# New 2015 WCA Regulations (Effective July 1, 2015)



## Kit Clement (Jun 25, 2014)

As you probably know, there's a strong shift towards "Anything Goes" with puzzle regulations. Well, of course we don't want absolutely _anything_ to be legal, but we would like to figure out how much our regulations should loosen up. Thus, Lucas and I (more me in the future) have begun compiling pro/con lists for different issues in our puzzle regulations. Currently, we have these lists made:


 "Stickerless" puzzles - https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/177 - *Stickerless likely to be legal in 2015*
 Tile thickness - https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/194
 Pillowed puzzles - https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/195

This list is the central hub for puzzle issues: https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/173

Feel free to submit any suggestions for more pros/cons by replying here or creating a GitHub account. Please remember that this is an objective discussion, and we will not consider any personal opinions. Statements about the preferences/opinions about the community as a whole may be acceptable.

Also, if you have any other potential things that could be revisited with an "Anything Goes" philosophy, feel free to suggest those here as well.


----------



## Coolster01 (Jun 25, 2014)

Well, my pro for REMOVING the overlay logos for BLD is that it would be very easy to know if, say, your target was UF edge in the M2 method, and you had to know whether M U2 M U2 or U2 M' U2 M' would be done. Normally, you would do letter pairs and check if it's the second letter or not, but having a logo would make the situation easy to determine based on where the logo center is (U face or D face). Using letter pairs/memorizing in even groups will have less of a purpose because you won't have to think about this anymore. Times can go down for M2 users using this method of logo touching.
Con: it doesn't have consistency with other events, where logos are just fine.

Geez. That was wordy. Just had to get the point across.


----------



## rybaby (Jun 25, 2014)

I think the point about stickerless cubes having no need to be screened for sticker quality is important, but I see little reason for legalizing them, nor do I see much importance in banning them. I think letting competitors use them is fine. I highly doubt that any significant advantage comes from the visible plastic, and more advantage might just come from the feel of the cube (if it is better for someone than a snickered alternative). So maybe taking a laissez-faire approach is best here, I doubt it will destroy the integrity of the WCA.


----------



## goodatthis (Jun 25, 2014)

Although I've never owned a pillowed puzzle, I see no harm nor gain by legalizing them. I think that most would agree that for 5x5 on down (and maybe 6x6 as well) that there is no pillowed puzzle of high enough quality that any speedcuber would really want to use it, so any advantage that could be gained by using them would be minimized. But since the WCA has to assume that an amazing pillowed 3x3 might come out, I would say that pillowed puzzles should stay illegal. Just my two cents.


----------



## GrandSlam (Jun 25, 2014)

One missing pro of stickerless cubes is that they are made with a different kind of plastic. Crazybadcuber mentioned this in a few of his videos, and it is one of the reasons that force cubes turn so well. Besides, nobody even uses that whole color trick anyway. It seems a bit like using it would slow solves down, anyway.

Of course, if someone spent hours solving the stickerless cube, they could just subconsciously start using the "cheats"


----------



## Erik (Jun 25, 2014)

Good thing this is brought up well before the end of the year so there is lot's of preparation time.

Pro and con lists are a nice overview. Although I certainly don't agree with some of the points. I guess in order to make a decision the main issue will be how important certain pro's and con's are (unless more pro's and con's will come up). Ex: Do you value community support more, or consistency with other regs, or the amount of conservativeness...etc?

*Stickerless cubes*: I think this issue comes down to the following: very popular amongst cubers, but features a theoretical (though certainly insiginificant) advantage besides not needing stickers. Allowing them would go against the more conservative trend of the last 2-3 years, but would be in line with original liberal ideas about regulations from 2003-2010ish. The bullet point about the regulations being conservative could use a small correction.

*Tile thickness*: important to note is that the "or generally available thickness" rule was in effect from 2003-2014. This never caused any problems. The rule also was used for cubic puzzles (although after a closer look by Lucas, the regulations actually said it was only for non-cubic puzzles). Thus the change of 2014 was being non-conservative, while on the pro-list you state "WCA regulations have always been conservative"  which is not entirely true.
The sentence "_Manufacturers, especially mf8 and Meffert's, often make puzzles with extremely thick tiles._ " sounds a bit manipulative. At least not very neutral and objective.
Banning puzzles people have been using for a long time is very pointless unless somehow there is an epiphany about the great unfair advantages they provide (which they clearly don't). No examples exist of cubers trying to use and take advantage of tiles thicker than the standard Meffert's tiles, nor are clear indications that very thick tiles would provide a significant advantage. 

I think this part _"It is known that certain competitors perform better with tiles as opposed to no tiles, especially with Megaminx."_ is also a bit suggestive. It suggests that those certain competitors perform better because of the "being-able-to-see-adjacent-side" thing and thus gain an unfair advantages because of the tiles. In reality it is just puzzle preference, like GuHong over Zhan Chi. Personally I am convinced I am slower on stickered megaminxes because they feel different (smaller and worse grip) and can't resemble the exact colour scheme I am used to (which is very important).
*
Pillowed cubes: *Note: on a small cube, parts of more sides are also visible (take a look at a 2 cm keychain for example). I think this one comes down to the following: it seems the 7x7 pillowed cube is generally accepted and will probably not be banned. After all the 7x7 pillowed was the first on the market (also the patent thing). The question is whether to make the regs consistent and allow pillowed cubes for all events or keep it an exception for 7x7. The 'fear' of spherical 'cubes' does not hold much ground I think: just the shape itself makes it highly unsuitable for speedcubing.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 25, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> "Stickerless" puzzles - https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/177
> Tile thickness - https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/194
> Pillowed puzzles - https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/195



Stickerless cubes: To show the other side of the argument, the reason for disallowing makes sense, and it could infact make a great difference with lookahead, especially to the slower cubers. While yes, many cubers love the stickerless cubes (I do), the risk of someone taking advantage of it is there, however small (I know I totally would). And yes, there are arguments that this difference is so small to the point of being almost insignificant, but I would beg to differ, because my F2L lookahead would be much better in the "hard to find the pieces" situations, because I would be able to see the needed edges and corners without even turning the cube. A split second (possibly quite a few of them) of difference is still difference. Now, this isn't something that would be a big deal because anyone could get a stickerless cube if they're to the point of being able to use that advantage. As the thread states, it'd still be "fair" in that sense, but many cubers would be somewhat self-pressured into getting stickerless cubes in order to have that slight advantage, therefore it'd be "unfair" for those who don't want to use (or don't even have) stickerless cubes. I'm indifferent about the final decision, but I think this regulation should stay. If they get rid of it, I won't have a problem (and I'd take advantage of it), but that's my take on the issue.

Tile-thickness: I have no experience with this, and have no idea how it affects cubing. If I had to guess, I'd think that overly raised tiles would make it actually slightly harder to use, despite the slight "advantage". It's the kind of thing that looks like it regulates itself naturally, and so regulation is unnecessary (unless someone somehow proves that a major advantage is to be had with certain tile thicknesses). But I don't use tiled puzzles, so I don't know much about it.

Pillowed puzzles: This is interesting. The argument is about the ability to grip the cube and what pieces are visible. I personally think that when it comes to visibility, the pillowing actually makes it just as hard as it makes it easy. The front pieces become more visible, but the back pieces become less visible. So as for the visibility argument, I don't think that should even count as part of the reasoning here. And when it comes to the grip, there is a slight advantage, and a slight disadvantage as well. For bigger cubes, it helps with holding the cube, and is a very useful thing for such situations, but as the cubes start to get smaller (6x6-below) or the pillowing becomes more extreme, it becomes slightly more difficult to wield and manipulate the sides and layers. But even then, the pillowing allows for easier finger-tricks with the inner layers (if that's even a thing that is realistically usable, and I think it isn't until you get to 4x4, with which you can already do finger-tricks easily without the pillowing. Most people just do a mutli-slice, then a turn back.). And in the end, grip depends on the cuber and their style. Whatever cube they use, they can figure out a way to make it work just the same as they would normally do. So what do I think they should do with this regulation? Take it out, it doesn't make much of a difference from my perspective. It has just as many advantages as disadvantages.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 25, 2014)

Thanks for your comments, Erik.



Erik said:


> Allowing them would go against the more conservative trend of the last 2-3 years, but would be in line with original liberal ideas about regulations from 2003-2010ish.



I would argue that we weren't either conservative or liberal in that timeframe, as the majority of puzzles at that time gave us no reason to be conservative. The biggest issue I could see us being liberal with back then was tile thickness, as I recall Meffert's 4x4s were quite popular in 2009. 



Erik said:


> The sentence "_Manufacturers, especially mf8 and Meffert's, often make puzzles with extremely thick tiles._ " sounds a bit manipulative.



Fair point. I was writing this with no bias in mind, but this is clearly written poorly. I've changed the list of pros/cons.



Erik said:


> I think this part _"It is known that certain competitors perform better with tiles as opposed to no tiles, especially with Megaminx."_ is also a bit suggestive. It suggests that those certain competitors perform better because of the "being-able-to-see-adjacent-side" thing and thus gain an unfair advantages because of the tiles. In reality it is just puzzle preference, like GuHong over Zhan Chi. Personally I am convinced I am slower on stickered megaminxes because they feel different (smaller and worse grip) and can't resemble the exact colour scheme I am used to (which is very important).



I've clarified this as well. I meant to imply that the performance increase was due to the grip and NOT the extra visual information, but again, this could have been clearer.



Erik said:


> *
> Pillowed cubes: *Note: on a small cube, parts of more sides are also visible (take a look at a 2 cm keychain for example). I think this one comes down to the following: it seems the 7x7 pillowed cube is generally accepted and will probably not be banned. After all the 7x7 pillowed was the first on the market (also the patent thing). The question is whether to make the regs consistent and allow pillowed cubes for all events or keep it an exception for 7x7. The 'fear' of spherical 'cubes' does not hold much ground I think: just the shape itself makes it highly unsuitable for speedcubing.



That's exactly how I see it as well - pillowed 7x7s will always be allowed, it's just a matter now of being consistent. I don't fear spherical cubes either for the reasons you specified, but opening the door to non-cubic puzzles could introduce different shapes and thus different grips, and it was the simplest example I could think of.



Dane man said:


> I personally think that when it comes to visibility, the pillowing actually makes it just as hard as it makes it easy. The front pieces become more visible, but the back pieces become less visible. So as for the visibility argument, I don't think that should even count as part of the reasoning here.



When looking directly at one side of the puzzle, the other four adjacent sides become more visible. It's definitely an argument. 

*To everyone else:* Please remember that we are discussing *puzzle regulations*, not regulations about the solved state or anything else. Please keep posts relevant, non-opinionated, and on topic.


----------



## LNZ (Jun 25, 2014)

I actually own a pillowed V-Cube 6b. It is very good and way better than the flat (cubic) V-Cube 6 that I own.

Just one thing. I've done no modding to my cubic V-Cube 6 at all.

So if pillowed 6x6 cubes were ever made competition legal, the V-Cube 6b would be a good thing to use.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 25, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> When looking directly at one side of the puzzle, the other four adjacent sides become more visible. It's definitely an argument.


While it does reduce the amount of cube rotation needed to see the forward pieces, it increases the rotation needed to see the pieces further back. So looking directly at one face of the cube, it reduces the cube rotation to see the forward pieces to absolute zero, but it also it doubles the cube rotation needed to see the pieces in the back. It equalizes itself perfectly, and therefore gives just as much advantage as disadvantage. What I am saying isn't that you can't see more from one position, but that you _can_ see more, while seeing less at the same time. Therefore, that part of the argument is irrelevant from a technical standpoint.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 25, 2014)

Dane man said:


> While it does reduce the amount of cube rotation needed to see the forward pieces, it increases the rotation needed to see the pieces further back. So looking directly at one face of the cube, it reduces the cube rotation to see the forward pieces to absolute zero, but it also it doubles the cube rotation needed to see the pieces in the back. It equalizes itself perfectly, and therefore gives just as much advantage as disadvantage. What I am saying isn't that you can't see more from one position, but that you _can_ see more, while seeing less at the same time. Therefore, that part of the argument is irrelevant from a technical standpoint.


I realize this. It still changes the visibility of pieces from a cubic puzzle, and you cannot say that this trade off is perfectly equal, that's subjective.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jun 25, 2014)

*2015 Puzzle Regulations*



GrandSlam said:


> One missing pro of stickerless cubes is that they are made with a different kind of plastic.


Could you please provide some proof? As far as I'm aware there is nothing but word of mouth passed down by CBC.



GrandSlam said:


> Crazybadcuber mentioned this in a few of his videos, and it is one of the reasons that force cubes turn so well.


The placebo effect + new cube which barely gets used because of recognition issues could also be considered a reasonable explanation.


I personally don't think this needs to be added to the pro list.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 25, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> I realize this. It still changes the visibility of pieces from a cubic puzzle, and you cannot say that this trade off is perfectly equal, that's subjective.


Understood that this can be subjective from the standpoint of which cubies are important to see during a solve (depending on the solving method. Sometimes the front cubies are important and the back cubies ignored.), but I was simply making the point that the pillowing technically doesn't add more than it takes from the point of viewing perspective. That subjectiveness is dependent on the cuber and his/her method, and not the cube itself. Perhaps someone else might think otherwise, but that's what I'm seeing. 

Perhaps if someone switched to performing Fridrich with solved cross on the back, that would make a difference with pillowed cubes. They'd be able to see more of the front (which would be the LL), and completely ignore the back pieces. In such a case, pillowing would give a slight advantage, but that's because the cuber decided to take advantage of it. Perhaps there is something to this pillowed cube regulation?


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 25, 2014)

cube-o-holic said:


> I personally don't think this needs to be added to the pro list.



Precisely, the regulations do not discriminate by the type of material used in your puzzle, so such a point is irrelevant. We've recognized on our list that some people prefer these kinds of puzzles already.


----------



## (X) (Jun 25, 2014)

I think there are some changes needed for the Reasons for Disallowing (under Stickerless cubes). Seeing things like "_*This is a weak argument* against current stickerless puzzles, but any good proposal should make it clear that this should not be permitted to an unreasonable extent. _" makes me doubt the objectivity of the writer of this document. The argument of sticking with the idea of a Rubik's cube, as it originally was made, is also completely missing.

In my opinion the whole plan of these pros/cons lists is a little silly. I hope you don't want to make any kind of "The community wants"-argument as I don't really see a lot of diversity here (speedsolving.com) when it comes to this specific issue. In my opinion this whole problem comes down to the question, Is it necessary to compromise the integrity of speedcubing by deviating from the original idea of the Rubiks cube to make the sport/ regulations more beginner-friendly. 

I don't think so, but I understand that this is an increasingly more important issue as the community grows, and that others prefer simplifying. Personally I do like the wording that says that colours must not be visible from the inside of the puzzle. I think this wording is sufficient when it comes to simplicity.


----------



## Tempus (Jun 26, 2014)

(X) said:


> In my opinion this whole problem comes down to the question, Is it necessary to compromise the integrity of speedcubing by deviating from the original idea of the Rubiks cube to make the sport/ regulations more beginner-friendly.


By way of analogy, does it "compromise the integrity" of bicycle racing to allow use of modern bicycles? Should we restrict bicycle racers to using direct-drive bicycles with wheels of two different diameters merely because that's how the first bicycles were made?

In any sport, the equipment used evolves over time, as well it should, and if the controlling authority of a sport is holding back progress without due cause, they are not doing their duty, and they are hurting their sport. I dare say that the advantage a modern bicycle has over an early model is _orders of magnitude_ greater than any advantage one speedcube could possibly have over another, be it pillowed, tiled, stickerless, transparent, glow-in-the-dark, or otherwise.


----------



## Erik (Jun 26, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> I would argue that we weren't either conservative or liberal in that timeframe, as the majority of puzzles at that time gave us no reason to be conservative. The biggest issue I could see us being liberal with back then was tile thickness, as I recall Meffert's 4x4s were quite popular in 2009.



Just for arguments sake (don't take it too seriously): the meaning of liberal in this case would be: not many restrictions. This was the case. Not many variants were illegal and certainly no variants everyone would like to use or variants cubers have been using in comps already. Then transparent cubes showed up. Not many people owned them, nor did people favor them a lot. If I recall correctly Ron decided they were not OK. After than nothing much happened until 2014.



> I've clarified this as well. I meant to imply that the performance increase was due to the grip and NOT the extra visual information, but again, this could have been clearer.



Ok, thanks for the clarification  I sincerely thought you ment it the other way.


----------



## Dene (Jun 26, 2014)

Tempus said:


> By way of analogy, does it "compromise the integrity" of bicycle racing to allow use of modern bicycles? Should we restrict bicycle racers to using direct-drive bicycles with wheels of two different diameters merely because that's how the first bicycles were made?
> 
> In any sport, the equipment used evolves over time, as well it should, and if the controlling authority of a sport is holding back progress without due cause, they are not doing their duty, and they are hurting their sport. I dare say that the advantage a modern bicycle has over an early model is _orders of magnitude_ greater than any advantage one speedcube could possibly have over another, be it pillowed, tiled, stickerless, transparent, glow-in-the-dark, or otherwise.



Because I see this argument a lot, I figure I should respond to it again. I shall do thus with an analogy.

In chess it is ok to use a fancy new board with pieces comprising a completely new design. But it isn't ok to have a new board which suggests the next move to do.

What is the difference here? The _qualitative_ difference between the original game and the new technology. 

So the question for us to answer is: What constitutes a qualitative difference to the puzzle we all know as the Rubik's Cube? Where do we draw the line in allowing for technological advances? Surely you wouldn't accept a self-solving cube. But this is no different to your bicycle analogy.


I would like to give an example of a popular sport out there which hasn't had any "technological" advancements in terms of playable hardware in probably over 100 years. In fact, I am talking about the most popular sport in the world: football. If they can manage with some oldschool posts and a simple round ball full of air, why can't we just stick with the original Rubik's Cube design? Why do we have to allow technological advances? The last thing we want to do is end up looking like modern archery, which is the most shameful modern "sport" in existence.


----------



## tseitsei (Jun 26, 2014)

Dene said:


> I would like to give an example of a popular sport out there which hasn't had any "technological" advancements in terms of playable hardware in probably over 100 years. In fact, I am talking about the most popular sport in the world: football. If they can manage with some oldschool posts and a simple round ball full of air, why can't we just stick with the original Rubik's Cube design? Why do we have to allow technological advances? The last thing we want to do is end up looking like modern archery, which is the most shameful modern "sport" in existence.



Ok, I have to answer this because I play football myself.

It is true that football is very conservative game BUT

http://www.soccerballworld.com/images/HISTORY%20WORLD%20CUP%20BALLS%203.jpg

You can clearly see some development has clearly happened. And if you have played football yourself you know that also the performance of the ball has changed quite a bit and not just the looks of it.

Also these 2 shoes are clearly very different by design:
http://therightwinger.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/warrior-superheat-red-yellow.jpg
AND
http://www.frontrowgrunt.co.za/wp-content/uploads/football_boot.jpg

Also new goal line technology in this world cup....


Obviously technological advancement leads to new hardware in every single sport. However obviously we shouldn't allow chessboard that suggests next move or a cube that suggests next move or does moves by itself, but I think stickerless and pillowed cubes and tiles instead of stickers are more comparable to adding better tires to a bicycle (which IMO should be allowed) than adding a motor to a bicycle (which for obvious reasons shouln't be allowed).


----------



## Dane man (Jun 26, 2014)

I see that what we're really debating, and what we really need to debate, is whether or not these changes give unfair advantages to a cuber. We know that they give potential advantages, but are they "unfair"?

Do stickerless puzzless give an "unfair" advantage?
Do tiled puzzless give an "unfair" advantage?
Do pillowed puzzless give an "unfair" advantage?

Well, that depends on the definition of unfair. We have facts and statistics (and a plethora of opinions) about the performance of each of these changes in cubing technology.

Let's take a look at it from this stand point. Is it fair to allow people to bring Moyu cubes and Zhanchi cubes to competitions? Does that give them an unfair advantage over the people that use the original Rubik's cubes?

We tend to be in agreement that, no, it isn't any unfair advantage, because while the technology and performance of the cube changes, it is readily available to everyone, and it doesn't change how the puzzle must be solved. It is an advantage, and a great one at that, but it doesn't give any more information to the cuber using it about how the cuber needs to solve it. 

But what of these other advancements? Well, the difference is that they _do_ give more information to the cuber. Stickerless cubes show the colors of sides that are normally unseen. Tiled puzzles and pillowed puzzles make more pieces and colors visible from certain angles. They make the information more readily available. While it isn't telling them what moves they should perform like an electronic chess board with a hints button, it is giving them more information faster in order for them to make a decision faster. But what is being argued isn't whether or not the information is more available, but whether or not that information gives such a great advantage as to make a big difference in recognition and performance.

Does it? And if it does, is that unfair?

Now, what of the other advantages? Stickerless cubes have little advantage in terms of actual performance, and if there is any, then it's advantage falls in the same category as Moyus, Zhanchis, and Guhongs vs The Original Rubik's cube. That difference, as we already have adopted, is irrelevant. But tiled and pillowed puzzles, because of their shapes, give a slight but greatly measurable advantage in the form of grip and puzzle performance. Many cubers testify to this, as opposed to the very few, if any, cubers that testify to the advantage of seeing more pieces quicker. So, the bigger advantage from these puzzles seems to be the grip and performance of them. Where do these advantages fall? Are they simply technological/performance advances and fair game for all cubers, or are they giving an unfair advantage that others wouldn't be able to compete with using other puzzles? Should it matter that other cubers use other puzzles given that the new advances are available to them as well?

Should the regulations limit these advances in order to maintain a fair playing ground? Or should they allow the advances, leaving each cuber to make their own decisions about which puzzle type works best for them? (which could also be considered a fair playing ground)

These are the questions that need to be answered and are hard to answer because each one has their own preferences, and tends to argue their side based on those. But what we need to ultimately decide is what kind of playing ground do we feel can be considered "fair"? Once we answer these questions, a decision can more easily be made, and it will most likely be (and probably should be) based on the feelings of those who participate in the competitions, and less on the technicalities of the advantages to be had with the different kinds of puzzle.

So what is "fair"?


----------



## (X) (Jun 26, 2014)

Dane man said:


> I see that what we're really debating, and what we really need to debate, is whether or not these changes give unfair advantages to a cuber. ...



I disagree. I think a very important decision is if we want to move away from the idea/definition of the Rubik's cube, the way it was originally made. 

The question of unfair advantages is completely irrelevant, of course there are no unfair advantages when everyone has the same equipement available.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 26, 2014)

(X) said:


> I disagree. I think a very important decision is if we want to move away from the idea/definition of the Rubik's cube, the way it was originally made.
> 
> The question of unfair advantages is completely irrelevant, of course there are no unfair advantages when everyone has the same equipement available.


Well, we first have to answer the question as to whether or not it is fair to allow competitors to move away from the definition of the original Rubik's cube. You already have, but some others have not yet. Once that question is answered, then we can decide whether or not we want to move away from that original definition. If it's fair, then the answer is yes, if it's not, then the answer is no.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 26, 2014)

Erik said:


> Just for arguments sake (don't take it too seriously): the meaning of liberal in this case would be: not many restrictions. This was the case. Not many variants were illegal and certainly no variants everyone would like to use or variants cubers have been using in comps already. Then transparent cubes showed up. Not many people owned them, nor did people favor them a lot. If I recall correctly Ron decided they were not OK. After than nothing much happened until 2014.



Ah, I forgot about transparent cubes. But yes, I would agree with that - before stickerless puzzles, the regulations were often more forgiving than restricting.


----------



## Dene (Jun 26, 2014)

tseitsei said:


> It is true that football is very conservative game BUT
> 
> http://www.soccerballworld.com/images/HISTORY%20WORLD%20CUP%20BALLS%203.jpg
> 
> You can clearly see some development has clearly happened. And if you have played football yourself you know that also the performance of the ball has changed quite a bit and not just the looks of it.



Other than the pictures on the ball, the design has barely changed at all. The only one that was really different was the jabulani, and there was so much complaining about that ball, FIFA would never go back to it.



tseitsei said:


> Also these 2 shoes are clearly very different by design:



Ok I'll give you the shoes but at least they don't have rocket boosters 



tseitsei said:


> Also new goal line technology in this world cup....



This is why I deliberately said _playable_ technology. This is obviously completely irrelevant and incomparable.


----------



## Ranzha (Jun 26, 2014)

(X) said:


> there are no unfair advantages when everyone has the same equipement available.



Does everyone have the equipment available to make tiles such as in the picture on the Tiles github page?


----------



## (X) (Jun 26, 2014)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Does everyone have the equipment available to make tiles such as in the picture on the Tiles github page?



No, I agree, that may be a problem. 

anyway, I was mainly talking about the stickerless issue, as I think this can possibly have a much bigger impact on our sport.


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 26, 2014)

(X) said:


> In my opinion this whole problem comes down to the question, Is it necessary to compromise the integrity of speedcubing by deviating from the original idea of the Rubiks cube to make the sport/ regulations more beginner-friendly.



How is it that the change provided by these stickerless cubes is "deviating from the original idea of the Rubiks cube", while every other change between the original Rubik's cubes and today's cubes is not? Or are you actually already opposed to modern speedcubes as it is? I'll just hope that isn't the case.

Is significantly different piece design that allows the cubes to be turned much faster not deviating from the original idea?
Are torpedoes not deviating from the original idea?
Are the different colored plastics and possible alternatives to stickers currently allowed by the regulations not deviating from the original idea?

I've seen you try to make this point before, and I want to see _exactly_ how you define "the original idea of the Rubik's cube" in your mind such that colored plastic being visible on the inside of a puzzle is a deviation from the original idea, while *every other difference* is not, including those that clearly make it much easier for cubers to get much faster times without increased effort.


----------



## Villyer (Jun 26, 2014)

I feel like a different approach to this whole situation could just be to well-define what a rubik's cube is (and the other puzzles that make up WCA events). The purpose of competing is to see how quickly you can solve a rubik's cube. The specific one you have shouldn't make a difference in the eyes of the competition, as long as it matches the definition of the puzzle. Is the puzzle defined as having uniform color plastic with colored stickers on it, or is it defined to have perfectly flat sides? If there is a definition, it would be easy to see what fits and what doesn't.

Although once you start deciding on a definition, those questions would have to be answered, so the issues at hand wouldn't necessarily become any easier.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jun 26, 2014)

*2015 Puzzle Regulations*

The major hang up on allowing these changes is that they deviate from Erno Rubik's original design, however he wasn't designing it with solving speed in mind.

My personal opinion is hardware should be allowed as long as the difficultly of the challenge to solve the puzzle doesn't change.

Edit - just a hypothetical, if the 4x4 was originally made just like modern stickerless cubes would we allow stickerless puzzles for 4x4 but not 3x3? Same goes for tiles and pillowed.


----------



## tx789 (Jun 26, 2014)

The thing about this is that with pillowed cubes they slow you down. The change in times from the V-Cube 7 to Shengshou shows proof of this. 

Also I think extra thick tiles provide more of an advantage than stickerless cubes. Since you don't need to rotate the cube at all to see what the sticker colour is on the left and right hand side of the cube.


----------



## vcuber13 (Jun 26, 2014)

tx789 said:


> The thing about this is that with pillowed cubes they slow you down. The change in times from the V-Cube 7 to Shengshou shows proof of this.



Except the fastest official 7x7 solve ever was done was with a V7?


----------



## (X) (Jun 26, 2014)

cube-o-holic said:


> The major hang up on allowing these changes is that they deviate from Erno Rubik's original design, however he wasn't designing it with solving speed in mind.
> 
> My personal opinion is hardware should be allowed as long as the difficultly of the challenge to solve the puzzle doesn't change.
> 
> Edit - just a hypothetical, if the 4x4 was originally made just like modern stickerless cubes would we allow stickerless puzzles for 4x4 but not 3x3? Same goes for tiles and pillowed.



I partly agree. I think allowing stickerless cubes, as they are made today, allows for easier *speedsolving* of the puzzle.


----------



## Erik (Jun 27, 2014)

Dane man said:


> So what is "fair"?



No cube is unfair as long as everyone is allowed the same cube.



ellwd said:


> Chess...football...cycling...
> I'm definitely going to agree with whoever comes up with the best analogy*
> 
> 
> ...



Although this is stated a bit harsh, I do agree with the message. Analogies have been brought up a 100 times already and dont contribute anything to the discussion. The issues are quite clear. So far, any analogy that has been brought up is only confusing and cluttering. Lets stick to what Kit actually wanted to discuss.



(X) said:


> I disagree. I think a very important decision is if we want to move away from the idea/definition of the Rubik's cube, the way it was originally made.
> 
> The question of unfair advantages is completely irrelevant, of course there are no unfair advantages when everyone has the same equipement available.



The original Rubiks cube was made from wood and had cut-off corners. Stuff like transparent cubes or stickerless cubes were just technologically not possible back then, or just too expensive. If you ask Ernö he would not recognize GuHongs or type Fs to be Rubiks cubes, because they are just a copy. Same goes for cubes with a different colour scheme. 
So the orignal design is not the best way to go IF you want to work from a "definition" point of view. The regs already allow cubes deviating from this original cube. While it certainly would be a solution to work with such a "definition" I fear it will be a complicated, hard to understand piece of high-level English which most likely will not cover all unwanted variants (unless it is a very open describtion). Not sure if that would be the way to go.


----------



## Dene (Jun 27, 2014)

ellwd said:


> Fair enough, maybe I was a bit too sarcastic.
> But in all seriousness, the use of analogies in this thread hasn't enhanced my understanding of the issues being discussed.



Maybe it's a personal thing, but I find analogies very useful. At the very least, the way I feel best to approach things in general is: We don't have to reinvent the wheel, as people have done that before us. It's much simpler to look at what others do and see what works.



Villyer said:


> I feel like a different approach to this whole situation could just be to well-define what a rubik's cube is (and the other puzzles that make up WCA events). The purpose of competing is to see how quickly you can solve a rubik's cube. The specific one you have shouldn't make a difference in the eyes of the competition, as long as it matches the definition of the puzzle. Is the puzzle defined as having uniform color plastic with colored stickers on it, or is it defined to have perfectly flat sides? If there is a definition, it would be easy to see what fits and what doesn't.
> 
> Although once you start deciding on a definition, those questions would have to be answered, so the issues at hand wouldn't necessarily become any easier.



I see you think like I do. Originally I brought up this approach with the WRC and delegates, but it wasn't viewed particularly popularly at the time. Regardless I did the work to come up with a definition and resulting regulations. I was planning on getting around to posting it on here at some stage but never got around to it. I'll see what I can do in the next week or two (so busy atm).


----------



## (X) (Jun 27, 2014)

Erik said:


> The original Rubiks cube was made from wood and had cut-off corners. Stuff like transparent cubes or stickerless cubes were just technologically not possible back then, or just too expensive. If you ask Ernö he would not recognize GuHongs or type Fs to be Rubiks cubes, because they are just a copy. Same goes for cubes with a different colour scheme.
> So the orignal design is not the best way to go IF you want to work from a "definition" point of view. The regs already allow cubes deviating from this original cube. While it certainly would be a solution to work with such a "definition" I fear it will be a complicated, hard to understand piece of high-level English which most likely will not cover all unwanted variants (unless it is a very open describtion). Not sure if that would be the way to go.



Yeah, but stickerless cubes have *visual differences* from all other cubes allowed until now, and I think they should be put in a separate category. 

The argument of "We should make theses changes that can have an impact on our sport because it will make the regulations easier to understand." is just really bad IMO.


----------



## Erik (Jun 27, 2014)

(X) said:


> Yeah, but stickerless cubes have *visual differences* from all other cubes allowed until now, and I think they should be put in a separate category.
> 
> The argument of "We should make theses changes that can have an impact on our sport because it will make the regulations easier to understand." is just really bad IMO.



Yes, just like a cube with round stickers, purple plastic or cut off corners like the original cube... what is your point?

Please rewrite the argument and also explain WHY you think it is bad, I don`t understand what you mean (nor can I check if that is actually what I said)


----------



## (X) (Jun 27, 2014)

Erik said:


> While it certainly would be a solution to work with such a "definition" I fear it will be a complicated, hard to understand piece of high-level English which most likely will not cover all unwanted variants (unless it is a very open describtion). Not sure if that would be the way to go.



I interpreted this as something along the lines of :
"We should make these changes that can have an impact on our sport because it will make the regulations easier to understand." 
Is that not what you meant?

When it comes to the idea of a Rubik's cube I think you are nitpicking. 

http://rubik.storflor.com/logo/kube2.jpg

This is what a Rubiks cube looks like.

*This is what most people in the world would point at if asked to point at a Rubik's cube.* 

I think we should allow all puzzles that do not give any visual advantages over this cube.

*Suggestion: This could possibly be something to use in the regulations, show a picture of a Rubik's cube and say that any cube that don't give any visual advantages is allowed.*


----------



## Goosly (Jun 27, 2014)

(X) said:


> *Suggestion: This could possibly be something to use in the regulations, show a picture of a Rubik's cube and say that any cube that don't give any visual advantages is allowed.*



I can see the colors of the stickers on BUL, BU and BUR if I tilt my Weilong with standard stickers just enough so I can't see the whole back face. Is that a visual advantage?

(My point is you did not define visual advantage, therefor your suggestion can't be used.)


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jun 27, 2014)

Erik said:


> The original Rubiks cube was made from wood and had cut-off corners.



Here's an image for those not familiar. I'm sure we can all agree that we do not want cubes in competition to look like the original cube made by Rubik.


----------



## Erik (Jun 27, 2014)

(X) said:


> I interpreted this as something along the lines of :
> "We should make these changes that can have an impact on our sport because it will make the regulations easier to understand."
> Is that not what you meant?
> 
> When it comes to the idea of a Rubik's cube I think you are nitpicking.



I am not sure if I understand what you mean, but I will give it a go: Because I said "working with a definition is possible, but may be challenging/difficult/not optimal because of X and Y" you assume this is the reason I want stickerless cubes to be allowed? 

If that is the case you completely misunderstand. 

I just put the rest in a spoiler here, because this has been cluttering this thread too much already... this is after all almost a PM.



Spoiler



For starters because allowing stickerless cubes and working with a "definition" are two completely different issues. Working with a definition does not automatically mean we would allow or ban stickerless cubes, that just depends on the definition... It would only be a tool/instrument we could use to explain what variants are OK and which are not OK. The discussion about what in fact is OK still has to be made. Also: like I said before, I fear a definition would be long and complex. If you have a solution/alterative to that, please share! (not ment sarcastically)

I posted my reasons for allowing stickerless cubes several times here in a very elaborate way, maybe you are interested in reading them?

What do you mean with nitpicking? I never told you my own definition of a Rubiks cube. With some examples I just made clear that although it may seem obvious to you what the "original Rubik`s Cube" is, the issue is a bit more complex than that.

Also: I am curious what "impact" you mean? Do you think people will suddenly be faster on stickerless cubes? And if that is the case:
1. Why do you expect that? 
2. Why would it be a bad thing?


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 27, 2014)

(X) said:


> When it comes to the idea of a Rubik's cube I think you are nitpicking.
> 
> http://rubik.storflor.com/logo/kube2.jpg
> 
> ...



Noncubers would still look at a stickerless cube and recognize it as a Rubik's cube as well (though they might think it was a cheap knockoff in the same way many would say about my white-plastic Weilong). I think it is you who are nitpicking about the idea of a Rubik's cube. But I can't be sure since you completely ignored my previous post requesting your exact definition of "the original idea of the Rubik's cube." >_>



> I think we should allow all puzzles that do not give any visual advantages over this cube.
> 
> *Suggestion: This could possibly be something to use in the regulations, show a picture of a Rubik's cube and say that any cube that don't give any visual advantages is allowed.*



Somebody already mentioned that you failed to define "visual advantage," but here's a couple of points anyway:

We already know that if a cube has tiles, you can see, for example, the BU color without having to tilt the cube as far as you would with stickers. Does this mean you are thoroughly against tiles being allowed by the current regulations?
Hypothetically, if I were able to conclusively prove that I can lookahead better on a white 3x3 than on a black 3x3, would you then be thoroughly against white cubes being allowed?


----------



## Villyer (Jun 28, 2014)

Dene said:


> I see you think like I do. Originally I brought up this approach with the WRC and delegates, but it wasn't viewed particularly popularly at the time. Regardless I did the work to come up with a definition and resulting regulations. I was planning on getting around to posting it on here at some stage but never got around to it. I'll see what I can do in the next week or two (so busy atm).



I would be interested in seeing what came to your mind for the definition. After only brief thought on it, I would figure that things like shape (perfect cube vs. partially rounded for the pillowed), material (uniform/multicolor, opacity), and coverings (stickers, tiles, logos [or colors in general, how uniform must they be]) would have to be addressed, but I wouldn't want the definition to be very wordy or even that official sounding, or it would be too hard to agree on.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 28, 2014)

Just a note: Kit and I have asked the Board whether they are in favor of following community interest, and pursuing a way to allow stickerless puzzles.

We can't promise anything, but perhaps such a decision would prevent everyone from fixating on the details of stickerless cubes.

The problem isn't that people on the WRC/Board believe that stickerless cubes give an unfair advantage right now. The problem is that we need to take in a whole bunch of (conflicting) preferences about how to expand the puzzle Regulations while trying to minimize unanticipated consequences. We need something that allows us to judge new puzzles in the future, without resorting to technicalities or subjective interpretations, as much as possible. (Otherwise, we'll have many more conversations about whether to allow certain puzzles – with no objective way to settle things.)
We also need a way to combine / decide on a subset of possible changes.

Please try to help with that.

Here are some specific responses:



Erik said:


> Good thing this is brought up well before the end of the year so there is lot's of preparation time.
> 
> Pro and con lists are a nice overview. Although I certainly don't agree with some of the points. I guess in order to make a decision the main issue will be how important certain pro's and con's are (unless more pro's and con's will come up). Ex: Do you value community support more, or consistency with other regs, or the amount of conservativeness...etc?



I've stated this elsewhere, but my personal goal when I was working on the 2014 Regulations was to take all the existing Delegate interpretations and limit it to a set of puzzles everyone agrees should be legal. We were aiming to end up with a simple set of boundaries for what is legal, so that competitors and Delegates can easily tell what cubes are allowed. This was all in response to all the new kind of puzzles that Delegates asked about in 2013.



Erik said:


> The bullet point about the regulations being conservative could use a small correction.



I'm not sure about that. I remember the days when it was unclear if the WCA would even allow non-Rubik's brand cubes at Worlds. The Board only occasionally judges new kinds of puzzles to be okay. The leaders of the WRC have been following the interpretation that we should be conservative about judging whether new puzzles features are okay. Delegates frequently ask about puzzles because they don't assume that unusual features are allowed by default.

Perhaps things were more "open" before 2010-ish, but the variety of puzzles was much less.
The main thing you could do was get a puzzle that turned faster, but Article 3 has always stated that this is okay.

Apart from better turning, every qualitatively new feature has been subject to separate scrutiny.

In any case, the current policy is definitely conservative until we find something better to adopt.
(Sébastien's proposal has been the only serious attempt at this, but no one stepped forward and tried to improve the flaws to make it work.)

I've also changed "has always been conservative" to "is conservative", since that is also more relevant.



(X) said:


> I think there are some changes needed for the Reasons for Disallowing (under Stickerless cubes). Seeing things like "_*This is a weak argument* against current stickerless puzzles, but any good proposal should make it clear that this should not be permitted to an unreasonable extent. _" makes me doubt the objectivity of the writer of this document. The argument of sticking with the idea of a Rubik's cube, as it originally was made, is also completely missing.



I think the quoted point is important. _Current_ stickerless cubes are harmless.
But if we're not careful, our changes to the Regulations might allow internal plastic colors to be used for something new and unanticipated (maybe something more like a supercube). Maybe not, maybe plastic colors wouldn't really have to do with it. We just don't know, and hoping that such issues don't crop up... hasn't worked well for us.

I've added the one about the idea of a Rubik's Cube.



(X) said:


> In my opinion the whole plan of these pros/cons lists is a little silly. I hope you don't want to make any kind of "The community wants"-argument as I don't really see a lot of diversity here (speedsolving.com) when it comes to this specific issue.



?

If the community wants it, that is usually a reason in favor of a change.

I've seen a lot of discussions about the Regulations in the last few years. One thing I've noticed is that everyone always assumes that others are familiar with a particular set of pros and cons, and often disregards something others consider as important. It's not productive for everyone to talk past each other when they haven't read some of the relevant reasons that others have put forth.
A list of pros and cons allow us to discuss which reasons are more important/popular, instead of what we think the reasons themselves are.




Dene said:


> What is the difference here? The _qualitative_ difference between the original game and the new technology.
> 
> So the question for us to answer is: What constitutes a qualitative difference to the puzzle we all know as the Rubik's Cube? Where do we draw the line in allowing for technological advances? Surely you wouldn't accept a self-solving cube. But this is no different to your bicycle analogy.



I think the word "qualitative" is very useful here.


 We already allow sanding and lubing? Sure, mech improvements are fine.
 We already allow 7cm cubes? Sure 3cm cubes and 10cm cubes are fine.

But whenever there's a new _kind_ of change, interpreting whether it falls under _what we previously considered an acceptable puzzle_ is usually subjective.
(Dene and I have had some thoughts towards a puzzle policy that tries to define what the phrase "basic concept" was trying to get at. I don't believe anymore that this would allow us to judge whether to accept all the new kinds of cubes that will be coming out soon.)




Dane man said:


> I see that what we're really debating, and what we really need to debate, is whether or not these changes give unfair advantages to a cuber. We know that they give potential advantages, but are they "unfair"?



"Unfair" is the important point, but I've given some thought to the definition of advantage.



Dane man said:


> Should the regulations limit these advances in order to maintain a fair playing ground? Or should they allow the advances, leaving each cuber to make their own decisions about which puzzle type works best for them? (which could also be considered a fair playing ground)



I've mentioned this a few times, but one thing that people often fail to consider is that in order to be fair across the world, we need Delegates to be able to make clear judgments about what puzzles are okay.

We already know that competitors get upset if Delegates make inconsistent rulings (e.g. allowing stickerless puzzles for BLD in Europe while they're completely prohibited in the US).

We may expand the puzzle Regulations, perhaps even to something like "anything goes", but we will probably always have a boundary.
As we allow more and more kinds of variations, it may become harder for Delegates to follow that boundary.

In particular, not all Delegates have the time to follow news about updated interpretations.



Dane man said:


> So what is "fair"?



I wish I knew.
I don't believe that something is fair simply if every competitor is allowed to use it.

My best intuitive thought in that a traditional speedcube should still stay competitive. Gratuitous variations are also not okay.



Erik said:


> No cube is unfair as long as everyone is allowed the same cube.



I'm not convinced.

Firstly, good cubes should be reasonably _accessible_ to all competitors (not just _allowed_). Cube prices have stayed stable around $10, so fortunately this is not a concern in the foreseeable future.

We need some limits (it should still turn like a Rubik's Cube, and visually resemble one), and I don't believe that your statement holds unconditionally.

However, I agree that this is the case with most *current* cubes that we're considering.



(X) said:


> *Suggestion: This could possibly be something to use in the regulations, show a picture of a Rubik's cube and say that any cube that don't give any visual advantages is allowed.*



Unfortunately, that would not be detailed and accurate enough. See my discussion of advantage above for something more practical.


----------



## Erik (Jun 28, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> I'm not sure about that. I remember the days when it was unclear if the WCA would even allow non-Rubik's brand cubes at Worlds. The Board only occasionally judges new kinds of puzzles to be okay. The leaders of the WRC have been following the interpretation that we should be conservative about judging whether new puzzles features are okay. Delegates frequently ask about puzzles because they don't assume that unusual features are allowed by default.
> 
> Perhaps things were more "open" before 2010-ish, but the variety of puzzles was much less.
> The main thing you could do was get a puzzle that turned faster, but Article 3 has alway[s stated that this is okay.
> ...



At World`s 2005 there was indeed an exception. After that this never happened again and basically all variants people wanted to use were allowed (up to transparent cubes, which were not popular at all). "Is conservative" is a "smart" change in the sence that you then just ignore the past and only focus on (for a big amount) your own changes...



> I wish I knew.
> I don't believe that something is fair simply if every competitor is allowed to use it.



Why not? How can anything be unfair if everyone has the same parameters? Or don`t you think it is fair for those who did not have those cubes in the past?



> I'm not convinced.
> 
> Firstly, good cubes should be reasonably _accessible_ to all competitors (not just _allowed_). Cube prices have stayed stable around $10, so fortunately this is not a concern in the foreseeable future.
> 
> ...



Ok, this piece of text is very much personal beliefs, and nothing of this is directly used in the regs. Never was accessibility or good pricing a factor. The unlimited free choice: the fact that you can theoreticall build your own cube has always been one of the aspects of the regs the community likes a lot and to me gives it a liberal and open character. Best funny example of this was Adam Zamora competing with his (estimated) 30cm x 30cm x 30cm 2x2 
But if I understand you well: you would not be OK with it if someone would be selling super-duber speedcubes of €2000 per piece of which only 3 are build?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 28, 2014)

Erik said:


> At World`s 2005 there was indeed an exception. After that this never happened again and basically all variants people wanted to use were allowed (up to transparent cubes, which were not popular at all). "Is conservative" is a "smart" change in the sence that you then just ignore the past and only focus on (for a big amount) your own changes...



Maybe. I wasn't really involved until 2008 and later. Can you think some good qualitative changes that were allowed without question when they were introduced? (I'd actually really like to have some of those as case studies.)

It doesn't really matter if it's a smart change or not, because anything other than being conservative by default *would* be a change from now.



Erik said:


> Why not? How can anything be unfair if everyone has the same parameters? Or don`t you think it is fair for those who did not have those cubes in the past?


Because it may be unfair to those who use "normal" speedcubes. That is a subjective judgment.

That argument about the past hadn't even occurred to me. Yet another example how none of us can anticipate every aspect of a topic. :-/



Erik said:


> Ok, this piece of text is very much personal beliefs, and nothing of this is directly used in the regs.


Yep, and I labeled it as my belief. Please do point out if I'm stating personal viewpoint as an objective fact (as with the conservative policy).



Erik said:


> Never was accessibility or good pricing a factor.


That's because it's never been a problem. There are lots of things that we don't think of as factors when they're not problems, but that doesn't mean they don't matter.

If better cubes were significantly more expensive, I'm sure people would talk about how the price is unfair to different competitors.



Erik said:


> But if I understand you well: you would not be OK with it if someone would be selling super-duber speedcubes of €2000 per piece of which only 3 are build?


If they allow an otherwise mediocre speedcuber to set a world record, I think people would definitely be upset.
This scenario is a pretty clear-cut case of something I would consider an unfair advantage.


----------



## Erik (Jun 30, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Maybe. I wasn't really involved until 2008 and later. Can you think some good qualitative changes that were allowed without question when they were introduced? (I'd actually really like to have some of those as case studies.)



"Changes that were allowed without question" I am not sure what you mean with this.



> It doesn't really matter if it's a smart change or not, because anything other than being conservative by default *would* be a change from now.



What I meant with my comment is that by applying the little change, you deliberately leave out an important part of the facts and focus only on the current version of the regs. Therefore you write the text toward the "conservative-argument" which then sounds as a valid argument which suddenly is not-that-valid when considering the whole timeline. Btw: only the text in the "Stickerless puzzles" has been altered, in "Tile thickness" it still says "have been conservative".



> Because it may be unfair to those who use "normal" speedcubes. That is a subjective judgment.



Replace "normal" with "bad" and your whole sentence doesn't make that much sense. Why would you choose a bad (or at least not the best) cube if you have the opportunity to choose a better one? 



> Yep, and I labeled it as my belief. Please do point out if I'm stating personal viewpoint as an objective fact (as with the conservative policy).



Ok  sometimes it is not very clear if you are speaking for "Lucas" or for "Lucas-the-WRC-member" or for "we-the-WRC".



> That's because it's never been a problem. There are lots of things that we don't think of as factors when they're not problems, but that doesn't mean they don't matter.
> 
> If better cubes were significantly more expensive, I'm sure people would talk about how the price is unfair to different competitors.





> If they allow an otherwise mediocre speedcuber to set a world record, I think people would definitely be upset.
> This scenario is a pretty clear-cut case of something I would consider an unfair advantage.



Yes some people are more wealthy than others, some people have more time to spend practicing than others, some people live nearer to other cubers than others, some people have more talent than others and some people have more fingers than others. All factors you can't and shouldn't want to influence in making regs. It's the kind of "unfair" that is life.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 30, 2014)

The WCA Board has given WRC clearance to allow stickerless cubes for 2015. (Provided that clear, carefully written regulations will be made in time, which shouldn't be an issue)

Thus, we would like to shift discussion to tiles and pillowed cubes.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 30, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> We already know that competitors get upset if Delegates make inconsistent rulings (e.g. allowing stickerless puzzles for BLD in Europe while they're completely prohibited in the US).
> 
> We may expand the puzzle Regulations, perhaps even to something like "anything goes", but we will probably always have a boundary.
> As we allow more and more kinds of variations, it may become harder for Delegates to follow that boundary.
> ...


Very true. Though, with any change that may be made, there will always be a slight delay between when the changes are made, and when they begin to be universally implemented. So that shouldn't really be a reason for a change not to occur. Inconsistency will happen regardless, sadly.

As for the difficulty in following that boundary, it'll likely require that very specific regulations be given regarding it in addition to the regulations that are removed to allow more. Not only that, but with any new set of regulations, comes new situations, new problems, and new abuse of regulation that will require further modification of the regulations. This is normal and will happen with any major change made to regulations. And I don't think it'll take long for the dust to settle after construction, and for everyone to be comfortable and understanding of the new regulations set up (maybe a few months, and after that it should be relatively normal again).



Kit Clement said:


> The WCA Board has given WRC clearance to allow stickerless cubes for 2015. (Provided that clear, carefully written regulations will be made in time, which shouldn't be an issue)
> 
> Thus, we would like to shift discussion to tiles and pillowed cubes.



Cool, I'm excited. I've also posted about the tiled and pillowed cubes. Not sure what else can be said about them. I think the basis for change could also be made the same way, by asking questions that let us know how most feel about their inclusion.

Is there someone here who uses a pillowed 3x3 as their main? That would use it in a competition? How about 4x4? 5x5?... etc(I think more likely as the cubes get bigger) Would allowing pillowed cubes change much in regards to how many cubers use them in competitions (other than the 4x4 and up using pillowed cubes for grip)?

And tiled cubes? Who uses them and for what puzzles? Would these puzzles be any different than what is already permitted? Do you find you gain an advantage over using other cubes or is it simply more comfortable for use? Are they even that popular among cubers, enough to require more allowance for them in competitions?

I know that I don't use either of these often (I don't like them all that much, except for the bigger pillowed cubes), so it'd be good to hear from those who do use them.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jul 1, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Very true. Though, with any change that may be made, there will always be a slight delay between when the changes are made, and when they begin to be universally implemented.


There had better not. I'd rather have lots of Delegate questions than more inconsistency.



Dane man said:


> And I don't think it'll take long for the dust to settle after construction, and for everyone to be comfortable and understanding of the new regulations set up (maybe a few months, and after that it should be relatively normal again).



I'd give it at least a year or two. *After* the changes stabilize.


----------



## Aceofspades2345 (Jul 1, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> The WCA Board has given WRC clearance to allow stickerless cubes for 2015. (Provided that clear, carefully written regulations will be made in time, which shouldn't be an issue)
> 
> Thus, we would like to shift discussion to tiles and pillowed cubes.



Tremendous news. Better get practicing for when I can finally enter competitions.


----------



## szalejot (Aug 8, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> The WCA Board has given WRC clearance to allow stickerless cubes for 2015. (Provided that clear, carefully written regulations will be made in time, which shouldn't be an issue)



Is that 100% sure info, that stickerless cubes will be allowed? Or this decision will be discussed and can be rejected?


----------



## mns112 (Aug 8, 2014)

The WCA should have allowed stickerless cube for BLD


----------



## Matt11111 (Oct 20, 2014)

I love the idea of legalizing stickerless cubes. If you are speedcubing for the fastest time, you don't have the time to turn a layer 45 degrees to see what's behind. As for tile thickness, it's the cuber's problem when the tiles are too thick and you can't do anything.


----------



## dougthecube (Oct 20, 2014)

*Not a sticker less fan*

I have the unpopular view here. I don't like sticker less cubes because I feel that now there will almost be an obligation to get sticker less cubes because they supposedly make you faster when let's be honest they probably hardly do. I want to use stickered cubes which I prefer the look of and not feel that I am at a disadvantage to others


----------



## TMOY (Oct 20, 2014)

You claim that stickerless cubes don't give any real advantage, but you're complaining that not using them will put you at a disadvantage ? You're just contradicting yourself...


----------



## dougthecube (Oct 20, 2014)

I'm saying that there probably isnt much of an advantage but that even though the advantage is so minute, I will not want to disadvantage myself at all even if the disadvantage is near negligible and therefore will feel that I will have to use a stickerless cube to put me on a level playing field with everyone else.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 20, 2014)

If Feliks gets sub-7 averages without a stickerless cube, you certainly don't need one. Being fast is simply not about having the best possible cube.


----------



## dougthecube (Oct 20, 2014)

But I bet if feliks broke the 3x3 single with one everyone would then get stickerless. But I agree that using a stickerless doesn't explain someone else's speed, it is obviously about practice!


----------



## qqwref (Oct 20, 2014)

Most cubers have been around long enough to not blindly copy everything the WR holder does.


----------



## dougthecube (Oct 20, 2014)

I agree but if the best ever solve recorded at a competition was with a certain type of cube, a lot of people would consider switching and I don't think that that would be blindly switching because the wr is good basis for a switch. People would switch in the same way as when many the majority switched to yau for 4x4 when Sebastian Weyer broke the WR avg with yau for the first time. (30.81).Every 4x4 wr after that was done with yau where before the majority used redux. The wr undoubtedly had a massive effect on the way people solved the cube.


----------



## Ranzha (Oct 20, 2014)

dougthecube said:


> I agree but if the best ever solve recorded at a competition was with a certain type of cube, a lot of people would consider switching and I don't think that that would be blindly switching because the wr is good basis for a switch. People would switch in the same way as when many the majority switched to yau for 4x4 when Sebastian Weyer broke the WR avg with yau for the first time. (30.81).Every 4x4 wr after that was done with yau where before the majority used redux. The wr undoubtedly had a massive effect on the way people solved the cube.



Let me get this straight.

You don't like stickerless cubes.
If they were allowed, you'd feel obligated to get something you don't like instead of sticking with what you do like.
You feel this obligation because you feel the advantage isn't necessarily negligible.

Remember what cube the 7.08 WR was set with more than six years ago. Now think of the difference between 7.08 seconds and 5.55 seconds. Now consider the advancements in cube hardware over that time.
I'm not one to say "it's the cuber, not the cube", but a lot of it is the cuber and how well the cuber's style matches the capabilities of the cubes the cuber picks.
Use what best suits your style, case closed.


----------



## TMOY (Oct 20, 2014)

dougthecube said:


> I agree but if the best ever solve recorded at a competition was with a certain type of cube, a lot of people would consider switching and I don't think that that would be blindly switching because the wr is good basis for a switch. People would switch in the same way as when many the majority switched to yau for 4x4 when Sebastian Weyer broke the WR avg with yau for the first time. (30.81).Every 4x4 wr after that was done with yau where before the majority used redux. The wr undoubtedly had a massive effect on the way people solved the cube.



You're not forced to do everything the majority does, you know.


----------



## Sweshiman (Dec 12, 2014)

When will the new rules be implemented?


----------



## CiaranBeahan (Dec 15, 2014)

Would bad stickers on cubes be legal? I know that the WCA has banned badly stickered cubes because you can reach your hand around the other side of the cube and feel the shape of the sticker identifying which piece it is. 
It's just a suggestion to a new rule. Making badly stickered cube legal.


----------



## shadowkiller168 (Dec 15, 2014)

CiaranBeahan said:


> Would bad stickers on cubes be legal? I know that the WCA has banned badly stickered cubes because you can reach your hand around the other side of the cube and feel the shape of the sticker identifying which piece it is.
> It's just a suggestion to a new rule. Making badly stickered cube legal.



I don't think that would be a good idea. Also consider that many people use how much of one color they see to determine a +2. 

With the exception of BLD, I would like to know exactly why anyone would _want_ to actually use a poorly stickered cube. Wouldn't seeing more of one color per cubie help recognition?


----------



## ~Adam~ (Dec 15, 2014)

shadowkiller168 said:


> With the exception of BLD, I would like to know exactly why anyone would _want_ to actually use a poorly stickered cube. Wouldn't seeing more of one color per cubie help recognition?



Laziness and/or no stickers.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 15, 2014)

cube-o-holic said:


> Laziness and/or no stickers.



Or it doesn't impair recognition. I remember going ages without replacing stickers, and I found I was slower with new stickers.


----------



## Chree (Dec 16, 2014)

Ranzha said:


> Or it doesn't impair recognition. I remember going ages without replacing stickers, and I found I was slower with new stickers.



And mild OCD/extreme sentimentality. For a long time I was obsessed with preserving the original stickers on all my cubes. Thankfully, that has passed.


----------



## Coolster01 (Dec 19, 2014)

Wait so is stickerless gonna be allowed? Because I accidentally ordered a stickerless instead of white Guhong v2 for feet, I need to know if I should keep it or not.


----------



## phasornc (Dec 26, 2014)

One more wrinkle to the stickerless cube question. My son is red/green colorblind and with certain stickerless cubes can't tell two sides apart. He often gets out a sharpie and puts a dot in the middle of each square on one of the problematic sides. Since rule 3d1 states "Exception: Competitors with a medically documented visual disability may use textured puzzles with different textures on different faces. Textures/patterns must be uniform per face," I take this to mean that placing a dot made by a sharpie in the middle of each square of one face qualifies as a "uniform" "pattern", and that should be legal for competition? Any thoughts or alternative interpretation?


----------



## ~Adam~ (Dec 26, 2014)

*2015 Puzzle Regulations*



phasornc said:


> One more wrinkle to the stickerless cube question. My son is red/green colorblind and with certain stickerless cubes can't tell two sides apart. He often gets out a sharpie and puts a dot in the middle of each square on one of the problematic sides. Since rule 3d1 states "Exception: Competitors with a medically documented visual disability may use textured puzzles with different textures on different faces. Textures/patterns must be uniform per face," I take this to mean that placing a dot made by a sharpie in the middle of each square of one face qualifies as a "uniform" "pattern", and that should be legal for competition? Any thoughts or alternative interpretation?



I know it costs more but you could swap the red or green side out for black from another cube.


----------



## Berd (Dec 26, 2014)

phasornc said:


> One more wrinkle to the stickerless cube question. My son is red/green colorblind and with certain stickerless cubes can't tell two sides apart. He often gets out a sharpie and puts a dot in the middle of each square on one of the problematic sides. Since rule 3d1 states "Exception: Competitors with a medically documented visual disability may use textured puzzles with different textures on different faces. Textures/patterns must be uniform per face," I take this to mean that placing a dot made by a sharpie in the middle of each square of one face qualifies as a "uniform" "pattern", and that should be legal for competition? Any thoughts or alternative interpretation?


Or sticker/tile it with distinguishable shades. Defeats the point of it being stickerless but it works


----------



## Dene (Dec 26, 2014)

phasornc said:


> One more wrinkle to the stickerless cube question. My son is red/green colorblind and with certain stickerless cubes can't tell two sides apart. He often gets out a sharpie and puts a dot in the middle of each square on one of the problematic sides. Since rule 3d1 states "Exception: Competitors with a medically documented visual disability may use textured puzzles with different textures on different faces. Textures/patterns must be uniform per face," I take this to mean that placing a dot made by a sharpie in the middle of each square of one face qualifies as a "uniform" "pattern", and that should be legal for competition? Any thoughts or alternative interpretation?



I wouldn't allow this, as per: 3d2) The colours of puzzles must be solid, with one uniform colour per face. Each colour on the puzzle must be clearly distinct from the other colours.

3d1 is designed to allow competitors to use something like different shaped stickers.

Of course, at this stage stickerless cubes are still not allowed. Whether there are changes to 3d in the future is another question.


----------



## Coolster01 (Dec 30, 2014)

Soooooo... last chance. Are we allowing stickerless puzzles in 2015?


----------



## AustinReed (Dec 30, 2014)

Coolster01 said:


> Soooooo... last chance. Are we allowing stickerless puzzles in 2015?




Refer to OP and this: 



Kit Clement said:


> The WCA Board has given WRC clearance to allow stickerless cubes for 2015. (Provided that clear, carefully written regulations will be made in time, which shouldn't be an issue)
> 
> Thus, we would like to shift discussion to tiles and pillowed cubes.


----------



## cubernya (Dec 30, 2014)

Dene said:


> I wouldn't allow this, as per: 3d2) The colours of puzzles must be solid, with one uniform colour per face. Each colour on the puzzle must be clearly distinct from the other colours.
> 
> 3d1 is designed to allow competitors to use something like different shaped stickers.
> 
> Of course, at this stage stickerless cubes are still not allowed. Whether there are changes to 3d in the future is another question.



I think the colour is more a thing for the scramblers and judges. I (personally) don't see a problem with what he described, since there is still both red and green sides


----------



## Coolster01 (Dec 30, 2014)

AustinReed said:


> Refer to OP and this:



I know, but we need carefully written regulations in time, or else it isn't going to happen.


----------



## Dene (Dec 30, 2014)

theZcuber said:


> I think the colour is more a thing for the scramblers and judges. I (personally) don't see a problem with what he described, since there is still both red and green sides



I also don't have a problem with it. But it's not up to me, the regulations are clear on the matter. I already put forward my opinion to Lucas that the regulations should be changed to allow such a thing.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Jan 1, 2015)

The regs likely won't be posted immediately. Patience.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 1, 2015)

I was hoping there would be an official decision/announcement about this, but clearly, 2015 regulations won't be announced today. They would have been severely rushed if we did that, and given what happened last year, that's not what we want. Decisions will be presented to delegates to review/vote, and after that, we will release new regulations. I don't have an official timeline for this yet.


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 1, 2015)

If we didn't care so much about having annual regulations and instead announced changes in their own time, people wouldn't have to over-hype.


----------



## Akash Rupela (Jan 1, 2015)

Ranzha said:


> If we didn't care so much about having annual regulations and instead announced changes in their own time, people wouldn't have to over-hype.



This!
I don't see why not


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 1, 2015)

Akash Rupela said:


> This!
> I don't see why not



And not only regulations, but for changes in general, like the WCA site style changes.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 1, 2015)

Ranzha said:


> If we didn't care so much about having annual regulations and instead announced changes in their own time, people wouldn't have to over-hype.



The difficulty in this is that we are a worldwide organization, and having small, frequent updates while keeping 100+ delegates up to date is difficult. It's much easier to give a large list of changes at once so that everyone knows the current regulations and we can make decisions consistently around the world.


----------



## Coolster01 (Jan 1, 2015)

Rubiks560 said:


> The regs likely won't be posted immediately. Patience.



You see, my friend, I need to use a stickerless cube on January 10th. If it's not done soon, I have an issue.


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 1, 2015)

Coolster01 said:


> You see, my friend, I need to use a stickerless cube on January 10th. If it's not done soon, I have an issue.



Maybe you should rethink your cubing choices.


----------



## Coolster01 (Jan 1, 2015)

Ranzha said:


> Maybe you should rethink your cubing choices.



Which cubing choice would you be referring to?

If you mean:

a. The choice of ordering a stickerless cube: It was an accident. I wasn't paying attention when ordering. I can't just get another cube now.

b. Getting into feet (yeah, it's my feet cube): It was over two years ago. All I wanted was some kind of record, and feet seemed the most in reach for me. I'm sorry that I got into the event.

c. Another cubing choice: specify, please.


----------



## Dene (Jan 1, 2015)

Surely you have more than one 3x3 lying around?


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 2, 2015)

The chances feet will be held are getting staggeringly low due to a higher than expected registration, so your choices may be irrelevant anyway. For what it's worth, I don't see new regulations being ready that soon at all, this is still a long term project.


----------



## Seanliu (Jan 13, 2015)

What I have been thinking about is - why wasn't (past tense) stickerless cubes allowed in BLD? I mean, they couldn't SEE the 45 deg pieces, could they?


----------



## Prakhar (Jan 13, 2015)

Seanliu said:


> What I have been thinking about is - why wasn't (past tense) stickerless cubes allowed in BLD? I mean, they couldn't SEE the 45 deg pieces, could they?


Well they could see in memo, which is an important phase.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jan 13, 2015)

Prakhar said:


> Well they could see in memo, which is an important phase.



But you can't turn the cube during memo so seeing the back edge pieces via a 45 degree move isn't useful.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 13, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> But you can't turn the cube during memo so seeing the back edge pieces via a 45 degree move isn't useful.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiPpc9Bh0gc


----------



## Aceofspades2345 (Feb 3, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> The chances feet will be held are getting staggeringly low due to a higher than expected registration, so your choices may be irrelevant anyway. For what it's worth, I don't see new regulations being ready that soon at all, this is still a long term project.



Any update on writing the regulations to allow stickerless cubes?


----------



## supercavitation (Feb 3, 2015)

Aceofspades2345 said:


> Any update on writing the regulations to allow stickerless cubes?



Nope. I am 100% certain that you will know when those regulations are ready because it will be posted in this very thread.


----------



## Aceofspades2345 (Feb 5, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> Nope. I am 100% certain that you will know when those regulations are ready because it will be posted in this very thread.



Sounds like a fair assumption. However, perhaps an estimate of when that might happen would also be of use. If we were to know whether it's imminent, or whether it will be months away that might be useful for planning competition attendance.


----------



## Ranzha (Feb 6, 2015)

Aceofspades2345 said:


> Sounds like a fair assumption. However, perhaps an estimate of when that might happen would also be of use. If we were to know whether it's imminent, or whether it will be months away that might be useful for planning competition attendance.



"When the regs are ready" and "Be patient" seem to be the recurring themes.


----------



## Oricuber (Feb 9, 2015)

I recognize better on stickered cubes, so this doesn't even pertain to me, but I'm interested to see the final results.


----------



## SpeedCubeReview (Mar 4, 2015)

Any news yet on when the new regulations will be released?


----------



## supercavitation (Mar 4, 2015)

ViolaBouquet said:


> Any news yet on when the new regulations will be released?



Word seems to be, as usual, they will be release when they are finished to a standard such that we won't have a repeat of previous issues.


----------



## mrubik (Jun 10, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> Word seems to be, as usual, they will be release when they are finished to a standard such that we won't have a repeat of previous issues.



Do you think they will be released by the end of this year?


----------



## supercavitation (Jun 11, 2015)

mrubik said:


> Do you think they will be released by the end of this year?



Kit said in an interview with Chris that they probably won't.


----------



## mrubik (Jun 11, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> Kit said in an interview with Chris that they probably won't.



so stickerless will not be allowed


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Jun 11, 2015)

Inb4 copy and le paste


----------



## IWillCube (Jun 11, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> Kit said in an interview with Chris that they probably won't.


Wouldn't that mean they're 2016 Puzzle Regulations


----------



## mrubik (Jun 11, 2015)

IWillCube said:


> Wouldn't that mean they're 2016 Puzzle Regulations



So you're saying that they will probably allow stickerless puzzles just in the beginning of 2016 instead of now.


----------



## supercavitation (Jun 12, 2015)

mrubik said:


> So you're saying that they will probably allow stickerless puzzles just in the beginning of 2016 instead of now.



I'm saying the regulations will come out when they are finished, regardless of when that is. They'd likely be finished faster if people would stop pressuring Kit and everyone else about writing them. There are other issues to work out besides stickerless cubes, and they will be ready at the exact moment when they are ready.


----------



## Dene (Jun 12, 2015)

Just an FYI, all the work done by the WCA Regulations Committee is visible to everyone on Github. Have a look around to see what the latest is for yourself.


----------



## Cale S (Jun 16, 2015)

This was just posted on the WCA site:
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/posts/wca-regulations-july-2015


----------



## Calode (Jun 16, 2015)

The page got removed but you can still view the changes here.


----------



## Username (Jun 16, 2015)

It's back up! 

6 move pyra scrambles <

Also, what counts as a "newer competitor"?


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jun 16, 2015)

After a quick read: these seem reasonable. Thanks guys!

inb4 massive debate about something


----------



## AlexMaass (Jun 16, 2015)

*allows clocks for FMC*
Why is it still 12!?!?!?!?


Username said:


> It's back up!
> 
> 6 move pyra scrambles <
> 
> Also, what counts as a "newer competitor"?



Yeah finally 6 move pyraminx scrambles are back! I think its probably at the delegates discretion whether a competitor is newer or not.


----------



## Berd (Jun 16, 2015)

Very cool!


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 16, 2015)

Username said:


> It's back up!
> 
> 6 move pyra scrambles <
> 
> Also, what counts as a "newer competitor"?



In practice, there are many different ways of dealing with newer competitors. Although it hasn't been written in the regulations, many delegates have given leniency to a newer competitor as to not discourage them from going to competitions because of a bad experience. We wanted to create a consistent way to approach these situations, so we decided that the best way to handle this is to give a new attempt rather than ignore penalties or any other approach.

As for your question, this is generally targeted at first-time competitors, but we didn't want to be that restrictive -- maybe it's their second competition and the incident stems from an event they didn't compete in at their first competition. Thus, we thought loosening to "newer" would at least not make it so exclusive to first-time competitors. 

Again, this leniency is given with delegate discretion, and should rarely be given again to the same competitor. It's not meant to be a way to get out of a bad solve by any means.


----------



## Username (Jun 16, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> In practice, there are many different ways of dealing with newer competitors. Although it hasn't been written in the regulations, many delegates have given leniency to a newer competitor as to not discourage them from going to competitions because of a bad experience. We wanted to create a consistent way to approach these situations, so we decided that the best way to handle this is to give a new attempt rather than ignore penalties or any other approach.
> 
> As for your question, this is generally targeted at first-time competitors, but we didn't want to be that restrictive -- maybe it's their second competition and the incident stems from an event they didn't compete in at their first competition. Thus, we thought loosening to "newer" would at least not make it so exclusive to first-time competitors.
> 
> Again, this leniency is given with delegate discretion, and should rarely be given again to the same competitor. It's not meant to be a way to get out of a bad solve by any means.



Thanks for the in-depth answer!



PenguinsDontFly said:


> YAY REGS ARE OUT!!!! I CAN NOW USE MY STICKERLESS GUHONG!!!



Well, not now, but yeah


----------



## Username (Jun 16, 2015)

Is this a good time to say there should be a checkbox for "I have read the regulations" when registering for a competition?


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jun 16, 2015)

Username said:


> Is this a good time to say there should be a checkbox for "I have read the regulations" when registering for a competition?



Does anyone think that would work?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Username (Jun 16, 2015)

cube-o-holic said:


> Does anyone think that would work?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I mean, it _might_ (especially a few newer cubers might read them), but it won't harm anyone atleast as it only takes one click to pass for people that are familiar


----------



## DuffyEdge (Jun 16, 2015)

Does this mean that Brandon Mikel cannot continue his consistent streak?


----------



## AlexMaass (Jun 16, 2015)

DuffyEdge said:


> Does this mean that Brandon Mikel cannot continue his consistent streak?



Kit has said he is fine with Brandon doing 69 move attempts at comps he delegates, as he says it barely wastes anytime.


----------



## Myachii (Jun 16, 2015)

Hmm.. this seems to me like it will spark some debates.

Very happy about stickerless puzzle however 

Questions-
"Competitors must not compete with the intent of intentionally poor results or a DNF." - Does that mean if I explode a 6x6 at the comp I can't just end the solve? Or is it just referencing those who go in with the intention of doing badly (Brandon Mikel for example)?
"Using video evidence to recover a time that a competitor reset is not allowed." - What is the reasoning behind this decision? If the evidence is presented immediately and the judge can see that it is actually presenting what they have just seen, then how could it be fabricated (which I presume is the reason why this regulations has come into place)

Also just a general question - If a similar case to Rami's 0.58 solve occurs before a FMC solve and a competitor has access to the scramble before it has been released to the competitors, how do delegates prevent solvers from sneaking a sheet of paper with the correct solution generated by a program beforehand?

Will be interesting to see how many people opt to use stickerless cubes instead. If I'm honest, I think the "Stickerless are superior" phase died with DaYan, but you never know 



Username said:


> Is this a good time to say there should be a checkbox for "I have read the regulations" when registering for a competition?



It will just become the same as "I have read and accept the Terms and Conditions". Cubers are expected to read and familiarise themselves with the regulations before competing, it's common sense.


----------



## TDM (Jun 16, 2015)

Myachii said:


> Questions-
> "Competitors must not compete with the intent of intentionally poor results or a DNF." - Does that mean if I explode a 6x6 at the comp I can't just end the solve? Or is it just referencing those who go in with the intention of doing badly (Brandon Mikel for example)?


Pops/explosions aren't _intentional_, so that's fine. It's just for people who are wasting time.



> Also just a general question - If a similar case to Rami's 0.58 solve occurs before a FMC solve and a competitor has access to the scramble before it has been released to the competitors, how do delegates prevent solvers from sneaking a sheet of paper with the correct solution generated by a program beforehand?


This isn't a similar case to the 0.58 case since the competitor is intentionally cheating. If that person is caught, they will almost certainly be disqualified.



> It will just become the same as "I have read and accept the Terms and Conditions". Cubers are expected to read and familiarise themselves with the regulations before competing, it's common sense.


So many things nowadays have a terms and conditions list that it's almost encouraging people to _not_ read them. I agree that this won't help. A clear large/red/bold warning to new competitors when registering that they should be familiar with the regulations could be more useful, but again, I don't think it would make much difference.


----------



## Genius4Jesus (Jun 16, 2015)

Username said:


> Is this a good time to say there should be a checkbox for "I have read the regulations" when registering for a competition?



I think there should be a short, online, multiple-choice, open book quiz on the regulations. Passing the quiz would show new competitors have at least a basic understanding of the regulations before their first comp.


----------



## DGCubes (Jun 16, 2015)

Genius4Jesus said:


> I think there should be a short, online, multiple-choice, open book quiz on the regulations. Passing the quiz would show new competitors have at least a basic understanding of the regulations before their first comp.



That's a pretty good idea. Some people may be put off by the prospect of a quiz, but hey, it's worth it to have less incidents at competitions.

Also, I'm pretty happy with these new regs in general. Honestly, the whole stickerless phase is kind of over, but I'm glad they're legal now. I might buy a couple new stickerless cubes just to see if they're worth it (HuaLong, maybe?). Also that Pyra 6-move thing makes me really happy.


----------



## bubbagrub (Jun 16, 2015)

Looks like a really good set of changes to the regulations, overall. Hurrah!


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jun 16, 2015)

Perhaps a short quiz could be made up to hand out at comps.

"You really should know the answer to these questions" deally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ryanj92 (Jun 16, 2015)

I'm sure a lot of these changes will go down well, and I appreciate the switch to they/their pronouns throughout


----------



## Julian (Jun 16, 2015)

Are the rules for timer malfunction resets still the same? i.e. with video evidence that the reset button was not pressed, a timer reset is rewarded with an extra attempt?


----------



## Sa967St (Jun 16, 2015)

Myachii said:


> "Using video evidence to recover a time that a competitor reset is not allowed." - What is the reasoning behind this decision? If the evidence is presented immediately and the judge can see that it is actually presenting what they have just seen, then how could it be fabricated (which I presume is the reason why this regulations has come into place)


It's not that the time could be fabricated, it's that it goes against the purpose of signing a score card.

See this: https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/270



TDM said:


> Myachii said:
> 
> 
> > Questions-
> ...


You can see examples of "intent of intentionally poor results or a DNF result" here: https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/225



> *Examples that can result in disqualification, at Delegate discretion:*
> 
> Intentional +16 penalties (makes it hard to judge properly, even for the most experienced judges)
> Intentionally poor FMC results (can waste solution checker time)
> ...


----------



## sk8erman41 (Jun 16, 2015)

I have a stickerless NewIsland Phoenix that I do not like the shades on so I put half brights on it. Under the new regulations would this still be comp legal?


----------



## joshsailscga (Jun 16, 2015)

TDM said:


> It's just for people who are wasting time.



i.e., this sort of thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwJk7akd6z8


----------



## AustinReed (Jun 16, 2015)

This "Require competitors to take the event seriously" is extremely dumb. Who cares if Brandon Mikel does a 69 FMC? How much additional time does that REALLY waste? Who can really say he isn't doing his best? I mean, I guess I could see the good intention of the regulation, but really, why are we taking this so seriously? I personally am not a fan of my new stickerless cube overlords, but chill out. Comps are for fun. Who cares if someone takes a little longer to do their stuff?


----------



## LeonardoBonanno (Jun 17, 2015)

*request for color vision deficiency rules clarification*

Especially in light of these new regulations allowing stickerless cubes I propose the following clarification of Article 3d1 applying to solvers with color vision deficiencies. 

PROPOSED CHANGE

3d1) Exception: Competitors with a medically documented visual disability may use textured or patterned puzzles with different textures or patterns on different faces. Textures/patterns must be uniform per face. Patterns may be painted, drawn by marker, or applied with an overlay sticker. If the visual disability prevents the solver from seeing only a range of colors, textures/patterns do not need to be present on every side. Each face should have a distinct colour, to aid in scrambling and judging.

CURRENT WORDING
3d1) Exception: Competitors with a medically documented visual disability may use textured puzzles with different textures on different faces. Textures/patterns must be uniform per face. 

I made a thread for this topic over here


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 17, 2015)

AustinReed said:


> This "Require competitors to take the event seriously" is extremely dumb. Who cares if Brandon Mikel does a 69 FMC? How much additional time does that REALLY waste? Who can really say he isn't doing his best? I mean, I guess I could see the good intention of the regulation, but really, why are we taking this so seriously? I personally am not a fan of my new stickerless cube overlords, but chill out. Comps are for fun. Who cares if someone takes a little longer to do their stuff?



At a previous comp I've been to, there was a person who did 2 normal 4x4 solves. (If we made the first 2 solves below cutoff, we will be allowed to have a full average as per comp rules)
Then he wanted to make the las 3 solves 9:59 each 

That would take half an hour in total...
Quite a lot more time spent.


----------



## AustinReed (Jun 17, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> At a previous comp I've been to, there was a person who did 2 normal 4x4 solves. (If we made the first 2 solves below cutoff, we will be allowed to have a full average as per comp rules)
> Then he wanted to make the las 3 solves 9:59 each
> 
> That would take half an hour in total...
> Quite a lot more time spent.




In that case, probably because it's so extreme, I can see why the regulation would make sense. I've never come across anything like that before.

What action was taken?


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 17, 2015)

AustinReed said:


> In that case, probably because it's so extreme, I can see why the regulation would make sense. I've never come across anything like that before.
> 
> What action was taken?


Since he was a friend of mine I discouraged him from doing that. There still is one 9:58 there though. See the link
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2014YUWE01


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jun 17, 2015)

Wait a second. The 'not knowing enough algs' part seems a bit ambiguous, because if I'm not wrong, the Bob Burton method for pyra is just making a layer, then hoping for an LL skip. Of course, whether anyone uses it is another question.


----------



## AustinReed (Jun 17, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> Wait a second. The 'not knowing enough algs' part seems a bit ambiguous, because if I'm not wrong, the Bob Burton method for pyra is just making a layer, then hoping for an LL skip. Of course, whether anyone uses it is another question.



I know people who use it. Plenty of people.


----------



## TMOY (Jun 17, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> Wait a second. The 'not knowing enough algs' part seems a bit ambiguous, because if I'm not wrong, the Bob Burton method for pyra is just making a layer, then hoping for an LL skip. Of course, whether anyone uses it is another question.



With the Bob Burton methon, you actually get your LL skip after (IIRC) at most 4 such layers, assuming you solve them in the most intuitive way. This is not the same thing as getting a DNF every second solve because you don't know some kind of parity fix.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 17, 2015)

TMOY said:


> With the Bob Burton methon, you actually get your LL skip after (IIRC) at most 4 such layers, assuming you solve them in the most intuitive way. This is not the same thing as getting a DNF every second solve because you don't know some kind of parity fix.



4? Couldn't you go on and on for much longer without getting an ll skip? 

Also couldn't you just re scramble the cube and resolve till no parity?


----------



## Hssandwich (Jun 17, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> 4? Couldn't you go on and on for much longer without getting an ll skip?
> 
> Also couldn't you just re scramble the cube and resolve till no parity?



Assuming you only know one type of insertion for the pieces and its mirror, eg. R U' R' / L' U L, the maximum number of times it can take is four.

Also, what is considered parity on pyraminx? I have heard people saying that 2 flip is a parity.


----------



## Username (Jun 17, 2015)

Hssandwich said:


> Also, what is considered parity on pyraminx? I have heard people saying that 2 flip is a parity.



There is none, but that was not what he was saying.

There was an earlier comparison to 4x4(?) parity screwing up every other solve


----------



## EMI (Jun 17, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> 4? Couldn't you go on and on for much longer without getting an ll skip?
> 
> Also couldn't you just re scramble the cube and resolve till no parity?



I don't think so, because that is effectively the same as trying to solve a 2x2 by doing random moves, except that it won't take as long. In theory, it will at some point be solved, but I believe the definition of "being able to solve a 2x2" is meant in a different way 
What's propably allowed though in this case is simply doing an r move and resolving the centers with comms like U2 Rw U2 Rw', because that will result in having no parity afterwards.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Jun 17, 2015)

AustinReed said:


> This "Require competitors to take the event seriously" is extremely dumb. Who cares if Brandon Mikel does a 69 FMC? How much additional time does that REALLY waste? Who can really say he isn't doing his best? I mean, I guess I could see the good intention of the regulation, but really, why are we taking this so seriously? I personally am not a fan of my new stickerless cube overlords, but chill out. Comps are for fun. Who cares if someone takes a little longer to do their stuff?



That's the thig, Brandon's 69 *doesnt* waste time. He ALWAYS finishes at least 30 min before everyone else and then proceeds to help in any way needed. It's just because of a few butt hurt delegates who can't stand the number 69. Guarantee they wouldn't care if the number was 68.


----------



## Coolster01 (Jun 17, 2015)

Genius4Jesus said:


> I think there should be a short, online, multiple-choice, open book quiz on the regulations. Passing the quiz would show new competitors have at least a basic understanding of the regulations before their first comp.



One of these questions should be:

Which of the following is the best choice if you want to experience a world record and abide with the regulations?

a. Pressure the competitor by saying, "Can I record you?" and putting your camera on their solving table, thus making it obvious to them that an easy scramble is coming.
b. Don't tell the competitor anything at all.
c. Reveal the easy scramble to the competitor beforehand so that they can practice the scramble to get a fast time.
d. Tell the competitor that there exists and easy scramble, but don't tell him/her the scramble.


----------



## Myachii (Jun 17, 2015)

Coolster01 said:


> One of these questions should be:
> 
> Which of the following is the best choice if you want to experience a world record and abide with the regulations?
> 
> ...



Obviously c.

In all seriousness there really shouldn't be a need for a regulations quiz. People should know them.

Instead of making people take a quiz they should punish people more for infractions of the regulations. This will encourage people to learn them like the pledge of allegiance (or whatever you 'muricans learn)


----------



## Dene (Jun 17, 2015)

Myachii said:


> In all seriousness there really shouldn't be a need for a regulations quiz. People should know them.



"There really shouldn't be a need for police. People should just behave".


----------



## Myachii (Jun 17, 2015)

Dene said:


> "There really shouldn't be a need for police. People should just behave".



That's a bit of an extreme example. Besides it does say to familiarize yourself with the regulations before attending competitions.
People who accidentally break regulations don't do so extremely. Most extreme breaches of regulations are done purposefully.
People who purposefully break regulations are few and far between. Besides, if someone wanted to attend a comp to cheat then they would cheat on the regulations quiz too. You can't win.


----------



## Genius4Jesus (Jun 17, 2015)

Myachii said:


> That's a bit of an extreme example. Besides it does say to familiarize yourself with the regulations before attending competitions.
> People who accidentally break regulations don't do so extremely. Most extreme breaches of regulations are done purposefully.
> People who purposefully break regulations are few and far between. Besides, if someone wanted to attend a comp to cheat then they would cheat on the regulations quiz too. You can't win.



My point of having a regulations quiz wasn't to prevent cheaters, it was so new competitors can prove they know how competing in an official WCA comp works. This could prevent bad timer starts/stops and other issues new competitors bring because they don't know (and haven't proved) that they understand the regulations. 

As for people cheating on a quiz so they can come and cheat at a competition... Cheating is intentional, and to do something intentionally you have to understand what you are doing. So, to cheat the regulations at a comp you have to know the regulations, therefore you would be able to pass a regulations quiz.


----------



## AustinReed (Jun 17, 2015)

Genius4Jesus said:


> I think there should be a short, online, multiple-choice, open book quiz on the regulations. Passing the quiz would show new competitors have at least a basic understanding of the regulations before their first comp.



I'm totally a fan of this. I read all the regulations before my first competition and I assumed everyone did the same. 

Come on, the quiz wouldn't be a big deal or anything.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 17, 2015)

I don't think that forcing competitors to pass some sort of quiz/qualification is appropriate. The onus should be on us to make the Regulations clear to them. See this.

Also, for anyone who might not know:


> 2t) Each competitor must be familiar with and understand the WCA Regulations before the competition.


----------



## FailCuber (Jun 17, 2015)

Yay! Stickerless cubes!


----------



## APdRF (Jun 18, 2015)

Lucas Garron said:


> I don't think that forcing competitors to pass some sort of quiz/qualification is appropriate. The onus should be on us to make the Regulations clear to them. See this.
> 
> Also, for anyone who might not know:



Me and a friend did a video trying to explain all the basic stuff a newer competitor should know, maybe it's useful to put there, it has english subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O_iWRGq4K8

Also, I'm so happy with all the changes that will occur with these new regulations, good job!


----------



## Genius4Jesus (Jun 18, 2015)

Doesn't regulation 2t make is so that it is the competitor's responsibility to know the regulations? I read over the regulations several times and understood them before my first competition. But, I do know many new competitors do not understand the regulations and require frequent correction. 

So if the WCA wishes to "enforce" regulation 2t, wouldn't a new competitor have to prove they know the regulations? Through a quiz or something like that?

To be clear I don't think there _needs_ to be a regulations quiz. I just think it would be beneficial.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 18, 2015)

I don't like the intentional-poor-results clause. Sure, there certainly are instances where someone can waste a noticeable amount of time and should be punished for that (e.g. 10 minute speedsolves on purpose when they are much faster). On the other hand, if you want to prevent extremely long solves, that's what hard cutoffs are for. The thing is, I've seen a lot of examples of intentionally bad solves that are either...
(a) Things that hurt a competitor's results but don't waste a substantial amount of time, like putting in long (but still <80) FMC solutions, or going for a lot of simultaneous +2 errors;
(b) Someone not trying hard after they ruin the solve (a big pop, a mistake on an early step, etc.), and possibly spending a little extra time to get near a particular time boundary;
(c) Someone simply not being good at an event but hoping to get some official results anyway (the "solving a puzzle without knowing enough algorithms to solve it every time" thing, or most new people in BLD, or anyone who isn't sure they'll make the cutoffs).
Are these really situations where we should be penalizing the competitor more than they already are? Competitions are not that serious or fast-paced of a thing that someone not performing optimally will be a problem. 

It also brings up the point of people using alternate methods. At my last comp I wanted to get some official 3x3x3 times with my columns method, and probably 'wasted' about 20-25 seconds of comp time compared to what I would get with CFOP (although I might have made up for it by not making the second round ). Should I really have been DNF'd for having the audacity to not get the best times I possibly can?




Lucas Garron said:


> I don't think that forcing competitors to pass some sort of quiz/qualification is appropriate. The onus should be on us to make the Regulations clear to them.


Making it readable and clear is great, but it doesn't help much if they don't look at it 



Lucas Garron said:


> Also, for anyone who might not know:
> 2t) Each competitor must be familiar with and understand the WCA Regulations before the competition.


Same thing though, since that clause is inside the regulations, someone who doesn't look at the regulations would never know they have to look at the regulations


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 18, 2015)

qqwref said:


> (a) Things that hurt a competitor's results but don't waste a substantial amount of time, like putting in long (but still <80) FMC solutions, or going for a lot of simultaneous +2 errors;
> (b) Someone not trying hard after they ruin the solve (a big pop, a mistake on an early step, etc.), and possibly spending a little extra time to get near a particular time boundary;
> (c) Someone simply not being good at an event but hoping to get some official results anyway (the "solving a puzzle without knowing enough algorithms to solve it every time" thing, or most new people in BLD, or anyone who isn't sure they'll make the cutoffs).
> Are these really situations where we should be penalizing the competitor more than they already are? Competitions are not that serious or fast-paced of a thing that someone not performing optimally will be a problem.



Since this is at's the delegate's discretion, it's their call as to whether they want to apply this. For (a), I think that an intentional 80 move solution can be acceptable in certain circumstances, but not so much at a competition like US Nationals when there might be a ton of these solutions, as well as people submitting things that may look like solutions that end with "LOL" or "DNF" (which happens more than you'd think...). For (b) and (c), I don't see this ever being enforced. We can technically already disqualify people who will likely not meet time limits, but this is never done in practice. It's just nice to have a regulation that delegates can fall back on when competitors are really screwing around and wasting time -- we can have a talk with them and have some sort of regulation to back up what we're saying to make sure that they don't repeat the behavior.

It puts a lot of trust on the delegates, but again, by appointing them, we are trusting them already.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 18, 2015)

For the "intentionally poor results" change, I think a good, concise viewpoint is "is the competitor wasting resources?" (at the discretion of the Delegate).
This covers 80 move solutions or extra-long solves if it would waste solution checking/judge time in a large round, while still allowing shenanigans if things are more lax.


----------



## AustinReed (Jun 18, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> It puts a lot of trust on the delegates, but again, by appointing them, we are trusting them already.



Well, it's not like that ever goes wrong.



> (c), I don't see this ever being enforced. We can technically already disqualify people who will likely not meet time limits, but this is never done in practice. It's just nice to have a regulation that delegates can fall back on when competitors are really screwing around and wasting time -- we can have a talk with them and have some sort of regulation to back up what we're saying to make sure that they don't repeat the behavior.



Then why have it? That's like putting in a law just to say "Oh, we'll never arrest anyone for it." It's almost like a "pick and choose" usage of a regulation which I think is awful.



> (a), I think that an intentional 80 move solution can be acceptable in certain circumstances, but at a competition like US Nationals when there might be a ton of these solutions, as well as people submitting things that may look like solutions that end with "LOL" or "DNF" (which happens more than you'd think...)



Who's to say that something is intentional or not? With the whole "FMC using a mean" thing now, I wouldn't blame anyone for trying to write down whatever solution comes to their head. I average low 30s for FMC, but if there's 10 minutes left and I don't have anything, I can write down a CFOP solution just so I have something to turn in and not get a DNF mean. Does that mean I'm "wasting time" or intentionally getting a bad result? I feel like this is such a huge ambiguity/gray area for my own comfort.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 18, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Making it readable and clear is great, but it doesn't help much if they don't look at it



Competition websites often tell competitors/registrants to be familiar with the Regulations.
I believe the registration form for Worlds requires an explicit acknowledgement of Regulation 2t.

The current Regulations are daunting, but we need a lot of the edge cases, so I don't think we're going to be able o make people look at all of it. Hence, the idea to go with official guides explaining the core parts they must know. (If that works out, 2t could be modified to state that they mainly need to know those things, but also understand that the rest of the Regulations apply.)


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 18, 2015)

AustinReed said:


> Then why have it? That's like putting in a law just to say "Oh, we'll never arrest anyone for it." It's almost like a "pick and choose" usage of a regulation which I think is awful.
> 
> Who's to say that something is intentional or not? With the whole "FMC using a mean" thing now, I wouldn't blame anyone for trying to write down whatever solution comes to their head. I average low 30s for FMC, but if there's 10 minutes left and I don't have anything, I can write down a CFOP solution just so I have something to turn in and not get a DNF mean. Does that mean I'm "wasting time" or intentionally getting a bad result? I feel like this is such a huge ambiguity/gray area for my own comfort.



There are many regulations that have already used delegate discretion, doing this is nothing new. I agree that there are definitely gray areas in anything that you could apply this to, and it's not meant to be applied to those gray areas -- it's meant for people who are blatantly and maliciously wasting time. Too many times we try talking to competitors about their behavior and it doesn't stop because we actually cannot stop them.

This should not change how competitors approach their attempts -- we're not policing you to make sure you are going to be performing to the best of your abilities. We're not going to disqualify you for taking a few seconds to roll your eyes and stare at the timer on the 5th and worst solve of your average, or not giving your best effort after your cube pops, etc.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 18, 2015)

Lucas Garron said:


> For the "intentionally poor results" change, I think a good, concise viewpoint is "is the competitor wasting resources?" (at the discretion of the Delegate).
> This covers 80 move solutions or extra-long solves if it would waste solution checking/judge time in a large round, while still allowing shenanigans if things are more lax.


I'm not asking what goes against the regulation, but whether it makes sense to DNF things that go against the regulation, i.e. things that waste some time. A lot of the time-wasting scenarios people listed are really not big deals and should not be punished most of the time. But it sounds like anyone who is not completely sure they will solve the puzzle, or anyone caught slacking off while the timer is running, or anyone submitting a FMC result that the judges think is not good enough for them, will be DNF'd, with the occasional exception.

According to what Kit said, it seems like the intention is to only mention a maximum punishment so that in the worst case delegates have the power to do what they need to; however, it reads as if any insufficiently serious competitor will have their solves revoked, and that if the delegate feels like it they can waive that punishment. I don't think that's the right way to word things considering that we want to promote (reasonable amounts of) fun; perhaps it would be better to just leave it at "Punishment: at the discretion of the delegate" and thus imply that competitors will only lose solves if the delegate thinks their behavior merited it.



Kit Clement said:


> Too many times we try talking to competitors about their behavior and it doesn't stop because we actually cannot stop them.


Then what you really need is a regulation saying "A delegate [or organizer? or main judge?] may disqualify a solve or disqualify a competitor from an event at their discretion."



Kit Clement said:


> This should not change how competitors approach their attempts -- we're not policing you to make sure you are going to be performing to the best of your abilities. We're not going to disqualify you for taking a few seconds to roll your eyes and stare at the timer on the 5th and worst solve of your average, or not giving your best effort after your cube pops, etc.


To be honest, the regulation makes it sound like you will do exactly that. I know better because I've been to plenty of competitions, but what about new cubers?


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 18, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Then what you really need is a regulation saying "A delegate [or organizer? or main judge?] may disqualify a solve or disqualify a competitor from an event at their discretion."



I see that as worse than what we have, just because it gives delegates power to disqualify for no reason.

We are working on a clarification that should hopefully give context for the use of this regulation: https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/272


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jun 18, 2015)

AustinReed said:


> Well, it's not like that ever goes wrong..



This is a horrible argument. This is similar to saying "Screw it, let's just drop all the regulations because some people bypass them anyway." Delegates are a trusted position, just as every other position of some sort of authority. If that person can't be trusted, they'll lose that position. Does it suck when those people abuse their power/position? Absolutely. Does it get dealt with? Absolutely.


----------



## EMI (Jun 18, 2015)

Coolster01 said:


> One of these questions should be:
> 
> Which of the following is the best choice if you want to experience a world record and abide with the regulations?
> 
> ...



That's actually a good point. Nobody things about situations like your answer a), but imo it is important to actively think about this as a competitor.
A maybe more common situation are "podium finals", e.g., finals where only two solvers are competing at the same time. It's of course important that, as one of the finalists, you don't watch the other solver doing his/her solve, if you didn't have the same scramble yet. Just having read the regulations once, one might not even have thought about that, and without any bad intentions will watch every solve of the other competitor. I believe this kind of stuff is only roughly covered in the regs.
At the same time, you don't really have to know *all* the regulations exactly - for example some of the +2 regulations - as you can always ask the delegate if unsure.

Maybe some kind of easy-to-read additional WCA paper would help, which just covers many examples of cases similar to yours, and how to handle them properly. Reading all the regulations is like reading a lot of complicated mathematical definitions. Without some additional examples / exercises, you won't "understand" them / be able to apply them, and you won't remember them well either. But if you get some examples together with explanations of how to handle them, it appears more intuitive and understandable, and will hopefully make you think about details. (That's actually how you should learn stuff in general imo.)

td;lr I agree with the quiz idea.


----------



## KDCuber (Jun 18, 2015)

what about transparent stickerless cubes?


----------



## Please Dont Ask (Jun 20, 2015)

Not many people like the/a shade(s) of stickerless cubes.
So what happens if I sticker only one side of the cube?
Would it be legal?


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 20, 2015)

Please Dont Ask said:


> Not many people like the/a shade(s) of stickerless cubes.
> So what happens if I sticker only one side of the cube?
> Would it be legal?


Probably not for BLD. Not sure about sighted events


----------



## Dene (Jun 20, 2015)

No, because 
3d) Puzzles must have coloured parts, which must be _one_ of the following: coloured stickers, coloured tiles, coloured plastic, _or_ painted/printed colours. All coloured parts of a puzzle must be made of a similar material. [italics added]


----------



## AlexMaass (Jun 30, 2015)

https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/commit/a4e289cfe828e24aa946c5ca18a2c942adf1149c

Doesn't this ban all clocks?


----------



## joshsailscga (Jun 30, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/commit/a4e289cfe828e24aa946c5ca18a2c942adf1149c
> 
> Doesn't this ban all clocks?



What do you mean?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jun 30, 2015)

joshsailscga said:


> What do you mean?



the regulations say that all puzzles with transparent parts are illegal. clocks have transparent faces so you can solve it.


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Jun 30, 2015)

Yay my stickerless mega is legal!!


----------



## qqwref (Jun 30, 2015)

Yeah, Alex is right, Clock should be added as an explicit exemption to that regulation.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 30, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/commit/a4e289cfe828e24aa946c5ca18a2c942adf1149c
> 
> Doesn't this ban all clocks?



Because this is a subregulation, it does not.

3h2) Puzzles whose coloured plastic is visible inside the puzzle (e.g. "stickerless" puzzles) are permitted. This does not include the following puzzles:
3h2a) Puzzles with transparent parts are not permitted. Exception: An overlay sticker (see Regulation 3l).

As clocks do not have "coloured plastic" as defined in the regulations, the subregulation does not apply. Otherwise, the current regulation would ban all clocks anyway: 3h2) Puzzles whose coloured parts are visible inside the puzzle are not permitted.


----------



## AlexMaass (Jun 30, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> As clocks do not have "coloured plastic" as defined in the regulations, the subregulation does not apply. Otherwise, the current regulation would ban all clocks anyway: 3h2) Puzzles whose coloured parts are visible inside the puzzle are not permitted.



Clocks could possibly be considered to have colored parts though, one side of the puzzles have darker clocks/circles than the other.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 30, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> Clocks could possibly be considered to have colored parts though, one side of the puzzles have darker clocks/circles than the other.



Coloured plastic is defined for the purpose of determining the solved state, which does not apply to clock. If the individual clocks were considered coloured plastic in this sense, then virtually all clocks would be illegal because similar parts would have a different color between the faces.

Really, the regulations have a long history of shrugging off determining the legality of non-"twisty" puzzles, and that _can_ be fixed, but not in two days.


----------



## AlexMaass (Jun 30, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> Coloured plastic is defined for the purpose of determining the solved state, which does not apply to clock. If the individual clocks were considered coloured plastic in this sense, then virtually all clocks would be illegal because similar parts would have a different color between the faces.
> 
> Really, the regulations have a long history of shrugging off determining the legality of non-"twisty" puzzles, and that _can_ be fixed, but not in two days.



Oh. seems okay then, but it could be argued that the colored arrows on the clock is used for determining the solved state, I don't think this matters that much if you plan to shrug this off.


----------



## SpeedCubeReview (Jun 30, 2015)

So I bought two sticker less Hualongs since the regulations were released to try it out. One was the bright shades and I expected to do worse because of the pink in place of red. My ao100 was about the same and I broke my ao5.... Looks like I'll be using this for awhile. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Jun 30, 2015)

Clock is a very different type of puzzle. not even exactly twisty so the same regs aren't going to apply


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jun 30, 2015)

*International Earth Rotation Service adds leap second, regulations take one second longer to go into effect*


----------



## JediJupiter (Jul 1, 2015)

Rubiks560 said:


> That's the thig, Brandon's 69 *doesnt* waste time. He ALWAYS finishes at least 30 min before everyone else and then proceeds to help in any way needed. It's just because of a few butt hurt delegates who can't stand the number 69. Guarantee they wouldn't care if the number was 68.



Are you serious? I don't think they mind what he's doing at all, and I wouldn't assume they do until they actually say it.


----------



## kcl (Jul 1, 2015)

Rubiks560 said:


> That's the thig, Brandon's 69 *doesnt* waste time. He ALWAYS finishes at least 30 min before everyone else and then proceeds to help in any way needed. It's just because of a few butt hurt delegates who can't stand the number 69. Guarantee they wouldn't care if the number was 68.



And checking his 69 move solution (which is always a success btw) is way faster than checking a DNF'd 50 mover. He actually saves us time!


----------



## nvpendsey (Jul 13, 2015)

So are stickerless puzzles finally legal?


----------



## Myachii (Jul 13, 2015)

nvpendsey said:


> So are stickerless puzzles finally legal?



Yes.







At my next comp I'm gonna bring an actual clock puzzle to my FMC attempt lol


----------



## Rubiks560 (Jul 13, 2015)

JediJupiter said:


> Are you serious? I don't think they mind what he's doing at all, and I wouldn't assume they do until they actually say it.



I've heard several delegates say they don't like it and even one who said it to Brandon's face.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 13, 2015)

So...
Let's say I decide to switch to roux and I have an upcoming competition, should I not be allowed to use roux at the comp because I am competing 'with expectation of a poor result', because roux doesn't give me the best result yet?


----------



## Dene (Jul 13, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> So...
> Let's say I decide to switch to roux and I have an upcoming competition, should I not be allowed to use roux at the comp because I am competing 'with expectation of a poor result', because roux doesn't give me the best result yet?



Of course not.

Why do people keep deliberately misinterpreting this regulation? Delegates aren't robots with no discretion. Any occurrence of this regulation being put into action will go through the Board, and do you really have such little faith in them?


----------



## Kit Clement (Jul 13, 2015)

This can also be clarified by reading the guidelines:

A1c+) CLARIFICATION WCA delegates should only use their discretion to prevent competitors from being a severe detriment to the competition (e.g. wasting time and/or competition resources). Competitors should not be disqualified for a "poor" result when they are competing to the best of their abilities.


----------



## Mnts (Jul 28, 2015)

I'm really curious, how many of you already tried using stickerless cubes in competitions? What was the delegate reaction when they've seen you trying to use stikerless puzzle?


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jul 28, 2015)

Mnts said:


> I'm really curious, how many of you already tried using stickerless cubes in competitions? What was the delegate reaction when they've seen you trying to use stikerless puzzle?



I usually had to turn away 1-2 stickerless cubes at each of my competitions. I told them that they were not yet allowed under regulations and asked if they had another available.


----------



## Arkwell (Jul 29, 2015)

*Separate 3x3 Stickerless Competition?*

Guys, instead of stickerless going against stickered 3x3 cubes why don't you just have a separate stickerless 3x3 competition until you can see the advantages and disadvantages of the stickerless cubes? If there are any advantages just keep stickerless a separate 3x3 competition.


----------



## Berd (Jul 29, 2015)

Arkwell said:


> Guys, instead of stickerless going against stickered 3x3 cubes why don't you just have a separate stickerless 3x3 competition until you can see the advantages and disadvantages of the stickerless cubes? If there are any advantages just keep stickerless a separate 3x3 competition.


Good idea! Why don't we also have white cubes in a different competition than black cubes or even Zhanchis in a different competing to Aolongs? A brilliant solution!


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 29, 2015)

Berd said:


> Good idea! Why don't we also have white cubes in a different competition than black cubes or even Zhanchis in a different competing to Aolongs? A brilliant solution!



How dare you place Aolong v1s in the same competition as Aolong v2s! You clearly haven't thought through the possible advantages and disadvantages!


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Jul 30, 2015)

Rubiks560 said:


> I've heard several delegates say they don't like it and even one who said it to Brandon's face.



Then why not change the maximum solution to say 65? or 50? any reasonably advanced method, even CFOP or advanced LBL can usually get that


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 30, 2015)

CubeWizard23 said:


> Then why not change the minimum solution to say 65? or 50? any reasonably advanced method, even CFOP or advanced LBL can usually get that



Dont you mean MAXIMUM? I doubt LBL/keyhole can get sub 70.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 30, 2015)

Berd said:


> Good idea! Why don't we also have white cubes in a different competition than black cubes or even Zhanchis in a different competing to Aolongs? A brilliant solution!



what about the stickerless transparent cubes, are they allowed in the transparent category or the stickerless category? Let's make another category! We should also have a seperate category for all of with a logo on a different side. But then, of course we can't forget the ridges on megaminxes. What about a competition for Hualongs with Weilong v2 springs and Aolong v1 center caps! We seriously need to get this idea to the board!


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Jul 30, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> what about the stickerless transparent cubes, are they allowed in the transparent category or the stickerless category? Let's make another category! We should also have a seperate category for all of with a logo on a different side. But then, of course we can't forget the ridges on megaminxes. What about a competition for Hualongs with Weilong v2 springs and Aolong v1 center caps! We seriously need to get this idea to the board!



not to forget chris olsons pink cubes he would get his own category!


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Jul 30, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Dont you mean MAXIMUM? I doubt LBL/keyhole can get sub 70.


oops =) and keyhole 4 sure
Scramble: L2 D R2 B2 D2 L2 D2 U' F2 L D2 F U R' D' F D2 F' D' U'
Solution: z2 B2 D' F D R' F R U2 R U' R2 U2 R L' U L 
y' z2 R' D R U' F D F' U' R' D2 R U2 R' D' R D' F D2 F' D' R' F U R' D2 R
z2 y R2 D R' U2 R D' R' U2 R'
y' R U R' U' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F 
64 Move solution Keyhole (there is one but this is not it) oops again hate FMC


----------



## biscuit (Jul 30, 2015)

CubeWizard23 said:


> not to forget chris olsons pink cubes he would get his own category!



I use pink too...


----------



## qqwref (Jul 30, 2015)

CubeWizard23 said:


> oops =) and keyhole 4 sure
> Scramble: L2 D R2 B2 D2 L2 D2 U' F2 L D2 F U R' D' F D2 F' D' U'
> Solution: z2 B2 D' F D R' F R U2 R U' R2 U2 R L' U L
> y' z2 R' D R U' F D F' U' R' D2 R U2 R' D' R D' F D2 F' D' R' F U R' D2 R
> ...


Non-beginners LBL with the same scramble:
Scramble: L2 D R2 B2 D2 L2 D2 U' F2 L D2 F U R' D' F D2 F' D' U'
1L: F2 B2 U B2 R U' F' L U2 R' F2 L2 F2 L F2
2L: U2 R' L F2 B U' B' R L' D B D' L2 D' L' D' L' D' L D L D
3L: F' D2 B D B' D F D2 F L F' D2 B R' B R B2
= 54 moves


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 30, 2015)

biscuit said:


> I use pink too...



I do, too, but not for 3x3, 4x4, blind, feet, 4BLD, or SQ-1. WE NEED MORE CATEGORIES!

Also, every color scheme for mega gets its own category.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 30, 2015)

Mnts said:


> I'm really curious, how many of you already tried using stickerless cubes in competitions? What was the delegate reaction when they've seen you trying to use stikerless puzzle?



Saw a few people using stickerless cubes at Perth Winter. Tim was perfectly fine and didn't say anything about it.


----------



## Dene (Jul 30, 2015)

Stickerless puzzles are now legal so delegates shouldn't do anything about it at all.


----------



## suushiemaniac (Jul 30, 2015)

Now that the cubic AoFu is on it's way, are there any plans to ban pillowed 7x7s because ShengShou doesn't own the "monopoly" on cubic 7x7s any more?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 30, 2015)

biscuit said:


> I use pink too...



but do you have his shade of pink, on an Aolong v2? What about the other shades?


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 30, 2015)

suushiemaniac said:


> Now that the cubic AoFu is on it's way, are there any plans to ban pillowed 7x7s because *Vcubes* doesn't own the "monopoly" on* pillowed *7x7s any more?



ftfy?


----------



## suushiemaniac (Jul 30, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> ftfy?


Thanks, but there's no need to fix it.
What I mean is that if the WCA had banned pillowed cubes for 7x7 as they did for every other event, they would have pushed virtually everyone into buying ShengShou, thus creating a monopoly because it was the only flat 7x7 at the time (that I know of).
Now that MoYu is about to release the AoFu GT (that's how they call it officially), there's an actual *choice* when looking for cubic 7x7 puzzles so pillowed 7x7 could theoretically be banned for consistency reasons...


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jul 30, 2015)

suushiemaniac said:


> Thanks, but there's no need to fix it.
> What I mean is that if the WCA had banned pillowed cubes for 7x7 as they did for every other event, they would have pushed virtually everyone into buying ShengShou, thus creating a monopoly because it was the only flat 7x7 at the time (that I know of).
> Now that MoYu is about to release the AoFu GT (that's how they call it officially), there's an actual *choice* when looking for cubic 7x7 puzzles so pillowed 7x7 could theoretically be banned for consistency reasons...



I don't think it would be very fair though. Iirc Lin Chen used a VCube 7 to set the 7x7 WR last year. There was also that German guy who got a 2:50 single with a pillowed aofu. Most people use cubic 7x7s, but not all.


----------



## suushiemaniac (Jul 30, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> I don't think it would be very fair though. Iirc Lin Chen used a VCube 7 to set the 7x7 WR last year. There was also that German guy who got a 2:50 single with a pillowed aofu. Most people use cubic 7x7s, but not all.


Yep, fairness is definitely a point to consider. That's why I was / still am asking on this thread


----------



## Lucas Wesche (Jul 30, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> I don't think it would be very fair though. Iirc Lin Chen used a VCube 7 to set the 7x7 WR last year. There was also that German guy who got a 2:50 single with a pillowed aofu. Most people use cubic 7x7s, but not all.



Yeah I agree, I use a pillowed aofu too and used a VCube before. I think the rules don't need to change just because there are now two cubic 7x7


----------



## Berd (Jul 30, 2015)

I think it would be better to legalise all kinds of pillowed puzzles. What's even the issue with them?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 30, 2015)

Berd said:


> I think it would be better to legalise all kinds of pillowed puzzles. What's even the issue with them?



If a really good pillowed cube came out that wasn't 7x7 they might consider it... especially if a lot of people wanted it and it was 3x3...


----------



## biscuit (Jul 30, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> I do, too, but not for 3x3, 4x4, blind, feet, 4BLD, or SQ-1. WE NEED MORE CATEGORIES!
> 
> Also, every color scheme for mega gets its own category.



I now have two puzzles with pink (2x2 and 3x3) and every time I buy a new puzzle I plan to replace red with pink. 

We should totally have a category solely for bluhu's


----------



## Berd (Jul 30, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> If a really good pillowed cube came out that wasn't 7x7 they might consider it... especially if a lot of people wanted it and it was 3x3...


I just feel like the rules should be "uniform" like when stickerless cubes for blind became illegal.


----------



## Myachii (Jul 30, 2015)

Why would there be any point banning pillowed 7x7s? I have a pillowed Aofu and I think it's fine, and by banning pillowed cubes all that would accomplish is making people like me have to buy yet another cube. And 7x7s certainly aren't cheap.


----------



## suushiemaniac (Jul 30, 2015)

Myachii said:


> Why would there be any point banning pillowed 7x7s? I have a pillowed Aofu and I think it's fine, and by banning pillowed cubes all that would accomplish is making people like me have to buy yet another cube. And 7x7s certainly aren't cheap.


I definitely agree to this argument, and I'd like to clarify that my original post was just a question out of curiosity, not an implied suggestion to ban pillowed 7x7s.
Allowing other pillowed NxNxNs would also be a possibility to make the regulations more uniform, though I know that general uniformity in each and every point of the regs is kind of utopic to aim for.


----------



## Arkwell (Jul 31, 2015)

Berd said:


> Good idea! Why don't we also have white cubes in a different competition than black cubes or even Zhanchis in a different competing to Aolongs? A brilliant solution!




Because if you look all over the SS Forum, the talk for years has been about stickerless not being allowed because of a perceived 'lookahead' advantage. I'm not saying put all 3x3s but stickerless cubes are not the standard different color cubes.


----------



## tseitsei (Jul 31, 2015)

Arkwell said:


> I'm not saying put all 3x3s but stickerless cubes are not the standard different color cubes.



What? I have absolutely no idea what this sentence is supposed to say...


----------



## joshsailscga (Jul 31, 2015)

Arkwell said:


> Because if you look all over the SS Forum, the talk for years has been about stickerless not being allowed because of a perceived 'lookahead' advantage. I'm not saying put all 3x3s but stickerless cubes are not the standard different color cubes.



Berd was being sarcastic about the previous suggestion


----------



## Arkwell (Aug 3, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> What? I have absolutely no idea what this sentence is supposed to say...



What I meant is Stickerless cubes are different than the standard Black, White, Blue, etc. cubes. Stickerless are a combination of colors.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Aug 4, 2015)

Arkwell said:


> What I meant is Stickerless cubes are different than the standard Black, White, Blue, etc. cubes. Stickerless are a combination of colors.



I still don't understand what you're saying.

With regard to your original suggestion: splitting the 3x3x3 event over multiple kinds of 3x3x3 is very unlikely to happen. But are you aware that stickerless cubes are already permitted?


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 4, 2015)

Not sure if it's the right place to ask, but anyway,
Let's say I start inspection and suspect it's a duplicate scramble, but I'm not 100% sure. Should I raise this to the judge immediately, or finish the solve first?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 4, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Not sure if it's the right place to ask, but anyway,
> Let's say I start inspection and suspect it's a duplicate scramble, but I'm not 100% sure. Should I raise this to the judge immediately, or finish the solve first?



I would finish the solve and ask after. If you ask immediately and it is a duplicate, you get an extra attempt/the correct scramble. If you ask immediately and it isnt a duplicate, inspection runs out, and it is a DNF (I think). if you ask after the solve, its win win. Either the solve doesnt count and you get the real scramble or it counts.


----------



## Kit Clement (Aug 4, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> I would finish the solve and ask after. If you ask immediately and it is a duplicate, you get an extra attempt/the correct scramble. If you ask immediately and it isnt a duplicate, inspection runs out, and it is a DNF (I think). if you ask after the solve, its win win. Either the solve doesnt count and you get the real scramble or it counts.


If you solve the cube, what evidence do we have that it is a repeated scramble? (Assuming no video was taken)

I'd suggest bringing it up in inspection.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 4, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> If you solve the cube, what evidence do we have that it is a repeated scramble? (Assuming no video was taken)
> 
> I'd suggest bringing it up in inspection.



oh yeah, thats true. that didnt occur to me, thanks! 

edit: so if it turns out that it isnt a repeated scramble, the competitor is given an extra scramble right? If yes, how hard would it be for someone to cheat and claim they think they have a repeat scramble to avoid a difficult scramble?


----------



## Julian (Aug 4, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> If you solve the cube, what evidence do we have that it is a repeated scramble? (Assuming no video was taken)
> 
> I'd suggest bringing it up in inspection.


What I do: vocalize in inspection that I think it might be a duplicate. Continue with the solve. Stop the solve if/when I'm convinced. Bring it up with judges.


----------

