# [WCA Regulations 2014] Logos and Stickers



## Kit Clement (Dec 11, 2013)

*EDIT by Lucas: Note that the strict changes in the first post were part of a discussion that led to only some of them taking effect. Please check the actual changes before you continue the discussion.*


I think that among the current regulation changes that are being proposed, the logo regulations are the ones that will affect just about every cuber. For that reason, I wanted to make the (English-speaking) community aware of the proposed changes in order to consider whether we should make these changes. Logo changes are necessary, as the current regulations are incredibly lacking. Here's the GitHub to the proposed changes:

https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/compare/logos

Here's a breakdown of the changes:

1) Logos are still allowed on the following puzzles: 3x3x3/5x5x5/7x7x7, Skewb, Megaminx, Square-1
2) Logos are not allowed on the following puzzles: 2x2x2/4x4x4/6x6x6, Pyraminx
3) Logos can not be any arbitrary logo, and are allowed up to the discretion of the delegate.
4) Puzzles can not be engraved/embossed. 
5) Logos cannot be overlay stickers.

Reasonings:

- A logo on a 2x2x2 makes one of the corners easily identifiable in addition to the colors on that piece.
- A logo on a 4x4x4/6x6x6 could be theoretically be used to count the number of turns made on that face in order to count parity. 
- Logos could be used to encode information (algs, color schemes, memo-related info for BLD, etc.) in an attempt to cheat.
- Engravings/Overlay stickers can be used to identify a side by feel. Not as important in speed solving, but more important for BLD.

So this leaves us with some obvious questions. If you are concerned with these changes, I would like you to answer the following questions:

1) Should we keep logos on the 2x2 or not? 
2) Is the theoretical possibility of counting parity important enough to not allow logos for 4x4x4 and 6x6x6? 
3) Should we consider having different logo regulations for BLD and speedsolving?
4) What kinds of logos should we allow? Should they need to be a brand logo, or can we allow custom logos? Is "delegate discretion" enough to manage custom logos?
5) Are logos important to you for the purpose of identifying your own cubes at a competition? If so, do you feel this hurts your ability to keep track of puzzles?

Thanks for your time, everyone. To start discussion, here are my own responses:

1) No, I believe that having a logo on a corner piece makes this type of piece too identifiable from other similar pieces. 
2) No, I think that this is pretty silly, myself. No such way of counting parity is commonly known, and even so, it would be incredibly difficult to implement in such a way that it would improve times. I realize regulations should be proactive and not reactive to potential incidents, but I cannot see this becoming an incident.
3) I disagree with this. Regulations on logos should be consistent across all events to avoid unnecessary confusion.
4) Delegate discretion on logos should be sufficient to prevent cheating logos. Custom logos are okay by me.
5) My color scheme identifies puzzles for me, so N/A.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Dec 11, 2013)

If logos are NOT allowed on the 2x2, then a Fangshi 2x2 would be illegal, since the logo is PAINTED ON the tile. This would have to be reviewed by the delegate or the board

Source: Chris Olson. 

I personally don't see a change in recognition on a 4x4*


*Any MOYU/YJ cube will be competition illegal (2x2 + 4x4, and some 3x3) Reason being that the logos have feeling.

Pyraminx doesn't change anything. 

1) It depends. If a 2x2 with a painted tile logo is your main, then it should remain that way. Don't make it illegal because of the way the cube was made.
2) No. 
3. For BLD yes. Any MOYU/YJ cube has a logo with feeling on it, where you can tell the center or so. speedsolving should have an OK to this.
4) Custom logos should be allowed. But there are cheating logos (Yj/MOYU) or any logo that you can "feel"


----------



## SirWaffle (Dec 11, 2013)

1) I don't think logos on 2x2 should be allowed. It is pretty clear that this could be used.
2) I think the advantage that it would give would be rather impossible to use in a speed solve making it a pointless to not allow logos on 4x4 and 6x6.
3) I think that there shouldn't be any changes to logos in blind solving. it would be a too complicated to keep track of.
4) I think custom logos are just fine. I can't see any way this would help someone unless you did something like put an alg on it or something but that just seems plain silly.


----------



## uvafan (Dec 11, 2013)

strakerak said:


> Any MOYU/YJ cube will be competition illegal (2x2 + 4x4, and some 3x3) Reason being that the logos have feeling.



You can always just peel that logo off...


----------



## TheZenith27 (Dec 11, 2013)

1) A logo on a corner does not provide an advantage. It takes more time to think about what piece it is than it does to just look at the back of the cube. Even if it does give an advantage, everyone has the same advantage.
2) That's incredibly ridiculous. I laughed.
3) BLD regulations shouldn't be different from the speed ones.
4) Give the discretion to the delegate. If a logo has an algorithm printed on it, that obviously shouldn't be allowed, but if it just has a harmless design on it, even if it contains text, it should be allowed.
5) Yes. I identify my cubes first by cube color, then by my logo.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Dec 11, 2013)

uvafan said:


> You can always just peel that logo off...



I know. But going to the Funs puzzle 2x2 point


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Dec 11, 2013)

1) no because it is fairly easy to recognize 
2) no, because one side won't determine parity(I believe) and you can't have multiple logos, so it would seem irrelevant.
3) no, logos for bld is up to the cyber (if it makes a difference for them) but I don't see how it could be beneficial. 
4) not entirely sure on what "arbitrary" and "overlay" stickers/logos or why they are being taken out
5) N/A


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 11, 2013)

strakerak said:


> Pyraminx doesn't change anything.



A logo on an edge piece could be advantageous for a solver that doesn't plan much in inspection, as it allows one to see which edge piece it is from one sticker. Not very helpful but an advantage nonetheless.



strakerak said:


> 1) It depends. If a 2x2 with a painted tile logo is your main, then it should remain that way. Don't make it illegal because of the way the cube was made.



Do you realise how stupid that sounds? By that logic, all pillowed cubes and transparenrlt cubes would be competition legal.


I agree with no logos for 2x2s, as it actually gives a noticeable advantage to solvers who don't one-look.

I think there should be no engraved logos or logos that you can feel. I think logos on all cubes must be on centre pieces. The 4x4/6x6 parity count is ridiculous.

Basically I think no changes to current regulations except for 2x2.


----------



## alexjd99 (Dec 11, 2013)

1) I think keeping logos on 2x2 is fine. It's somewhat unnecessary having everyone take the logos off, and I think that if there have been more than a few cases where people have been cheating, I think that rules should be enforced. 
2)I have no idea about parity with BLD because I don't do BLD.
3) I think that any logo is acceptable as long as it doesn't reveal any information about scrambles, algs, etc. 
4) Custom logos are fine. See above. Delegates desecration is fine. 
5)Logos are very important. It helps me identify my cubes, and it also customizes my cubes, which I like a lot. 

So there's my two cents.


----------



## SirWaffle (Dec 11, 2013)

TheZenith27 said:


> 1) A logo on a corner does not provide an advantage. It takes more time to think about what piece it is than it does to just look at the back of the cube. Even if it does give an advantage, everyone has the same advantage.
> .



Actually it wouldn't take that long to think about what piece the logo was on because with blind solvers you can show them a piece an they can automatically know what letter corresponds with. Knowing what piece a logo is on would be very simple and probably faster then moving the cube to see.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 11, 2013)

Argh, the forum lost my original reply. In short, I agree with Kit.

1) No, 2x2x2 is the most conspicuous example where you can use a logo to your advantage.
2) I think allowing on 4x4x4's and 6x6x6's is the most practical, even though adding a logo to any sticker allows you to distinguish the state in *some* ways.
3) Any significantly distinguishable markings should *not* be allowed for BLD. I'd prefer to keep puzzle requirements consistent across events, but perhaps this is desideratum is worth breaking.
4) No one has time to maintain a list of what's allowed, so we'll have to rely on Delegate discretion. Fortunately, I expect most competitors will show up with something standard.
5) I definitely like having "Lucas's Cube" stickers on my 3x3x3's to tell them apart at competitions. Since logos are the most visible distinction on legal speedcubes, I think we will need to continue relying on them for this purpose. It would be great if there were another way (e.g. a marking that is easy to see with a little non-destructive effort, but doesn't help during speedcubing, or a way to distinguish the shape/feel of the cube without changing its legality)...


----------



## TheZenith27 (Dec 11, 2013)

SirWaffle said:


> Actually it wouldn't take that long to think about what piece the logo was on because with blind solvers you can show them a piece an they can automatically know what letter corresponds with. Knowing what piece a logo is on would be very simple and probably faster then moving the cube to see.


2x2 cases are recognized using only individual stickers anyway. It wouldn't matter if you know what piece it is.


----------



## legoanimate98 (Dec 11, 2013)

These will be annoying for some people, but they are for the most part necessary. kind of like how +2s are annoying and necessary. I never have logos anyway, I can tell wich cubes are mine based on stickers, chips, and the feel of the cube.


----------



## KiwiCuber (Dec 11, 2013)

1) No, the first thing i do when i get a new 2x2 is pull any logo on there off anyway. It can be used to advantage so shouldnt be allowed
2) This is over thinking at its finest, logos on centres should still be fine, anyone counting the turns is not going to be that fast
3) Logos that are not printed on the sticker should be banned for BLD it can give you a distinct advantage (specifically if you lose your orientation you could regain it by feeling for the logo)
4) Any logo should be fine (except obviously algs etc.) 
5) personally i dont use any logos on any puzzle and never intend to but i can see how it might be helpful at a large competition to identify puzzles more easily. I can identify my puzzles by look and fell pretty easily but some people do require the logos.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Dec 11, 2013)

Kit Clement said:


> Engravings/Overlay stickers can be used to identify a side by feel. Not as important in speed solving, but more important for BLD.



Orientation of a cube can be easily recognizable by the tensions of 2 side (both being tight but one not as much as the other). Does this mean that we should have a rule that all tensions be the same, and how would one be able to decide what is reasonable and what is not?

And if this doesn't matter, than overlay stickers don't matter either.


----------



## KiwiCuber (Dec 11, 2013)

Jaysammey777 said:


> Orientation of a cube can be easily recognizable by the tensions of 2 side (both being tight but one not as much as the other). Does this mean that we should have a rule that all tensions be the same, and how would one be able to decide what is reasonable and what is not?
> 
> And if this doesn't matter, than overlay stickers don't matter either.



But if you are checking tensions a judge will most likely notice compared to a logo which you can do very discreetly


----------



## qqwref (Dec 11, 2013)

I'm generally OK with these changes, but I have a question about this:



Kit Clement said:


> - A logo on a 4x4x4/6x6x6 could be theoretically be used to count the number of turns made on that face in order to count parity.



How is this a possibility? Even on a supercube, you can solve the centers of a 4x4x4 and still encounter OLL and PLL parity. So I can't see how center labeling could provide a solver any help there.


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 11, 2013)

Jaysammey777 said:


> Orientation of a cube can be easily recognizable by the tensions of 2 side (both being tight but one not as much as the other). Does this mean that we should have a rule that all tensions be the same, and how would one be able to decide what is reasonable and what is not?
> 
> And if this doesn't matter, than overlay stickers don't matter either.



It's not that it doesn't matter, it's that there is no reasonable way to control for this. There is an incredibly easy way to control this for engravings and overlay stickers, identify them and don't allow them. Just because we can't limit a problem in a certain way doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to limit this problem in other ways.



qqwref said:


> How is this a possibility? Even on a supercube, you can solve the centers of a 4x4x4 and still encounter OLL and PLL parity. So I can't see how center labeling could provide a solver any help there.



Ask Lucas, he's the one who originally brought the issue up. I'm not cube-theory-savvy enough to answer that myself.


----------



## tx789 (Dec 11, 2013)

Logos that are printed are fine. But logos like Dayan has. Are the other sort of logo worth banning. But what about square The Calvin's puzzle has 2 logos and it doesn't give an advantage so that could be an exception.


----------



## Renslay (Dec 11, 2013)

Kit Clement said:


> 2) Logos are not allowed on the following puzzles: 2x2x2/4x4x4/6x6x6, Pyraminx



Whai, what?!



Kit Clement said:


> - A logo on a 4x4x4/6x6x6 could be theoretically be used to count the number of turns made on that face in order to count parity.
> - Logos could be used to encode information (algs, color schemes, memo-related info for BLD, etc.) in an attempt to cheat.



I want a proof.



Kit Clement said:


> 1) Should we keep logos on the 2x2 or not?
> 2) Is the theoretical possibility of counting parity important enough to not allow logos for 4x4x4 and 6x6x6?
> 3) Should we consider having different logo regulations for BLD and speedsolving?
> 4) What kinds of logos should we allow? Should they need to be a brand logo, or can we allow custom logos? Is "delegate discretion" enough to manage custom logos?
> 5) Are logos important to you for the purpose of identifying your own cubes at a competition? If so, do you feel this hurts your ability to keep track of puzzles?



1) Not sure.
2) No, logos are more important to identify my own puzzles. See 5)
3) Agree with OP.
4) CUSTOM. See 5).
5) Hell yes! It happened to me many times that the judge did not bring my own cube, but a different one. And I have to yell WHO THE HECK HAS MY CUBE?! And I don't know how to get back my own cube without a clearly custom made logo!

EDIT: And If we forbid logos, we also has to forbid slightly damaged stickers to.


----------



## LarsN (Dec 11, 2013)

About custom logos: You might want to consider what the purpose of removing custom logos is and how much you want to go into that problem. If you want to keep people from hiding information in the logo, then you will have to ban people with tattoos on their arms or people with painted nails.

I think we should keep custom logos. They serve a very important purpose of identifying cubes. Losing cubes seems a bigger problem then maybe having an algorithm on a cube.

The only problem I see with logos is that they sometimes feel different from the other stickers.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Dec 11, 2013)

I think that the chance of losing even cubes with no logos is a very high possibility, especially with a lot of people using the same brands of puzzles. Also I believe that the chances of using logos to give you much more information is impractical.
For the 2x2, most solvers who are capable of getting good times will be able to tell you where their logo is at all times due to the fact that tracing all pieces is not very challenging compared to some other puzzles.
As for 4/6, The difficulty of using centres to detect parity very high, and people losing puzzles at a competition seems much more likely. And so.

1) Yes
2) No
3) No
4) Any
5) Yes


----------



## Mollerz (Dec 11, 2013)

1) No
2) No
3) No
4) Delegate discretion. For example I have a modded mf8 V1 Megaminx, it has mf8 tiles on it as a result. These ALWAYS come with an engraved logo on one side, mine happens to be purple. There is no way I am EVER going to get an advantage with this, so the delegate can say, yes it is allowed.
5) Yes


----------



## TMOY (Dec 11, 2013)

Kit Clement said:


> 1) Should we keep logos on the 2x2 or not?
> 2) Is the theoretical possibility of counting parity important enough to not allow logos for 4x4x4 and 6x6x6?
> 3) Should we consider having different logo regulations for BLD and speedsolving?
> 4) What kinds of logos should we allow? Should they need to be a brand logo, or can we allow custom logos? Is "delegate discretion" enough to manage custom logos?
> 5) Are logos important to you for the purpose of identifying your own cubes at a competition? If so, do you feel this hurts your ability to keep track of puzzles?


1) I have no firm opinion on this. I have no idea of how to efficiently use that logo to get an unfair advantage, but it doesn't seem imposible to me either.
2) Waaaaaaaaaaaatdafuq ? This is totally ridiculous, there is absolutely no way to deduce parity from the position of the logo, not even theoretically. Just apply 3-cycles on centres of the same color and yuo will be able to put the logo on any one of the four possible places without changing the apparent state of the cube. You would need to put logos on every center but at most one of a given orbit to be able to coun parity with them, and even that would be very impractical.
3) I don't see any good reason for that.
4) I don't see any problem with custom logos.
5) Not really, but it may help sometimes.

Edit: minor correction to 2). Since the condition for being able to tell parity from the position of centers is to not have any two undistinguishable centers, you need 18 logos for that (3 on each side), not 23. But that doesn't change my point.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 11, 2013)

I just thought up something else I didn't say before.

The top 2, 4, 6, Pyra, Mega etc solvers have absolutely no advantage from logos. Mid range MAY for some puzzles (though the 4x4/6x6 reasoning is bat**** insane)

Mid range 2x2 solvers MAY have a TINY advantage. In the end this suggested regulation does nothing except annoy.


----------



## Dene (Dec 11, 2013)

TMOY said:


> 4) I don't see any problem with custom logos.



The problem is the theoretical situation where someone puts, say, an algorithm on their cube as a logo...


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 11, 2013)

Mollerz said:


> 4) Delegate discretion. For example I have a modded mf8 V1 Megaminx, it has mf8 tiles on it as a result. These ALWAYS come with an engraved logo on one side, mine happens to be purple. There is no way I am EVER going to get an advantage with this, so the delegate can say, yes it is allowed.



So, tiled Megamixes used to be the norm, and tiled 4x4x4's were popular for a while. However, I'm seeing them much less frequently. Arguably, tiles of any significant thickness should be forbidden, since they let you recognize pieces from additional angles.

I see a few possible solutions to your new Megaminx issue:

1) Allow it, either in general or at the Delegate's discretion.
2) Find a way to get rid of it. Perhaps buy spare tiles if you can.
3) Buy a new puzzle.

As much as it is unfortunate to cause certain puzzles to become invalid, the story with tiles and engravings has been embarrassingly inconsistent. The engravings Regulations is one of quite a few that only exist because of what puzzles used to be available years ago.

If competitors cannot adapt their puzzles (2), there are now also many stickered/thin-tiled options available (3).
If you think it should be allowed (1), could you detail under exactly what circumstances? (If the concern is mainly Megaminx, it might be valid to add an exception for it.)


----------



## ~Adam~ (Dec 11, 2013)

1. No, get rid of 2x2 logos
2. Yes, *IF* it's possible they should be removed.
Also if a 4x4 or 6x6 is released which has a fixed centre wouldn't you be able to avoid parity if you knew which centre it was?
Better to nip it in the bid now than have to adjust the rules later IMO.
3. Yes, even some factory logos can be felt so should be banned
4. Delegate discretion seems fine to me.
5. Personally I have a possibly unique colour scheme so it doesn't effect me but I know that WeiLongs in particular go missing at most competitions because the colours are so good that most people keep the stickers as they are.
If people can't easily make their cube distinguishable this issue will become even worse.

I would like to bring up the point that many people still use tiled MF8 megaminxs so maybe add a clause that if an identical logo is engraved on every centre cap of a puzzle then it is still competition legal.
Once again it doesn't effect me, I'm just thinking about the greater good, "the greater good", stop that!


----------



## Coolster01 (Dec 11, 2013)

Kit Clement said:


> 3) Should we consider having different logo regulations for BLD and speedsolving?



YES! Anybody could just feel the D center and if there is a logo then no parity and vice versa.


----------



## BrainOfSweden (Dec 11, 2013)

1) I think they should be allowed since I don't believe they would provide enough of an advantage to actually make your solve faster, unless you're _really_ slow.
2) I don't really know, maybe this should be given some research?
3) Yes, probably. In regular speedsolving, overlay or engraved logos would do absolutely nothing to help you, since you can see the opposite side and therefore know the color of the logo without touching it. Of coure, for even number cubes, this is not always true, but I don't believe the advantage of trying to feel a center instead of actually looking for it is big enough. However, in BLD, anything that differentiates a piece tactilely can be an advantage. For this reason, I also want stickerless cubes in BLD again 
4) For the reasons in the question below, I would like custom stickers to be allowed. Of course not if they could be considered as offensive, but that's were the delegate discretion should kick in.
5) Not to me personally, but I believe it is to many others.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 11, 2013)

TheZenith27 said:


> 1) A logo on a corner does not provide an advantage. It takes more time to think about what piece it is than it does to just look at the back of the cube.



This is so not true. I had a logo on the white/green/orange corner, and the logo was on the white face. I didn't even have to think about that. To be fair, I don't recall purposely using it to my advantage, but who is to say I hadn't subconsciously?


----------



## Stefan (Dec 11, 2013)

TMOY said:


> 2) Waaaaaaaaaaaatdafuq ? This is totally ridiculous, there is absolutely no way to deduce parity from the position of the logo, not even theoretically. Just apply 3-cycles on centres of the same color and yuo will be able to put the logo on any one of the four possible places without changing the apparent state of the cube.



If I let's say put the logo on Ufr and then do U turns, I *can* tell how many U turns I did modulo 4, just by looking at where the logo is.


----------



## XTowncuber (Dec 11, 2013)

If it isn't broken, don't fix it.


----------



## DrKorbin (Dec 11, 2013)

Stefan said:


> If I let's say put the logo on Ufr and then do U turns, I *can* tell how many U turns I did modulo 4, just by looking at where the logo is.



Saem thing with logos on 3x3.


----------



## TMOY (Dec 11, 2013)

Stefan said:


> If I let's say put the logo on Ufr and then do U turns, I *can* tell how many U turns I did modulo 4, just by looking at where the logo is.



Because you know which kind of scramble you just applied. If I apply a random number of U turns and then a center correction alg (say E' L E M E' L' E M' for example) another random number of times, you will be unable to tell how many U-turns (even mod 2) I did by only looking at the centers.


----------



## scottishcuber (Dec 11, 2013)

XTowncuber said:


> If it isn't broken, don't fix it.



That's an ethos I strongly disagree with. What we have here is a system that is constantly trying to get better and better, these improvements are produced by change. The effects of these changes may be negligible, but if it makes logical sense then I would want it implemented.


----------



## Michael Womack (Dec 11, 2013)

Some of us like to have logos on our 2x2/4x4/6x6 but I don't the reason why competitors should compete in the event with no logo. And then as for logos that are over a stickers, about 90% of the puzzles nowadays have the Logo as a transparent Layer over a sticker.


----------



## BillyRain (Dec 11, 2013)

I certainly agree that logos should at least be banned for all BLD events. They can give advantages (regaining cube orientation when lost, even on y/y' if you know your logo well enough!, if solving corners first on 4BLD you can tell where your center buffer is if you forget to count... etc)

But if you ban them for BLD events you may as well ban then across the board...?


----------



## XTowncuber (Dec 11, 2013)

scottishcuber said:


> That's an ethos I strongly disagree with. What we have here is a system that is constantly trying to get better and better, these improvements are produced by change. The effects of these changes may be negligible, but if it makes logical sense then I would want it implemented.



How many people have you heard of that cheated by using logos? 

To me it seems the only change here that would be worth the hassle is removing logos from BLD events.


----------



## BillyRain (Dec 11, 2013)

XTowncuber said:


> How many people have you heard of that cheated by using logos?
> 
> To me it seems the only change here that would be worth the hassle is removing logos from BLD events.



Just because nobody has been known to actively do it doesn't mean that we shouldn't develop and better our regulations to prevent it from being a possibility.


----------



## cubeninjaIV (Dec 11, 2013)

TMOY said:


> Why don't you people just read what I wrote ?
> 
> The parity counting problem doesn't exist. Period.



Wrong. Parity can be solved using any combination of an ODD number of slice turns. you can therefore, turn a slice and continue to fix the centers with an even number of slice turns, then do the same for the edges. 
someone more advanced in the subject would be able to use commutators or something to fix the centers and edges, but if they are familiar enough to use commutators they probably know a parity alg. 

it is also theoretically possible to trace this from the start of the solve to avoid parity altogether, *provided that you know if the scramble had an odd or even number of slice moves* but there is no way of knowing that without breaking some other rule, so I don't think that this should be used as a reason to eliminate logos.

In short, no, the problem does not exist. but that doesn't mean its impossible. 
That being said, if someone uses this technique it will give them an advantage relative to themselves, but puts them at a disadvantage to others who use fast, optimal algs so i see no reason to ban logos on 4x4 and 6x6. 

Also, for people who still remember internal misalignment on VCUBES and some 4x4's from around 2010, you will recall that if you put a piece between the two "fixed" internal pieces that this piece would become a fixed point on the cube relative to the core. I took advantage of this by placing a *red, logoless piece* in that spot. The result was that after solving my first two centers there would be a zero possibility of an internal lockup until I reached parity, which i would then perform with orange or red facing front to as to avoid internal lockups. 

By making this piece identifiable it would be possible to also avoid lockups during the first two centers, but I tried it and found it more trouble than its worth and on top of that, the mechanisms of newer cubes completely eliminate this problem and anyone using a cube to which this trick applies is putting themselves at a disadvantage by using outdated, inferior hardware.


----------



## XTowncuber (Dec 11, 2013)

BillyRain said:


> Just because nobody has been known to actively do it doesn't mean that we shouldn't develop and better our regulations to prevent it from being a possibility.



True, but I just can't see anyone trying to cheat using this in the future. These proposals create a lot of hassle just to solve an extremely theoretical problem.

Again, I do think that removing logos from BLD is a good idea.


----------



## BillyRain (Dec 11, 2013)

XTowncuber said:


> True, but I just can't see anyone trying to cheat using this in the future. These proposals create a lot of hassle just to solve an extremely theoretical problem.
> 
> Again, I do think that removing logos from BLD is a good idea.



The same could have been said about stickerless cubes. Who was really going to make use of the split colors to improve their results...? Yet the change was still made to cover potential loopholes in order to make a more solid regulatory system.


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 11, 2013)

XTowncuber said:


> True, but I just can't see anyone trying to cheat using this in the future. These proposals create a lot of hassle just to solve an extremely theoretical problem.



But that's why we want to have discussions like this, to see if we believe it could be used to an advantage, and more importantly if that advantage can feasibly make a competitor faster. Also, we have to weigh this against not allowing competitors to have logos on their even-layered puzzles. Without proposing such an idea to the community, we wouldn't know if such a problem could arise in the future.


----------



## XTowncuber (Dec 11, 2013)

Kit Clement said:


> But that's why we want to have discussions like this, to see if we believe it could be used to an advantage, and more importantly if that advantage can feasibly make a competitor faster. Also, we have to weigh this against not allowing competitors to have logos on their even-layered puzzles. Without proposing such an idea to the community, we wouldn't know if such a problem could arise in the future.



Right, I'm not saying you shouldn't have proposed them, just that I think they should not be made official. It's a discussion worth having, but in the end the advantages are negligible.


----------



## sabakku (Dec 11, 2013)

1) Honestly I do not see any advantage for solvers that One Look having a logo, the question here is, what should a person that has a Shishuang for instance do? Since it's engraved on the tile, does it give an advantage? Yes, is it really differential to the point where it should be banned? No. If a solver relies on a sticker to be faster, then clearly him or her is not threatening any other solver on the competition. 
2) No, parity counting is something that even if created in a reasonable way, would take long enough to calculate and then execute, so I'd say it is pretty silly.
3) On BLD, My opinion is, no logos, I think BLD solvers who take it seriously will agree that, a cube without any logos feels better for the simple fact of no distraction when memorizing. But I do not see any real discrepancy a logo could cause, even if it was a way to mark a piece, there would be still other orientation issues needed to be concerned so a logo would only help you by a fraction. To avoid problems, no logos.
4) I think a delegate knows good enough to be able to tell what logos are "good" or "bad" it should be at it's discretion to judge.
5) I do not feel hurt, I do use custom logos on some of my puzzles, but I honestly don't care for the use of it at all, actually some of my main cubes don't even have any logo at all, I can keep track of it, for a collective purpose I like it, but as far as competing goes, no difference.


----------



## Sajwo (Dec 11, 2013)

I think that factory's logos should be allowed on 2x2 and 4x4. It would be very annoing to resticker Moyu 4x4 or putting stickers on every side of fangshi 2x2. I have no opinion when it comes to pyra and 6x6, but logo on pyraminx can probably give a slightly advantage for some people


----------



## Michael Womack (Dec 11, 2013)

Sajwo said:


> I think that factory's logos should be allowed on 2x2 and 4x4. It would be very annoing to resticker Moyu 4x4 or putting stickers on every side of fangshi 2x2. I have no opinion when it comes to pyra and 6x6, but logo on pyraminx can probably give a slightly advantage for some people



Now actually thinking about it I that if some one has transparent logo sticker on there Pyraminx then they would know for sure of what color is opposed face would be from what tip that has the logo. For example my Meffert's Pyraminx has the logo on the blue/yellow/orange tip and it's pealing slightly and I can feel it and if I memorize the Color scheme then everytime I feel the logo I would know that green is not on that tip.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Dec 11, 2013)

Michael Womack said:


> Now actually thinking about it I that if some one has transparent logo sticker on there Pyraminx then they would know for sure of what color is opposed face would be from what tip that has the logo. For example my Meffert's Pyraminx has the logo on the blue/yellow/orange tip and it's pealing slightly and I can feel it and if I memorize the Color scheme then everytime I feel the logo I would know that green is not on that tip.



That means you have an advantage. I don't see the point of logos on a pyraminx.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 11, 2013)

First I had a sticker going on top of the sticker. 

Since I was told this wasn't allowed, I added a layer of tape over both 'unembossing' it and was told that this was fine.

Am I to believe that this would be disallowed now?

wtf guys I just wanna put a cute little heart on my 3x3x3 centre what do I have to do to comply with this :c


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 11, 2013)

XTowncuber said:


> Right, I'm not saying you shouldn't have proposed them, just that I think they should not be made official. It's a discussion worth having, but in the end the advantages are negligible.



Glad you agree about having the discussion too, that's the point I was making. I agree with you on 4x4/6x6 as well.

For those who disagree with removing 2x2 logos: I haven't seen really any convincing reasons other than "I don't think it helps." The fact of the matter is that it can aid you in identifying a certain piece quicker, which is not desirable and can be used to achieve faster recognition, even if only subliminally. The only real argument I can see against it so far is that it would make certain models of 2x2 (ShiShuang?) unusable in competition.


----------



## Paradox Cubing (Dec 11, 2013)

I dont think we should ban logos on these cubes, it would take too much time to think of the other colours by looking at the logo rather than just looking at the cube.


----------



## TMOY (Dec 11, 2013)

cubeninjaIV said:


> Wrong. Parity can be solved using any combination of an ODD number of slice turns. you can therefore, turn a slice and continue to fix the centers with an even number of slice turns, then do the same for the edges.
> someone more advanced in the subject would be able to use commutators or something to fix the centers and edges, but if they are familiar enough to use commutators they probably know a parity alg.


Not saying that this is false, but what's the connection with what I said ? We're talking about being able to determine the parity state using the position of the logo, which is actualy not possible. Granted, during the solve you will be able to figure out whether you've changed the parity or not, but if you don't know the initial parity state, it doesn't help.


----------



## cubeninjaIV (Dec 11, 2013)

TMOY said:


> Not saying that this is false, but what's the connection with what I said ? We're talking about being able to determine the parity state using the position of the logo, which is actualy not possible. Granted, during the solve you will be able to figure out whether you've changed the parity or not, but if you don't know the initial parity state, it doesn't help.



I said that in my post, I even *Bolded* it to make it obvious, what I am saying is that it is *possible* but not without breaking some other existing regulation

you can use the logo to determine if the parity state has changed. which near the end of reduction is possible to determine. however it is also possible to do this without the logo.

Edit: I didnt see your original post, only the one regarding to counting parity not being possible, so i was explaining how it is possible, but very impractical


----------



## Michael Womack (Dec 11, 2013)

Now that where Talking about Logos and since skewb is an official event what part of the skewb should have the logo if any the corner or center?


----------



## DrKorbin (Dec 11, 2013)

Michael Womack said:


> Now that where Talking about Logos and since skewb is an official event what part of the skewb should have the logo if any the corner or center?



Not hard to figure it out yourself. If you put a logo on skewb's corner, you will be able to distinguish it from other corners, same as 2x2x2.


----------



## cubizh (Dec 11, 2013)

Kit Clement said:


> 1) Should we keep logos on the 2x2 or not?
> 2) Is the theoretical possibility of counting parity important enough to not allow logos for 4x4x4 and 6x6x6?
> 3) Should we consider having different logo regulations for BLD and speedsolving?
> 4) What kinds of logos should we allow? Should they need to be a brand logo, or can we allow custom logos? Is "delegate discretion" enough to manage custom logos?
> 5) Are logos important to you for the purpose of identifying your own cubes at a competition? If so, do you feel this hurts your ability to keep track of puzzles?


1) 3l) should be fixed to not allow ANY stickers on corner pieces for obvious reasons. I don't know why this hasn't been addressed before actually...
2) On center pieces (like 4x4 or 6x6) I don't see much of a problem really.
3) No. Logos should be flat, that's it.
4) Customs logos should be allowed so people can identify their own cubes. Delegate discretion is enough to manage logos with severe profanity or other sensitive material.
5) Absolutely? Doesn't even have to be at a competition, even with friends that have the same brand cube.


----------



## Michael Womack (Dec 11, 2013)

cubizh said:


> 3) No. Logos should be flat, that's it.



Do you mean something like the Cubesmith/V-cube/Rubik's/Maru logos where there printed onto the sticker instead of a Transparent layer like what the Dayan cubes have?


----------



## rj (Dec 11, 2013)

1. Yes. 
2. No. Reasonable wear can have a greater help.
3. Yes.
4. All. 
5. No.


----------



## Goosly (Dec 11, 2013)

Kit Clement said:


> 1) Should we keep logos on the 2x2 or not?
> 2) Is the theoretical possibility of counting parity important enough to not allow logos for 4x4x4 and 6x6x6?
> 3) Should we consider having different logo regulations for BLD and speedsolving?
> 4) What kinds of logos should we allow? Should they need to be a brand logo, or can we allow custom logos? Is "delegate discretion" enough to manage custom logos?
> 5) Are logos important to you for the purpose of identifying your own cubes at a competition? If so, do you feel this hurts your ability to keep track of puzzles?



1) Yes
2) No
3) No. If one needs to check which of his centers is the one with the logo during BLD, he's doing a lot wrong and he won't get a decent result anyway. If someone really wants to do that, I'm fine with that.
4) Allow custom logo's
5) Yes. Yes. I want to know which cubes are mine without spending 10 minutes testing every cube on the table to check if it "feels the same" as the cube that I lost. Custom logo's <3


----------



## TMOY (Dec 11, 2013)

cubeninjaIV said:


> I said that in my post, I even *Bolded* it to make it obvious, what I am saying is that it is *possible* but not without breaking some other existing regulation


OK, then you're simply off-topic. We're talking about whether that parity thing is a valid reason for banning logos on even-layered cubes or not. If cheating with these logos requires to also cheat in some other way, then simply dealing with that other way of cheating is enough.


----------



## stoic (Dec 11, 2013)

Michael Womack said:


> this is starting to sound like the debate on whether or not stickerless puzzles are allowed.





cubizh said:


> 1) 3l) should be fixed to not allow ANY stickers on corner pieces for obvious reasons. I don't know why this hasn't been addressed before actually...
> 2) On center pieces (like 4x4 or 6x6) I don't see much of a problem really.
> 3) No. Logos should be flat, that's it.
> 4) Customs logos should be allowed so people can identify their own cubes. Delegate discretion is enough to manage logos with severe profanity or other sensitive material.
> 5) Absolutely? Doesn't even have to be at a competition, even with friends that have the same brand cube.



I agree with all of the above. 
Thanks for saving me some time typing!


----------



## Stefan (Dec 11, 2013)

TMOY said:


> Because you know which kind of scramble you just applied.



No. Not scrambling. I was talking about the solve.



TMOY said:


> Granted, during the solve you will be able to figure out whether you've changed the parity or not



Ok... so we agree now?



cubeninjaIV said:


> it is also theoretically possible to trace this from the start of the solve to avoid parity altogether, *provided that you know if the scramble had an odd or even number of slice moves* but there is no way of knowing that without breaking some other rule



I'm not sure, but aronpm [post=742899]might have done it[/post] without breaking rules.


----------



## Joël (Dec 11, 2013)

Kit Clement said:


> - A logo on a 4x4x4/6x6x6 could be theoretically be used to count the number of turns made on that face in order to count parity.



I don't really have a very strong opinion about any of this, but what annoys me about this thread is the issue about logo's on 4x4 and 6x6 and parities. I don't understand how a logo can be used to determine anything about parity. I just don't get it. Right now I think it's impossible to use this to your advantage in any way, but I'd love to be proven wrong. I have not seen anyone in this thread explaining it, so perhaps somebody who understands it should explain it properly, in detail.


----------



## Sajwo (Dec 11, 2013)

Joël said:


> I don't really have a very strong opinion about any of this, but what annoys me about this thread is the issue about logo's on 4x4 and 6x6 and parities. I don't understand how a logo can be used to determine anything about parity. I just don't get it. Right now I think it's impossible to use this to your advantage in any way, but I'd love to be proven wrong. I have not seen anyone in this thread explaining it, so perhaps somebody who understands it should explain it properly, in detail.



agree. This is just ridiculous


----------



## cubeninjaIV (Dec 11, 2013)

TMOY said:


> OK, then you're simply off-topic. We're talking about whether that parity thing is a valid reason for banning logos on even-layered cubes or not. If cheating with these logos requires to also cheat in some other way, then simply dealing with that other way of cheating is enough.



Again, something that I said in my first post. 

Some people who don't know the parity alg might solve parity using the method i described, but it doesnt depend on the presence of a logo. additionally, if trying to completely avoid parity (which also isnt dependent on the presence of a logo) the whole process is a waste of time if you don't know how many slice turns the scramble had which you cant know without seeing (1)the scramble prior to solving, which is against the rules or (2) having someone tell you this information, which is also against the rules. 

In case were still not on the same page, I highly doubt that anyone will ever get a significant benefit from using a logo to help them solve parity, and I see no real reason why they should be banned.


----------



## DrKorbin (Dec 11, 2013)

cubeninjaIV said:


> additionally, if trying to completely avoid parity (which also isnt dependent on the presence of a logo) the whole process is a waste of time if you don't know how many slice turns the scramble had which you cant know without seeing (1)the scramble prior to solving, which is against the rules or (2) having someone tell you this information, which is also against the rules.



Did you read the link Stefan'd given?


----------



## cubeninjaIV (Dec 11, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> Did you read the link Stefan'd given?



I was typing this when he posted it

I was unaware of this thread, but did know that the concept was possible, even if it is extremely difficult to determine during inspection. However, the process doesn't rely on the presence of a logo.


----------



## cubizh (Dec 11, 2013)

Michael Womack said:


> Do you mean something like the Cubesmith/V-cube/Rubik's/Maru logos where there printed onto the sticker instead of a Transparent layer like what the Dayan cubes have?


Any logo that when you close your eyes you can identify it by the use of your fingers only should be disallowed because you can identify where it is without having to look at it which is advantageous specially on BLD events. (like the new YJ's for instance).


----------



## TMOY (Dec 11, 2013)

Stefan said:


> No. Not scrambling. I was talking about the solve.


Then we were simply not talking about the same thing.



> I'm not sure, but aronpm [post=742899]might have done it[/post] without breaking rules.


I don't know if Aron has actually done it, but I'm convinced it's possible with practice. But a logo on centers is of no help to achieve that.


----------



## Joël (Dec 11, 2013)

Joël said:


> I don't really have a very strong opinion about any of this, but what annoys me about this thread is the issue about logo's on 4x4 and 6x6 and parities. I don't understand how a logo can be used to determine anything about parity. I just don't get it. Right now I think it's impossible to use this to your advantage in any way, but I'd love to be proven wrong. I have not seen anyone in this thread explaining it, so perhaps somebody who understands it should explain it properly, in detail.



A bit weird to reply to myself, but I also want to explain my reasoning for thinking that this is impossible:

Suppose you put a logo on one of the white centers of a 4x4. In any cube state, I can cycle 3 white pieces, to make the logo end up in 4 places (where ever I want the logo to end up), and the rest of the cube state will be identical. This means I can also create 4 scrambles that have an identical cube state, except the logo can be in four different places. So what does the position of the logo tell me about parity during inspection, or during the rest of the solve? It seems like it doesn't tell me anything. Again, if I am wrong, I'd love it if somebody would explain it.


----------



## Allu K5 (Dec 11, 2013)

I find this all funny, because the logos were part of many original puzzles like the V-cube 6. 

So yes, you can do some theoretical things, but practice is the one who judges here, in the real world.


----------



## TMOY (Dec 11, 2013)

Joël said:


> A bit weird to reply to myself, but I also want to explain my reasoning for thinking that this is impossible:
> 
> Suppose you put a logo on one of the white centers of a 4x4. In any cube state, I can cycle 3 white pieces, to make the logo end up in 4 places (where ever I want the logo to end up), and the rest of the cube state will be identical. This means I can also create 4 scrambles that have an identical cube state, except the logo can be in four different places. So what does the position of the logo tell me about parity during inspection, or during the rest of the solve? It seems like it doesn't tell me anything. Again, if I am wrong, I'd love it if somebody would explain it.



That's exactly what I was saying in my first post in this topic.

ISome peiople are speaking of determining edge parity beforehand and using the logo to keep track of it. But this is also irrelevant because edge parity and center parity are independent (at least on 4^3).


----------



## Stefan (Dec 11, 2013)

cubeninjaIV said:


> I [...] did know that the concept was possible



Bit strange then that you said _"there is no way"_.



cubeninjaIV said:


> However, the process doesn't rely on the presence of a logo.



Nobody said it did.



Joël said:


> So what does the position of the logo tell me about parity during inspection, or during the rest of the solve? It seems like it doesn't tell me anything. Again, if I am wrong, I'd love it if somebody would explain it.



Likely nothing during inspection, but you can use it to track "parity stuff" during the solve:



Stefan said:


> If I let's say put the logo on Ufr and then do U turns, I *can* tell how many U turns I did modulo 4, just by looking at where the logo is.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 11, 2013)

TMOY said:


> ISome peiople are speaking of determining edge parity beforehand and using the logo to keep track of it. But this is also irrelevant because *edge parity and center parity are independent* (at least on 4^3).



What do you mean with center parity?

Edge parity and _"inner qtm"_ parity are *not* independent, and a logo can help tracking the latter and thus the former. For example if you solve the L and R centers, put the logo on Rfu, and then solve the remaining centers with <Rw,U>. Then looking at the logo, you can easily tell how many Rw turns (modulo 4) you've done while solving the remaining centers.


----------



## cubeninjaIV (Dec 11, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Bit strange then that you said _"there is no way"_.



Indeed, I left it out because I was unaware of anyone being able to do this during inspection and still plan normal center stuff. 



Stefan said:


> Nobody said it did.



In fact, this is what the discussion is about. read the OP and you will see an argument for the ban of logos on 4x4 and 6x6 because they can be used to track parity. 

Either way, it seems that most if not all of us agree that if someone were able to do this, they wouldn't rely on a logo. 

I have nothing more to say


----------



## Stefan (Dec 11, 2013)

cubeninjaIV said:


> In fact, this is what the discussion is about. read the OP and you will see an argument for the ban of logos on 4x4 and 6x6 because they can be used to track parity.



I don't think so. But feel free to point out where exactly the OP spoke about using it during inspection.


----------



## DrKorbin (Dec 11, 2013)

Stefan said:


> What do you mean with center parity?



Center parity is PLL parity: you can swap 2 centers and 2 corners simultaneously.


----------



## cubeninjaIV (Dec 11, 2013)

> - A logo on a 4x4x4/6x6x6 could be theoretically be used to count the number of turns made on that face in order to count parity.



Nothing to do with inspection


----------



## cubizh (Dec 11, 2013)

For the people not being able to visualize it, can someone do an example solve with a logo cube to show exactly how one can eventually take advantage of this?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 11, 2013)

cubeninjaIV said:


> Nothing to do with inspection



Exactly.


----------



## tx789 (Dec 11, 2013)

It either keep all or ban all. Or just have logo's that are part of the sticker. Having logos on some puzzles and not other May confuse people. Also as said before cube indenfication is made hard without logo's. Also I put the piece with a logo on a 2x2 in the fixed position on the wit two and Dayan. Because if you have a corner twist in a solve and it during making a face and the fixed corner is twisted at the end. And you don't know what one it is. But logo's that are a transparent overlay should be the other logo considered to be banned. Because when they start to wear out.


----------



## cubeninjaIV (Dec 11, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Exactly.


I don't understand where you thought I said logos should be banned because of inspection or whatever you think I'm saying.


----------



## DrKorbin (Dec 11, 2013)

Ok, here is the perfect plan (for 4x4):
1) During inspection "memorize" wings like in bld, counting number of cycles, thus counting if there is parity or not.
2) Solve two opposite centers, one of them must have a logo. Count the number of slices you did. Thus you know if there is parity after two centers.
3) Put your solved centers on right and left sides. Note where is your logo. Solve other centers using <Rw, U, 3Lw>. Try to count Rw moves.
4) Oh man, you didn't count Rw moves! Worry not! You just need to see where is your logo now. You still know whether you have parity!
5) Do something like (r U2)*5 if you have parity.
6) Solve wings.
7) Solve 3x3. No OLL parity - ba-dum-tss!

Vote for ban all who uses logo on 4x4.


----------



## elrog (Dec 11, 2013)

Personally, I dislike having logos on my cubes because I like my cubes to look uniform on every side (besides the color). Also, If I attended competitions, I would recognize my cubes by the cube color and my color scheme. So none of this really affects me personally.

Nowhere have I seen it mentioned what parts of a cube the stickers can be on, just what cubes they can be on. Putting a logo on the edge of a 4x4 could obviously be used to an advantage. I think logos should be restricted to pieces that either don't move or are indistinguishable due to many pieces being the same and can move into each others cycles, regardless of puzzle. This would mean you could have stickers on center pieces of cubes and the very tips of pyramixes. I'm aware that you could use a logo on the tip of a pyraminx to tell what side everything should be, but you can do this by looking at a single tip piece anyway and it wouldn't make any difference for fast pyraminx solvers who are not going to forget their orientation mid-solve.

I also think that the limit of how many logos you can have should only apply to pieces that can actually move such as centers on the 4x4 (to prevent parity prevention). This limit should be no more than one distinguishable logo (in other words, you could have clear logos all over the cube to make everything feel the same). I don't think you could use a single logo to prevent parity. So, you could have a logo on every center piece of a 3x3.

For BLD, I think all of the same rules should apply and one more should be added. This added rule should be that you can only have a logo on a center piece in BLD if every center piece has one so that they are indistinguishable by feel.

I would say that logos should not be permitted at all except for the fact that they can be used to identify your cube. Because of that fact, I've come up with this which I think is fair.

As for DrKorbins method of detecting parity, I'll have you know that the WR for 3x3 in BLD took 15 seconds of inspection. This is a 4x4 were talking about here. I don't think they would make it in the 15 second inspection limit. Keep in mind that other people are going to be planning out their first two centers while your using your time to track edge cycles. Also, you'd just slow yourself down if you end up not having parity.


----------



## KongShou (Dec 11, 2013)

Is logos considered as part of the original Rubik's brand?

Cos I seem to remember that on the regulations it says that the cubes we use should serve the functions of the original puzzle.


----------



## DrKorbin (Dec 11, 2013)

elrog said:


> This is a 4x4 were talking about here. I don't think they would make it in the 15 second inspection limit.



Aron Puddy-Mathew already did it. The reason you can do it is you don't need to memorize pieces, just count the number of cycles.


----------



## elrog (Dec 11, 2013)

The original 6x6 and 7x7 were not Rubiks, so that won't solve anything. Also, basing this on that is just plain dumb in my opinion.



DrKorbin said:


> Aron Puddy-Mathew already did it. The reason you can do it is you don't need to memorize pieces, just count the number of cycles.



That's a good point, but you still are going to be behind on inspecting your centers and you will slow yourself down if you don't end up having parity anyway. Also, its not like you don't have to do a parity alg because you still do. You just get to do a shorter parity alg because you have not already solved the cube like a 3x3.


----------



## uberCuber (Dec 11, 2013)

elrog said:


> I'll have you know that the WR for 3x3 in BLD took 15 seconds of inspection.



Uh, his memo took about 8 seconds, not 15. 



> This is a 4x4 were talking about here.



Yes, but you aren't looking at all of the pieces on the 4x4. You are only looking at the edges, which is barely more pieces than the total number of pieces on a 3x3. And as DrKorbin pointed out, you aren't actually memorizing them, just quickly tracing through them all to see if there is an even or odd number of swaps.


----------



## Joël (Dec 11, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> Ok, here is the perfect plan (for 4x4):
> 1) During inspection "memorize" wings like in bld, counting number of cycles, thus counting if there is parity or not.
> 2) Solve two opposite centers, one of them must have a logo. Count the number of slices you did. Thus you know if there is parity after two centers.
> 3) Put your solved centers on right and left sides. Note where is your logo. Solve other centers using <Rw, U, 3Lw>. Try to count Rw moves.
> ...



Allright, this seems to make a lot more sense. I am glad that this is not about something you can see imediately at inspection, which is what I first thought. So to take advantage of this you'll have to know whether you have parity in the first place, and track the cycles like in BLD. To be honest, if someone can actually do this in inspection, and then use the logo to his advantage to get a WR, I think he/she kind of deserves it, therefore I wouldn't have a problem with the logo still being allowed.

Nevertheless, I can also see now why the WCA would say this is a good argument to ban logo's on 4x4's. 

And since they are already about to ban logo's on 2x2, I'd say it's maybe better to ban logo's alltogether, just to make the rules more clear.

Btw, if I mod my 4x4, will I be allowed to mod 1 center piece a little more than the other center pieces?


----------



## uberCuber (Dec 11, 2013)

> Also, its not like you don't have to do a parity alg because you still do. You just get to do a shorter parity alg because you have not already solved the cube like a 3x3.



I don't know about you, but I think there is a pretty significant difference between doing a standard parity alg when you get to the LL, and doing the few extra moves during centers it takes to fix parity if you know about it in advance.


----------



## DrKorbin (Dec 11, 2013)

Another "cheat" with logos on 5x5x5 (in the center):
Suppose I solve 5x5 using freeslice. I solved all centers and start freeslice between white and yellow sides (the logo is on the white side). I note how the logo is rotated. Now I solved 8 edges and need to restore centers (using Uw and Dw). Unfortunately, I can determine the slice needed very slowly. But I just need to look at the rotation of the logo again - and I know how many Uw I need to do to restore centers. Well, I still need to determine Dw slice, but the logo speeds me up.

Of course, this is won't speed up quick people, and this argument is kinda "+2 penalty for misalignment can speed WF solvers who don't do the last move".


----------



## TMOY (Dec 11, 2013)

Stefan said:


> What do you mean with center parity?


I mean the supercube center (+ corner) parity. Some people seemed to think that the logo could make you able to check that parity, which is definitely wrong.



> Edge parity and _"inner qtm"_ parity are *not* independent, and a logo can help tracking the latter and thus the former. For example if you solve the L and R centers, put the logo on Rfu, and then solve the remaining centers with <Rw,U>. Then looking at the logo, you can easily tell how many Rw turns (modulo 4) you've done while solving the remaining centers.



Yes, and you can achieve the exact same result by getting the L/R centers Uw away from solved instead of fully solving them. The position of the bars on R tells you how many Rw quarter-turns (mod 4) you have done, correcting them after the third center only takes 1 or 2 moves (adjusting R if needed, then Uw), and controlling parity that way is perfectly legal.


----------



## BaMiao (Dec 11, 2013)

So now I'm basically convinced that we should ban _all_ logos, but then that seems a little extreme.

Any logo, unless made from the same exact material as all other stickers (and _replaces_ the sticker rather than laying on top of it) can be used in BLD to distinguish centers- this includes common factory-issue logos like dayan, fangshi, etc. I don't think it is a good idea have separate regulations for BLD and sighted events.

DrKorbin has presented a viable method of using the logo on 4x4 to gain an advantage. It isn't a _huge_ advantage, but that isn't important.

Logos on 2x2 uniquely identify the piece they are on. This is an advantage.

If we're fully set on getting rid of advantages due to logos, we should just get rid of logos altogether. Is that an extreme that the WCA is willing to push us to?


----------



## KongShou (Dec 11, 2013)

I think we need to define "cheating".

Cos half brights also speed me up, and is of significant help to me, much more helpful than a logo. Yet it is not defined as cheating.


----------



## TDM (Dec 11, 2013)

Joël said:


> Btw, if I mod my 4x4, will I be allowed to mod 1 center piece a little more than the other center pieces?


No; this is already covered in regs 3h and 3j.


----------



## Divineskulls (Dec 11, 2013)

Mollerz said:


> I have an embossed mf8 logo on my megaminx tiles on the purple side.
> 
> pls



A lot of tiles have embossed/debossed logos. In fact, out of the 12 faces of tiles I once bought for my mega, ~5(I know it was >= 1/3) centers had debossed logos on them.
For QJ and Mefferts minxes, iirc, this is also the case; the centers often have embossed logos on one or more sides.

1) No, I actually thought this has been a rule, and I recall having someone at a comp use a different 2x2 because it had a logo on it. I think.
2) I think people are delving too far into this question. Is it possible to deduce whether parity has changed during a solve from a logo? Yes, I think that's been proven here. Is it important enough? No, of course not. Even if someone where to utilize a logo to figure out if they had parity or not, I don't see how this could _benefit_ a solver. Even top notch solvers, in my opinion, would lose more time than gained if they were to attempt to do this in an official solve.
3) I agree with Kit, it would cause too much unnecessary confusion. One broad ruling is enough.
4) A logo is a logo, I don't see any point of banning custom logos and not brand logos, besides maybe people being too lazy to resticker/peel the brand logos off.
5) I have seen many people with logos that identify their cubes. It's not really important if _I_ personally do, but I know a lot of people do.


----------



## DrKorbin (Dec 11, 2013)

I should mention that that way of utilizing a logo doesn't use it much. A logo just helps a bit, you don't need to count your moves during one of steps of the solving, but still need to do it during other steps. If there is no logo, you still can use this trick of avoiding long OLL parity alg. Well, maybe there is a way to use a logo that doesn't work without it, I don't know.


----------



## ScottTheCuber (Dec 11, 2013)

For pyraminx what if my logo is on the Top Twisty Piece?


----------



## DrKorbin (Dec 11, 2013)

ScottTheCuber said:


> For pyraminx what if my logo is on the Top Twisty Piece?



If you logo is on red-yellow-blue tip then you can quickly determine where will be green face (opposite to the tip with logo).


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 11, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> If you logo is on red-yellow-blue tip then you can quickly determine where will be green face (opposite to the tip with logo).


And what use would that be?


----------



## DrKorbin (Dec 11, 2013)

Tim Major said:


> And what use would that be?



Simplifying your inspection. You know where green edges must go etc.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 12, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> Ok, here is the perfect plan (for 4x4):
> 1) During inspection "memorize" wings like in bld, counting number of cycles, thus counting if there is parity or not.
> 2) Solve two opposite centers, one of them must have a logo. Count the number of slices you did. Thus you know if there is parity after two centers.
> 3) Put your solved centers on right and left sides. Note where is your logo. Solve other centers using <Rw, U, 3Lw>. Try to count Rw moves.
> 4) Oh man, you didn't count Rw moves! Worry not! You just need to see where is your logo now. You still know whether you have parity![...].


Sure, you could theoretically do this, but instead of steps 3 and 4 all you have to do is continue to count until you have your 3rd center solved (which should be like <5 extra slice turns). And then instead of doing (rU2)5 you can just do an extra slice turn right before you solve that 3rd center. I've done this before for fun - without the wing tracing of course - so I can tell you that having a logo on a center piece wouldn't really provide any advantage. It's just one extra (inefficient) way to keep track of slice moves.

Also, I'm kinda amused at the idea that someone could consistently check if a wing permutation is even or odd in under 15 seconds, but not keep track of how many slice turns they've done during the first few centers.



DrKorbin said:


> Another "cheat" with logos on 5x5x5 (in the center):
> Suppose I solve 5x5 using freeslice. I solved all centers and start freeslice between white and yellow sides (the logo is on the white side). I note how the logo is rotated. Now I solved 8 edges and need to restore centers (using Uw and Dw). Unfortunately, I can determine the slice needed very slowly. But I just need to look at the rotation of the logo again - and I know how many Uw I need to do to restore centers. Well, I still need to determine Dw slice, but the logo speeds me up.


Hang on. You now have to insert your edges entirely without affecting the U center - that means no RUR' type inserts (unless you finish with a U') and no U turns to move stuff into position (again, unless you undo it afterwards). So this isn't even a situation where you can replace your center checking with an easier method - you literally have to waste moves for this to work. Clearly not worth it.


----------



## DrKorbin (Dec 12, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Hang on. You now have to insert your edges entirely without affecting the U center - that means no RUR' type inserts (unless you finish with a U') and no U turns to move stuff into position (again, unless you undo it afterwards). So this isn't even a situation where you can replace your center checking with an easier method - you literally have to waste moves for this to work. Clearly not worth it.



Yep, my bad.


----------



## cubernya (Dec 12, 2013)

1) I would say keep them, even though they could be of advantage. I don't really think anybody of speed would be able to use the information that fast, though. I could make an argument both ways, however (and could easily be wrong, I am not that good at 2x2)

2) I say no, since let's be honest, if you are good enough to check it that fast, I think you deserve the advantage. You could track all 24 edges during inspection and count slices from there, what is the difference?

3) I don't see why not. Just allow them, then in the BLD section just put no logos allowed.

4) Why would we consider banning certain logos? As long as they are appropriate, it should be allowed.

5) Some of them. For example: my 2x2 has a logo on the corner, and it's basically the only way I can tell the difference. Same with my 3x3, since I have a unique logo.


----------



## Yuxuibbs (Dec 12, 2013)

1. Keep logo on 2x2, most recognition is based on individual stickers, not entire pieces so knowing what the other 2 colors are based on the logo doesn't help that much.
Also, that would automatically make the new fangshi 2x2 illegal with no good way of making it legal since there is currently no good way of getting extra tiles
2. No, very hard to do it in a way that will actually give you better times since you have to count how many slice moves and stuff
3. Yes, just make the exception that no logos are allowed in BLD
4. Custom logos and logos that came with the cube should be allowed. 7/12 sides of my QJ megaminx have an engraved logo so there should be an exception for that.
5. Yes and yes. Especially at competitions, cube meets, and other times when there are a lot of cubes, it's much easier to identify my cubes because almost all of my cubes have my custom logo. 
I think we have to address the fact that almost everyone is using the same cube in terms of type so in terms of mechanism and look of the cube, it's not really easy to determine individual people's cubes if all of them don't have logos and don't have custom color schemes. Logos (especially custom logos) make it much easier to identify people's cubes.
I'm pretty sure 3 or 4 of my cubes are not actually my cubes. I think people mistook my cube for their cube because it was the same type of cube and it looked the same as their cube (this was before I put custom logos on all my cubes). Most of the time, the differences between cubes is very minor so I didn't notice until weeks/months later that a mark that was supposed to be there was not there. I also almost lost my clock at a competition because there wasn't a logo on it and people mixed clocks together so no one really knew which clock was theirs (I'm still not sure whether or not the clock I have right now is actually my clock). I know all of this seems very minor but a lot of my puzzles are gifts from family members that I don't see very often and it is extremely difficult for me to obtain new puzzles.

Also, will a custom logo on top of the clock where there is a seam that holds the puzzle together be legal? Will adding a logo or something inside the clock be legal?


----------



## Dene (Dec 12, 2013)

We have general rules banning attempts to cheat so we don't need to regulate every possibility that some idiot might come up with. Perhaps it is unnecessary to have an extra regulation just for logos, but it kind of fits...


----------



## Joël (Dec 12, 2013)

Yuxuibbs said:


> Also, that would automatically make the new fangshi 2x2 illegal with no good way of making it legal since there is currently no good way of getting extra tiles



Isn't it possible to just put stickers on the whole cube? (I don't have the new fangshi 2x2, so I don't know if there is a way to feel the logo underneath the sticker, but if you can't feel it, then it shouldn't be a problem)


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 12, 2013)

Surely it's enough that you can determine *something* - doesn't have to be parity


----------



## KongShou (Dec 12, 2013)

Just saying that even right now after reading most of this thread I still don't know on which corner piece of my 2x2 my logo is.


----------



## kcl (Dec 12, 2013)

KongShou said:


> Just saying that even right now after reading most of this thread I still don't know on which corner piece of my 2x2 my logo is.



Agreed, I kept mine on the anchor corner but I still never knew what it was XD


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 13, 2013)

KongShou said:


> Just saying that even right now after reading most of this thread I still don't know on which corner piece of my 2x2 my logo is.



What exactly are you trying to say with this? That it cannot be used to discern which corner it is from looking at one sticker?


----------



## Gordon (Dec 13, 2013)

Kit Clement said:


> 1) Logos are still allowed on the following puzzles: 3x3x3/5x5x5/7x7x7, Skewb, Megaminx, Square-1



Is it defined that the logo must be on a center piece? If I would put the logo on an corner on my 3x3 I would have the same 'advatage' as with a logo on a 2x2.

Edit: found the answer: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#3l


----------



## ILMZS20 (Dec 13, 2013)

lol i understand 2x2 but the reason for the 4x4 and 6x6 is so stupid, i would probably even allow people to use it so they can see if they get parity or not because predicting it is way slower than just doing the parity. i am a bit pissed that my 4x4 is not competition legal that z logo looks cool and i dont want to take it off just because i might be predicting parity.


----------



## KongShou (Dec 13, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> What exactly are you trying to say with this? That it cannot be used to discern which corner it is from looking at one sticker?



No. I'm try to say that people don't usually try to cheat by using the logo. Myself for instance.


----------



## uberCuber (Dec 13, 2013)

KongShou said:


> No. I'm try to say that people don't usually try to cheat by using the logo. Myself for instance.



Most people don't try to cheat at all. So should we not bother with regulations to prevent cheating then?


----------



## KongShou (Dec 13, 2013)

uberCuber said:


> Most people don't try to cheat at all. So should we not bother with regulations to prevent cheating then?



I never said that.


----------



## uberCuber (Dec 13, 2013)

KongShou said:


> I never said that.



I'm just trying to figure out what your point was. You said that people don't usually try to cheat with the logo. Why does that matter at all unless you are trying to say that we don't need a regulation to prevent cheating with the logo?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 13, 2013)

KongShou said:


> No. I'm try to say that people don't usually try to cheat by using the logo. Myself for instance.



Hmmm.



> None of the fast blindcubers have any benefit to peeking under the blindfold. I would never do something like that, and I don't think we need to distrust competitors about it.
> - Everyone, before February 2008


----------



## DanpHan (Dec 13, 2013)

I can see logos definitely being an issue for blindsolving, so I think it would be acceptable in that aspect, as well as maybe 2x2.
I don't see it being necessary on 4x4, though. For 6x6 maybe, as you would be able to distinguish certain types of centers more easily, but a 4x4 only has 1 type of center, so there isn't really an advantage.
This is just my opinion. I'm no expert on this subject.


----------



## mark49152 (Dec 21, 2013)

Yuxuibbs said:


> Also, that would automatically make the new fangshi 2x2 illegal with no good way of making it legal since there is currently no good way of getting extra tiles


Looks to me like the logo is on a transparent sticker. I haven't peeled it off to check, but that tile definitely has a tile-shaped transparent sticker on it.


----------



## TDM (Dec 21, 2013)

mark49152 said:


> Looks to me like the logo is on a transparent sticker. I haven't peeled it off to check, but that tile definitely has a tile-shaped transparent sticker on it.


Looks like a sticker from this picture. You can see four white tiles in the pile, and the logo isn't on a tile.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 28, 2013)

After reviewing a whole bunch of discussion, we had a Board vote to settle this.

There will be some changes in what puzzles are allowed, but most cubes should remain okay.
In addition, there will be an official grace period: *you are still allowed to use your old puzzles until March 31*. But you will be reminded that you need to have fully compliant puzzles starting April 1. That should hopefully be enough time to fix your puzzle, or buy a new one (or perhaps just new stickers).

For the exact changes about puzzles/logos, see https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/commit/402333c8078e9e57d79b45ecc258ea8cbafaf2df

In particular, the puzzle rules will now forbid cubes that have multiple colors of plastic. That means your center, edges, and corners have to be the same color of plastic, and the two-color-plastic FangShis will no longer be allow.

Thick tiles and engraved/embossed logos are no longer allowed. Such puzzles are now less popular, and there are also a lot more alternatives than when this was originally allowed (for example, everyone had a Megaminx with thick tiles back then).

Rules are also more specific about where logos may be placed, but they are officially allowed on 2x2x2 now.


----------



## ThomasJE (Dec 28, 2013)

Lucas Garron said:


> In particular, the puzzle rules will now forbid cubes that have multiple colors of plastic. That means your center, edges, and corners have to be the same color of plastic, and the two-color-plastic FangShis will no longer be allow.



Why? They give no advantage.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 28, 2013)

ThomasJE said:


> Why? They give no advantage.



Yes, that's a fair point. However, we get a *lot* of questions about whether certain plastic patterns are allowed, which requires judgment of "advantage" instead of simple rules.

Everyone has access to puzzles of a single color plastic (nearly all puzzles come this way by default), so this is not an unreasonable requirement. A few people might need to change puzzles, but then everyone should be fine. I know that some people prefer certain patterns, but no one really *needs* them.


----------



## ThomasJE (Dec 28, 2013)

Lucas Garron said:


> Yes, that's a fair point. However, we get a *lot* of questions about whether certain plastic patterns are allowed, which requires judgment of "advantage" instead of simple rules.
> 
> Everyone has access to puzzles of a single color plastic (nearly all puzzles come this way by default), so this is not an unreasonable requirement. A few people might need to change puzzles, but then everyone should be fine. I know that some people prefer certain patterns,* but no one really *needs* them*.



No one really *needs* custom logos, but they're allowed.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 28, 2013)

ThomasJE said:


> No one really *needs* custom logos, but they're allowed.



A lot of competitors use them for identification, which is a legitimate need. (Custom plastic colors also help with identification, but fewer cubers use that.)

In addition, many popular puzzles come with a logo imprinted on a sticker, and forbidding logos would require them to buy new stickers just to use the cube. In contrast, few cubes come with multiple colors of plastic.


----------



## AmazingCuber (Dec 28, 2013)

*[WCA Regulations 2014] Logos*

I don't fully get this. So are logos allowed on 4x4 and 6x6? Were the changes mentioned in the OP made?


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 28, 2013)

Lucas Garron said:


> In particular, the puzzle rules will now forbid cubes that have multiple colors of plastic. That means your center, edges, and corners have to be the same color of plastic, and the two-color-plastic FangShis will no longer be allow.



This is awful. Is that regulation targeted at the fangshi alone?

I suggest everyone protest the unjustifiable loss of their freedom by exercising it until the last minute. Bring you two-tone fangshi and use it in competition until April 1st. Even if it's not your fastest cube a little visible protest is in order. There was no valid and objective reason for this rule.


----------



## kcl (Dec 28, 2013)

SenileGenXer said:


> This is awful. Is that regulation targeted at the fangshi alone?
> 
> I suggest everyone protest the unjustifiable loss of their freedom by exercising it until the last minute. Bring you two-tone fangshi and use it in competition until April 1st. Even if it's not your fastest cube a little visible protest is in order. There was no valid and objective reason for this rule.



No. I see no issue with the rule. What's the point? I find them ugly anyway.


----------



## TDM (Dec 28, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> No. I see no issue with the rule. What's the point? I find them ugly anyway.


For me, it's my only non-57mm cube, so I'd have to either buy another cube or use a bigger cube for OH, even though it gives me, as well as anyone else using it, no advantage. But a logo on a 2x2 would, as you could identify a piece at the back just by one sticker.. So I can't see why the two-colour mini ShuangRen isn't allowed but 2x2 logos are.


----------



## kcl (Dec 28, 2013)

TDM said:


> For me, it's my only non-57mm cube, so I'd have to either buy another cube or use a bigger cube for OH, even though it gives me, as well as anyone else using it, no advantage. But a logo on a 2x2 would, as you could identify a piece at the back just by one sticker.. So I can't see why the two-colour mini ShuangRen isn't allowed but 2x2 logos are.



Touché.. I'm forgetting the fact that if I only had a two color fangshi, I'd be majorly pissed if I had to buy a new one for this.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 28, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> No. I see no issue with the rule. What's the point? I find them ugly anyway.



Exactly what is the point? Why restrict competitors choices if it isn't even about advantages? 

You may not like fangshi and think they are ugly. I think recognition a little poorer. Does it follow that yours, mine and everyone else's choices and expressions should be restricted? If you or I are getting screaming times on a two-tone fangshi the night before competition why do we have swap out the caps to match the body? Who does that appease?

The Rubik's cube 2.0 is a black body with colored caps on each external piece. The centers are literally two different colors of plastic. Is that disallowed now? 

If I get creative at shapeways and make custom caps for a 54.5mm fangshi with six different colors using them like tiles will it be allowed?


----------



## Dene (Dec 29, 2013)

SenileGenXer said:


> This is awful. Is that regulation targeted at the fangshi alone?
> 
> I suggest everyone protest the unjustifiable loss of their freedom by exercising it until the last minute. Bring you two-tone fangshi and use it in competition until April 1st. Even if it's not your fastest cube a little visible protest is in order. There was no valid and objective reason for this rule.



I think you're being unfair and inconsiderate because I take it you like the fangshi. You need to try and view this from the perspective of delegates, who constantly have to deal with the difficulties of people pressing the rules with all sorts of weird cube modifications and adjustments. It's not easy for us to moderate every single alternative and come to consistent decisions throughout the world. We have a hard enough time as it is, and it's not as if it's difficult to just get a cube with the same damn colour plastic, to make our lives easier.

Instead of being difficult and coming up with ways to make the lives of the volunteers a misery, how about thinking about those who put in an enormous effort and sacrifice to make cubing competitions an enjoyable experience for everyone. You might also think about how you can help and contribute to what we do, so the community, and cubing in general, can continue to grow.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 29, 2013)

Dene said:


> I think you're being unfair and inconsiderate because I take it you like the fangshi.



I think the new rules are unfair and inconsiderate and I have my suspicions of why they are that way. Lucas Garron's comments on Github proposing this rule sometimes go to nakedly inconsiderate.

Now this is a sport that needs rules. Most people can and will comply even for a bad rule. Most people can comply. It has been said quite a lot to sell this. That doesn't mean all people can or should comply. 

If you really want to sell this explain why this rule exists. Just because you can make people follow the rule doesn't explain it's existence. The desire to have a simpler set of rules does not explain this rule. 

As a delegate you surely did not freak out and get suspicious when you see a two-tone Fangshi. But now you're going to have to enforce and explain this bad rule. Again and again. It doesn't stop weird cube mods it just specifies the colorations allowed.

If you want respect don't assume someone questioning the rules does does so out of "butthurt".


----------



## Dene (Dec 29, 2013)

SenileGenXer said:


> Lucas Garron's comments on Github proposing this rule sometimes go to nakedly inconsiderate.



I'm not sure which comments you are referring to; by my understanding, Sarah Strong was the first person to specifically bring up the fangshi. But regardless, the comments of the WRC are generally based on discussions with the delegates; for the most part they are simply a public voice for other discussions that have gone on in private. (Mostly I'm saying it is unfair to single out any one person, so don't go blaming Lucas for this).



SenileGenXer said:


> As a delegate you surely do not freak out and get suspicious when you see a two-tone Fangshi.



Actually, there has been dispute amongst delegates about the fangshi (I should point out this cube is just one obvious case amongst others). And as a delegate, the first thing we do when we see something out of the ordinary is "freak out and get suspicious". You clearly have no idea what it's like for a delegate, constantly dealing with weird cubes and things throughout competitions.



SenileGenXer said:


> But now you're going to have to enforce and explain this bad rule. Again and again. It doesn't stop weird cube mods it just specifies the colorations allowed.



Enforcing this "bad" rule will be considerably easier than enforcing the previous rule, so that's a good thing. Explaining rules to people is another thing delegates have to spend a lot of time doing every competition, so that won't be anything new. And while it won't stop people doing other weird modifications to their cubes, it will prevent us having to deal with instances of mixed-colour-plastics from now on, making our lives easier. You don't appear to have been around for all that long, so you wouldn't be aware of some of the history around here... once upon a time "hybrid" cubes were all the rage, and for delegates they caused all sorts of difficulties, and many inconsistent decisions from different delegates around the world. This is what we're trying to prevent in an attempt to improve the situation within the WCA in general.



SenileGenXer said:


> If you want respect don't assume someone questioning the rules does does so out of "butthurt".



I don't care about your respect, but I still haven't seen an actual reason from you other than "but but but it's my best cube and I wanna use it     ". If you actually have a good reason, you're doing an extremely good job of making it out as if you don't have one.


I've tried to give you some insight into the world of making the WCA work; perhaps you should take the time to think about it and consider what I've said this time. What we do isn't easy, stop being so unnecessarily difficult.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 29, 2013)

Dene said:


> I don't care about your respect, but I still haven't seen an actual reason from you other than "but but but it's my best cube and I wanna use it     ". If you actually have a good reason, you're doing an extremely good job of making it out as if you don't have one.
> 
> I've tried to give you some insight into the world of making the WCA work; perhaps you should take the time to think about it and consider what I've said this time. What we do isn't easy, stop being so unnecessarily difficult.



Your are not listening. I didn't say any of that. The fangshi is currently my second best cube and not what I would think of for competition. Damm it travels well and I could just change caps. I asked who would that appease.

What I resent is choices being taken away. Misplaced burdens. If making delegates lives easier and being "consistent" - if arming them with rules and authority to deny contestants is what cubing is all about this is a great rule.

When I have asked why this was done you have said it is all about you and the volunteer job you seem to resent. Sorry if questions seem to exacerbate that. That doesn't mean questions should stop.

For other people you have just disqualified their main cube. You seem to have done this to make your job easier. I think there might be some resentment coming from a different direction.

I am new around here. I have never been to a competition. If you have a hierarchical/judgemental mind those two statements just invalidated everything I said about this.


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 29, 2013)

SenileGenXer said:


> Your are not listening. I didn't say any of that. The fangshi is currently my second best cube and not what I would think of for competition. Damm it travels well and I could just change caps. I asked who would that appease.
> 
> What I resent is choices being taken away. Misplaced burdens. If making delegates lives easier and being "consistent" - if arming them with rules and authority to deny contestants is what cubing is all about this is a great rule.
> 
> ...



I don't intend to be hierarchical, but if you haven't attended a competition, it's hard to understand the decisions that need to be made on a consistent basis around the world. Consistency in decisions is one of the hardest parts of delegating. In China, there were actually delegates that would not allow the weilong (might have been another puzzle, not sure) because of the asymmetrical cuts. We've cleared this up since, but inconsistencies like this appear often. 

What has been incredibly hard to make consistent are judgments about hybrids/swapped caps. We have had many interpretations of this situation for years, and the multi color fangshi only complicates these issues. 

It is indeed a negative consequence that some will not be able to use their cubes, but we believe that ample time had been given to make an adjustment. But every time a multi colored cube is used in competition, delegates have to check that all the color differences are symmetrical, as it is plausible for s competitor to swap fangshi parts. Our time is better spent attending to other matters that may prevent a major incident rather than checking multi colored cubes.


----------



## Dene (Dec 29, 2013)

SenileGenXer said:


> When I have asked why this was done you have said it is all about you and the volunteer job you seem to resent. Sorry if questions seem to exacerbate that. That doesn't mean questions should stop.



I love doing what I do, but it's good having some more regulations in place to make my life easier when it comes to it. The thing is, there's really only one question for you to ask, namely "why ban these cubes?" I've answered that question, and yet you persist seemingly without any thought given to what I've said.



SenileGenXer said:


> What I resent is choices being taken away. Misplaced burdens. If making delegates lives easier and being "consistent" - if arming them with rules and authority to deny contestants is what cubing is all about this is a great rule.



There are a ton of things currently banned by the regulations. But this is what the regulations are for, and regulations are absolutely necessary. You seem to have no idea what it's like managing an organisation. Look at any sport in the world; there will always be tons of rules and regulations. This is necessary to bring everyone in line with each other, to maintain fair and equal conditions throughout the world in every case. We have to make decisions all the time about changes to the WCA's regulations to ensure that fairness and equality are maintained consistently in every competition in every country in the world. Sometimes this means making hard choices and banning things, but sometimes it is necessary to take action. We will always consider everything we can think of before making decisions like this, for example, the consideration that only a small minority of people use multi-coloured cubes. The decision to ban the stickerless dayan cubes had more of an impact than this decision...



SenileGenXer said:


> I am new around here. I have never been to a competition. If you have a hierarchical/judgemental mind those two statements just invalidated everything I said about this.



You've got it all wrong. I'm just trying to give you a perspective that you obviously aren't aware of (might I say, through no fault of your own). But because you aren't aware of our perspective, you have to put in that extra thought and consideration to try and see where we are coming from. Until you know what it's like for us, you can't really continue to argue against the case I have put forward. 


What it comes down to is, these sorts of cubes create unnecessary difficulty for delegates and competitors around the world. There is absolutely no need for anyone to have to use these cubes over any of the other cubes out there (which, I should point out, are largely considered superior). So to anyone unhappy with this decision: get over it and move on... you probably won't care anymore come April anyway.


----------



## Yuxuibbs (Dec 29, 2013)

I'm going to ask here since it wasn't really answered in the other thread. 



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



Would having black 57mm caps on a primary fangshi be legal (caps are black so everything on the outside looks like a black cube but the internals are all primary)?

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


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 30, 2013)

Just a note: there was more Board discussion, and there will definitely be some changes before the final version.
In particular, you can expect that the change for multicolored plastic will be relaxed.

(I note that this took place before SenileGenXer started posting stuff. I'm traveling, so I'm lucky to be getting significant internet at all.)


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 30, 2013)

Thank you for your reply. I was upset about other things in my life I shouldn't even be upset about and let far too much of that emotion bleed into my behavior here. Thank you for your thoughtful response and perspective.

I do learn by questioning and I have learned another perspective.


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Dec 30, 2013)

Because of this al plastic need to be the same can you put like in a 2x2. A sticker less core and then use it?


----------



## DrKorbin (Dec 30, 2013)

Suggestion: change 3a4 to "All visible pieces of a puzzle ..." or "All outer pieces of a puzzle ...".

Ground: my SS 5x5 is black, but has white core (previous cube had red core). Is it really banned? Do a delegate really need to disassemble each and every cube to make sure absolutely all parts have same color?


Spoiler


----------



## Lchu613 (Dec 31, 2013)

My two former mains:
A 57 mm white Fangshi with black internals.
A black Zhanchi with white caps.

My two previously perfectly viable cubes, which give me no advantage, would have been disallowed. Ouch.
I mean, I can see that it would have been hard for the delegates to make decisions before this, but that's a bit overboard don't you think?
They keep saying "these cubes are less popular" "there are more alternatives". Well darn it all Reeboks are less popular than Nikes, and they have too many types of materials in them that don't actually give them an advantage, and there are plenty of alternative shoes that exist so let's ban people from wearing them.

And then there's the issue of cores. You have primary/yellow Fangshi cores, primary and yellow Dayan cores, red Maru cores, and blue Moyu cores, none of which match the cube colors. Are all of these cubes now illegal? (This part is just me being picky about the wording)


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 31, 2013)

3a4 is not in the final 2014 regulations.


----------



## cubizh (Dec 31, 2013)

I have made a video regarding logos that (hopefully?) will help out understanding the differences between logos according to regulation 3l):


Spoiler: Video:



[YOUTUBEHD]-E3VWq03vx4[/YOUTUBEHD]


----------



## Dene (Jan 1, 2014)

Lchu613 said:


> They keep saying "these cubes are less popular" "there are more alternatives". Well darn it all Reeboks are less popular than Nikes, and they have too many types of materials in them that don't actually give them an advantage, and there are plenty of alternative shoes that exist so let's ban people from wearing them



These two cases are not analogous in the slightest. I'll leave it as a bit of homework for you to figure out why. (And the best part is, once you learn why, you'll be able to make smarter arguments in the future).


----------



## KiwiCuber (Jan 1, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Thick tiles and engraved/embossed logos are no longer allowed. Such puzzles are now less popular, and there are also a lot more alternatives than when this was originally allowed (for example, everyone had a Megaminx with thick tiles back then).



To clarify here, are mf8 megaminx tiles now illegal (center tile with logo molded/thickness) or is my v3 mega still ok. 
Doesnt really bother me either way ill just switch back to my dayan if its illegal


----------



## Divineskulls (Jan 1, 2014)

KiwiCuber said:


> To clarify here, are mf8 megaminx tiles now illegal (center tile with logo molded/thickness) or is my v3 mega still ok.
> Doesnt really bother me either way ill just switch back to my dayan if its illegal



I'd really like to know about this. I can't recognize a mega with stickers anymore, I'm so used to the tiles.


----------



## AlexMaass (Jan 1, 2014)

KiwiCuber said:


> To clarify here, are mf8 megaminx tiles now illegal (center tile with logo molded/thickness) or is my v3 mega still ok.
> Doesnt really bother me either way ill just switch back to my dayan if its illegal


You could sand down the logo tile and all the pieces enough so it isn't too thick and to remove the embossed logo.


----------



## DrKorbin (Jan 1, 2014)

KiwiCuber said:


> To clarify here, are mf8 megaminx tiles now illegal (center tile with logo molded/thickness) or is my v3 mega still ok.
> Doesnt really bother me either way ill just switch back to my dayan if its illegal



If tiles are not thicker then 1mm, then ok. Or does your megaminx have logos on each center? Then it is not ok.


----------



## NathanWalsh (Jan 1, 2014)

What about 4 logos on a 2x2? all the white faces would have an identical sticker in the same orientation so you could not differientiate the pieces :confused:


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 1, 2014)

NathanWalsh said:


> What about 4 logos on a 2x2? all the white faces would have an identical sticker in the same orientation so you could not differientiate the pieces :confused:



https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#3l A puzzle may have a logo on a sticker/tile, but it must have at most one sticker/tile with a logo.


----------



## Michael Womack (Jan 1, 2014)

For 3l1a why would anyone put a logo on a Pyraminx edge?


----------



## KiwiCuber (Jan 1, 2014)

DrKorbin said:


> If tiles are not thicker then 1mm, then ok. Or does your megaminx have logos on each center? Then it is not ok.



I just mesaured and they are exactly 1mm thick and only my light blue side has a logo, so i guess its ok then


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 2, 2014)

KiwiCuber said:


> To clarify here, are mf8 megaminx tiles now illegal (center tile with logo molded/thickness) or is my v3 mega still ok.
> Doesnt really bother me either way ill just switch back to my dayan if its illegal



mf8 tiles are 1.2mm thick, so they are not allowed. This was an intentional decision, although the Board is aware that some competitors are especially concerned about this.



Michael Womack said:


> For 3l1a why would anyone put a logo on a Pyraminx edge?



I don't know. But this is simpler than adding more cases to make things stricter.


----------



## Lid (Jan 2, 2014)

Changing the allowed thinkness of tiles is imo one of the strangest decisions from WCA I've seen.

And saying "there are more alternatives" in not a reason to do this.

edit: This is a rush decisions from my POV, did you even ask the community?

And I'm mostly think of all those who use Megaminx with either mf8 or Mefferts tiles.
And unless any of those produce thinner tiles I just can't see any reason to "ban" them.


----------



## arcio1 (Jan 2, 2014)

WTF WCA Board?! So many people using Megaminxes with MF8 tiles, even the world record holder uses that and all of a sudden you forbid using them? BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE ALTERNATIVES?! You gotta be kidding me.


----------



## DrKorbin (Jan 2, 2014)

But you can see tiles behind in your mf8. More information available.


----------



## arcio1 (Jan 2, 2014)

Yeah, sure, everyone who has tiles does it, why should I look at faces in front, looking at those behind is so much better.


----------



## Lid (Jan 2, 2014)

DrKorbin said:


> But you can see tiles behind in your mf8. More information available.


But a Megaminx isn't cubic (90° angle vs. 72°).


----------



## DrKorbin (Jan 2, 2014)

arcio1 said:


> Yeah, sure, everyone who has tiles does it, why should I look at faces in front, looking at those behind is so much better.



Good argument! Let's also permit colored Dayans and supercubes!



Lid said:


> But a Megaminx isn't cubic (90° angle vs. 72°).



So what?


----------



## Lid (Jan 2, 2014)

DrKorbin said:


> So what?


 So you are always going to be able to see more than one side no matter what, which isn't possible on a cube = any advantage is eliminated.


----------



## DrKorbin (Jan 2, 2014)

Lid said:


> So you are always going to be able to see more than one side no matter what, which isn't possible on a cube = any advantage is eliminated.



Can you see a color of pieces behind red and white faces on the left and on the right megaminx?



Spoiler


----------



## arcio1 (Jan 2, 2014)

I can take a photo from such a perspective that you will see it on megaminx with stickers and you won't on Megaminx with tiles. 
Also, do you really think that you could use that is speedsolve?


----------



## DrKorbin (Jan 2, 2014)

arcio1 said:


> I can take a photo from such a perspective that you will see it on megaminx with stickers and you won't on Megaminx with tiles.
> Also, do you really think that you could use that is speedsolve?



So you point is tiles don't give any advantage information?
The fact that I or you do not use it in speedsolving is irrelevant. See colored cubes ban.


----------



## arcio1 (Jan 2, 2014)

Why can't you just use common sense? Fast people just don't use tiles to have more information, because they would need to focus on looking behind instead of actual solving the Megaminx.
IMO, the only advantage that tiles give is that Megaminx becomes bigger. Some may say that stickers give you advantage, should't you ban them then? Just THINK.


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 2, 2014)

So it has been decided that it is a good idea to ban the very megaminx used to get the current WR? If the tiles really do give an advantage, then doesn't that mean that the current WR has an unfair advantage that anyone now trying to beat it can't obtain? If the advantage given by tiles is so unfair, then maybe the WCA should ignore the current (and past) WR's. 

In short, I don't like this ban.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 2, 2014)

uberCuber said:


> So it has been decided that it is a good idea to ban the very megaminx used to get the current WR? If the tiles really do give an advantage, then doesn't that mean that the current WR has an unfair advantage that anyone now trying to beat it can't obtain? If the advantage given by tiles is so unfair, then maybe the WCA should ignore the current (and past) WR's.
> 
> In short, I don't like this ban.



Same case with 3BLD World Records being set on stickerless cubes.


----------



## Finez (Jan 2, 2014)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Same case with 3BLD World Records being set on stickerless cubes.


The current 3BLD WR was made with a regular cube, and nobody really cares about former WRs.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Jan 2, 2014)

DrKorbin said:


> Can you see a color of pieces behind red and white faces on the left and on the right megaminx?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler



The most sides you can see on a megaminx are 6, in this photo can you see more than 6 sides on the tiled?



Spoiler


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 2, 2014)

Jaysammey777 said:


> The most sides you can see on a megaminx are 6, in this photo can you see more than 6 sides on the tiled?



In the picture that DrKorbin posted, you can actually see 8 faces.


----------



## arcio1 (Jan 2, 2014)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> In the picture that DrKorbin posted, you can actually see 8 faces.



You can't, you can see 5 faces and BARELY see a BIT of 3.


----------



## Lucas Wesche (Jan 2, 2014)

arcio1 said:


> Why can't you just use common sense? Fast people just don't use tiles to have more information, because they would need to focus on looking behind instead of actual solving the Megaminx.
> IMO, the only advantage that tiles give is that Megaminx becomes bigger. Some may say that stickers give you advantage, should't you ban them then? Just THINK.



I definitely agree with this. If you focus on looking at the pieces behind, you could not concentrate on solving. 



MaeLSTRoM said:


> In the picture that DrKorbin posted, you can actually see 8 faces.



It is possible to hold a 3x3 cube with stickers in a way that you can see 4 sides of it.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 2, 2014)

Lucas Wesche said:


> I definitely agree with this. If you focus on looking at the pieces behind, you could not concentrate on solving.
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible to hold a 3x3 cube with stickers in a way that you can see 4 sides of it.



Indeed it is, and if that 3x3 had thick tiles, you could possibly see all 6. The amount of visible faces has no bearing on the affect in solves, just the presence of the colour past the edge of the puzzle is enough to call it into doubt. As much as I disagree with removing tiles from Megaminx, I can understand the reasoning.


----------



## Lid (Jan 2, 2014)

We have NOT removed the tiles from any puzzle, just "shaved" them off a little. (1.5mm to 1.0mm)


----------



## Dene (Jan 2, 2014)

Finez said:


> The current 3BLD WR was made with a regular cube, and nobody really cares about former WRs.



Every current WR will eventually become a former WR, so just wait a while, then you can go and get over it.


----------



## tx789 (Jan 3, 2014)

People could sand down their tiles. If the really wanted to have them on their megaminx.


----------



## Bob (Jan 3, 2014)

So does this mean that it's now necessary to bring a metric ruler with me to competitions I'm delegating?


----------



## Dene (Jan 3, 2014)

Bob said:


> So does this mean that it's now necessary to bring a metric ruler with me to competitions I'm delegating?



There was always a thickness standard. The only thing that has changed is the specific number. So really nothing should be different to how you always treated it.


----------



## Bob (Jan 3, 2014)

Dene said:


> There was always a thickness standard. The only thing that has changed is the specific number. So really nothing should be different to how you always treated it.



Well what changed was "the general available thickness" rule...that was vague enough to eliminate the need for measuring any of the tiles I've ever come across.


----------



## Erik (Jan 3, 2014)

I would like to take this moment to thank the following:

The WCA for forcing me to ruin 2 of my best cubes I have for no reason at all: 
- first of all my wonderfull tiled Mefferts (original) Megaminx I have been using for over 8 years in competition now.
- second: my 4x4 with Mefferts tiles.

Seriously WHY do you force me to ruin these cubes? I can probably not use them ever again in competition because it is quite hard to get rid of all the residue and to put on some tiles with the exact same colours. Especially for Megaminx I am quite sure this will be the end for me of taking part in this event. There are no tiles with the exact same colours as the ones of the original puzzle: lookahead will be gone and my times will go up about 15 seconds. 
Remember: this has NOTHING to do with the fact that you theoretically have a MINOR advantage of thicker tiles. Everyone knows this advantage theoretical advantage does NOT cause faster times.


----------



## Mollerz (Jan 3, 2014)

Erik said:


> I would like to take this moment to thank the following:
> 
> The WCA for forcing me to ruin 2 of my best cubes I have for no reason at all:
> - first of all my wonderfull tiled Mefferts (original) Megaminx I have been using for over 8 years in competition now.
> ...



Agreed, did absolutely nobody consider that a large majority of fast megaminxers actually use mf8 tiles and do none of them realise the significant difference between these and stickers regarding colour and grip?


----------



## qqwref (Jan 3, 2014)

This isn't about wanting to remove a bunch of competitors who use cubes that give them an unfair advantage. Thick tiles (1.2mm or whatever they are) are ubiquitous in megaminx. Erik Akkersdijk (9 megaminx WRs) used a tiled minx; Stefan Pochmann (7 WRs) used a tiled minx; Balint Bodor (6 WRs) used a tiled minx; Simon Westlund (4 WRs) used a tiled minx. There are only 2 minx WRs ever that weren't by one of those 4 people.

And now these puzzles are illegal, because of the choice of some people who probably aren't world-class at the event? Should we make minxers solve with gloves too, just to add insult to injury? Some minxes can be very sharp, you know. It's for safety.


----------



## suushiemaniac (Jan 3, 2014)

Just one question: Regulation 3d3) clarifies that the current in-use tiles by Mefferts or Mf8 are too thick by 0.2mm, which is even less than the thickness of some stickers. Does anybody in here believe that shaving off the tiles on a megaminx by two hundreths of a cm (thus adjusting them to the rules) would eliminate the "you-can-see-more-sides-than-you-are-supposed-to" issue?


----------



## KongShou (Jan 3, 2014)

So many complaints at the mega tiles.


----------



## TimMc (Jan 3, 2014)

What's the Quality Control like on mf8 tiles?

Are they actually 1.2mm thick or are some batches thinner or thicker?

The intention might be to ban mf8 tiles but if a competitor presents an mf8 Megaminx with tiles that are no more than 1mm thick then I'll allow it based on the new regulations.

Tim.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 6, 2014)

These sticker/tiles rules don't prevent against any practical way of cheating except for M2-parity in blindfolded
They also do not prevent against theoretical cheating because having scratches under the stickers, differently modded pieces, differently tightened pieces and probably many many more are just as easy to abuse but harder to detect.
They DO make the lives of delegates/organizers easier because they can say "no" more easily

However,
Too many common puzzles would suddenly become invalid which people will never expect.
Making the original tiled Mefferts Megaminx illegal but keeping the original rounded VCube 7 is far too arbitrary. I actually think there is a higher percentage of people that use tiled minxes than rounded 7x7x7 (I don't have proof, but I bought tiled minxes much more recent than rounded 7's)

The ones who benefit from these rules are the delegates and cube shops. The ones that suffer are the competitors.
The negatives are very real, the benefits are mostly hypothetical.
The rules didn't get more clear, they got harder to understand.
(allowing the use of stickers for FMC now seems really odd although I agree that it should be allowed)

[Highly controversial stuff coming below]
Why not make it as simple as this (and yes, that would allow for transparent cubes, it would put a burden on the judge/delegate to make judgement calls and it could create discussions)
1) All puzzle brands, sizes, modifications, stickers, logos, tiles are allowed as long as they don't change the possible and non-possible moves of the original puzzle.
2a) It is allowed to have anomalies on the puzzle as long as those anomalies are not used by the competitor to get an unfair advantage
2b) Determination of such anomaly-abuse will be done by the judge and/or delegate.
2c) Penalty: all results from the competitor for that competition become DNF and an official investigation might be started leading to more severe penalties.
2d) It is the responsibility of the competitor to bring a legal cube and if he has doubts about the anomalies on his puzzle he should resolve these before handing in his puzzle for scrambling.

The main point of the above is to allow everyone to use the puzzle they want to use as long as it is fair. I realise it will cause some conflicts so to avoid most abuse I suggest high penalties. This should scare of the cheaters while it allows for everyone to cube without worrying about theoretical problems
[ducks]


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 6, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> Why not make it as simple as this (and yes, that would allow for transparent cubes, it would put a burden on the judge/delegate to make judgement calls and it could create discussions)
> 1) All puzzle brands, sizes, modifications, stickers, logos, tiles are allowed as long as they don't change the possible and non-possible moves of the original puzzle.
> 2a) It is allowed to have anomalies on the puzzle as long as those anomalies are not used by the competitor to get an unfair advantage
> 2b) Determination of such anomaly-abuse will be done by the judge and/or delegate.
> ...



If you'd like to "propose" this, could you provide specific changes to the Regulations with these applied? (e.g. download the sources, make changes in a text editor, email them to me)


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Jan 6, 2014)

@AvGalen

The only problem with this is the inconsistency from competition to competition. WCA is currently trying to make a uniform law to make the law the same for everyone. They achieved this, but in such a way that most people disagree with some of the regulations added. If an alternative is suggested it would still need to reach the original goal: which is to have non controversial regulations.


----------



## tim (Jan 6, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> 2a) It is allowed to have anomalies on the puzzle as long as those anomalies are not used by the competitor to get an unfair advantage



How would you enforce such a rule? You can't guess the intentions of the competitor. Or did you mean "as long as those anomalies can not be used ..."?


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 6, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> If you'd like to "propose" this, could you provide specific changes to the Regulations with these applied? (e.g. download the sources, make changes in a text editor, email them to me)


I will spend time for that tomorrow night if you can point me to a "how-to" for using github. I am using Visual Studio 2013 for coding and it now has git support as well. I saw it mentioned over and over in the regulations thread but I need a small starter.

I am personally not very much interested in making an airtight rulebook. Of course consistency is great but I have been to enough competitions to know that lots of small and sometimes bigger things happen that are in the spirit of the WCA but against the rules. I would personally never give a penalty to a kid that picks up the cube after his first 2 minute solve just before I write down the time. That kid is not interested that it would be more correct and fair to give him a penalty because the same would happen to a sub 10 solver on the other side of the world during his 100th competition.
I think the current rules are much too detailed and try to cover every possible thing that can go wrong individually. Even very experienced people don't know every rule anymore. I would like to attempt a restoration of "use common sense as much as possible". I think it is better to have 1 umbrella-rule than 20 tissue-rules. Because of that I have applied to become a WRC member.



tim said:


> How would you enforce such a rule? You can't guess the intentions of the competitor. Or did you mean "as long as those anomalies can not be used ..."?


No, I really meant to allow anomalies that COULD be abused, as long as they aren't! I also mentioned how enforcement would be done. The judge and delegate can make such judgement calls. I also mentioned that because of the high penalty and general goodwill of competitors there will not be many problems. Please don't stop reading after 2a, the rest of the rules are necessary for balancing the freedom for the competitor with the fairness that is needed for a competition


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 6, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> I will spend time for that tomorrow night if you can point me to a "how-to" for using github. I am using Visual Studio 2013 for coding and it now has git support as well. I saw it mentioned over and over in the regulations thread but I need a small starter.


GitHub has started making it easier to do this on the site itself, but I don't know of a good tutorial that focuses on simple use. I'll be busy, but you could ask Tim (knows a lot) or Sarah (has been working well with a basic flow).



AvGalen said:


> I would personally never give a penalty to a kid that picks up the cube after his first 2 minute solve just before I write down the time. That kid is not interested that it would be more correct and fair to give him a penalty because the same would happen to a sub 10 solver on the other side of the world during his 100th competition.



I like to think that we trust Delegates to make such decisions.
(I know you're not concerned about that specific example, but in the case of picking up the cube, there is a +2 instead of DNF at the judge's discretion, and I don't think it's too mean if you're 2 minutes. Presumably you'd learn quickly.



AvGalen said:


> II think the current rules are much too detailed and try to cover every possible thing that can go wrong individually. Even very experienced people don't know every rule anymore. I would like to attempt a restoration of "use common sense as much as possible". I think it is better to have 1 umbrella-rule than 20 tissue-rules.


That's a totally valid point of view. For one, Article A and related procedures have become rather overspecified.
And some things like "what puzzle is allowed" or "requirements for organizers" or "scrambler specifications" can be put somewhere else without really hurting things.

However, we'd need to be careful that the result would is not a lean version of the Regulations that require a lot of unwritten rules to work properly.
Because then we're in the current situation (or maybe 2 years back), but a new cuber can't inform him/herself without looking in a lot of places and asking questions.



AvGalen said:


> Because of that I have applied to become a WRC member.


Great! As I've been telling some people, you can do just as much good without actually being on the WRC. But if you think it would be better to be on the WRC proper, you're welcome to apply. Whom did you contact?


----------



## tim (Jan 6, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> No, I really meant to allow anomalies that COULD be abused, as long as they aren't! I also mentioned how enforcement would be done. The judge and delegate can make such judgement calls. I also mentioned that because of the high penalty and general goodwill of competitors there will not be many problems. Please don't stop reading after 2a, the rest of the rules are necessary for balancing the freedom for the competitor with the fairness that is needed for a competition



I didn't stop reading. I was just wondering how you would distinguish someone using 5mm tiles in order to peak at the back color of the BR piece from someone using 5mm tiles without looking at the BR piece during his solve. I don't think you can distinguish that. If you want to have an authority to decide whether a cube is legal or not (2d sounds like that, but needs to be done before the solve, otherwise it's just too late), that's fine, but has the issues Jaysammey777 mentioned.


----------



## tim (Jan 7, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> GitHub has started making it easier to do this on the site itself, but I don't know of a good tutorial that focuses on simple use. I'll be busy, but you could ask Tim (knows a lot) or Sarah (has been working well with a basic flow).



The workflow using Github (without using git locally) would be:

1.) Create a Github account
2.) Fork https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents by clicking on "Fork"
3.) Go to your version of the repository and create a new branch with a decent name for what you're trying to do (e.g. "add-skewb") (https://github.com/blog/1377-create-and-delete-branches)
4.) Change to the new branch, go to wca-regulations.md and click on "Edit". You should now be able to edit the markdown file and enter a commit message once you're done.
5.) Create a pull request: https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request where you explain what you changed and why.

Using git locally gives you much more options, though. For example you could rewrite the history and fix bad commit messages.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 7, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> (I know you're not concerned about that specific example, but in the case of picking up the cube, there is a +2 instead of DNF at the judge's discretion, and I don't think it's too mean if you're 2 minutes. Presumably you'd learn quickly.
> Great! As I've been telling some people, you can do just as much good without actually being on the WRC. But if you think it would be better to be on the WRC proper, you're welcome to apply. Whom did you contact?


I wouldn't have a big problem to give someone a +2 for starting/stopping wrongly, but giving that kid a DNF for picking up the cube too quickly AFTER the solve....I just wouldn't do that.
I contacted the board by email, asking them how I could get the mean-of-3 FMC annuled. They told me to apply for a board or WRC membership. So I applied for the WCR.



tim said:


> I didn't stop reading. I was just wondering how you would distinguish someone using 5mm tiles in order to peak at the back color of the BR piece from someone using 5mm tiles without looking at the BR piece during his solve. I don't think you can distinguish that. If you want to have an authority to decide whether a cube is legal or not (2d sounds like that, but needs to be done before the solve, otherwise it's just too late), that's fine, but has the issues Jaysammey777 mentioned.


Yes, there will need to be a judgement and sometimes that might be difficult and different from judge to judge. I think that is acceptable. If you make the risk of getting caught high enough and the penalty high enough you can prevent almost every problem already because there is so little to gain from cheating.



tim said:


> The workflow using Github (without git) would be:
> 
> 1.) Create a Github account
> 2.) Fork https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents by clicking on "Fork"
> ...


Thanks. This is very similar to what I expected. I setup an account and had a look around. However I think it is time to get horizontal now and start going tomorrow night


----------



## ThomasJE (Jan 7, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> [Highly controversial stuff coming below]
> Why not make it as simple as this (and yes, that would allow for transparent cubes, it would put a burden on the judge/delegate to make judgement calls and it could create discussions)
> 1) All puzzle brands, sizes, modifications, stickers, logos, tiles are allowed as long as they don't change the possible and non-possible moves of the original puzzle.
> *2a) It is allowed to have anomalies on the puzzle as long as those anomalies are not used by the competitor to get an unfair advantage*
> ...



Could I recommend changing 2a to:

2a) It is allowed to have anomalies on the puzzle as long as those anomalies *can not and does not give the competitor an unfair advantage. This judgement should be made by the WCA delegate.*

This would outlaw transparent cubes and pillowed cubes (with the exception of 7x7 of course should we keep it).


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 8, 2014)

ThomasJE said:


> 2a) It is allowed to have anomalies on the puzzle as long as those anomalies *can not and does not give the competitor an unfair advantage. This judgement should be made by the WCA delegate.*



Then we're worse off than the current situation.
Fact is, a lot of things *can* give someone an unfair advantage (which doesn't necessarily mean making them faster). According to this, a Delegate is justified in enforcing any parts of the original proposal in this thread, so I'm not sure we'd end up with a fair result.


----------



## Erik (Jan 8, 2014)

tim said:


> I didn't stop reading. I was just wondering how you would distinguish someone using 5mm tiles in order to peak at the back color of the BR piece from someone using 5mm tiles without looking at the BR piece during his solve. I don't think you can distinguish that. If you want to have an authority to decide whether a cube is legal or not (2d sounds like that, but needs to be done before the solve, otherwise it's just too late), that's fine, but has the issues Jaysammey777 mentioned.



I'm really wondering if any of the WCA delegates or WRC members actually *truly believe* you can use tiles/transparent cubes/coloured plastic/rounded cubes to 'cheat' and use the characteristics of these cubes to actually *be faster than on a 'normal' cube* (the answer can be different per cube). When the answer is yes, can you please point me to any evidence that would support this?

In the specific case of tiles: can anyone give me a reason that 1.5+mm would be thick enough for cheating and 1 mm isn't?


----------



## Bob (Jan 8, 2014)

Erik said:


> I'm really wondering if any of the WCA delegates or WRC members actually *truly believe* you can use tiles/transparent cubes/coloured plastic/rounded cubes to 'cheat' and use the characteristics of these cubes to actually *be faster than on a 'normal' cube* (the answer can be different per cube). When the answer is yes, can you please point me to any evidence that would support this?
> 
> In the specific case of tiles: can anyone give me a reason that 1.5+mm would be thick enough for cheating and 1 mm isn't?



I believe that people should be able to use their own puzzles. If somebody wants their tiles to be 5mm thick, fine. Allow tiles of any thickness. I don't think people will go searching for 5mm tiles for their cubes. Allow stickerless cubes. Some people will use them and some people won't. Allow logos. Allow engravings. In a speedsolve, these things will not help you. If you believe they will, then use their cubes. If all of these changes were made, I would still continue to use my cube that is legal under the 2014 Regulations anyway.


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Jan 8, 2014)

as said in the first post you are not allowed having logos on 4x4 and 6x6 because you can count parity.
shouldn't you ban them then also from 5x5 and 7x7? you have parity there aswell.


----------



## tim (Jan 8, 2014)

Erik said:


> I'm really wondering if any of the WCA delegates or WRC members actually *truly believe* you can use tiles/transparent cubes/coloured plastic/rounded cubes to 'cheat' and use the characteristics of these cubes to actually *be faster than on a 'normal' cube* (the answer can be different per cube).



Did you quote me on purpose? I made this point simply to point out the issue Arnaud's suggested rule has (I could've used any other illegal cube for this example. Feeling stickers during BLD would've worked just as well: You can't prove that someone put his finger on DL in order to feel that sticker. But I simply went with "thick tiles".). My comment had nothing to do with the actual regulations. And yes, I think you can practice using thick tiles to your advantage.


----------



## Erik (Jan 8, 2014)

tim said:


> Did you quote me on purpose? I made this point simply to point out the issue Arnaud's suggested rule has (I could've used any other illegal cube for this example. Feeling stickers during BLD would've worked just as well: You can't prove that someone put his finger on DL in order to feel that sticker. But I simply went with "thick tiles".). My comment had nothing to do with the actual regulations. And yes, I think you can practice using thick tiles to your advantage.



Yes and no, there we probably better posts to quote. I just wanted an example of a post where it is assumed the problem with thick tiles is that you can cheat with them. 

Can you show me any 'evidence' of actual time gain using tiles, that backs up your statement? If you do, can you also show me any 'evidence' that this would not work on 1mm tiles? Can you also please give me an indication of how much time you would gain?

(I know you did not say *1.5mm* tiles would gain time and 1mm tiles wouldn't, I just ask because these are the current regulations.)


----------



## tim (Jan 8, 2014)

I meant "I think" more in the sense of "I believe". I, of course, don't have any evidence. As far as I know: No one has any evidence either way. How would you even provide that evidence?

Why I think thicker tiles provide an advantage: You can see more of the cube with less tilting.


----------



## Erik (Jan 8, 2014)

Then my questions are (this is more addressed to the WRC than to you Tim): 

- why introduce a regulation that prevents an unproven hypothetical scenario of cheating; which, if possible at all will not give you a significant time gain, while at the same time forcing a significant number of cubers to throw their cubes in the trashcan?

for the sake of concistency: 
- Where are the regulations banning out tiles completely? Where are the regulations that say competing competitors may not at any time see other competitors doing an official solve? Where are the regulations that say you have to evenly tension your cube to prevent possible cheating? Where are the regulations banning V-cube 7x7?

These last questions might seem a bit odd and out of the blue, but if the reasoning is "_it might be possible to cheat, but we don't know for sure if realistic at all and how bad it would be_" then these regulations are certainly missing.

I invite any WRC member to give a satisfying answer to these questions and also provide the 'evidence' I talked about earlier.


----------



## Sebastien (Jan 8, 2014)

Hi Erik,

I will reply to this having all necessary knowledge, even though I am formally no WRC member.

I have no strong opinion concerning these topics and I am mainly answering to provide you with some background information.

- So, first of all, your use of _cheating_ is wrong. No one within Board or WRC thinks that people would _cheat_ with tiles (or stickerless cubes). We just acknowledge the fact, that thick tiles or stickerless cubes make more piece visible than normal stickers. See here for example. The conclusion that those puzzles provide an advantage for looking ahead compared to the original concept uf the puzzles is trivial using logical thinking. 
- After saying that, tesnioning does not fit at all in this context, as uneven tensioning can only be abused in BLD and _cheating ist indeed the appropriate term for this. There is no explicit rule about tensioning because this is not really possible to measure, nor can people ensure to have perfectly even tensioning for their cubes. 2k2 copes with the abuse though.
- The only reason, that we decided to still allow the V7 this year is that Shengshou is the only company offering cubic 7x7x7s and that we did not want to be dependend on just one manufacturer. As soon as this changes, the V7 will surely not be permitted anymore._


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 8, 2014)

Antonie faz fan said:


> as said in the first post you are not allowed having logos on 4x4 and 6x6 because you can count parity.
> shouldn't you ban them then also from 5x5 and 7x7? you have parity there aswell.



Read the bold thing at the top of the first post.



Erik said:


> Then my questions are (this is more addressed to the WRC than to you Tim):
> 
> - why introduce a regulation that prevents an unproven hypothetical scenario of cheating; which, if possible at all will not give you a significant time gain, while at the same time forcing a significant number of cubers to throw their cubes in the trashcan?



The problem isn't specific "hypothetical" scenarios. It's that (by current policy) we have to draw a line somewhere consistent. If we allow more things at the Delegate's discretion, we're only going to see weirder cases that need decisions, leading to complicated and possibly even more arbitrary looking rules.

Also, not everyone has the same definition of cheating. I would argue turning the top face of a stickerless cube 45 degrees to see the middle layer edges allows you to bypass the "basic concept" of a puzzle. Being lazy this way may not save you a measurable amount of time, but it is still cheating.
In particular, I like my stickerless cube because I feel faster on it... but I can't shake the feeling that some of this is because I get more fleeting glances of colors "around the corner" (which means I have to do less processing/turning to be sure of what to do to a piece).

Although it's stronger than seeing the sides of minx tiles, this is not hypothetical. The question is whether we should allow it.
And if we allow it, how much should we allow before something starts looking like an iffy advantage? Perhaps abuses won't happen, but we need a convincing reason this won't make Delegates' jobs harder.

The 1mm change was not meant to throw many cubes in the trash can; that was a mistake. I was originally under the impression that mf8 tiles were under 1mm, else I would have tried to guard against lower than 1.2mm.



Erik said:


> for the sake of consistency:
> - Where are the regulations banning out tiles completely? Where are the regulations that say competing competitors may not at any time see other competitors doing an official solve? Where are the regulations that say you have to evenly tension your cube to prevent possible cheating? Where are the regulations banning V-cube 7x7?



- It's unreasonable to ban all tiles, but 1mm bans tiles that are significantly thick. Yes, it's arbitrary, but it's a fairly reasonable line to draw for "thin" tiles.
- It is impossible to prevent competitors from seeing others. This is an unfortunate fact of our competitions. However, some changes (e.g. requiring puzzle covers) have addressed this.
- 3h.
- Consensus is that it would be more consistent to remove 7x7x7, but there were sufficiently many Delegates against this to put it off the table. Part of listening to the community/Delegates means that we can't exactly align with an ideal for everything. Everyone's major concern about 1.5mm shows that this is also very hard to do even when we try to be careful.


----------



## Goosly (Jan 8, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> - 3h.



So "modding" my puzzle so that I can identify pieces is not allowed, but if I can identify pieces on an out-of-the-box cube (thus, I did not "mod" it), that's ok?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 8, 2014)

Goosly said:


> So "modding" my puzzle so that I can identify pieces is not allowed, but if I can identify pieces on an out-of-the-box cube (thus, I did not "mod" it), that's ok?



No. That puzzle has been modified from the basic concept of the puzzle.
The intent of the Regulation is clear, and I think the wording is sufficiently unambiguous.


----------



## Goosly (Jan 8, 2014)

What is the definition of "basic concept"? How can any cuber (who is not reading this topic) know that he is not allowed to have slightly different tensions on different sides?
I'm wondering how many puzzles will be banned from the scrambling table at my next competition. Probably all of them.


----------



## Zoé (Jan 8, 2014)

Sebastien said:


> The conclusion that those puzzles provide an advantage



That is the part I really don't understand about those regulations. It provides an advantage, so what? If anyone has the possibility to use that advantage (and decides to do so or not), the competition would still be perfectly fair! And it would stop disappointing a lot of people that are told their puzzles are not legal... Less people disappointed = more fun for them!

If you seriously think that puzzle that give an advantage over others are unacceptable, then why are we allowing DIY over the crappy storebought? After all, they will definitely give you an advantage and make you faster. We should go ahead and ban them immediately! 

I know that I am ignoring the part where you say "compared to the original concept of the puzzles" in my example and reasoning, but I feel like the difference between the puzzles on which you can "cheat" and the original is so small that it should just be ignored. 
If you do think it should be taken into consideration, then to keep the logic you have been following all along (to make things more consistent), you should also ban puzzles which slightly differ in any way from the very first puzzle produced originally and that would be absolutely ridiculous ! (or should I try to look for a supernova megaminx already ? It doesn't have the same proportions as meffert's megaminx... maybe it could give an advantage to use meffert's over that one, because edges would be bigger and I could recognize them faster! Damn!)


----------



## Erik (Jan 8, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> The problem isn't specific "hypothetical" scenarios. It's that (by current policy) we have to draw a line somewhere consistent. If we allow more things at the Delegate's discretion, we're only going to see weirder cases that need decisions, leading to complicated and possibly even more arbitrary looking rules.



Drawing lines is fine, allowing tiles of 1mm and not of 1.5mm is just plain inconsistent. Either ban all tiles or allow all (available) tiles. This would much more achieve your goal of making the Delegate's job easier.



Lucas Garron said:


> Also, not everyone has the same definition of cheating. I would argue turning the top face of a stickerless cube 45 degrees to see the middle layer edges allows you to bypass the "basic concept" of a puzzle. Being lazy this way may not save you a measurable amount of time, but it is still cheating.





Sebastien said:


> your use of _cheating is wrong. _No one within Board or WRC thinks that people would _cheat with tiles (or stickerless cubes)._



@Sébastien: I like how Lucas (WRC) already does not agree with this in his next post. I would like it if you were a bit more careful with stating things like "your use of the word cheating *is* wrong". I find it a bit unecessary to falsly try to simplify the reality this way in my disadvantage. Of course you are free to have a different opinion about the meaning of "cheating" .

'Cheating' or not, tiles *are* seen as an unwanted advantage people hypothetically can take care of (for which I still did not see any evidence), so this does not change my point.



Sebastien said:


> The conclusion that those puzzles provide an advantage for looking ahead compared to the original concept uf the puzzles is trivial using logical thinking.



Yes I am well aware of the theoretical posibility. I never denied this, but only claim there is no evidence that tiles, transparent cubes or stickerless cubes can actually be used to get *faster*. For instance, when the stickerless cubes came out I did a lot of solves on it, because I like the fact that there is no black plastic interfering your recognition. Although I like the cube, I never managed to actually be faster on it than normal stickered cubes. (After this, the WCA announced they are illegal.)

If the only reason for the WCA/WRC is that it is slightly different than the "original concept of the puzzle" it does not make sense to allow 1mm tiles, but to ban mefferts and mf8 tiles. Only a total ban would make sense in that situation.



Lucas Garron said:


> The 1mm change was not meant to throw many cubes in the trash can; that was a mistake. I was originally under the impression that mf8 tiles were under 1mm, else I would have tried to guard against lower than 1.2mm.



I am actually glad the limit was not set on 1.2mm, because allowing mf8 tiles and banning mefferts tiles would be a horrible decision I think. There is no reason mf8 tiles have different 'cheat'-possibilities (unfair advantage if you want) than mefferts tiles. Both are being used on a regular base in competition.



Lucas Garron said:


> - It's unreasonable to ban all tiles, but 1mm bans tiles that are significantly thick. Yes, it's arbitrary, but it's a fairly reasonable line to draw for "thin" tiles.


 I wouldn't use the word 'reasonable' to describe a ban on a high number of puzzles.


Lucas Garron said:


> - It is impossible to prevent competitors from seeing others. This is an unfortunate fact of our competitions. However, some changes (e.g. requiring puzzle covers) have addressed this.


Yet I think this problem is *much *more serious and deserves more time and effort than introducing dubious puzzle bans. I have seen tens if not hundreds occurences of people who should get a DNF or a competition ban because of this (probably it was not all on purpose). People can see whole crosses of solves by just looking at other people solving and here we are banning puzzles which provide a theoretical (though non-existent) advantage.


Lucas Garron said:


> - 3h.


The only thing in 3h against having different tensions is "giving additional information", and this is only illegal with a very strict way of interpreting the regulations. If you want to start checking on this, you will make "the Delegate's job harder". There are at least 10 other ways to tell which face is which when blindfolded. (I will not name them, because I don't want to give any cuber tips on how to cheat)


Lucas Garron said:


> - Consensus is that it would be more consistent to remove 7x7x7, but there were sufficiently many Delegates against this to put it off the table. Part of listening to the community/Delegates means that we can't exactly align with an ideal for everything. Everyone's major concern about 1.5mm shows that this is also very hard to do even when we try to be careful.


I agree with the consensus, but also that it was a good decision to not ban it for now. The issue does, however fit in line with the other questions, which is why I put it here.

As you (Lucas) stated several times you would like to see a good pro's and con's list I made you one. This is a list for the current regulations.

pro:
- a stricter line between what is allowed an what is not allowed and thus making the delegate's job easier.

con:
- delegates would in the worst case have to measure all tiles with a *metric *ruler (Bob's post still cracks me up when I read it xD), or rather a caliper (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Vernier_caliper.png) which would make the Delegate's job more time-consuming (note: easier does not mean less work)
- allowing 1mm tiles still provides a possible way of having an 'unfair advantage' and does not in any way solve anything
- a significant amount of the cubes the community uses are now illegal


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 8, 2014)

Goosly said:


> I'm wondering how many puzzles will be banned from the scrambling table at my next competition. Probably all of them.



If they really want you to be completely unable to distinguish one side from another, then at least the vast majority of them should be.


Anyway, I don't remember where the last post was that I saw this mentioned, but this seems an appropriate place to bring it up again: Why do the regs not allow for square-1's that have a logo on both sides of the middle slice?
a) It literally does not give any extra information/advantages whatsoever
b) Not allowing this makes delegates jobs more annoying when they start having to try to explain to everybody and their mothers why their puzzle isn't allowed to have the logos it came with in the box when they don't give any advantage at all.
c) Stop banning things for no good reason.


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Jan 8, 2014)

so as i understand from the last post of erik now whe also need to tension are cubes the same thing on each side. in have been cubing for 1 year now that has uneven tensions and now i need to retension it and get used to popping or get used to a very thigt cube? this is the worst changhe i have ever heard of!!!!


----------



## tim (Jan 8, 2014)

Antonie faz fan said:


> so as i understand from the last post of erik now whe also need to tension are cubes the same thing on each side. in have been cubing for 1 year now that has uneven tensions and now i need to retension it and get used to popping or get used to a very thigt cube? this is the worst changhe i have ever heard of!!!!



Don't jump to conclusions, read the old regulutions.


----------



## patrickcuber (Jan 8, 2014)

Bob said:


> I believe that people should be able to use their own puzzles. If somebody wants their tiles to be 5mm thick, fine. Allow tiles of any thickness. I don't think people will go searching for 5mm tiles for their cubes. Allow stickerless cubes. Some people will use them and some people won't. Allow logos. Allow engravings. In a speedsolve, these things will not help you. If you believe they will, then use their cubes. If all of these changes were made, I would still continue to use my cube that is legal under the 2014 Regulations anyway.


I agree they shoul be able to use their own puzzles.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 8, 2014)

uberCuber said:


> Anyway, I don't remember where the last post was that I saw this mentioned, but this seems an appropriate place to bring it up again: Why do the regs not allow for square-1's that have a logo on both sides of the middle slice?



The straightforward "why": Because the Regulations only allowed 1 logo, and we've been trying to cut down on exceptions (therefore also not introducing them). This is the only puzzle I'm aware of that has two printed stickers out of the box.

Maybe it's a reasonable exception to be concerned about, but nothing changed here in 2014.


----------



## Michael Womack (Jan 8, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> The straightforward "why": Because the Regulations only allowed 1 logo, and we've been trying to cut down on exceptions (therefore also not introducing them). This is the only puzzle I'm aware of that has two printed stickers out of the box.
> 
> Maybe it's a reasonable exception to be concerned about, but nothing changed here in 2014.



Well I do have a good turning Rubik's brand 3x3 that has a logo printed on the yellow center sticker and logo printed onto the white center sticker. That would mean I would have to buy new stickers for it and most of us don't always have spare sticker sets lyeing around just to use in situations like this. Also if we know this ahead of time we would plan ahead and get our cubes ready and Comp legal before it's to late. It's also another reason why we can't use any 3x3 like for say a Super cube or picture cube.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 8, 2014)

Michael Womack said:


> Well I do have a good turning Rubik's brand 3x3 that has a logo printed on the yellow center sticker and logo printed onto the white center sticker.\



Ooh, actual examples! Do you have a photo / know where you got it?



Michael Womack said:


> Also if we know this ahead of time we would plan ahead and get our cubes ready and Comp legal before it's to late.


As stated before, there was no change about the number of permissible logos?


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 8, 2014)

Michael Womack said:


> Well I do have a good turning Rubik's brand 3x3 that has a logo printed on the yellow center sticker and logo printed onto the white center sticker. That would mean I would have to buy new stickers for it and most of us don't always have spare sticker sets lyeing around just to use in situations like this. Also if we know this ahead of time we would plan ahead and get our cubes ready and Comp legal before it's to late.



A two logo puzzle has never been allowed, so you should have had plenty of time to read the regulations and prepare your puzzle plan if you ever plan on using it.


----------



## Michael Womack (Jan 8, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Ooh, actual examples! Do you have a photo / know where you got it?



It's this cube And I bought it at a Puzzle store on Pier 39 in San Fransisco.



Kit Clement said:


> A two logo puzzle has never been allowed, so you should have had plenty of time to read the regulations and prepare your puzzle plan if you ever plan on using it.



But I was refuring to it as an example like with the Megaminx situation. Also not every cuber reads the WCA rulebook before there first comp or ask about the rules.


----------



## cubernya (Jan 8, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> The straightforward "why": Because the Regulations only allowed 1 logo, and we've been trying to cut down on exceptions (therefore also not introducing them). This is the only puzzle I'm aware of that has two printed stickers out of the box.
> 
> Maybe it's a reasonable exception to be concerned about, but nothing changed here in 2014.



I must ask, if it were to come up in a competition, would you allow it (if you had a choice)? I would be interested to see the results of a poll of the delegates and community; I personally see nothing wrong with that. You can literally _feel_ the middle, but we can't have a (second) logo on it. 

For the record, I see no purpose in not having exceptions. If it makes the regulations more fair and better, why not?


----------



## XTowncuber (Jan 8, 2014)

One of the biggest problems with the 2014 regulations is that they failed to solve one of the most pressing theoretical cheating situations of the current cubing age: scratch and sniff stickers.

Just think! A competitor could easy color code their cube with scratch and sniff stickers and BAM! they no longer have to do cube rotations to check a certain sticker. They can just scratch a sticker and move their nose toward it and they will instantly be able to identify which color it is. It is even more important that stickers such as these be banned from the BLD events, where the advantages are even greater. Can you imagine all of the the theoretical cheating this is allowing?!?! The ineptitude displayed by the WRC in missing this theoretical problem concerns me greatly. 

Now, I know that people are going to say that this is ridiculous, and that no advantage is given to someone using scratch and sniff stickers, but we have to solve EVERY SINGLE THEORETICAL PROBLEM before our regulations can be considered complete. Some also may argue that this bans some of the top speedcubes (notably, the lubix JAWDROP), but at this point it doesn't matter how many people's puzzles are disqualified, the problem must be addressed. Another argument that I think will be common is that it will be too difficult for the judge/delegate to notice cubes with scratch and sniff stickers, but I really don't think it's too much of a problem to have the delegate sniff everyone's cube as they are called to solve (the only time that this may cause a problem is during feetsolving).

Overall, the benefits of this regulation would outweigh the downsides by far.


----------



## Michael Womack (Jan 8, 2014)

Brad I don't ever recall any cube shop or any cubes that sell/come with scratch and smell stickers.


----------



## tim (Jan 8, 2014)

XTowncuber said:


> One of the biggest problems with the 2014 regulations is that they failed to solve one of the most pressing theoretical cheating situations of the current cubing age: scratch and sniff stickers.
> 
> Just think! A competitor could easy color code their cube with scratch and sniff stickers and BAM! they no longer have to do cube rotations to check a certain sticker. They can just scratch a sticker and move their nose toward it and they will instantly be able to identify which color it is.



https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#3j should already deal with this.



Michael Womack said:


> Brad I don't ever recall any cube shop or any cubes that sell/come with scratch and smell stickers.



Why does this matter? Using custom stickers is perfectly fine.


----------



## Renslay (Jan 8, 2014)

XTowncuber said:


> One of the biggest problems with the 2014 regulations is that they failed to solve one of the most pressing theoretical cheating situations of the current cubing age: scratch and sniff stickers. (...)



Yeah, I mentioned the same thing a few posts ago. Little to no reaction.


----------



## Carrot (Jan 8, 2014)

XTowncuber said:


> One of the biggest problems with the 2014 regulations is that they failed to solve one of the most pressing theoretical cheating situations of the current cubing age: scratch and sniff stickers.
> 
> Just think! A competitor could easy color code their cube with scratch and sniff stickers and BAM! they no longer have to do cube rotations to check a certain sticker. They can just scratch a sticker and move their nose toward it and they will instantly be able to identify which color it is. It is even more important that stickers such as these be banned from the BLD events, where the advantages are even greater. Can you imagine all of the the theoretical cheating this is allowing?!?! The ineptitude displayed by the WRC in missing this theoretical problem concerns me greatly.
> 
> ...



you little cheater. (still trying to find a way to invalidate your pyraminx WRs (when/if you get them xD I don't want to beat you, that requires practise)


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 8, 2014)

theZcuber said:


> For the record, I see no purpose in not having exceptions. If it makes the regulations more fair and better, why not?



That is a very fair question.

Delegates and the WRC have been getting *lots* of questions about what puzzles are allowed because the Regulations are not clear and reasonably consistent.
If the answer to a question like "am I allowed to have more than 2 stickers" is not a simple yes or no, that means keeping track of lots of cases. Very few people will feel comfortable answering questions about allowable puzzles, and everyone keeps having to deal with edge cases.

I had the hope that we could fix the inconsistent Delegate rulings by providing something clear-cut, but this thread shows that it would be very hard to do if we try to accommodate every "reasonable" exception.
While "anything goes" may be a reasonably simple policy that removes the need for exceptions, I'd like some convincing reasons that this would not make the job harder for Delegates and/or lead to even more unfair conditions. (This should address the fact that competitors may start coming up with unanticipated variations if some "currently questionable" things start being allowed.)


----------



## rj (Jan 8, 2014)

My dad has an "octocube"(github cube) that has the octocat logo on one side, and the rubik's logo on the other. It's a good cube, too. Just another example.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 8, 2014)

XTowncuber said:


> Now, I know that people are going to say that this is ridiculous, and that no advantage is given to someone using scratch and sniff stickers, but we have to solve EVERY SINGLE THEORETICAL PROBLEM before our regulations can be considered complete.



No. I have rejected quite a few suggestions because they address things that are not likely to happen (the first one that comes to mind is trying to solve the cube behind your back instead of using a blindfold). However, *everyone* has a puzzle, and we have some practical concerns about fairness and international consistency to address.

That said, your joke makes a good point: we shouldn't ban *everything* out of theoretical concern. But how do we decide what is a practical concern when we are trying to make things fair and consistent?


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 8, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> The straightforward "why": Because the Regulations only allowed 1 logo, *and we've been trying to cut down on exceptions (therefore also not introducing them)*. This is the only puzzle I'm aware of that has two printed stickers out of the box.
> 
> Maybe it's a reasonable exception to be concerned about, but nothing changed here in 2014.



You already have a separate line entirely dedicated to the topic of Square-1 logos; allowing for a second logo wouldn't really complicate this section of the regulations.

Anyway, I have a lot of free time right now, and I think I'm going to go through every regulation to try to find any problems/inconsistencies/redundancies, since just in the act of skimming through the _2014 changes_, I noticed several regulations that presented a problem through bad wording or allowed for something that I'm not sure was intended. Once I've made my list, what would you prefer I do with it? I'm not sure posting a large list of what some might interpret as 'complaints' in a thread here would be a great idea, but I also feel bad dumping a large list of stuff on you through a PM when you've been so busy.


----------



## cubizh (Jan 8, 2014)

uberCuber said:


> You already have a separate line entirely dedicated to the topic of Square-1 logos; allowing for a second logo wouldn't really complicate this section of the regulations.
> 
> Anyway, I have a lot of free time right now, and I think I'm going to go through every regulation to try to find any problems/inconsistencies/redundancies, since just in the act of skimming through the _2014 changes_, I noticed several regulations that presented a problem through bad wording or allowed for something that I'm not sure was intended. Once I've made my list, what would you prefer I do with it? I'm not sure posting a large list of what some might interpret as 'complaints' in a thread here would be a great idea, but I also feel bad dumping a large list of stuff on you through a PM when you've been so busy.


I would say look if the problem has been posted on the wca-documents github issue tracker and post there(?)


----------



## tim (Jan 8, 2014)

Sharing it with the WRC would be the best idea: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/contact/wrc This will reach more people than just Lucas.

Also feel free to post it on speedsolving. This might lead to interesting discussions everyone benefits from.

\edit: As cubizh mentioned, have a look at the open issues at github: https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues?state=open Some problems might be already known to us.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 9, 2014)

uberCuber said:


> You already have a separate line entirely dedicated to the topic of Square-1 logos; allowing for a second logo wouldn't really complicate this section of the regulations.



Certainly a good point. However, we managed to settle on the simple intent of "you may have 1 logo, put it on the center if you can". 3l1a and 3l1b are more like clarifications than exception.

Changing 3l1b to allow two logos for Square-1 would make a strong exception to 3l rather than augmenting 3l1 to making it work for Square-1. (We could have tried to make 3l1 a single rule, but I think the current situation is as clear as possible, while keeping it sufficiently simple.)


----------



## qqwref (Jan 9, 2014)

A simple question that hasn't been asked enough: why is it a problem if people get an advantage from being able to see more pieces on their puzzles?

Puzzles with 1.5mm tiles, or transparent pieces, or 6-colored plastic, are mass produced. Many people buy such puzzles, and many people solve them unofficially and post times. If anyone thinks it is a significant advantage (compared to things like ridges, good corner cutting, or perfect tension) they are welcome to pay the $20 or less and get one of those brands of puzzle for themself. So when you see a competitor using a puzzle like that, don't think of it as some kind of crazy modification they have done to get a leg up on everyone else. They are just using their preferred type of mass-produced puzzle. Even if you needed one to be competitive, which you don't, you could just go to the store and buy one yourself.

Besides, I can't imagine someone from outside our community looking at a solve of one of those puzzles and thinking it's not a valid solve of the puzzle. The stickers are set up the same way, the possible moves are the same, the challenge is the same. Even pillowed cubes, which everyone here accepts as not allowed, are routinely bought by non-cubers or casual puzzlers and used to do solves, make pretty patterns, or just play around with. We are the only ones making the claim that seeing more than a given number of sides somehow goes against the original intent of the puzzle. It's really not - it's just a physical limitation all the puzzles in the early days of the cube craze happened to have. There are plenty of other physical limitations that we're fine with improving upon. After all, the original Rubik's Cube was made out of wood...


----------



## Czery (Jan 9, 2014)

qqwref said:


> A simple question that hasn't been asked enough: why is it a problem if people get an advantage from being able to see more pieces on their puzzles?
> 
> ...



You make a valid point here. The only reason most people see increased visibility as a problem is that they perceive these types of puzzles to go beyond the "accepted" standard of the cube. It's not that these types of cubes are more advantageous than your standard magic cube (there are) but that these cubes are outside the scope of the commonly held definition of the "Rubik's cube". It's an external modification that completely changes how the game is played. People would then start taking advantage of cubes with increased visibility and cubing designs may become even more crazier and farther from the original idea of the cube. I think we have to draw a line somewhere. 

I'm not saying that the line we have right now is the best, but extending the definition of a "Rubik's cube" may or may not create positive consequences.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Jan 9, 2014)

Definition of a Rubik's cube:
a puzzle in the form of a plastic cube covered with multicolored squares, which the player attempts to twist and turn so that all the squares on each face are of the same color.

So these advantages aren't deviating from the definition of a Rubik's cube


----------



## Czery (Jan 9, 2014)

Jaysammey777 said:


> Definition of a Rubik's cube:
> a puzzle in the form of a plastic cube covered with multicolored squares, which the player attempts to twist and turn so that all the squares on each face are of the same color.
> 
> So these advantages aren't deviating from the definition of a Rubik's cube



I was referring the speedcubing community's conventional limitations of the cube. For instance, the original cube was not meant to be pillowed or transparent. Most speed cubers wouldn't consider these cubes to be strictly following the 3x3 conventions. You have to acknowledge that they are difference from the original "rubik's cube". At the same time, speedcubers believe it is acceptable to make internal mechanism modifications that do deviate from the original design. 

So yes, if you compare these increased visibility cubes to the original rubik's cube, there cubes are advantageous.


----------



## Ruben (Jan 9, 2014)

so does that mean that the MoYu LingPo will be illegal ?


----------



## qqwref (Jan 9, 2014)

Czery said:


> Most speed cubers wouldn't consider these cubes to be strictly following the 3x3 conventions. You have to acknowledge that they are difference from the original "rubik's cube". At the same time, speedcubers believe it is acceptable to make internal mechanism modifications that do deviate from the original design.


Yeah, that's the thing. Puzzles have changed a lot already, and although a current speedcube does look pretty similar to an original cube on the outside, the mechanisms are extremely dissimilar. We have crazy internal geometry, anti-pop mechanisms, and pieces molded in multiple parts, with many different variations that all function roughly the same. I don't have a problem with them changing even more as long as the puzzle remains the same. And as I said, people are already using pillowed and transparent cubes (and cubes with tiles) outside of competitions, and there hasn't been non-WCA-related backlash about them not counting as Rubik's Cubes, needing different UWRs, etc.

Remember, I'm not saying there isn't an advantage. I'm saying it's just another mass-produced variant, and it is still the same puzzle, so any advantage you may get is a fair advantage, just like the advantage of using a WeiLong or ShuangRen. I personally don't think you will ever NEED pillowed or stickerless or thickly tiled or transparent puzzles to compete at a high level, but if that ever was the case, you could just buy one. I think it's more fun if we can just go for the best times that are possible, and use our favorite freely available puzzles. Why restrict it?


----------



## Zoé (Jan 9, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Yeah, that's the thing. Puzzles have changed a lot already, and although a current speedcube does look pretty similar to an original cube on the outside, the mechanisms are extremely dissimilar. We have crazy internal geometry, anti-pop mechanisms, and pieces molded in multiple parts, with many different variations that all function roughly the same. I don't have a problem with them changing even more as long as the puzzle remains the same. And as I said, people are already using pillowed and transparent cubes (and cubes with tiles) outside of competitions, and there hasn't been non-WCA-related backlash about them not counting as Rubik's Cubes, needing different UWRs, etc.
> 
> Remember, I'm not saying there isn't an advantage. I'm saying it's just another mass-produced variant, and it is still the same puzzle, so any advantage you may get is a fair advantage, just like the advantage of using a WeiLong or ShuangRen. I personally don't think you will ever NEED pillowed or stickerless or thickly tiled or transparent puzzles to compete at a high level, but if that ever was the case, you could just buy one. I think it's more fun if we can just go for the best times that are possible, and use our favorite freely available puzzles. Why restrict it?



That was also my point in my earlier message and I'm still waiting for an answer...


----------



## BaMiao (Jan 9, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Yeah, that's the thing. Puzzles have changed a lot already, and although a current speedcube does look pretty similar to an original cube on the outside, the mechanisms are extremely dissimilar. We have crazy internal geometry, anti-pop mechanisms, and pieces molded in multiple parts, with many different variations that all function roughly the same.



I see this attitude around a lot, and I just have to disagree. Advantages given from using a stickerless cube are fundamentally different from advantages from improved mechanisms, lube, etc. One improves turning speed, while one increases the amount of information a competitor can gather at once. It is basically a judgement call on which advantages we should allow. This judgement call needs to be done in a way that is both consistent with the basic concept of the puzzle, and easy to apply and enforce.

You said yourself- "a current speedcube does look pretty similar to an original cube on the outside". I think that's a reasonable place to draw the line, and that's the judgement call the WCA has made. A speedcube should _look_ like a rubik's cube from the outside, and stickerless/pillowed cubes look different in a way that gives an advantage, so should be banned. You can argue about what judgement you would make, but this decision is at least based on a logical argument.

Why are we talking about stickerless cubes again, anyway?


----------



## Zoé (Jan 9, 2014)

BaMiao said:


> You said yourself- "a current speedcube does look pretty similar to an original cube on the outside". I think that's a reasonable place to draw the line, and that's the judgement call the WCA has made. A speedcube should _look_ like a rubik's cube from the outside, and stickerless/pillowed cubes look different in a way that gives an advantage, so should be banned. You can argue about what judgement you would make, but this decision is at least based on a logical argument.



But then, what do you define as an original cube ?
Because for example the first mass produced megaminx was the supernova which has very different proportions from the currently used megaminxes. So then according to you, should the other types of megaminxes (that everyone uses now) be banned because they have bigger edge pieces for example and they could give advantage for lookahead on the edges compared to the supernova ?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 9, 2014)

Zoé said:


> But then, what do you define as an original cube ?



Perhaps that's a fair question. However, I think the basic idea of each of the official puzzles is completely clear.

How's this for judging what is still a Rubik's Cube?
If someone's first reaction on a puzzle is "wow, that's a nice Rubik's Cube", that means the modifications don't change the basic concept. If the first reaction is more like "Is that still a Rubik's Cube?" then you're probably straying into new territory.

I think such a reaction is pretty common for stickerless cubes, ridged puzzles (which I still find a little questionable), see-through cubes, and pillowed cubes.

Now, just because a puzzle is different doesn't mean it gives an advantage, but many puzzles are nominally designed with speedcubing improvements in mind, or at least to provide a new aspect/experience while solving. So many of these improvements have some sort of advantage, which means the line is much more subjective.


----------



## Goosly (Jan 9, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> How's this for judging what is still a Rubik's Cube?
> If someone's first reaction on a puzzle is "wow, that's a nice Rubik's Cube", that means the modifications don't change the basic concept. If the first reaction is more like "Is that still a Rubik's Cube?" then you're probably straying into new territory.



That is extremely vague and subjective. It seems to me that it will be impossible for delegates to make consistent decisions about banning puzzles.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 9, 2014)

Goosly said:


> That is extremely vague and subjective. It seems to me that it will be impossible for delegates to make consistent decisions about banning puzzles.



I'm not suggesting that as a rule for Delegates. I should have made it clear that the post was more like brainstorming.

However, these puzzles correlate pretty well with questionable puzzles precisely *because* delegates (like all cubers) would have such a response. There is usually an email thread in the Delegate list any time a weird puzzle comes up.

It's perfectly fine to allow some puzzles that initially look weird. As I've said many times, we just need something fair and consistent, which requires more of a community compromise than a consensus.


----------



## patrickcuber (Jan 9, 2014)

I dont care about this conversation. all i really want to know is if a dayan logo is legal.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 9, 2014)

patrickcuber said:


> I dont care about this conversation. all i really want to know is if a dayan logo is legal.



As long as you're not doing BLD with an overlay logo, yes. Please try reading the Regulation about logos and let us know if it doesn't answer your question clearly.


----------



## Erik (Apr 7, 2014)

Update:
the Logo Rules caused quite a few problems during de Wilg open. At Multi BLD at least 1 out of 5 cubes were illegal to use because of logos or slightly chipped stickers that could theoretically be used to identify one of the faces. Also I sadly had to inform the delegate that his square-1 had 2 logo's, so he decided to DNF both of the solves he did so far.
In the end after Multi BLD a few of the cubes were hard to identify. As people borrowed some cubes for big attempts it was sometimes a bit of a challenge to get the cubes back to their owners.

I have to say that I think these regulations are not being followed consistently. Especially at Multi BLD delegates don't really check all cubes and even if they do intent to do so, it often happens that cubes slip through and have already been scrambled before the delegate even has the chance to check them.

Please note that I just want to inform you about how these regs are usually enforced at competitions. 

Also I would like to add that *if* the goal of the WRC/WCA is that competitors have no way of theoretically finding out which face is which, the current regulations do not suffice whatsoever.


----------



## PJKCuber (Jun 11, 2014)

This is a dumb question, but one of the stickers on my 3x3 has a really small chip around the corner. About the size of a pen/pencil point. Is it competition legal?


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 11, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> This is a dumb question, but one of the stickers on my 3x3 has a really small chip around the corner. About the size of a pen/pencil point. Is it competition legal?



Yes.

I mean, even Alex Lau's cube with super chipped stickers is allowed.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 11, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> This is a dumb question, but one of the stickers on my 3x3 has a really small chip around the corner. About the size of a pen/pencil point. Is it competition legal?





> 3j1) Puzzles are permitted to have reasonable wear, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.



If Alex's stickers are *very* chipped, they shouldn't be allowed.


----------



## Wilhelm (Jun 11, 2014)

If the "chipping" is equally spread across the cube it's legal I think. Only if there is a big part missing on one of the stickers or you can otherwise easily recognise the piece because of one of the stickers it's not allowed. So for example if half of the white sticker on the white red edge is missing and you can identify by that it's forbidden. But it always depends on the judge I think


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 11, 2014)

Wilhelm said:


> If the "chipping" is equally spread across the cube it's legal I think. Only if there is a big part missing on one of the stickers or you can otherwise easily recognise the piece because of one of the stickers it's not allowed. So for example if half of the white sticker on the white red edge is missing and you can identify by that it's forbidden. But it always depends on the judge I think



"Thinking" is often useful, but may not be as useful if there are facts at hand. I would prefer that people cite sources or observations instead of opinions/interpretations (unless the conversation calls for that).
A lot of the Regulations/Guidelines are structured so that you can get the official answer from them. (If not, that's a flaw.)

In any case, Wilhelm is indeed right: at most competitions you'll see that a reasonable, even amount of wear is allowed. But if stickers are chipped enough that some pieces become pretty obvious to distinguish, they shouldn't be allowed.

3j1 comes under 3j, which talks about "differences that significantly distinguish any piece from a similar piece". 3j1 is explicitly stating that a bit of wear is allowed, but I hope the combination of 3j and 3j1 make it clear *why* some (even) wear is allowed: you shouldn't be able to distinguish stuff that shouldn't be distinguishable (because cheating).

In any case, the person ultimately in charge of what puzzles are allowed is the Delegate. If you've been to a competition, you'll probably know that the responsibility is actually delegated to the scramblers in practice.
By the time it gets to the judge, it's usually too late. In some extreme cases, the judge may notice, though. (And they should!)


----------



## Wilhelm (Jun 11, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> "Thinking" is often useful, but may not be as useful if there are facts at hand. I would prefer that people cite sources or observations instead of opinions/interpretations (unless the conversation calls for that).
> A lot of the Regulations/Guidelines are structured so that you can get the official answer from them. (If not, that's a flaw.)
> the Delegate. If you've been to a competition, you'll probably know that the responsibility is actually delegated to the scramblers in practice.
> By the time it gets to the judge, it's usually too late. In some extreme cases, the judge may notice, though. (And they should!)


Of course it's better to have facts but I didn't want to present something wrong as a fact . In not a delegate and don't know the WCA Regulations so detailled that I could prove my assumption. But at my last competitions we had some incidences where I witnessed this discussion so I am pretty sure that's the way to go


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 11, 2014)

Wilhelm said:


> But at my last competitions we had some incidences where I witnessed this discussion so I am pretty sure that's the way to go



Ah, excellent! Those are good discussions to have, and to tell us about!

We're actually glad to hear about those, because they are very valuable in telling us what actually goes on around the world.


----------



## Wilhelm (Jun 11, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Ah, excellent! Those are good discussions to have, and to tell us about!
> 
> We're actually glad to hear about those, because they are very valuable in telling us what actually goes on around the world.


Sorry I meant discussion with a delegate


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 11, 2014)

Wilhelm said:


> Sorry I meant discussion with a delegate



Yeah, I presumed.


----------



## Lazy Einstein (Jun 11, 2014)

Cool questions on the first post to answer. Imma do this. 

1) *Should we keep logos on the 2x2 or not? *
I think we should keep them. In the 15 seconds of inspection, you are going to want to be thinking of what case you are going to make and on what face. Seeing that is usually quite the task. I don't see how the logo could ever aid this process. You'd be thinking way too much. I'd like to see Rami and Chris weigh in on this

2) *Is the theoretical possibility of counting parity important enough to not allow logos for 4x4x4 and 6x6x6?*
No. I don't think using logos would be worth it to the solver in a "speed" solve setting. The 15 seconds would be much better used to predict your first set of moves and look ahead provides you with enough information to see parities that considering the logo seems like it would be more detrimental. 

3) *Should we consider having different logo regulations for BLD and speedsolving?*
Probably yes, I don't do blind your. Since memo is a part of your BLD times, BLD seems like it should have it's own regulations to ensure that no unfair advantages may arise without interfering with regular events.

4) *What kinds of logos should we allow? Should they need to be a brand logo, or can we allow custom logos? Is "delegate discretion" enough to manage custom logos?*
Visually logos should be similar to colour of face that logo is on and almost identical height of the rest of the stickers on your cube.
Custom logos should be allowed
"Delegate Discretion" seems to be sufficient. If the WCA is not confident is this, they should administer an experiment of some kind to verify if "delegate discretion" is effective or not. 

5) *Are logos important to you for the purpose of identifying your own cubes at a competition? If so, do you feel this hurts your ability to keep track of puzzles?*
I like logos because it allows me to have a brand, which is not only fun, but very effective in helping me identify which puzzle is mine. I definitely feel better knowing my puzzles are labelled versus not being.


----------



## PJKCuber (Jun 11, 2014)

I have a logo on my 2x2 Moyu Lingpo. Would it be legal? Would a Cubesmith logo be legal?


----------



## kcl (Jun 11, 2014)

About logos and inspection, I'm no Chris or rami but I know enough to weigh in here. During inspection most fast 2x2 solvers look for a combo of the easiest face and a nice EG/CLL alg. The logo sticker has nothing to do with the onelook process. If that helps at all, great. Just looking to clear up some misconceptions.


----------



## RjFx2 (Jun 11, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> I have a logo on my 2x2 Moyu Lingpo. Would it be legal? Would a Cubesmith logo be legal?



I believe any logo on any sticker on the lightest side of the 2x2 cube is legal. (According to WCA Regulations) if you look up the regulations in the stickers section.


----------



## Ton (Jun 11, 2014)

1) Should we keep logos on the 2x2 or not? 
Yes
2) Is the theoretical possibility of counting parity important enough to not allow logos for 4x4x4 and 6x6x6? 
No, you can put the logo on the corner , than I see no issue
3) Should we consider having different logo regulations for BLD and speedsolving?
No
4) What kinds of logos should we allow? Should they need to be a brand logo, or can we allow custom logos? Is "delegate discretion" enough to manage custom logos?
Logo's that are not raised or encraved
5) Are logos important to you for the purpose of identifying your own cubes at a competition? If so, do you feel this hurts your ability to keep track of puzzles?
YEEEES, besides this ,also for the scramblers. And in my home we have several cubers using the same brand , I will need the logo to identify my puzzle in competition, it happens to frequent that scrambles swap cubes, so with my name I can see this is not my puzzle. I do not mind to put a logo for 4x4,6x6 etc on the corner.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 12, 2014)

RjFx2 said:


> I believe any logo on any sticker on the lightest side of the 2x2 cube is legal. (According to WCA Regulations) if you look up the regulations in the stickers section.



Indeed. What made you bring in "lightest side", though?


----------



## Michael Womack (Jun 12, 2014)

Another question does it matter what color the logo is on for a normal 3x3 when useing that cube for Feet, Speedsolve. or OH?


----------



## vcuber13 (Jun 12, 2014)

Michael Womack said:


> Another question does it matter what color the logo is on for a normal 3x3 when useing that cube for Feet, Speedsolve. or OH?



The logo can go on any colour


----------



## Michael Womack (Jun 12, 2014)

vcuber13 said:


> The logo can go on any colour



ok thanks.


----------



## CiaranBeahan (Aug 8, 2014)

I have an Aofu, but one of the stickers are peeling off of it. I haven't got a replacement at all. So I tried to see if a SS sticker fitted and it did, perfectly. But it is a different shade than the rest of the puzzle. I just want to know can I use the SS sticker on the Aofu?


----------



## Ranzha (Aug 8, 2014)

CiaranBeahan said:


> I have an Aofu, but one of the stickers are peeling off of it. I haven't got a replacement at all. So I tried to see if a SS sticker fitted and it did, perfectly. But it is a different shade than the rest of the puzzle. I just want to know can I use the SS sticker on the Aofu?



Refer to the Regulations: 3d2, 3j


----------

