# Should we ban pillowed 7x7x7s?



## StephenC (Nov 27, 2012)

In the discussion of banning the use of stickerless cubes in BLD, it was pointed out that this was also inconsistent. Why should stickerless cubes be banned for the sake of consistency, but not pillowed 7x7x7's? Clearly when there were no other 7x7x7's, for 7x7x7 to be an event people had to use them. This is however inconsistent with the regulations, which do not allow pillowed cubes to be used in competition. Since there is a cubic 7x7x7 available, should we ban pillowed 7x7x7's?


----------



## samchoochiu (Nov 27, 2012)

the event itself should be removed


----------



## tx789 (Nov 27, 2012)

No what if you like you v cube cube better and it doesn't show as much of the left and right face when it's front on as much as a 3x3 for example and v cube will have a fit think of people with small hands 

This has been brought up when the shengshou 7 first came out


----------



## ThomasJE (Nov 27, 2012)

tx789 said:


> No what if you like you v cube cube better and it doesn't show as much of the left and right face when it cr



What if you liked stickerless cubes more?

I think they should be banned.


----------



## tx789 (Nov 27, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> What if you liked stickerless cubes more?
> 
> I think they should be banned.



There have been legal for 4 1/2 years. Still it's the wca's choice


----------



## Erik (Nov 27, 2012)

tx789 said:


> Still it's the wca's choice



We all are the WCA, if the community doesn't support the delegates and boardmembers, there's nothing left.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Nov 27, 2012)

I think this would be an even worse idea than banning stickerless cubes. Pillowed 7x7s have always been legal (unlike stickerless which has a more controversial history), and many people have used them. Banning them would therefore seem to be less consistent to me. This ban wouldn't affect me personally in a practical sense since I've switched to SS7, but I'm strongly against the principal.


----------



## Felix1996 (Nov 27, 2012)

But wouldn't that be unfair? Because former 7x7 wr's were made with a pillowed cube. So the former wr-holders have an advantage..
Still.. I'm using a cubic one, but to me it doesn't make sense to ban pillowed 7x7s, because they have been allowed for so a long time.. in my opinion that wouldn't change anything.. except for less 7x7 solvers in competition, because not everybody who has a v7 wants to buy a shengshou..


----------



## Muesli (Nov 27, 2012)

Felix1996 said:


> But wouldn't that be unfair? Because former 7x7 wr's were made with a pillowed cube. So the former wr-holders have an advantage..
> Still.. I'm using a cubic one, but to me it doesn't make sense to ban pillowed 7x7s, because they have been allowed for so a long time.. in my opinion that wouldn't change anything.. except for less 7x7 solvers in competition, because not everybody who has a v7 wants to buy a shengshou..



Yeah, this is a good point. All records prior to the new 7x7s were with the V-cube. The original standard was the V-cube. With 3x3s, however, the stickerless cube came after the stickered cube and so all records were set with stickered cubes.

Makes no sense to ban them on the grounds that the newer, square, cube is potentially disadvantaged.


----------



## Akash Rupela (Nov 27, 2012)

I dont think it should be banned . But in case it is, I would like someone to trade a shengshou for my vcube


----------



## Carrot (Nov 27, 2012)

Just ban the pillowed... seriously.


----------



## StephenC (Nov 27, 2012)

All of this in in the context of the ban of stickerless cubes for use in BLD. The world record for 3x3x3 BLD, and the record for 3x3x3 MBLD were set using stickerless cubes. They have been banned because of a supposed advantage. This is why it is unfair to argue that we should be able to use pillowed 7x7x7's, purely because they were legal in the past. All of the previous record holders had an advantage. 

Not all of the MBLD solvers want to disassemble their cubes, reassemble them so that they need to be stickered, and then sticker them all of which would take a considerable amount of time, and would cost more than a SS for many top MBLDers. (like 3 actually, but you get the point). What if they don't want to? 

What I really want is that either stickerless cubes are unbanned, or that pillowed 7x7x7's are banned. Think about the reasons that you are giving for not banning pillowed 7x7x7's, and then think about whether or not that argument applies to stickerless cubes in BLD.


----------



## Isaac Paurus (Nov 27, 2012)

if we do, then verdes will sue ShengShou for the patent of the 7x7 and we will have nomore 7x7 event.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Nov 27, 2012)

StephenC said:


> What I really want is that either stickerless cubes are unbanned, or that pillowed 7x7x7's are banned. Think about the reasons that you are giving for not banning pillowed 7x7x7's, and then think about whether or not that argument applies to stickerless cubes in BLD.



This pretty much sums up the problem with your argument.
These are 2 separate events. Stickerless cubes were *Never technically legal to begin with*, whereas the Pillowed 7x7 has been legal since 7x7 was introduced. Also, just because one thing changes, doesn't mean that all related points should be changed as well.


----------



## Felix1996 (Nov 27, 2012)

If the WCA bans pillowed 7x7s, they would loose very much 7x7 competitors.. they have to keep that in mind.. and anyway.. that interested nobody for years, so, why now? only because one company brought a cubic one? there are way more companies, that made pillowed ones (Verdes, YJ, LanLan...) and they stand against one single company. 

(sorry for bad english :/ but i hope you know what i try to say)


----------



## rubixwiz031 (Nov 27, 2012)

samchoochiu said:


> the event itself should be removed


This.

Also I think Lin would be very angry if you banned V-7's. He sure does like his V-cube


----------



## StephenC (Nov 27, 2012)

http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=924 

Stickerless cubes were legal (for BLD), although you could interpret the regulations to say they were not, and now they are not allowed to be used. Simelarly, pillowed 7x7x7's are legal, but you can interpret the regulations in such a way that they were illegal from the start. There may have been no other 7x7x7's, but if it is a requirement for all cubes to be cubic in other events, then 7x7x7's should have to be cubic to. The basic concept of the cube involves it being cubic. You can't seriously argue that the basic concept of all cubes below the order of 6 invloves those cubes being cubic, but that the basic concept of a puzzle suddenly changes because it has reached order 7. The whole reason the they banned stickerless cubes for BLD was for consistency. You could argue that 3x3 2H, and 3BLD are different events, and that you should not extend the rules from one to the other. You can't argue that events should all have different enforcements of the same regulations. And anyway, say 8x8x8 becomes an event. The first widely available 8x8x8 was cubic, by your argument, that then should have to be cubic, in which case the exception is only being made for 7x7x7. If V-cubes releases a pillowed 8x8x8 and we have already made 8x8x8 into an event, should we let that cube be used? 

And Felix, the world record holder in MBLD quit in part because of the banning of stickerless cubes. They did not keep that in mind (or they did and decided that it was not important enough). Yes, one company has brought out a cubic one, and it complies better with the regulations than all of the other 7x7's that are available.




rubixwiz031 said:


> Also I think Lin would be very angry if you banned V-7's. He sure does like his V-cube



Repeat: the world record holder in MBLD quit in part because of the stickerless cubes ban. Is Lin more important than Marcin was? I don't think that we should be deciding what puzzles are legal based upon the preferences of the current world record holder.


----------



## cubernya (Nov 27, 2012)

I would like to say that nobody should use history to back up their opinion. Anybody that got a POP used to get an extra solve, that rule got removed, as others have been and will be. The question is do you or do you not think pillowed 7x7s should be banned. It has nothing to do with history at all.

Personally, I am absolutely for it being banned.



StephenC said:


> And Felix, the world record holder in MBLD quit in part because of the banning of stickerless cubes.


He came back


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 27, 2012)

Yes, it should be banned. It shouldn't have been made legal in the 1st place IMO.


----------



## StephenC (Nov 27, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> I would like to say that nobody should use history to back up their opinion. Anybody that got a POP used to get an extra solve, that rule got removed, as others have been and will be. The question is do you or do you not think pillowed 7x7s should be banned. It has nothing to do with history at all.
> 
> Personally, I am absolutely for it being banned.
> 
> ...



I checked about him coming back. You are right. This is new news to me. I will need to go about correcting my posts when I am at my computer again. 

I agree with you about history, but we do need some basis in which we are to change the rules, and the previous years set have always been fit for the purpose. I actually don't want pillowed 7x7x7's banned, but given that stickerless cubes are no longer allowed, it seems like the next logical step to me. Would you prefer that pillowed cubes be allowed in all events or none? And what do you think about stickerless cubes? For me, it's all or none.


----------



## rubixwiz031 (Nov 27, 2012)

cube-o-holic said:


> Yes, it should be banned. It shouldn't have been made legal in the 1st place IMO.


Well there wasn't any alternative for a long time.


----------



## Zarxrax (Nov 27, 2012)

I think it does need to be banned for consistency with other events since we have cubic 7x7x7s now.
But they should save it for the next update of the rules (2014?), to give people plenty of advance notice.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Nov 27, 2012)

Most have vcubes so they would basically have to switch to SS


----------



## Bob (Nov 27, 2012)

samchoochiu said:


> the event itself should be removed



Where's the "Like" button?


----------



## Isaac Paurus (Nov 27, 2012)

Bob said:


> Where's the "Like" button?



why do you guys hate 7x7?


----------



## ducttapecuber (Nov 27, 2012)

cube-o-holic said:


> Yes, it should be banned. It shouldn't have been made legal in the 1st place IMO.



The pillowed v-cube was the only 7x7 available for some time.

Here is my point with banning pillowed 7x7's compared to banning stickerless cubes in BLD:
First thing is that stickerless cubes are banned in normal solving because of obvious cheating capabilities. Stickerless cubes where still allowed in BLD because that particular "advantage" did not apply to BLD solving. I do see the advantage of memo-ing a stickerless cube however 4 out of 5 serious BLD solvers use stickerless because they don't have to change these stickers. Having the colored plastic gives a slight advantage to memo-ing but not greatly. I do however believe that there was no need for the ban; however I understand why the ban was put into place. As compared to the pillowed v7 you have a different advantage; you can slightly see the stickers better. I feel that this is not great enough or important enough to completely ban the first 7x7 available. Think of the immediate consequences of banning it:
1. You know that Verdes (v-cube owner) will throw a fit and sue Shengshou (he has a very big temper)
2. Shengshou is the only cubic 7x7, therefore creating a cubing monopoly. (which are illegal in the US)
3. This would cause a *huge* decrease in 7x7 competitors.
4. This would anger many people
Just to name the big ones

This pillowed v-cube was the first 7x7. It was revolutionary with its pillowed design, Verdes figured out a way to make a 7x7 with it being structurally sound. Banning the v7 is like banning a Rubik’s 4x4 because it has a different mechanism. *That is all the pillow is a revolutionary mechanism*
Just think about the consequences of banning the pillowed v7 before you do.

-Ducttapecuber


----------



## Czaroman93 (Nov 27, 2012)

Of course, everybody uses pillowed 7x7s because "it is possible to see more on these cubes", and that makes your solves faster. -,-
It has no sense for me, and for me both, pillowed 7x7s and stickerless cubes should not be banned. These cubes "help you" only in theory - in reality nobody during doing U move checks what are the colours on the B side in normal solve. (maybe apart from these people who don't like stickerless cubes...). When you do memo u can't do moves, so it does not help you in any way On 7x7 the only thing u think about during the solve is to find the next piece as fast as it is possible, not thinking how many stickers can I see without rotating the cube. 
And yeah, many people prefer vcube more than ss.


----------



## ketchuphater999 (Nov 28, 2012)

Until enough cubic 7x7 are mass-produced, they should be allowed. Once there are more that a few cubic 7x7s and some of them are cheap enough for poor people to buy, then they could be banned.


----------



## prażeodym (Nov 28, 2012)

Erik said:


> We all are the WCA, if the community doesn't support the delegates and boardmembers, there's nothing left.



Eric pls
Just tell me more about how wca listen to the community, I see only "We did this and You have to deal with it"
or


> I actually hate these discussions. I just do not understand why people keep on discussing this matter when there is an easy solution: just use "normal" cubes. There are many good cubes!(...)


I see something like "I know better about every single event than You, so why are You still discussing about it?"

I think that it is nonsense as to ban pillowed 7x7 as to ban colored cubes for blind. But if wca have that sux rulez, they will have to change just to make better "sake of consistency".


----------



## cubegenius (Nov 28, 2012)

The original puzzle was pillowed, many people still use pillowed 7x7s, and the pillowedness wasn't a problem when it was added as an event. I think that they should not be banned for those and other reasons.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 28, 2012)

prażeodym said:


> Just tell me more about how wca listen to the community, I see only "We did this and You have to deal with it"



The WCA are a brilliant organisation for listening to the community.

Two of my favourite examples; 

When a poll indicating that we didn't want an inspection time change stopped any plans that were being made to change it from happening.

When WCA made an announcement about the possible removal of Magic and Mastermagic to gauge cubers' reactions before taking any actual action.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Nov 28, 2012)

Stop saying there are cubic. The only mass produced is shengshou so as ducttapecuber said, it creates a monopoly then vcubes will sue ss then we got nothing. Either leave it as is or remove the entire event. That's my view.
Also why does pillowing give an advantage?


----------



## bgdgyfer (Nov 28, 2012)

This may be a stupid question but, are shengshou 7x7s allowed to bed used in a compition


----------



## JasonK (Nov 28, 2012)

bgdgyfer said:


> This may be a stupid question but, are shengshou 7x7s allowed to bed used in a compition



Yes.


----------



## Noahaha (Nov 28, 2012)

Can we all stop caring SO much about tiny changes in the rules?

Unrelatedly, this 7x7 thing is a big deal so we should _definitely_ care about it. 

I would say yes, but not before more people have ShengShou's/another company makes a cubic 7x7.


----------



## AlexByard (Nov 28, 2012)

No, they shouldn't (in my opinion). I feel that coloured cubes should not be banned for BLD also. To be fair, I say they should not be banned at all, but i do see the reasoning behind the illegality. To me the banning of coloured cubes for BLD solving is just away for the WCA to tidy up any confusion that smaller competitions may have. So, in my opinion, no they shouldn't ban the pillowed cubes, neither should they ban coloured cubes for BLD.


----------



## tx789 (Nov 28, 2012)

Verdes will have fit as people have said he will force shengshou to stop selling them and may release a cubic one (unlikely)


----------



## Ranzha (Nov 28, 2012)

The question I'd ask first is "Do pillowed 7x7s give a distinguishable time advantage over cubic 7x7s?"
I'd argue against there being any correlation between using a pillowed 7x7 and achieving faster times. When the ShengShou 7x7 was first released, the overall consensus I got was "I can finally be as fast at 7x7 as I'd like to be." If anything, the ShengShou 7x7's invention flips the argument of "pillowed 7x7s help achieve faster times" on its head.

As it goes with 7x7 as an event, I'd like to see it go. It takes too much time, it's a hassle to scramble, and it's needlessly redundant.


----------



## LNZ (Nov 28, 2012)

I do own both a white V7 and a black SS7 and I use them equally. and they're both very good cubes. So both should be allowed in sanctioned WCA events.


----------



## tx789 (Nov 28, 2012)

If anything v cube give a disadvantage


----------



## uniacto (Nov 28, 2012)

AlexByard said:


> No, they shouldn't (in my opinion). I feel that *coloured cubes* should not be banned for BLD also. To be fair, I say they should not be banned at all, but i do see the reasoning behind the illegality. To me the banning of *coloured cubes* for BLD solving is just away for the WCA to tidy up any confusion that smaller competitions may have. So, in my opinion, no they shouldn't ban the pillowed cubes, neither should they ban *coloured cubes* for BLD.



You don't really need to bring that up. This isn't about colored cubes for BLD, this is a thread about 7x7's. 

Imo, pillowed 7x7s should be banned when enough people have cubic 7x7s.


----------



## mycube (Nov 28, 2012)

uniacto said:


> You don't really need to bring that up. This isn't about colored cubes for BLD, this is a thread about 7x7's.
> 
> Imo, pillowed 7x7s should be banned when enough people have cubic 7x7s.



What is enough? Tell me.


----------



## ottozing (Nov 28, 2012)

I think they should be banned for the exact same reasons that the stickerless cubes were banned. The advantage may be slight, but it's an advantage none the less. And consistency in the rules is always a good thing.


----------



## JasonK (Nov 28, 2012)

If it were up to me, I'd get rid of 7x7 entirely. It takes too long and doesn't add anything to the bigcube concept. But realistically that's not gonna happen 

As far as pillowed cubes go, it seems pretty clear to me that the current rules don't make sense. The WCA seems to care about consistency in the regulations, and banning all pillowed cubes other than 7x7 is inconsistent.


----------



## tx789 (Nov 28, 2012)

I don't really care but it shouldn't because 
1. V cubes will have a fit (probably worse than ever seen before)
2. People were happy too have a cubic 7x7 and improved due to the corners being square 
3. It been legal so long (I know it was the only option)


----------



## ducttapecuber (Nov 28, 2012)

ottozing said:


> I think they should be banned for the exact same reasons that the stickerless cubes were banned. The advantage may be slight, but it's an advantage none the less. And consistency in the rules is always a good thing.



When are we going to stop banning everything that has an advantage? If we keep this up any cube with a slight advantage will be banned. When are we going to draW that line? Soon we will be banning everything with an advantage. Will we say: "half brights help with recognition. That is an advantage, ban them" or will we say"that cube is lubricated that gives an advantage, we can't lubricate all our cubes now" my question is where do we draw the line?


----------



## GabeCubed (Nov 28, 2012)

My opinion: Don't ban. Every single person who has a pillowed 7x7x7 will have to spend some extra money to get a cubic 7x7x7 that was made after the V-Cube and it copies the same design. So what about consistency? Not everything has to consistent. If you do ban it, you might as well get rid of the event.


----------



## ducttapecuber (Nov 28, 2012)

Here is a video I made of this topic:


----------



## Przemek Kaleta (Nov 28, 2012)

NO.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 28, 2012)

ducttapecuber said:


> When are we going to stop banning everything that has an advantage? If we keep this up any cube with a slight advantage will be banned. When are we going to draW that line? Soon we will be banning everything with an advantage. Will we say: "half brights help with recognition. That is an advantage, ban them" or will we say"that cube is lubricated that gives an advantage, we can't lubricate all our cubes now" my question is where do we draw the line?



I get the idea, but you need to be careful of following the slippery slope argument when in a serious discussion. It just might be possible that the WCA, as reasonable human beings, can discern where to draw that line. It's a fallacy to assume that they never will draw that line.


----------



## Ton (Nov 28, 2012)

I suggest people start talking to WCA delegates at competitions, it has no point in discussing it on this forum . WCA facilitates cubers and regulates cubing in general, so if you have feedback , contact the WCA delegate of your country


----------



## brunovervoort (Nov 28, 2012)

samchoochiu said:


> the event itself should be removed



haha lol


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 28, 2012)

Ton said:


> I suggest people start talking to WCA delegates at competitions, it has *no point in discussing it on this forum* . WCA facilitates cubers and regulates cubing in general, so if you have feedback , contact the WCA delegate of your country



I agree with everything in this post except the bolded section. Discussion always has a point, as long as it is kept civil and rational. However, you're right, it doesn't change any policy of the WCA.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 28, 2012)

Ton said:


> I suggest people start talking to WCA delegates at competitions, it has no point in discussing it on this forum . WCA facilitates cubers and regulates cubing in general, so if you have feedback , contact the WCA delegate of your country



Uh, what.

Polls like this are a great way to gauge the community's reaction to an issue.

For most, discussing an issue with a delegate at a competition is something that happens once a year or less, with verbal communication being a lossy transfer format.

Here we are allowed to collaborate and discuss ideas in an organised manner with people from all over the world.

We have always done it this way, as as I have recently described it has been very successful.

Why does the WCA have a forum for giving feedback if it doesn't want us to discuss things online? What you are saying makes little sense and it feels like an attempt to ignore the issue.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 28, 2012)

cube-o-holic said:


> Yes, it should be banned. It shouldn't have been made legal in the 1st place IMO.



I would just like to clarify that I know there was no alternative for several years.
IMO 7x7 shouldn't have been given an event until a cubic version was available if at all.

edit - it seems as though the only reason to allow pillowed 7x7s is that people own them.
That isn't a good enough reason in my eyes.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Nov 28, 2012)

cube-o-holic said:


> it seems as though the only reason to allow pillowed 7x7s is that people own them.
> That isn't a good enough reason in my eyes.



You don't think we should consider whether or not something is practical for many cubers when talking about changing a rule which affects many cubers? Seems silly to me.


----------



## tx789 (Nov 28, 2012)

One thing 
When scrambled you can't see the left and right faces colours that well and same people find the corner hard to grip and have their finger slip off causing a lower tips and slower time


When your stickers are peeling slighty it gives an anvanage


----------



## Erik (Nov 28, 2012)

prażeodym said:


> Eric pls
> Just tell me more about how wca listen to the community, I see only "We did this and You have to deal with it"
> or
> 
> ...



How hard is it to spell a 4 letter name correctly? 

I think they can listen a bit better sometimes, but they do listen! (Kirjava pointed out 2 examples, I could name some more). If you think they don't listen to the community, why do you post here? Nothing will change anyway.


----------



## ducttapecuber (Nov 28, 2012)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I get the idea, but you need to be careful of following the slippery slope argument when in a serious discussion. It just might be possible that the WCA, as reasonable human beings, can discern where to draw that line. It's a fallacy to assume that they never will draw that line.



I get what you are saying. It is not the wca delegates that I am worried about it is the community. A major reason why the possible banning of pillowed 7x7's even came up is the fact that stickerless cube were banned. If we keep banning things more things will be brought up with a supposed "advantage" and they will be banned, this created a domino effect. My question only is when do we stop letting the dominos fall down?


----------



## Michael Womack (Nov 28, 2012)

The pillowed 7x7 was revolutionary at the time it was made. As what Erno Rubik Sayed "Ther will be no cubes with more layers then 5" but in 2007 Greek engener Mr. Verdes proved to Proff. Rubik that there can be a 6x6-11x11. But with the pillowness of the 7x7 made it so that it would be stable. Also think about all of the cubers who have the pillowed 7x7 and haven't already bought the SS 7x7 to the ones who have the SS 7x7 also to the ones who have both. Also without the help of the pillowed 7x7 the SS 7x7 would never have been made.
Take a look at this video it will clearafy allot of stuff thanks to Tony Fisher for making the video.


----------



## Sebastien (Nov 28, 2012)

ducttapecuber said:


> my question is where do we draw the line?



There is a line naturally drawn by the the rules we have. It is a line drawn by hand though, so it is not perfectly straight and has some bumps here and there. Because of this we will apparently never get rid of people pointing at one of these bumps and complaining about it.


----------



## jonlin (Nov 28, 2012)

AlexByard said:


> No, they shouldn't (in my opinion). I feel that coloured cubes should not be banned for BLD also. To be fair, I say they should not be banned at all, but i do see the reasoning behind the illegality. To me the banning of coloured cubes for BLD solving is just away for the WCA to tidy up any confusion that smaller competitions may have. So, in my opinion, no they shouldn't ban the pillowed cubes, neither should they ban coloured cubes for BLD.



Do a 30 degree U move. That's not a move legally, allowing for faster memo time, because you're not disqualified.


----------



## maggot (Nov 29, 2012)

i dont know about you guys but having a pillowed version of a puzzle is by no means an advantage. every pillowed version of a puzzle i own is difficult to hold and turn in comparison to their cubic version. i feel that since the pillowed puzzle has this disadvantage, it clearly balances out the minimal sticker view advantage that it has. 

in the end, its not really worth it. of course, i wouldnt have taken action on stickerless cubes either. i havent ever recieved a better average time with a stickerless, nor do i ever see myself proving that a stickerless cube gave me the advantage and therefore my average dropped. its just silly nonsense.


----------



## InfiniCuber (Nov 29, 2012)

ducttapecuber said:


> I get what you are saying. It is not the wca delegates that I am worried about it is the community. A major reason why the possible banning of pillowed 7x7's even came up is the fact that stickerless cube were banned. If we keep banning things more things will be brought up with a supposed "advantage" and they will be banned, this created a domino effect. My question only is when do we stop letting the dominos fall down?



I highly agree with you on this. There is no reason for them to remove it, i mean an advantage could be asere simple as lubing a cube. I believe it is up to the cuber to decide what he wants and if it will give him an advantage. Just as he picks they brand of cube and how to lube it, he can see if pillowed will help or if he just likes the shape or whatever. Same thing with stickerless cubes. They should not have been banned in the first place. Again because the cuber has the choice to make of whether it helps him or not. Your times are not going to get faster because of this stickerless. Any cuber that even cubes under a minute knows this. ("Ain't nobody got time for that!" HAHA!) There is literally no reason (that i see) to remove this at all or ban pillowed cubes.


----------



## tx789 (Nov 29, 2012)

Most people like the shengshou better


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Nov 29, 2012)

All cubes should be legal as long as they follow the regulations. Stickerless do give a slight advantage but few can actually use it. Same thing with pillowed 7x7.


----------



## rubixwiz031 (Nov 29, 2012)

TheNextFeliks said:


> All cubes should be legal as long as they follow the regulations. Stickerless do give a slight advantage but few can actually use it. Same thing with pillowed 7x7.


If stickerless and pillowed have the same "quantity" of advantage, then why are sticklerss's banned but not pillowed?


----------



## Isaac Paurus (Nov 29, 2012)

rubixwiz031 said:


> If stickerless and pillowed have the same "quantity" of advantage, then why are sticklerss's banned but not pillowed?



That's what we all wanna know.


----------



## Ranzha (Nov 29, 2012)

rubixwiz031 said:


> If stickerless and pillowed have the same "quantity" of advantage, then why are sticklerss's banned but not pillowed?



You can't quantify it.


----------



## InfiniCuber (Nov 29, 2012)

rubixwiz031 said:


> If stickerless and pillowed have the same "quantity" of advantage, then why are sticklerss's banned but not pillowed?



Like I said earlier, it really wouldn't matter. It is up to the cuber to decide the advantage he wants, just like lubing a cube with something, or choosing a brand or shape of a cube.


----------



## lex (Nov 29, 2012)

Split the event into two. 

7x7 Cubic
7x7 Pillowed


----------



## InfiniCuber (Nov 29, 2012)

lex said:


> Split the event into two.
> 
> 7x7 Cubic
> 7x7 Pillowed



Just,....no. Then they would have to split like virtually all the events into pillowed and cubic. They might as well have 3x3 Stickered and 3x3 stickerless. That i believe is unethical. Read my last long post...


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Nov 29, 2012)

rubixwiz031 said:


> If stickerless and pillowed have the same "quantity" of advantage, then why are sticklerss's banned but not pillowed?



Stickerless are being banned because they hurt Cubesmith sticker sales. Pillowed 7x7 are being allowed because it pleases V-cube, and allowing them doesn't hurt Cubesmith sticker sales. Protecting financial interests is why some things are banned for the same reasons that others are not. The WCA, Cubesmith and some mods on this site are in bed together with all of this. If you don't believe me, just watch how long it takes for this post to disappear. Remember this, because they do not want you to know.


----------



## maggot (Nov 29, 2012)

lol at "soon to be deleted post" 

if vcubes would have produced a non pillowed v-7 with the extended edges, most cubers would have have the non pillowed version over a pillowed version. i wonder why they would have chosen the cubic one. if you get an advantage for it being pillowed, why would the cuber use the non pillowed version? being pillowed is a novelty, not an advantage.


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 29, 2012)

They shouldn't be banned because all this time they have been giving an advantage, so the previous world records would have to be erased/archived. The stickerless cubes didn't actually give an advantage in BLD, so no record has been set because of them. Removing them for consistency's sake was fine. However these 777s have been used for years, so removing them would be unfair. IF we were making 777 an official event today, we would make cubic the only option. However, 777 must remain an exception.


----------



## tx789 (Nov 29, 2012)

Tim Major said:


> so the previous world records would have to be erased/archived.



All the world records then


----------



## qqwref (Nov 29, 2012)

Tim Major said:


> They shouldn't be banned because all this time they have been giving an advantage, so the previous world records would have to be erased/archived.



9i3) If the regulations for an event are changed, then the old regional records stand until they are broken under the new regulations.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Nov 29, 2012)

Are all WR's with pillowed? If they are, banning pillowed is unfair.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Nov 29, 2012)

Ok, There's something I don't get about this.
People want to ban the V-7 because it's pillowed and gives you an advantage...
But it's still comp legal, so if it bothers you that much, go and buy a V-7. No-one is forcing you to be at a "disadvantage" by using an SS.
Personally, I think that there isn't really much difference between them, other than the SS is better for people with bigger hands, and the V-7 for those with smaller.


----------



## tim (Nov 29, 2012)

I keep seeing stickerless cubes being mentioned as a comparison. But what about the pillowed V-Cube 2? That one is not competition legal.


----------



## InfiniCuber (Nov 29, 2012)

tim said:


> I keep seeing stickerless cubes being mentioned as a comparison. But what about the pillowed V-Cube 2? That one is not competition legal.



I think they should be legal, just a stickerless and pillowed should be, for everything. But if we are going to argue the pillowed V-Cube 2 as having an advantage, well, it is so small, it really isn't a big deal. Then again nothing about pillowed and stickerless should be a big deal.


----------



## Michael Womack (Dec 4, 2012)

If we do it's like saying that the Rubik's brand 3x3 never existed cause it started all this cubing stuff.


----------



## rubixwiz031 (Dec 4, 2012)

Michael Womack said:


> If we do it's like saying that the Rubik's brand 3x3 never existed cause it started all this cubing stuff.


No its not.


----------



## Meep (Dec 4, 2012)

I recall that when this topic was brought up before, because the pillowed 7x7 was the first one that was widely available, it became the datum to compare other 7x7 cubes to.

3h)	No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle. Some examples of enhancing the basic concept are: new moves are possible, normal moves are impossible, more pieces are visible, colours on the backside of the puzzle are visible, moves are done automatically, more or other solved states.

Since the first widely available 3x3 was cubic and the other sides weren't visible when viewing a side directly, enhancing the basic concept of the 3x3 was measured relative to that (Thus stickerless cubes shouldn't be allowed). In the case of the 7x7, it would be measured relative to the pillowed 7x7 (Thus both pillowed and cubic 7x7s would be allowed).

That's just one interpretation of the regulations, though.

To those constantly using the stickerless 3x3 'ban' as reasoning to remove pillowed 7x7s, the 'ban' was more so clarifying the regulations on something that should have never been allowed. The pillowed 7x7 case is discussing the removal of something that always has been allowed.


----------



## StephenC (Dec 4, 2012)

3h said:


> more pieces are visible, colours on the backside of the puzzle are visible



Does anybody other than me think that that part of the regulation has nothing to do with "the basic concept of a puzzle"? Would simply removing that from the regulations allow any puzzles that would be totally unacceptable? I would be interested to see what people come up with. Anyway, if there is no problem with removing it, then I think that we should.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Dec 4, 2012)

StephenC said:


> Does anybody other than me think that that part of the regulation has nothing to do with "the basic concept of a puzzle"? Would simply removing that from the regulations allow any puzzles that would be totally unacceptable? I would be interested to see what people come up with. Anyway, if there is no problem with removing it, then I think that we should.



For example, there are cubes made of transparent plastic, which allow you to see the sticker colour of the opposite faces. This would be extremely helpful in finding pieces, as you don't need to rotate the cube.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 4, 2012)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> For example, there are cubes made of transparent plastic, which allow you to see the sticker colour of the opposite faces. This would be extremely helpful in finding pieces, as you don't need to rotate the cube.



This would be total hax for Roux step 4C.


----------



## StephenC (Dec 4, 2012)

And the ability to see pieces on back means that the solve was fake? Were you not solving the same type of puzzle? 

You are still solving the same pieces, in the same way, but you know were some more of them are. I don't understand what the problem with that is.


----------



## samchoochiu (Dec 4, 2012)

StephenC said:


> And the ability to see pieces on back means that the solve was fake? Were you not solving the same type of puzzle?
> 
> You are still solving the same pieces, in the same way, but you know were some more of them are. I don't understand what the problem with that is.


Because you see colors that you shouldn't be seeing, hence the "basic concept" of the puzzle is altered. Its like you're changing the definition of a Rubik's Cube.


----------



## StephenC (Dec 4, 2012)

samchoochiu said:


> Because you see colors that you shouldn't be seeing, hence the "basic concept" of the puzzle is altered. Its like you're changing the definition of a Rubik's Cube.



I disagree.


----------



## InfiniCuber (Dec 4, 2012)

StephenC said:


> I disagree.



I agree that you disagree. Just as i said a while ago, it is up to the cuber to decide what he wants in his/her cube as an advantage, like the type of cube, mod, or lube. According to samchoochiu and everyone else, well, an original rubik's cube did not have lube. This is "altering" the basic concept. Soon enough everything is going to be band, which is what everyone is saying...


----------



## Meep (Dec 4, 2012)

InfiniCuber said:


> I agree that you disagree. Just as i said a while ago, it is up to the cuber to decide what he wants in his/her cube as an advantage, like the type of cube, mod, or lube. According to samchoochiu and everyone else, well, an original rubik's cube did not have lube. This is "altering" the basic concept. Soon enough everything is going to be band, which is what everyone is saying...



Lubrication does not alter the basic concept of the puzzle. It reduces the friction between the moving parts, and having a specific amount of friction present is not part of the puzzle's design.

Also: 3g)	Puzzles may be made smoother internally by sanding or using any lubricant.


----------



## Michael Womack (Dec 5, 2012)

rubixwiz031 said:


> No its not.



Without Ernő Rubik making the 3x3 our hobby would not exist.

Also go with Verdes making the 7x7 then this would never happen and the SS 7x7 would never existed.


----------



## Cheese11 (Dec 5, 2012)

Before reading any other posts, I'm going to say no. Simply because there are only 2 "Good" 7x7's on the market right now, and one of them is pillowed.


----------



## jonlin (Dec 5, 2012)

StephenC said:


> I disagree.



You disagree? I reject that.
It enhances the basic concept in that 'more pieces are visible' as they directly state in the regulations. Clearly in this manner, the stickerless is illegal. The only way they would be legal is if the regulations would be changed/altered.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 5, 2012)

Meep said:


> having a specific amount of friction present is not part of the puzzle's design.


I don't think "you can only see 3 faces at a time" is an part of the puzzle's design either. It's a side effect of the way the first generations of Rubik's Cubes were constructed, but so is high friction. Rubik definitely intended for people to look at all of the faces, but I doubt he ever thought people would be speedsolving his puzzle consistently in under 15 seconds, so I can't imagine he cared how many faces you can see at once when he came up with the idea. And don't forget the official Rubik's company has itself produced a transparent puzzle (a 2x2x2), and their website used to have a cube simulator where you could see every sticker at once. If we're just discussing the concept of the puzzle, I don't think the number of stickers you can see is an intentional part of it at all.

I don't have a problem with outlawing transparent/stickerless/pillowed cubes, but let's be honest about it. We're outlawing those things because we've decided on a 'canonical speedcube' and those provide an advantage over it, not because the number of visible stickers has always been an essential part of what a Rubik's Cube is.


----------



## InfiniCuber (Dec 5, 2012)

Meep said:


> Lubrication does not alter the basic concept of the puzzle. It reduces the friction between the moving parts, and having a specific amount of friction present is not part of the puzzle's design.
> 
> Also: 3g)	Puzzles may be made smoother internally by sanding or using any lubricant.



Well sanding does, modding and so forth. They have just made exceptions. IMO, they should get rid of the rule all together. If they are making exceptions for little things (and some big) they should allow pillowed 7x7's. I also agree with qqwref on her previous post.


----------



## The Bloody Talon (Dec 5, 2012)

This will be a never ending discussion. Both sides have a good point.
I think someone should make a study of how are pillowed cubes better than non-pillowed cubes.


----------



## Meep (Dec 5, 2012)

InfiniCuber said:


> Well sanding does, modding and so forth. They have just made exceptions. IMO, they should get rid of the rule all together. If they are making exceptions for little things (and some big) they should allow pillowed 7x7's. I also agree with qqwref on her previous post.



Sanding and modding is only allowed to make it internally smoother (Reducing friction by reducing contact area, etc.), which achieves the same goal as lubrication. Only external modifications that give an advantage (making more of the puzzle visible than the 'canonical speedcube,' etc.) would alter the basic concept of the puzzle as described by the regulations. So it's not too much of an exception.

I do agree with qq though. The 'basic concept' of the puzzle is just some decided standard puzzle with more regards to a competitive aspect than Rubik had intended. The regulations perhaps need a detailed definition of what the 'basic concept's features are for comparison, as it's somewhat ambiguous and has regularly been interpreted differently.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 5, 2012)

qqwref: Do you think adding pochmann-esque supercube stickers to corners and edges so that you can see what the other edge piece colour is when only looking at one half of them should be allowed?

I don't want to have to use this advantage because it's available then have recognition problems when I go back to using a normal cube.


----------



## StephenC (Dec 5, 2012)

Also: 



3e1 said:


> The colours of puzzles must be solid, the same per colour, and clearly distinct from other colours.
> 3e1) The stickers/tiles/textures/paint may show an image (in one colour), as long as all stickers/tiles/textures/paint of a colour have the image and the same image.



Does this mean that cubesmith supercube (the type with arrows) stickers are allowed? I am tired right now, so perhaps I am not thinking straight, but this would seem to permit them. You would still be able to identify the piece using the direction of the arrow, and the colour of the sticker. If I am correct, and this is the case, then you could achieve the same advantage that you would get by using a stickerless cube, without violating the regulations.

To answer the question that was not directed at me; I think that the Pochmann style supercube stickers would not be allowed, since the colour is not be uniform. They are however not violating the concept that has developed in my mind of a 'canonical speedcube.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 5, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> qqwref: Do you think adding pochmann-esque supercube stickers to corners and edges so that you can see what the other edge piece colour is when only looking at one half of them should be allowed?


I'm in favor of defining a canonical speedcube, and if we agree that it means you are limited to seeing a specific set of stickers at once (which I think most of us do) then that shouldn't be allowed. I just don't think that being able to see a limited set of stickers was an intentional part of the "basic concept" of the puzzle.


I think we could replace 3g and 3h with something like this:


> 3g1) The possible moves on the puzzle must be the same as on the original mass-produced version.
> 3g2) A solver using the puzzle may not be able to see more stickers at once than on the original mass-produced version.
> 3g3) The puzzle cannot automatically perform any moves or otherwise change its own state.


that is, we specifically specify what "the basic concept" is and what would go against it.


----------



## StephenC (Dec 5, 2012)

You would still be seeing the same set of stickers, they would have information about the stickers at the back. You would still technically not be seeing the stickers at the back, even though you would know what they were. 

Possible problem with proposed 3g2: the original (mass produced) rubik's cube was 57 mm. If you have a small enough cube you can see more stickers than the original rubik's cube. Not really a huge problem, but I think that it is worth consideration. s


----------



## qqwref (Dec 5, 2012)

Yep, that's another thing we have to think about. Is it a problem that with a small enough cube you can see both L and R at once? Because that's the exact same effect a pillowed cube has.


----------



## InfiniCuber (Dec 5, 2012)

qqwref said:


> Yep, that's another thing we have to think about. Is it a problem that with a small enough cube you can see both L and R at once? Because that's the exact same effect a pillowed cube has.



This is why they shouldn't be banned. Since they are allowed now, they should stay so.


----------



## samchoochiu (Dec 5, 2012)

StephenC said:


> I disagree.



Tell us why.


----------



## Michael Womack (Jan 1, 2013)

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#article-3-puzzles We saved the pillowed 7x7 from being banned yes


----------



## Bob (Jan 2, 2013)

Michael Womack said:


> http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#article-3-puzzles We saved the pillowed 7x7 from being banned yes


...for now


----------



## Michael Womack (Jan 2, 2013)

Bob said:


> ...for now



So that means that we can't use the pillowed 7x7 within the next 6 months or so


----------



## Bob (Jan 2, 2013)

Michael Womack said:


> So that means that we can't use the pillowed 7x7 within the next 6 months or so



no it does not


----------



## AdrenalineKick (Jan 5, 2013)

Just remove every event except the original 3x3, only allowing the Rubik's brand 3x3, with original stickers, and no modding nor lubrication. Problem solved.


----------

