# WCA Regulation Change - Unclear Wordings



## MaeLSTRoM (May 13, 2013)

So The WCA have changed regulation 5b5 and corresponding guidelines. I'm posting it here because I think people should know about it, but also because I believe that it is now unclear grammatically.


Spoiler: Regulation Change



◦5b5) If at the end of the attempt some parts of the puzzle are physically detached or not fully placed, the following regulations apply: 5b5a) If one or more parts without coloured faces is affected, the puzzle is considered solved.
5b5b) If one part with one coloured face is affected, the puzzle is considered solved.
5b5c) If more than one part with one coloured face is affected, the puzzle is considered unsolved (DNF).
5b5d) If one or more parts with more than one coloured face, the puzzle is considered unsolved (DNF).
5b5e) 5b5c and 5b5d supercede 5b5a and 5b5b.





Spoiler: Guidelines Change



•5b5+) EXAMPLE Examples of pieces physically detached, resulting in a solved state: one 3x3x3 center cap, one big cube center piece, an inner piece of a big cube, an arbitrary combination of pieces not exceeding the limit of one coloured face.
•5b5++) EXAMPLE Examples of pieces physically detached, resulting in a "DNF": two 3x3x3 center caps, two big cube center pieces of different colors, a 3x3x3 edge piece, an arbitrary combination of pieces exceeding the limit of one coloured face.
•5b5+++) EXAMPLE Example of pieces not fully attached, resulting in a solved state: a 5x5x5 centre piece twisted in its spot.
•5b5++++) EXAMPLE Example of pieces physically attached but not fully placed, resulting in a "DNF": a 3x3x3 edge piece slightly popped out.



I believe 5b5d and 5b5++ Don't make sense on their own, and in conjunction with each other.


----------



## Coolster01 (May 13, 2013)

Thanks! This is interesting...


----------



## DrKorbin (May 13, 2013)

Why? You mean 5b5d also consider two centers of one color, while 5b5++ requires centers of different color? It is just an example, two centers of one color are DNF too.
Well, it confused someone, as I thought.


----------



## CubeRoots (May 13, 2013)

it's clear


----------



## kinch2002 (May 13, 2013)

It's not clear. I have let them know by email so hopefully we'll have some clarifications soon.
I think most people understand what they're trying to say, but that doesn't mean it's clearly written down.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (May 13, 2013)

Some of this doesn't make much sense as a rule either. If a wing is popped (more than one colour) but everything else is solved, then despite the fact that there is only one way it will fit back into the puzzle is solved it's a DNF, but when this happens with an x-centre (for example) it is solved?

If a centre is partially popped and everything else is solved, then it is solved, but if a 3x3 edge is partially popped then it's a DNF? This especially makes little sense on a LunHui: you can partially pop an edge and the puzzle is still functional and stable, I've scrambled and solved like this a few times for fun.


----------



## DrKorbin (May 13, 2013)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Some of this doesn't make much sense as a rule either. If a wing is popped (more than one colour) but everything else is solved, then despite the fact that there is only one way it will fit back into the puzzle is solved it's a DNF, but when this happens with an x-centre (for example) it is solved?



Previous regs had other issues too (like, popped edge in sq-1), and if you recall 2010 regs, a popped wing was considered as DNF there.
I guess it is really a pain to come up with clear regs that comply with logic and intuition (like, there is only one way to place it back => it's not DNF), so WCA came up with this rule that is not so intuitive (in sense of one way placing) but at least it is clear.


----------



## jayefbe (May 13, 2013)

I don't see how those two rulings contradict each other. 

However, what doesn't make sense to me is in bold:

5b5c) If more than one part with one coloured face is affected, the puzzle is considered unsolved (DNF).

5b5+) EXAMPLE Examples of pieces physically detached, resulting in a solved state: one 3x3x3 center cap, one big cube center piece, an inner piece of a big cube, *an arbitrary combination of pieces not exceeding the limit of one coloured face.*

According to 5b5c, if more than one piece of a single color is detached, then it is DNF. But 5b5+ says that any combination of pieces detached are considered solved as long as they're the same color. I'm guessing that 5b5c should say something like "if more than one part with one colored face is affected, and the parts are of different colors, the puzzle is considered unsolved".


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (May 13, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> Previous regs had other issues too (like, popped edge in sq-1), and if you recall 2010 regs, a popped wing was considered as DNF there.
> *I guess it is really a pain to come up with clear regs that comply with logic and intuition* (like, *there is only one way to place it back => it's not DNF*), so WCA came up with this rule that is not so intuitive (in sense of one way placing) but at least it is clear.



Didn't you just explain an intuitive rule clearly and with little effort though? And I thought the point of this thread was that the phrasing wasn't clear.


----------



## Vincents (May 13, 2013)

Stop spamming me guys, I get the point!

More seriously, I'm running

"5b5d) If any part with more than one coloured face is affected, the puzzle is considered unsolved (DNF)."

By the powers that be.


----------



## DrKorbin (May 13, 2013)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Didn't you just explain an intuitive rule clearly and with little effort though? And I thought the point of this thread was that the phrasing wasn't clear.



No because of popped edge (or corner) on sq-1. If an edge is popped and a adjacent corner slightly moves splitting the gap, can you move it further and insert an edge wrong?


----------

