don't say anything about this.
- do we have to use our cubes in the ways we have during speedsolving? (Example: can we disassemble the cubes?) - I think the answer is no here. For example: with the new cubes it's really fast and easy to twist 2 corners in order to setup a case when looking for insertions. The regs don't state in which way we can use our cubes, just that we can have 3 of them.
*
4. Communication between competitors during FMC
*Often, before the event starts the judge or delegate states we all have to be quiet and can't talk once we start. Although it is common courtesy to not distract others or raise the suspicion of cheating, I am not sure 2k4


2k) The WCA Delegate may disqualify a competitor from the competition (i.e. from all events of the competition) if the competitor:
2k4) Interferes with, or distracts others during, the competition.
covers this enough since it's just a general remark and communication between 2 competitors is not necessarily distracting others. As long as they don't discuss the scramble/solution I don't see why it is not allowed. (that doesn't mean I think it should be) Maybe the regs should be a bit more precise on this at Article E. Remember: the remark that competitors can only talk with the judge is not in force at article E, since it's part of article A (Speedsolving).


----------



## Tim Major (Sep 9, 2014)

Erik said:


> I asked this, because sometimes your solution is on your 'notes sheets' and you don't have time to write down the solution on the 'official' notation sheet



I wrote down my 35 move solution in about 15 seconds at Australian Nationals, was scared for DNF as I ran out of time. Luckily I didn't DNF, but I had a correct 35 move solution written on the back. If we don't need to use this sheet I could've just done what you USED to do a circle my (tested) correct solution and saved the worry. Is this allowed?


----------



## Erik (Sep 9, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> I wrote down my 35 move solution in about 15 seconds at Australian Nationals, was scared for DNF as I ran out of time. Luckily I didn't DNF, but I had a correct 35 move solution written on the back. If we don't need to use this sheet I could've just done what you USED to do a circle my (tested) correct solution and saved the worry. Is this allowed?



Yes, why not? Nowhere it is stated that this sheet (which doesn't even exist according to the regulations) is the medium for your solution (some delegates tried to argue that this "FMC notation sheet" resembles your score sheets, which is also false since score sheets only exist in Article A). The only thing the regs say is that you should hand in a written solution. It doesn't say where you have to write it onto. The regs also state your name should be on it. Like I said though: it's important that anything that is NOT part of your solution is clearly not part of your solution on your sheet as well (I suggest a big circle around what is your solution and a big X through everything else, or even tear the rest off).



E2c) At 60 minutes, each competitor must give the judge a legibly written solution with the competitor's name, using the notation defined for Outer Block Turn Metric (described in Regulation 12a). Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 9, 2014)

If you ask me, FMC should be held as if it were a formal examination like we do in school. No communication between competitors, no mobile phones and other exam rules apply (adapted to FMC of course)

Disassembling and corner twisting your cubes should be legal. What's the problem with that?


----------



## EMI (Sep 9, 2014)

"each competitor must give the judge a legibly written solution" ... this sentence in itself seems vague to me, at least there should be something like "The solution has to be marked as such, if unclear it is DNF" added in my opinion.
Disassembling a cube should be fine, although (or because) this doesn't practially give you an advantage. I don't really see a problem here, though.
I am of the opinion that talking during the attempt should be forbidden. People sometimes are talking, even if it's not about the solution - but to make judging easier, I think you shouldn't be allowed to do so.
Nice thread, I haven't thought about some of this.


----------



## cubizh (Sep 9, 2014)

Nice post.


Erik said:


> *1. Obligation of using the FMC notation sheet*


I believe if there is a proper FMC sheet, it should be used by competitors. 
I tend to prefer the elegancy of a properly written and formatted solution that is the same for everyone and that facilitates the counting moves than a scribbled one in a piece of paper mixed with other writings, that the competitor highlights in some way (even though the regulations currently only requires a properly written solution and a name). 
On another note, if it's not used, it's sort of a waste of paper.



Erik said:


> Btw: maybe E2c should state: "within or at 60 minutes" instead of "at". It would spare a guideline.


I can't think of a reason for the usage of this wording at the moment, so I agree, this should be fixed.



Erik said:


> *2. The use of any other objects than your cubes*
> The regs say you can use your 3 Rubik's cubes, paper, pens and coloured stickers (does white count as a colour as well?...). It does not say anything about a stopwatch or, mobile phone as a stopwatch, food or water. Still this part is a bit vague.


I read this as you can use these items and nothing where you can measure time, otherwise E2b1) would be kind of irrelevant.


Erik said:


> *3. Use of cubes and stickers*
> These questions came to my mind during FMC at German Nats. I checked them with the regs and am pretty sure my answers are correct, although some delegates might find this counterintuitive (especially the 2nd question)
> 
> - can we write on our cubes/stickers? (I think we can) The regs don't say anything about this.
> - do we have to use our cubes in the ways we have during speedsolving? (Example: can we disassemble the cubes?) - I think the answer is no here. For example: with the new cubes it's really fast and easy to twist 2 corners in order to setup a case when looking for insertions. The regs don't state in which way we can use our cubes, just that we can have 3 of them.


My interpretation is you can do what you want with the items you are allowed to have, as long as you don't distract others, so rotating corners would probably be ok for this matter. Futher than that, I sense disassembling a cube / snapping pieces into place may distract others though.


Erik said:


> 4. Communication between competitors during FMC


I think the unwritten rule is to do the same kind of thing as in a school exam, where you are not allowed to chitchat even if it's not about the exam, as it is always distracting for others and another important thing is there is no way of verifying and judging that there is no scramble/solution communication by the official (specially if the competitors talk in code or judge only speaks a different language) so I think such requirement to be acceptable.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 9, 2014)

There is too much sense in this topic. We need some trolling /s

1. Obligation of using the FMC notation sheet
not obligatory to use the FMC notation sheet, but it's recommended as it makes checking the solution easier. 


2. The use of any other objects than your cubes
I could write an app for my phone that looks like a stopwatch but actually takes pictures, calculates a solution and displays that in a corner somehow
I prefer to take the "it's like an exam" approach for 2 and 4 to avoid cheating


3. Use of cubes and stickers
Of course white is a color and we should be able to do whatever we want with these items (but not other items). Sometimes I remove some corners from my cube so I can better see the edges. As long as you don't disturb others


----------



## Ranzha (Sep 9, 2014)

As someone who has always disassembled cubes during FMC, I find it to be a worthwhile strategy in finding insertions. Since the regs don't specify in what manner the cubes can be used, as long as I don't use any unauthorised materials during the attempt, disassembly should be fine.

Perhaps we should ask: at what point is a cube a cube? Only when assembled? Only when it follows the puzzle regs?


----------



## irontwig (Sep 9, 2014)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> As someone who has always disassembled cubes during FMC, I find it to be a worthwhile strategy in finding insertions.



I don't know about that. There might be a reason that no one else to my knowledge does that.


----------



## Julian (Sep 9, 2014)

At UsNats14 someone I know brought 2 assembled cubes, and 3 corners of a third, pre-stickered with 1, 2, and 3 on them, for the purpose of replacing them in of the assembled cubes to look for insertions.

EDIT: and then after 1 attempt switched to simple stickers


----------



## tseitsei (Sep 9, 2014)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> As someone who has always disassembled cubes during FMC, I find it to be a worthwhile strategy in finding insertions.


 Please elaborate how this helps. I can't understand how this would be helpful in any way.


----------



## obelisk477 (Sep 9, 2014)

tseitsei said:


> Please elaborate how this helps. I can't understand how this would be helpful in any way.



Well there's the above example about inserting special numbered corners for finding insertions. And while this isn't exactly dissasembly, if I end up at like a 4 pure corner twist for example, I just twist them in place instead of solving it to save time.


----------



## tseitsei (Sep 9, 2014)

obelisk477 said:


> Well there's the above example about inserting special numbered corners for finding insertions. And while this isn't exactly dissasembly, if I end up at like a 4 pure corner twist for example, I just twist them in place instead of solving it to save time.



For the first case stickers are just better/easier option. 

For the second one regarding puretwists. Setuping those cases takes only a few seconds even without twisting corners. So totally unnecessary also...


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 10, 2014)

tseitsei said:


> For the first case stickers are just better/easier option.
> 
> For the second one regarding puretwists. Setuping those cases takes only a few seconds even without twisting corners. So totally unnecessary also...


What if the inserted numbered corners are from a white cube and the other cube is black? That would make it much easier to see those 3 pieces to find and insertion. Basically you can ignore the rest of the cube very easily (which is the point of disassembly).
I always assumed that the reason we could have 3 cubes was because that would make it easy to find corner insertions from all 3 orientations. A white, (pre)stickered cube with ABC, 123, Man/Woman/Child (or circle/triangle/square) on the cornerpieces (and similar for edges) would make finding insertions much easier. Except for the pre-stickering that seems entirely allowed.


----------



## Ranzha (Sep 10, 2014)

tseitsei said:


> Please elaborate how this helps. I can't understand how this would be helpful in any way.



Cube 1: Main speedcube
Cubes 2 & 3: Fast cubes of the same model. One is white, and one is black.

When it comes time to find insertions, I replace corresponding pieces between cubes 2 & 3 and start searching. It helps me out a lot.


----------



## tseitsei (Sep 10, 2014)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Cube 1: Main speedcube
> Cubes 2 & 3: Fast cubes of the same model. One is white, and one is black.
> 
> When it comes time to find insertions, I replace corresponding pieces between cubes 2 & 3 and start searching. It helps me out a lot.


Ok. This makes some sense. Still can't see why it would be significantly better than just using stickers, but ok.


----------



## Laura O (Sep 10, 2014)

I don't like these "how could you break the rules and does that matter?"-discussions, but...



Erik said:


> After checking the regs and discussing this issue with several other delegates I have come to the conclusion that it's not obligatory to use the FMC notation sheet, but it's recommended as it makes checking the solution easier. It's very important though, to make clear what is part of your solution and what isn't (ex: by putting a big circle around your solution, or by striping through any notes that are not part of your solution). Also: don't forget to write down your name on the 'notes sheet' if you choose to hand this one in.



... what does "make clear what is part of your solution" actually mean?
When I do insertions I write down my skeleton, mark promising cancellations with a small number and write the commutator as a footnote. Would this be a legit solution, if I cross out everything useless, correct the skeleton and commutator according to the cancellations and write "solution" above? 
Obviously this would be another "at the discretion of the delegate" regulation and that's something we should avoid.

Btw.: I didn't have to put down my cellphone at Euro's. So this wasn't even an instruction for every competitor.


----------



## tseitsei (Sep 10, 2014)

Laura O said:


> I don't like these "how could you break the rules and does that matter?"-discussions, but...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If your final solution would still have this "footnote and small numbers"-stuff it would definitely be DNF. Because solution must be written in OBTM and in OBTM there are no footnotes/insertions defined. Only allowed things are outer layer moves (RULDFB), wide moves (Rw and stuff) and cube rotations (xyz). So no insertions or footnotes or anything like that is defined, which obviously means you can't use them (in your final solution) because then your solution isn't in OBTM


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 10, 2014)

Laura O said:


> I don't like these "how could you break the rules and does that matter?"-discussions, but...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't think of any argument why that wouldn't be a valid solution. Short of adjusting yourself to become a form-filler this is as clear as it gets. I often have several starts still on the paper but draw a line around the parts that make my solution if I run out of time (happens often)
Nobody should have to instruct you to put down your cellphone though, that is expected by the rules that you are expected to know. I understand the "I only use it as a clock/stopwatch" argument, but the "we should try to prevent cheating" rule trumps that argument



tseitsei said:


> If your final solution would still have this "footnote and small numbers"-stuff it would definitely be DNF. Because solution must be written in OBTM and in OBTM there are no footnotes/insertions defined. Only allowed things are outer layer moves (RULDFB), wide moves (Rw and stuff) and cube rotations (xyz). So no insertions or footnotes or anything like that is defined, which obviously means you can't use them (in your final solution) because then your solution isn't in OBTM


She did mention that she would cross out everything useless.
And your definition of OBTM is REALLY strict. If you would write something like
R U D (Cross)
L (skip the rest)
^^that would be a DNF for you?


----------



## Laura O (Sep 10, 2014)

tseitsei said:


> If your final solution would still have this "footnote and small numbers"-stuff it would definitely be DNF. Because solution must be written in OBTM and in OBTM there are no footnotes/insertions defined. Only allowed things are outer layer moves (RULDFB), wide moves (Rw and stuff) and cube rotations (xyz). So no insertions or footnotes or anything like that is defined, which obviously means you can't use them (in your final solution) because then your solution isn't in OBTM



If you follow this argumentation, solutions with a blackened move wouldn't count either - it's not OBTM.
Furthermore people sometimes draw small arrows at additional moves to clarify where they should be added. So this would also be a DNF?

But to stop the polemic: I definitely prefer that competitors should use a specific solution sheet (regardless of whether this is the "official" TNoodle sheet or any other), which makes solution checking easier and also clarifies the conditions. I wasn't aware that they aren't used by some delegates and appropriately marked solutions on note sheets can be valid.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 10, 2014)

Laura O said:


> If you follow this argumentation, solutions with a blackened move wouldn't count either - it's not OBTM.
> Furthermore people sometimes draw small arrows at additional moves to clarify where they should be added. So this would also be a DNF?
> 
> But to stop the polemic: I definitely prefer that competitors should use a specific solution sheet (regardless of whether this is the "official" TNoodle sheet or any other), which makes solution checking easier and also clarifies the conditions. I wasn't aware that they aren't used by some delegates and appropriately marked solutions on note sheets can be valid.


I prefer that too, but not when there is 1 minute on the clock and 30 moves left to write down. In the end it is not about "did I copy my solution correctly from my draft to the official sheet) but about "did I write down a good solution"


----------



## Sebastien (Sep 10, 2014)

For me it has always been clear that the TNoodle sheet is not mandatory (why should it, when the regulations say nothing about it?!). But as it is more convenient, it usually gets used, even without strictly requiring it. 

Personally, I almost never have a "complete" solution on my scrap paper, simply because of NISS/Inverse and insertions. So I just write it down properly on the TNoodle sheet directly.


----------



## tseitsei (Sep 10, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> She did mention that she would cross out everything useless.
> And your definition of OBTM is REALLY strict. If you would write something like
> R U D (Cross)
> L (skip the rest)
> ^^that would be a DNF for you?



Quite frankly yes. I think that the final solution of the competitor should only be a string of moves used in OBTM and nothing else.



> If you follow this argumentation, solutions with a blackened move wouldn't count either - it's not OBTM.
> Furthermore people sometimes draw small arrows at additional moves to clarify where they should be added. So this would also be a DNF?



That's why I think something like "to delete moves blacken them clearly" should be added.

And if you don't have time to write your solution correctly ( by correctly i mean using only OBTM moves one after another and nothing else in between) then I believe you should get a DNF. Besides writing down a solution from your notes (if you really have the whole solution in your notes in some reasonably understandable format) takes less than a minute.


----------



## kinch2002 (Sep 10, 2014)

As delegate, I would allow solutions that are written down on scrap paper even though we provide the special sheets, as long as it was written out.
Obviously solutions that are written down with inverse parts would not be allowed, and insertions with arrows would lose any cancellations as the cancellation has not been written clearly.

i.e. If you use advanced techniques, you might as well write it on the proper sheet anyway
If you don't use advanced techniques, then most of you finish early anyway and you should write it down properly on the sheet to help the checking team.
If you don't use advanced techniques and you aren't going to finish early, then circling the parts you want on the scrap paper and handing it in might be slightly helpful.


----------



## Erik (Sep 11, 2014)

Laura O said:


> I don't like these "how could you break the rules and does that matter?"-discussions, but...



I really don't understand your remark. I'm explicitly trying to make clear what the boundaries of the regs are, by giving concrete do's and don'ts. Just making clear what your 'rights' are if you want to put it like that. Im trying to make clear how you *don't* break the rules.



> ... what does "make clear what is part of your solution" actually mean?



My original post was pretty clear on that. You need to make clear what are just random notes and what is your solution. _"It's very important though, to make clear what is part of your solution and what isn't (ex: by putting a big circle around your solution, or by striping through any notes that are not part of your solution)."_



> When I do insertions I write down my skeleton, mark promising cancellations with a small number and write the commutator as a footnote. Would this be a legit solution, if I cross out everything useless, correct the skeleton and commutator according to the cancellations and write "solution" above?



Strictly I would say this is a DNF, but it shouldn't be as long as it's clear what you mean. The same goes for notes that say 'these moves are my cross' or arrows or asterisks. Maybe an extra guideline could clear this up (but maybe it doesn't need to be cleared up, since I don't think this really causes problems atm)?



> Btw.: I didn't have to put down my cellphone at Euro's. So this wasn't even an instruction for every competitor.



Henrik told us to do this repeatedly before our 3rd attempt, maybe you missed it.

Btw: congrats again on your nice FMC at German Nats. I could've beaten the 27 if I knew insertions like you do xD Apparently I could've canceled 3 instead of 1 move ;-) ...


----------



## Laura O (Sep 11, 2014)

Erik said:


> I really don't understand your remark. I'm explicitly trying to make clear what the boundaries of the regs are, by giving concrete do's and don'ts. Just making clear what your 'rights' are if you want to put it like that. Im trying to make clear how you *don't* break the rules.



Sorry, no offense. That was more meant as an introduction to my posting. I think these topics often become OT and grow a lot in size when "Would example x be valid/DNF/whatever?"-questions are asked and that's actually what I did. People start commenting just on these examples, stating their own view, creating new examples etc. without answering or thinking about the original topic.



> Strictly I would say this is a DNF, but it shouldn't be as long as it's clear what you mean. The same goes for notes that say 'these moves are my cross' or arrows or asterisks. Maybe an extra guideline could clear this up (but maybe it doesn't need to be cleared up, since I don't think this really causes problems atm)?



Yes, I don't think this has to be cleared up, especially because it won't be possible to do that. The discussions in the FMC move-limit thread have shown that delegates handle solutions quite differently. So a guideline covering all possibilities would probably be more like a handbook.  
Last weekend there was a solution where a competitor had written some inverted moves with a clear apostrophe and some with a really small dot, which was hard to recognize and to distinguish from the letters. I don't have an idea how you could define something like this in a guideline (at least if you don't want to measure the apostrophes...).



> Btw: congrats again on your nice FMC at German Nats. I could've beaten the 27 if I knew insertions like you do xD Apparently I could've canceled 3 instead of 1 move ;-) ...



Thank you. I'm quite happy my insertions were optimal although I was so ... nervous.


----------

