# Potential Regulation Violations in Recognized Solves



## keyan (Jun 26, 2012)

Marcell's latest BLD records have caused a bit of a stir. I'd like to discuss two issues here. 

First issue is the use of a stickerless Guhong. When the cube first came out, it was recognized as violating regulation 3h. However, Ron later said that he would allow the cube during BLD solving. (Could someone help find the link? I only found this http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=889) 

There are two problems here. First is that not all delegates have acknowledged this change. I know several delegates who say they still don't intend to allow stickerless cubes. This creates a general 'unfairness' among various competitions. Whether or not anyone can show that a stickerless cube actually gives any advantage*, the fact is that some people have this choice and other don't. The second problem is, I think, more important. Given that article B covering blindsolving says nothing about an expanded interpretation of or exceptions to 3h, I think it is clear that the stickerless cube shouldn't have been allowed. 

The second issue is asking the judge for a specific orientation prior to solving. Although widely seen as not allowed, the regulations do not specifically mention this, making this situation again unfairly applied among different competitions. This, though not specifically a problem under current rules, is a bigger issue as orientation provides a much clearer advantage than a stickerless cube. 

The general question I'm asking is, how should results be handled that, after they are recognized, we realize are violating regulations? I can think of two differing examples. First, a number of BLD records from back in the day. With reasonable doubt of rule violation, the records were removed. Second, however, is a (master)magic record by Stefan** from long long ago. (In a galaxy far away?) At the time it was noted that video showed that he ended the solve still touching the puzzle, with people pointing out regulations A6d/A6e. The record stood. (Yahoo groups are blocked, can anyone help find the discussion?) 

So, how to handle this sort of case? Altering old records is no fun, but neither is having different standards for different competitors. The biggest issue is with communication and competition management. Without proper communication and discussion about the regulations, these problems can appear. Without video, these problems can persist. For example, there's one top-ten ranked competitor whose results I'm nearly certain aren't reflective of their honest ability, but with the results recognized there's little that can be done. 

I've been kinda sick these past two days, but hopefully what I wrote here isn't too unclear. And, please, no disrespect meant to Marcell or Stefan. You're both amazing. 

* Consider a blindsolver who, when starting inspection, turns U and D each a couple of degrees. They can now inspect two extra stickers without rotating the cube. 
** I really hope I'm remembering all this correctly.


----------



## drewsopchak (Jun 26, 2012)

Yeah the double standard regarding sticker less cubes is really annoying. I wish the delegates can reach a consensus.


----------



## hcfong (Jun 26, 2012)

I think the main problem with delegates allowing or not allowing a stickerless Guhong in BLD events, is that it's not actually written in the regulations. All we have now is a comment from Ron on the WCA forum that it is allowed. http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=924

Because it's not written in the regulations yet, some delegates have chosen to allow it, while other delegates have chosen to ignore it and continue to not allow it. I think it would help a lot if it was written in the WCA regulations, although we have seen in recent speedsolving threads that even that is not a guarantee that it will be followed. Examples: scrambling orientation when there is no white face and registering the correct nationality of competitors. But at least, if it's written in the WCA regulations, delegates will be much more willing to allow colourless guhongs for BLD events.


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 26, 2012)

We have already dealt with stickerless cubes and spedific orientation in the current draft of the regulations.

The answer to the question "how should results be handled that, after they are recognized, we realize are violating regulations?" is really obvious: If you have proof, then just mail it to Board and IAC. If you have no proof, then there is no violation.

[/thread]


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 26, 2012)

We are working on:

1) Making sure the Regulations and Guidelines cover all this.
2) Making it easy to update the Guidelines.

That way, there is a consistent, up-to-date reference for all delegates. We are also putting into a place a system for handling incidents, so that anything unusual (and its resolution) is publicly reported in a consistent way.

The WRC Proposal and the WCA Constitution have some more details on this, although I admit we haven't gotten to the point where any of this is on the WCA website yet.




Sebastien said:


> The answer to the question "how should results be handled that, after they are recognized, we realize are violating regulations?" is really obvious: If you have proof, then just mail it to Board and IAC. If you have no proof, then there is no violation.



I'd offer the following amendment: If there is no proof, there's nothing the Board can do about the past result.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 27, 2012)

I'm not sure who closed this thread; it wasn't me. If a mod would like to re-close this thread, could you please provide a short explanation?


----------



## keyan (Jun 27, 2012)

Thanks Lucas. 

My previous response: 

Consider A, an action which gives a definite time advantage in solving. Although A is not specifically noted in the regulations, the vast majority of competitors/organizers/delegates recognize A to be violating the spirit of the regulations. As such, at 99% of competitions A is not allowed. Suppose there is an event where the current record is 1:00. Competitor 1 competes at a standard competition and solves in 59.5. Competitor 2 attends one of the 1% of competitions where A is allowed, and taking advantage of A sets a time of 59.4. Is this not very unfair to competitor 1? Consider if the regulations are later updated to reflect the general consensus that A shouldn't be allowed. Now, only a small number of competitors were allowed to take advantage of A, and no one else will again. Consider an event where results are starting to plateau. If the time advantage of A is large enough, this situation could create a record which becomes very difficult to beat. 

There's a competition here next month where at least one competitor I'm quite sure is going to demand a set orientation during BLD, which won't be allowed. Is that not a problem?


----------

