# WCA Regulations - Out of Hand?



## Bob (Jan 3, 2014)

[rant]
A lot goes on behind the scenes. As a WCA Delegate, I regularly read the mailing list in which some of the regulation changes were discussed. As I was reading through these most recent discussions, I felt several times that people are starting to create and modify regulations just for the hell of it. Some of the regulations and changes that were suggested were just downright ridiculous and against the spirit of the organization and community. To me, it seems silly to have so many rule changes every year. Some sports and games go decades without rule changes, but yet we seriously alter our regulations every year. Sure, sometimes changes are necessary to clarify something or prevent cheating (BLD covers, for example), but so many of these recent changes seem arbitrary. My faith in the WCA dwindles. 
[/rant]


----------



## rybaby (Jan 3, 2014)

I agree. WCA regulations are here for a reason, but sometimes they get a little out of hand. Example: proposal for logo changes and outlawing certain logos. This seems unnecessary to me.


----------



## Mollerz (Jan 3, 2014)

The thing is with the WCA is that it is still a relatively new organisation and was very small for the first few years. Major props go to those who have helped get it this far but now competitive solving is getting quite popular. This means that a standard needs to be set. In a couple of year, or probably less, a lot of these changes will be ingrained into the competing community so it won't matter. We've got to a point where it is getting reasonably serious and so a lot of necessary changes are happening now, in future years there will be less and less changes. There will always be rule changes, always. Even in sports that have been around for a hundred years or more are getting rule changes that coincide with modern day equipment and such and cubing is no different.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 3, 2014)

I think that many of the arbitrary decisions were made with respect to what puzzles we accept as legal, and to make the process of identifying legal puzzles simpler. Some decisions made this year with respect to this had other good reasons (Overlay logos in BLD, can feel center piece to track M2 moves), but others were made with no other significant reason or without considering how it affects the community (tile thickness, mf8 megaminx especially).

There might have been other non-puzzle changes that came off as arbitrary, but I do not recall any without reviewing changes specifically.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 3, 2014)

Bob said:


> I felt several times that people are starting to create and modify regulations just for the hell of it.



You have to be exaggerating.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Jan 3, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Just to quell any concerns: there will be no change to the Regulations about misalignments at the end of the solve. A 3x3x3 that is U2 away from the solved state will still receive a +2 time penalty.
> 
> Since this is a very controversial topic where all major arguments have been debated extensively, we wanted to avoid wasting community time on it. The WRC put the change to a Board vote, and the decision was to keep things the same for 2014. This is not a future commitment or anything like that -- *just a judgment that the community is not prepared for such a divisive change.*



I feel like the majority of the community is not ready for some of the changes made, such as megaminx tiles. This was the reason that the removal of +2 was ended, why not megaminx tiles?

*EDIT:* also is the reason why pillowed 7x7s are legal (I think)


----------



## Bob (Jan 3, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> You have to be exaggerating.



Do you have another explanation for this regulation change, for example?



> 3d+) [REMINDER] Painted/printed colors are no longer permitted instead of stickers.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 3, 2014)

Bob said:


> Do you have another explanation for this regulation change, for example?



I think it's unfair to ask me to justify something I didn't do, but I have compete faith that the source can do so.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Jan 3, 2014)

The goal of the World Cube Association is to have
more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair and equal conditions. 

The spirit of the World Cube Association is that
people from all over the world have fun together in a friendly atmosphere, help each other and behave sportsmanlike


with so many regualtions, I feel that the FUN is being taken out. as well how can one define "Fair and Equal conditions." I take that to mean that if I put a mirror behind my cube it is fair, because everyone else could do it if they wanted to. Whereas WCA seems to be setting a standard that limits cubers, making it just as equal as before, but less fun.


----------



## Dene (Jan 3, 2014)

Jaysammey777 said:


> with so many regualtions, I feel that the FUN is being taken out. as well how can one define "Fair and Equal conditions." I take that to mean that if I put a mirror behind my cube it is fair, because everyone else could do it if they wanted to. Whereas WCA seems to be setting a standard that limits cubers, making it just as equal as before, but less fun.



I would absolutely love to hear of some examples which you think make cubing competitions less fun. Do please elaborate.


----------



## Noahaha (Jan 3, 2014)

Jaysammey777 said:


> The goal of the World Cube Association is to have
> more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair and equal conditions.
> 
> The spirit of the World Cube Association is that
> ...



Defining fair and equal conditions is exactly what they are trying to do. If the regulations are not completely tight, people will try to use them to their advantage. Many people have cheated before, and they will continue trying to cheat forever.

The regulations are not meant to create as much fun as possible. They are meant to create as much fairness as possible. I think that there are definitely some regs that should not be in there, but saying that they are not fun is not a good argument.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Jan 3, 2014)

Dene said:


> I would absolutely love to hear of some examples which you think make cubing competitions less fun. Do please elaborate.



Sanding down megaminx tiles to make them exacally 1mm or smaller does not sound like fun to me.



Noahaha said:


> Defining fair and equal conditions is exactly what they are trying to do. If the regulations are not completely tight, people will try to use them to their advantage. Many people have cheated before, and they will continue trying to cheat forever.



This makes since when talking about obtaining scrambles prematurely, but what about colored plastic?



Noahaha said:


> The regulations are not meant to create as much fun as possible. They are meant to create as much fairness as possible. I think that there are definitely some regs that should not be in there, but saying that they are not fun is not a good argument.



my past post was taken directly from WCA. I interpreted to try to make it as much fun as possible. So in the future, if finger tricks are banned for some reason, I would say that a majority of the community's arguments would center around it is more fun and fast to use finger tricks.


----------



## Erik (Jan 3, 2014)

If it aint broke don't fix it. 

Some changes are absolutely unneccessary and propostrous. The regulations become more and more like an unreadable LAW, trying to ban out irregularities that never occured and forcing people to ruin their cubes because their tiles are a bit too thick.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 3, 2014)

A serious question: How can we do it better?

One problem with the Delegate list is that it is closed.
I made sure this year that absolutely everything is documented on GitHub, but there still is not one good place for discussions.

I would have used the WCA forum extensively, except that has never, ever worked.
Thus, I asked PJK to create a Regulations subforum here.
Here, for example, I posted about possible logo changes. I had to start from a strict set of rules to see which changes were reasonable and which ones actually infringed on many competitors' legitimate preferences. In the end, a decision like that required a Board vote, though.

One valid concern is that the changes appear very sudden. That's mostly because I was the only one making things happen, and spent almost all my spare time in December trying to pull things together.
This is entirely a community/volunteer effort. If you want things to be done better, please help us find a way to do it. Throwing out complaints and partial suggestions is not enough.


----------



## Goosly (Jan 3, 2014)

Dene said:


> I would absolutely love to hear of some examples which you think make cubing competitions less fun. Do please elaborate.



I have to remove logos from my multiblind cubes. One of those is also my main for blind and for speedsolving. I will not be able to *easily* distinguish my cube(s) from other cubes on any table at any competition. So I guess I'll have to choose one main for speedsolving (with a logo) and keep my cubes for blind hidden in a bag so I don't lose them. I am frustrated about this.

The last question in this topic ([WCA Regulations 2014] Logos and Stickers) is about keeping track of your cubes with logos. Many people have answered that they use their logos for that purpose, and if not, stated that they know a lot of people who do. *It seems to me that this has not been considered enough*, when making a decision about logos (but I may be wrong of course).


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 3, 2014)

Goosly said:


> The last question in this topic ([WCA Regulations 2014] Logos and Stickers) is about keeping track of your cubes with logos. Many people have answered that they use their logos for that purpose, and if not, stated that they know a lot of people who do. *It seems to me that this has not been considered enough*, when making a decision about logos (but I may be wrong of course).



I presume you had overlay stickers?

It was definitely considered. Instead of coming up with carefully balanced standards that apply regardless of event, the vote went to be strict for BLD (don't allow anything distinguishable by touch) while allowing looser standards for sighted events. That is, overall more logos are allowed without change than might have been.

And logos are still allowed for BLD. Some options:

- Use certain printed brand stickers.
- Get your own custom printed stickers.
- Draw a logo in indelible ink.
- ...

If that won't work to you, sorry... it is a bit strict, and you'll have to be more careful with your BLD cubes. But considering how easily touch can be used to cheat in BLD (e.g. feeling parity), I think this is a reasonable requirement.


----------



## Goosly (Jan 3, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> I presume you had overlay stickers?



Yep. I don't think I've ever had a cube with a non-overlaying logo.



Lucas Garron said:


> (...) the vote went to be strict for BLD (don't allow anything distinguishable by touch) (...) But considering how easily touch can be used to cheat in BLD (e.g. feeling parity), I think this is a reasonable requirement.



I just removed the logo of my Weilong that I've had for one month now. I can still - blindfolded - find the orientation I want, only *by feeling the stickers* (that are still brand new!), after tossing the cube in the air to get a random orientation. Identifying parity would even be easier. I don't understand how banning logos will prevent competitors from cheating.

(Just to clarify, I never have cheated nor intend to cheat in this way, I'm just saying it is possible and banning logos will not prevent it from being possible.)


----------



## cubizh (Jan 3, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> A serious question: How can we do it better?
> 
> One problem with the Delegate list is that it is closed.
> I made sure this year that absolutely everything is documented on GitHub, but there still is not one good place for discussions.
> ...



The regulation changes were all documented on GitHub long before they were approved and were discussed among delegates (I suppose) even earlier than that.
I agree that some discussions should be private among delegates to prevent certain potential cheating and other situations that should be undisclosed, but other changes could also potentially be discussed in a more open forum.

The only thing that could have probably been done better was make the subforum and open the discussion on certain things here some time earlier, so that people that are not necessarily on top of regulation discussion be more aware of things and are able to express their oppinion and/or rant about it before they are approved, since GitHub can be a challange for some discussions.
I guess one month is not enough for this type of open discussion and regulation adjustment for people to gain awareness of them. 
Next year, perhaps the discussion of eventual changes or updates should start earlier than that.

To me, the feeling of "let's wait to see if it's approved to rant about it" seem a bit unjustified. I ranted about certain things way before they were approved or not and made my points there. There wasn't much more I could have done after that than accept the changes and see how they work out for people.
Even though that are certain changes I do not agree with, generally, I don't see a problem in the changes done to standardize the look and feel of competition puzzles. I think people shouldn't be surprised if, in the future, things like the vcube-7 is to be made illegal, in this effort to standardize the look and feel, which I can understand.

Agree with the changes or not, the WRC's task is not easy one at all, on one hand trying to maintain consistency in the regulations, preventing situations and occurances and determining outcomes, and on the other, keep everyone happy.


----------



## jazzthief81 (Jan 3, 2014)

One piece of advice I would like to give is to not start this process so late in the year. Discussions on proposals should be *finished* by December at the very latest so there is enough time left to consider all the consequences of the accepted changes and adjust when necessary. The deadline for submitting proposals should be even earlier, say early October.

If there is not enough time to do this properly, simply don't make the changes and wait for next year. Many of the main changes pushed through in 2014 were not necessary and could have waited.

Using a dedicated section of the speedsolving forum for getting community feedback on proposals is a good idea and I would like to keep this, but again start doing this earlier. Consider that the last weeks before New Year are busy times for many people and they may be less inclined to check websites, forums and mailing lists. 

I don't like how the poll system was used in some instances. There shouldn't be a ton of options to choose from and the options should be clearly defined and neutral. 

For instance in the Mean of N for FMC discussion, people were given three options, two of which support the change and one of which doesn't. I feel this is trying to steer the poll in a certain direction.

As much as possible, a poll should be a simple yay or nay. You either support the change or you don't (or abstain from voting). People can motivate their decision further by posting in the forum, you don't need to suggest opinions in the poll itself.

I think we should keep in mind that these polls are always going to be heavily biased and the people who participate only represent a very small portion of the community. It's a good way to test the waters, but we shouldn't conclude that getting a majority on a speedsolving poll means that community at large agrees with the proposal.

For example, in the Mean of N for FMC discussion, Sebastien used the result of such a poll as an argument in favor of his proposal:


> The community generally agrees that "Mean of 3" should be a possible format for FMC (see http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?34216-WCA-Regulations-2014-Mean-of-N-for-FMC)



I think this is a wrong representation of the facts.


----------



## Schmidt (Jan 3, 2014)

One rule to rule all rules: WCA provides brand new Rubik's brand cubes for each competition ( like the good old days ). That would be fair/equal for all.


----------



## blade740 (Jan 3, 2014)

Bob said:


> As I was reading through these most recent discussions, I felt several times that people are starting to create and modify regulations just for the hell of it.



I agree wholeheartedly. Some of this year's regulation changes make sense: the raised/engraved logo rule from a fairness standpoint, skewb for community support, and Mean of 3 formats for a few rounds to give competition organizers additional flexibility. 

However, some of the changes do not improve the sport in any way, and instead only serve to limit competitors. For example, removing [r]  [f] notation from FMC: what is the point of this exactly? Even though it may be rarely used, removing the option helps no-one. In fact, I was negatively affected by last year's change removing slice moves (which was, in my opinion, another pointless change that only serves to limit cubers). Same for removing qualification rounds: these may be rarely used but removing the option altogether helps no one, and only limits flexibility for competition organizers. 

Similarly, what's the point of penalizing cubers who pre-sign for events? This may be a "sloppy" practice but as far as I know there have not been any cases of judges or competitors abusing it. The only possible scenario I can see would be if a malicious judge decided to take advantage of a trusting competitor, but if that's the case there's nothing stopping me as a judge from adding a "1" to the beginning of a time AFTER it's signed (or from just drawing the arrow down and DNSing the competitor by default). I am one of the cubers who often pre-signs for all 5 attempts right from the start, and for good reason: when running smaller competitions, I'm often "pushed through" so I can begin judging/scrambling right away, and so many times I perform all 5 solves in quick succession, at the same timer, with the same judge. Approving my times in advance is simply an expediency measure, so that the judge can just write down my times and immediately take the cube for scrambling. Of course I understand that this means I am implicitly trusting whatever the judge writes down, but I still make sure to look at what they're writing just in case. 

It seems to me that many of these rule changes are prompted not by the needs of competitors and organizers, but by a desire to "fix" what some WCA officials see as "inconsistencies" in the regulations. I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## Laura O (Jan 3, 2014)

jazzthief81 said:


> I think we should keep in mind that these polls are always going to be heavily biased and the people who participate only represent a very small portion of the community. It's a good way to test the waters, but we shouldn't conclude that getting a majority on a speedsolving poll means that community at large agrees with the proposal.



I fully agree with that.
Another general problem with these discussions and votes is that many people do not read the topic properly or just argument from their own point of view. I think we should question the actual purpose of these discussions. It's not that I doubt that community feedback is worthwhile, but it should be from an objective and reasonable point of view.

One example: some weeks ago I heard at a competition that a competitor (regularly competing and also posting here) told someone that he read here that BLD will be Mean of 3 in competitions in 2014 and he complained that he wouldn't be able to do this and get many DNFs. And this is just one example, I could give many more.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 3, 2014)

I'd just like to say, the fact that this was bought up by a delegate is a serious cause for concern.


----------



## arcio1 (Jan 3, 2014)

Erik said:


> If it aint broke don't fix it.


THIS.

I think that a lot of WCA regulations make no sense. I mean, why do they ban cubes? For example coloured? Maybe they give theoretical advantages, but so what? It wouldn't change anything if everyone would be allowed to use same advantages. I thought the idea of solving cubes was to find limits, but they do everything they can to make fast people slower by for example banning tiles. In my opinion there should be only necessary and obvious regulations, like textured tiles banned for blind solving.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 3, 2014)

blade740 said:


> qualification rounds: these may be rarely used but removing the option altogether helps no one



False. It helps people already complaining that the regulations are too long. (And I think there were some other reasons as well)



blade740 said:


> Similarly, what's the point of penalizing cubers who pre-sign for events?



It's not really a penalty. *You* declare empty cells to be your results.

If you don't want it, then don't declare that you want it.



blade740 said:


> This may be a "sloppy" practice but as far as I know there have not been any cases of judges or competitors abusing it.



That practice itself *is* abuse (of the signing procedure).



blade740 said:


> The only possible scenario I can see would be if a malicious judge



I believe it's less about "malicious" and more about *mistakes* and unclear writing.



blade740 said:


> Approving my times in advance is simply an expediency measure



How much time does that save?



blade740 said:


> I still make sure to look at what they're writing just in case.



Good that *you* do. What about everybody else?



blade740 said:


> if it ain't broke, don't fix it.



_"If I personally don't happen to see/have a problem with it, please don't improve it"_?


----------



## DuffyEdge (Jan 3, 2014)

FMC should be mo2


----------



## Mikel (Jan 3, 2014)

I personally do not think the WCA regulations are out of hand. I commend the WRC for all the work they put in to improve our regulations.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 3, 2014)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> I'd just like to say, the fact that this was bought up by a delegate is a serious cause for concern.


I hope you mean this in the sense of "we need to think about this process a lot more" and not "remove Bob as delegate".



Stefan said:


> It's not really a penalty. *You* declare empty cells to be your results.


An empty cell is not a result, and is clearly and fundamentally different from a written "DNF" or "DNS". Everyone (except a few people working on regulations now) has understood this for years. That's why when someone DNSes solves we actually write "DNS" on the scoresheet rather than just leaving it blank.



Stefan said:


> "If I personally don't happen to see/have a problem with it, please don't improve it"?


Have you seen any of the complaints about the 2014 regulation changes? Do you really think this is an improvement? I'll at least give you the benefit of the doubt as a non-native English speaker here - "don't fix what ain't broke" has the implication that often when someone tries to "fix" something that works fine they will end up with something that doesn't even work as well as it originally did. For example, trying to make the Clock notation better and ending up with a bizarre hybrid notation that makes scrambling take longer.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 3, 2014)

qqwref said:


> I hope you mean this in the sense of "we need to think about this process a lot more" and not "remove Bob as delegate".



Yeah, I mean the first. If the delegates aren't happy with the changes being made, then it at least shows that there are some concerns even for regulations that make it into the final version.


----------



## Erik (Jan 3, 2014)

jazzthief81 said:


> _-Wise words.-_



Its early in the year, but it might be one of the best posts of 2014.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 3, 2014)

qqwref said:


> An empty cell is not a result, and is clearly and fundamentally different from a written "DNF" or "DNS". Everyone (except a few people working on regulations now) has understood this for years. That's why when someone DNSes solves we actually write "DNS" on the scoresheet rather than just leaving it blank.



It's a result, just not explicitly written down (I guess "DNS" can be entered if you prefer it written explicitly). Once it gets signed, it becomes a result. What else would it be? Also, look at the regulation:

_"A7c) The judge and competitor must both *sign *(or initial) the score sheet *to acknowledge the result*."_

When you signed, you acknowledged the result! If you don't think there's a result, why would you sign when the regulations make it clear that signing is for results?

Anyway... I believe nobody wants to hand out DNSes for this. The point is to stop people abusing the signing process.



qqwref said:


> I'll at least give you the benefit of the doubt as a non-native English speaker here - "don't fix what ain't broke" has the implication that often when someone tries to "fix" something that works fine they will end up with something that doesn't even work as well as it originally did.



I do know that idiom and hate it, get the feeling it gets thrown around far too often and easily and carelessly by people who think it makes them look cool and who just don't like any change. An over-generalizing straw man, pretending the people trying to improve something don't do so for good reasons. I believe in reality, the changers don't change stuff just because they like changing stuff (I think Lucas etc have better things to do) but because they *do* consider stuff broken and *don't* consider it working fine. And the opposers might just not see that/how it was broken and not working fine.

Yes, people can make mistakes and intended improvements can fail and turn out to make things worse, but if you never attempt improvements, then you won't ever make any progress in anything. Especially if you obey anyone who happens to be opposed to the change, as there will pretty much *always* be *some* people who don't like it, no matter what the change is.



qqwref said:


> For example, trying to make the Clock notation better and ending up with a bizarre hybrid notation that makes scrambling take longer.



I'm not very much familiar with this case, but I tried both a while back and preferred the new notation and thought it's easier/clearer. And the old notation had the advantage of people being used to it, but that's a subjective short-term advantage, not necessarily an objective long-term advantage.


----------



## AmazingCuber (Jan 3, 2014)

I just want to say something right now:

I want to thank the WRC so much for putting all that effort into the regs. They don't deserve this ****storm. 

During all this discussion we have to keep in mind a couple of things:

First of all, (modern) cubing is a new sport, which means that there will be lots of rule changes and rule adjustments to find the right ones. In the first years of other sports, look at how many rule changes there were. The older cubing gets, the less rule changes will happen.

Also, just because we are used to some rules, for ex. logos, doesn't mean that they are the best rules. Sometimes a big change has to be made, especially in the early years of a sport, to make things fair. 

Finally, just because something only brings a theoretical advantage now and not a practical, doesn't mean that there won't be a practical advantage sometime later on --the regs are there for _preventing_ incidents. And yes, if I can feel a piece in BLD, it gives me an advantage, especially if I purposely try to use this advantage. And yes, sadly there are people who would or do such things.

Thanks again WRC for putting in all that effort. If people don't like the changes, they should actually help make the regs better and stop just whining. 

But, I do think we should start working on regs earlier than December


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 3, 2014)

Stefan said:


> I'm not very much familiar with this case, but I tried both a while back and preferred the new notation and thought it's easier/clearer. And the old notation had the advantage of people being used to it, but that's a subjective short-term advantage, not necessarily an objective long-term advantage.



The new scrambles requiree you to flip the clock mid-scramble. Scrambling _objectively_ takes longer with the new notation, regardless of issues of not being used to one or the other. Sure it's not a big difference, but why purposely make it take longer than it has to?


----------



## Stefan (Jan 3, 2014)

uberCuber said:


> The new scrambles requires you to flip the clock mid-scramble. Scrambling _objectively_ takes longer with the new notation, regardless of issues of not being used to one or the other.



If I'm not mistaken, flipping allows (more) repetition and only having to turn wheels at up-pins. When I *solve* the clock, I do flip and I do build the cross on both sides the exact same way and only turn wheels at up-pins, and it helps me prevent confusion, mistakes and delays. The same seems true for scrambling, so flipping can end up *saving* time in the end. Especially when you don't have to solve+rescramble because you didn't make a mistake.


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 3, 2014)

Stefan said:


> If I'm not mistaken, flipping allows (more) repetition and only having to turn wheels at up-pins. When I *solve* the clock, I do flip and I do build the cross on both sides the exact same way and only turn wheels at up-pins, and it helps me prevent confusion, mistakes and delays. The same seems true for scrambling, so flipping can end up *saving* time in the end. Especially when you don't have to solve+rescramble because you didn't make a mistake.



Well, good thing it was brought up, then, because I majorly misinterpreted the new notation last time I looked at scrambles. I didn't know only the top wheels ever had to be turned (didn't even know it was possible to thoroughly scramble and solve clock without ever using the bottom wheels).

I still dislike flipping the clock mid-scramble, but now it's just a personal complaint if the new notation also has an advantage to possibly cancel out the disadvantage.

EDIT: Wait no, I just misread your comment too. I need to stop trying to think.


----------



## cubernya (Jan 3, 2014)

One thing I would like to bring up is why competitors *must* sign the scoresheet. It was added in 2013, but I still don't understand the purpose of it. Obviously, if there is a penalty, they should sign. But otherwise, I don't see the purpose, as long as the result is legible.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Jan 3, 2014)

theZcuber said:


> One thing I would like to bring up is why competitors *must* sign the scoresheet. It was added in 2013, but I still don't understand the purpose of it. Obviously, if there is a penalty, they should sign. But otherwise, I don't see the purpose, as long as the result is legible.



I assume it is to check the time. i.e. if you get a 12.21 solve and the judge mistakenly write 21.12


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 3, 2014)

theZcuber said:


> One thing I would like to bring up is why competitors *must* sign the scoresheet. It was added in 2013, but I still don't understand the purpose of it. Obviously, if there is a penalty, they should sign. But otherwise, I don't see the purpose, as long as the result is legible.



To acknowledge that they accept what has been written on the scorecard so somebody can't later try to claim that they really got a faster time and accuse a judge of writing down a slower time than what they got.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 3, 2014)

Stefan said:


> It's a result, just not explicitly written down (I guess "DNS" can be entered if you prefer it written explicitly). Once it gets signed, it becomes a result. What else would it be? Also, look at the regulation:
> 
> _"A7c) The judge and competitor must both *sign *(or initial) the score sheet *to acknowledge the result*."_
> 
> When you signed, you acknowledged the result! If you don't think there's a result, why would you sign when the regulations make it clear that signing is for results?


I feel like you're trying to create some kind of bizarre bureaucratic argument to defend an opinion you already stated, and which you've now realized makes no sense. Every person I've talked to about scoresheets, and everyone I've worked with at competitions, has implicitly and automatically assumed that a blank scoresheet does not have results on it. When people enter results at a competition, or when they judge or scramble, they universally consider an empty score box to mean that no result has so far been recorded for that solve. If you need more evidence it isn't the same as a DNS, consider combined finals - surely "1:00 DNS DNS" and "1:00" are different results? And if blank means DNS, how could you possibly write the second one?

And yes, signing acknowledges the result. So, as people have already mentioned (did you read the thread?), signing before the result indicates that whatever it is, you will acknowledge it. The order does not matter, any more than it matters whether you sign a form before or after you fill it out.



Stefan said:


> Anyway... I believe nobody wants to hand out DNSes for this. The point is to stop people abusing the signing process.


Then, oh, I dunno, _don't hand out DNSes for this_. As I've said before, we can all just agree that a competitor who signs the scoresheet loses the right to officially dispute the written result.



Stefan said:


> I do know that idiom and hate it, get the feeling it gets thrown around far too often and easily and carelessly by people who think it makes them look cool and who just don't like any change. [snip]


I get the feeling you're dismissing people out of hand because you have a personal interest in the new regulations and won't let any criticisms or complaints get in the way. *A good idea will stand on its own, and does not need this much defending.* I don't dislike change but you have to actually make sure that the new idea is better, not just different.

To be honest, I'm not seeing a lot of actual arguments FOR the new changes. Nobody's answering the problems people have brought up. Instead I just see people like you and Lucas act condescending, make nonsensical semantic arguments, pretend there are no disagreements, and complain that people didn't pay enough attention in the five days between the draft being published and the new year. I really expect better from you guys, especially if you're going to control the regulations for the entire sport.



Stefan said:


> I'm not very much familiar with this case, but I tried both a while back and preferred the new notation and thought it's easier/clearer. And the old notation had the advantage of people being used to it, but that's a subjective short-term advantage, not necessarily an objective long-term advantage.


I've mentioned before why I think the new notation is objectively worse. Quickly, two reasons are that similar-looking commands mean very different things, and that it uses nonstandard ways of representing turn amounts and parts of the puzzle. Not to mention that the new style does not fix any of the supposed problems with the old style.


----------



## XTowncuber (Jan 3, 2014)

Basically my problem with this is that I have always enjoyed the not-so-uptight atmosphere at competitions. I like how we don't have to do everything exactly right, and that we don't have a regulation covering everything, and that we are ten times more concerned about having fun then we are about making sure regulations are followed perfectly. The new regulations seem like all they will do is make it harder for new competitors to join. (it's never any fun to be told that you're cube is not set up correctly and isn't competition legal)


And yes, I'm aware that this is a 100% terrible reason to oppose the changes 

I'm with those who say "If it ain't broke don't fix it." I think that it will make the system worse by complicating things to solve a theoretical problem (unless you have some instances of cheating to share with us).


----------



## Stefan (Jan 3, 2014)

qqwref said:


> I feel like you're trying to create some kind of bizarre bureaucratic argument to defend an opinion you already stated, and which you've now realized makes no sense.



No, I feel the opinion makes perfect sense and the added _"bureaucratic argument"_ was just to demonstrate that by accepting the regulations, you and others have already agreed.



qqwref said:


> Every person I've talked to about scoresheets, and everyone I've worked with at competitions, has implicitly and automatically assumed that a blank scoresheet does not have results on it.



I agree with that as well. But you're deflecting. This isn't about a blank scoresheet but about one with signatures on it.



qqwref said:


> surely "1:00 DNS DNS" and "1:00" are different results?



Yes.



qqwref said:


> And if blank means DNS, how could you possibly write the second one?



Is that a trick question?


1:00FredBarney....



qqwref said:


> (did you read the thread?)



Yes.



qqwref said:


> signing before the result indicates that *whatever it is*, you will acknowledge it.



In contrast to *whatever it will be*. Interesting that you do use the proper tense but don't realize what it means.



qqwref said:


> The order does not matter, any more than it matters whether you sign a form before or after you fill it out.



That's a crucially different scenario, and the order does matter a lot if you lose control of the form after signing it and before filling it out, like you usually do in our competitions. If you don't see how it matters, please sign the following form and then give it to me before filling it out:

[ ] Michael owes Stefan $1000.
[ ] Stefan owes Michael $1000.
Only valid if exactly one option is marked.
Michael's Signature: ______________
Stefan's Signature: ______________



qqwref said:


> Then, oh, I dunno, _don't hand out DNSes for this_. As I've said before, we can all just agree that a competitor who signs the scoresheet loses the right to officially dispute the written result.



I believe a major purpose for the whole signing thing is to fix mistakes right away when they can still be easily fixed (because the timer still shows the result) so that people won't even want to dispute anything (because it's all correct). And even if *you* check after pre-signing like Andrew or even if *you* would never dispute anything later on it would still be bad, as you're violating the regulations (at least in spirit) and setting a bad example. New cubers might see it and adopt it, not realizing the implications and then getting into trouble. It should be made clear right away that it's not good.



qqwref said:


> I get the feeling you're dismissing people out of hand because you have a personal interest in the new regulations



I don't know what kind of personal interest in the new regulations that would be. I wasn't involved, except maybe a few very small comments in the few threads I happened to peek into. I'm also not a good enough cuber anymore that any of them matter to me, with the exception of outlawing my Meffert megaminx, which I *dislike* (and I eagerly chose that in Lucas' poll. I'd say the reason I speak up is that I dislike bad arguments (no matter what they're for or against) and dislike disrespect for people who I know put lots of effort into making things better.



qqwref said:


> Nobody's answering the problems people have brought up



I don't think that's true, plus those working on stuff seem to be very busy working. Tons of WCA discussions/stuff in the last ten days or so, my email inbox is constantly being flooded with it.



qqwref said:


> Instead I just see people like you and Lucas act condescending, make nonsensical semantic arguments, pretend there are no disagreements



Yeah that must be the reason Lucas asked for feedback and said "[post=938247]a proposal to update the 2014 Regulations could have backing[/post]".



qqwref said:


> especially if you're going to control the regulations for the entire sport.



Again: I'm not really involved, let alone any kind of controlling it.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jan 3, 2014)

Remember, one could easily forge initials/draw an arrow down after the first solve on another competitor's score sheet. Then the sabotaged competitor would be violating A7c2 and would be forced to take DNSes. This does nothing to help prevent tapering of scoresheets.

Another option? Volunteer to input times. Boom, you now have control over everything and can easily "misplace" a competitor's scorecard.

My point, Stefan, is that signing is pointless. I much prefer my previous suggestion:



> I don't think competitor signing is needed at all. Judges should sign in case there's a case of bad handwriting or something.
> 
> I think that as soon as the competitor leaves the immediate area around the table, the competitor is considered to have agreed with the final time.


----------



## KongShou (Jan 3, 2014)

Can I suggest that something as big as a regulation change should take place over at least 6 months. There should be a community voting(Much earlier than the one we saw for this controversial rule change), then there should be revision and much drafting before it is to be made solid. The board should present valid and clear reason for each rule change, with plenty of justification that one cannot easily dispute. I'm not just sitting here telling the board what to do, I am simply trying to make this much more professional. Think about how an organisation like FIFA or IOC would handle rule changes. The point of rules is that they are solid and not easily changed, I think one of the reasons why so many people are upset is because of how easy it was to change the regulations. It was done in less than a month as far as I am concerned and there seem to be minimal community input. The whole foundation of cubing has just been changed over a closed vote inside the WCA. I know that there is still time for it to be revised, but since it is already official the harm has already been done if there was any. I simply hope that the board would behave and operate more professionally in the future.


----------



## Erik (Jan 4, 2014)

I agree with you on the fact that there was not enough feedback requested or taken into advantage. An association-wide poll on every change however, is close to madness. Most cubers are underage and/or do not have the experience and/or lack the skill too oversee the consequences of changes. Let alone the question if all cubers are even considering the friendly, sportsmanship spirit of the WCA. 

The way it was done right know is not good either. There has to be a bigger team to get high-quality feedback from than just the WRC or the delegates (remember: delegates are not often very experienced or good at overthinking regulation-changes (this does not imply they are bad delegates though)). As I understand from a post Lars V made, he did not really have any influence on the changes the WRC was planning, nor did the WRC ask him any feedback (please correct me if I am wrong, I am sure there are some nuances here). 
And that is just Lars...


----------



## Dene (Jan 4, 2014)

Erik said:


> I agree with you on the fact that there was not enough feedback requested or taken into advantage. An association-wide poll on every change however, is close to madness. Most cubers are underage and/or do not have the experience and/or lack the skill too oversee the consequences of changes. Let alone the question if all cubers are even considering the friendly, sportsmanship spirit of the WCA.
> 
> The way it was done right know is not good either. There has to be a bigger team to get high-quality feedback from than just the WRC or the delegates (remember: delegates are not often very experienced or good at overthinking regulation-changes (this does not imply they are bad delegates though)). As I understand from a post Lars V made, he did not really have any influence on the changes the WRC was planning, nor did the WRC ask him any feedback (please correct me if I am wrong, I am sure there are some nuances here).
> And that is just Lars...



I also agree with you, and previously brought up my concerns about this with the delegates and WRC. As a consequence of the discussion Lucas started an issue on github, to which I provided my own semi-lengthy response.

However the ultimate problem remains that people doing this are all volunteers dedicating their personal time to the task rather than other endeavours. While it would be nice in theory to have proper protocols and processes in place for dealing with regulation changes, it's difficult to implement in practise without a dedicated team who do it as an actual job, rather than in their spare time.

This thread is as good as any other place for progressing this discussion, so let's all put our heads together and see where things go.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 4, 2014)

Dene said:


> However the ultimate problem remains that people doing this are all volunteers dedicating their personal time to the task rather than other endeavours.


I completely agree that this is a problem. However, given that we have a relatively small number of people who are donating their free time, I would like the effect of that to be that we change our regulations slower than some people would like. The current effect seems to be that we make important changes and don't have time to make sure the community agrees with them. Basically, we're prioritizing the wrong part of the process.


----------



## Kian (Jan 4, 2014)

The only thing I am willing to say publicly on the matter is that I feel that, in an effort to be more transparent and open about the process, the rules-making procedures have become too democratic. I would like to see fewer people who are well versed in cubing discuss and write the regulations, with more limited input from the delegate list (which is largely counterproductive because of its wide scope, I believe). I believe the WCA Board is uniquely equipped to handle this. Too many people writing regulations can make for a complicated, inefficient mess. I feel it would behoove us to be able to slow down our general process, but be capable of acting quickly when it is absolutely necessary. A small group of informed persons (the board, in this case) grants us that flexibility.

Just my two cents. There is no perfect plan, of course. I realize my opinion that the process is too open is informed by my participation as a delegate, and might not seem the same to someone in a different position. I am basically arguing that someone in my capacity should have less influence in most instances.


----------



## Erik (Jan 4, 2014)

Kian said:


> The only thing I am willing to say publicly on the matter is that I feel that, in an effort to be more transparent and open about the process, the rules-making procedures have become too democratic.



Really? Too democratic? Please tell me about how the WRC was "chosen" by the community. 
Also please tell me about how all delegates were involved in this.

Being transparent is the least the WRC and WCA can do for the community as they still only exist because the community acknowledges them. Imho the process is still not transparent and structured enough.


----------



## Sin-H (Jan 4, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Instead of coming up with carefully balanced standards that apply regardless of event, the vote went to be strict for BLD (don't allow anything distinguishable by touch) while allowing looser standards for sighted events.


And then, in order to make it "consistent", be strict in all events next year, like we did with the 6-color cubes?


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 6, 2014)

I also feel like the WCA has turned into a book of law where the lawmakers have made some VERY questionable decisions this time. I have felt like the regulations have gotten more and more bloated over the years but this year....wow. I am really happy to hear so many people complain about it. But instead of making a giant list of things that I think should be discussed (and changed) I would like to ask a very serious question: 

Would it be appreciated if I would go through the entire regulations and would try to greatly simplify them?

I am basically planning on looking through all the regulations with the glasses of a newb that would like to have fun, not the lawmakers fineprint that is written


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jan 6, 2014)

I agree with everything in Lars's post, but I feel most strongly about:



jazzthief81 said:


> I don't like how the poll system was used in some instances. [...] I think this is a wrong representation of the facts.


----------



## Dene (Jan 6, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> I am basically planning on looking through all the regulations with the glasses of a newb that would like to have fun, not the lawmakers fineprint that is written



All good and well until Kuti II comes along.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 6, 2014)

Pre-signing: I don't know why this is such a major point.
Pre-signing was never meant to be allowed. There was just an explicit penalty added so that a competitor is disincentivized to try to bypass signing each attempt individually (and hopefully checking the time). I don't expect to see a single DNS out of this, but it provides a clear answer to "can I be lazy and sign the entire round ahead of time?"



KongShou said:


> Can I suggest that something as big as a regulation change should take place over at least 6 months. There should be a community voting(Much earlier than the one we saw for this controversial rule change), then there should be revision and much drafting before it is to be made solid. The board should present valid and clear reason for each rule change, with plenty of justification that one cannot easily dispute. I'm not just sitting here telling the board what to do, I am simply trying to make this much more professional.



The Board does not make the rules, but they approve the changes. That is the role of the WRC. I'm all for doing this stuff earlier in the year and announcing planned changes early, but we need people to help draft those changes.



Dene said:


> I also agree with you, and previously brought up my concerns about this with the delegates and WRC. As a consequence of the discussion Lucas started an issue on github, to which I provided my own semi-lengthy response.



That's a good start, and thanks for making it. It's not completely practical without some changes; see below for some of the reasons.



Erik said:


> Being transparent is the least the WRC and WCA can do for the community as they still only exist because the community acknowledges them. Imho the process is still not transparent and structured enough.



In the past Ron simply made the changes he thought were appropriate enough. I worked the last year to make sure that *everything* is documented on GitHub: https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues?state=open.

The process is transparent, but it's missing the important step of being proactively communicative, which is what I think you really want.




Kian said:


> Too many people writing regulations can make for a complicated, inefficient mess. I feel it would behoove us to be able to slow down our general process, but be capable of acting quickly when it is absolutely necessary. A small group of informed persons (the board, in this case) grants us that flexibility..



Indeed, I've made many small fixes that no one ever notices because they simply *fix things* that don't need discussion. The tricky part is figuring out what needs discussion.

It might sound cynical, but I've learned that most competitors *don't actually care* about changes in the Regulations except for a few specific details. Further, almost no one knows how to write a decent proposal. Most people who care enough to help bring about a change are too lost in the cause to lead a balanced discussion of it (I try very hard to avoid this myself, but sometimes even I can't tell apart my WRC-official stance from my personal views), and I can't recall a single proposed change that I haven't had to edit (e.g. simplify phrasing, use consistent words, fix formatting).

In practice, that means that I'm:

 Tracking the forum, emails to the WRC, and Delegate emails for all possible topics (every issue gets filed on GitHub).
 Trying to keep discussions productive when they occur naturally.
 Handling proposed changes, arguments for/against, specific wording details.
 Figuring out how much discussion/voting a change needs.
 Updating the Regulations and publishing them on the site.
 Supporting translations.
 Announcing changes and responding to feedback.
 Overseeing TNoodle (the scramble program), and sometimes even working on it.

The 2014 changes came so late because 1) I have a life, and 2) I was busy with the first half of those things before I 3) spent all of my spare time in December on the Regulations.
That included starting discussions on the forum and Delegate list based on things that had been brought up this year. Because we're very good at bike shedding, it's important to bring up the right topics. Typo fixes should happen without discussion, while controversial changes need discussion at first but then at some point simply need a decision (i.e. Board vote) based on existing arguments. And while speedsolving.com is the best place we have for community discussions, it's biased towards English speakers, and can easily let a few loud members influence the appearance of community views.

There logo puzzle changes are a good example of something that wasn't supposed to affect competitors too much (part of cleaning up legacy Regulations by removing outdated allowances that aren't really used), but accidentally caught everyone because it turns out mf8 tiles are over 1mm thick. Apart from that, I think the changes turned out reasonable.
I think some people are still upset because the first 2014 speedsolving.com post about logos featured a proposal with very strict changes, and the whole "strict" thing hasn't gotten out of their minds. This was originally meant as a starting point for discussing how far the logo Regulations can be cleaned up. From my first mail to the Delegates list about that topic:



> Questions about logos have come up multiple times this year, including Aug. 13, 2013, and Apr. 29, and Oct. 20, 2012. I think the only fair thing we can do is be very strict about what weird logo variations we allow, as long as we still allow the most common use cases. Below, I've copied a possible change.
> ...
> Have any of you guys seen logos that you think are very reasonable, but would become forbidden by this change?
> Are there any weird things that this change doesn't address?
> ...


(The tiles change came from puzzle changes that were eventually rolled into the logo discussion -- because "or the generally available thickness" was an outdated phrase in the Regulations.)



Back to that list of things I do: Things are getting better.

 Sarah is starting to help on quite a few things, and very familiar with the community.
 Tim joined to help maintain the web part of the Regulations
 Jeremy works hard on TNoodle, with a lot of awesome help from Chen Shuang.
 Noah proposed the Mean of 3 BLD ranking by following a good process.
 Kit Clement helped figure out a few changes, including starting the logo thread and helping clean up some Regulations abotu stopwatches. He's also great at distilling things to a point where level-headed discussion is reasonable.
 Philippe Virouleau just started helping work on the Regulations (site + translations) build process.

Very few people realize that there is nothing special to the WRC. We have the following "exclusive" privileges:

 Being on the Delegate list for discussions.
 Being on a WRC mailing list to be available for questions, and very occasionally for internal discussion/decisions.
 Two of us have access to the WCA website for uploading the Regulations.

The Delegate list is a a tricky thing (I'd like it to be open, but discussions sometimes stem from incidents in Delegate reports), but basically any community member can do what any WRC member can do. Even/especially on GitHub, where the changes literally happen.
Apart from Kit, I haven't seen anyone doing that. While everyone is welcome to argue their viewpoint, it would be *very* valuable if some community members tried to focus on the part of the work that causes actually changes to land in the Regulations (i.e. not just arguing your point of view).

It's fair to critisize the current process, but only if you care about making it better.


----------



## DrKorbin (Jan 6, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> ...



So what is the reason for forbidding printed/painted colors? I can't see any reason for that, and also I can't see a discussion on a github concerning that (#13 and #33 say nothing about painted and printed colors).


----------



## Evan Wright (Jan 6, 2014)

That was one i do not get at all. how will you have an advantage by using painted cubes?

btw hey bob i learned pll from your website


----------



## Radu (Jan 6, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> Would it be appreciated if I would go through the entire regulations and would try to greatly simplify them?
> 
> I am basically planning on looking through all the regulations with the glasses of a newb that would like to have fun, not the lawmakers fineprint that is written


Personally, I am happy to read this post. I'm not going to go into details why, but I would appreciate it! 

You have enough experience to do this and all what it takes. I really appreciate and understand all the efforts and time spent by Lucas and the others, but maybe such a 2nd view would be useful. 
And to be honest, even for me, as a delegate, it's quite difficult to go into all the details of the current regulations. I consider they've become quite hard to read and difficult to know all of them. For someone new I'm sure it would be even harder.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 6, 2014)

Radu said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > Would it be appreciated if I would go through the entire regulations and would try to greatly simplify them?
> ...



2013 was a first pass to simplify things without changing the main structure. The Regulations could be simplified a more, but we'd need a clear place to put the "extra" stuff. The Guidelines are one place, but we don't have a clear place on the WCA site, say, to put the requirements for organizers. At least everything is *somewhere* in the Regulations or Guidelines right now, so the last thing I want is to split up information so that no one knows where it is (much less what it is). We can fix that (e.g. new WCA navigation, central pages with links), but that takes time and help.

I'd like to note that moving things around a lot will invalidate old discussions (and links) because of renumbering. That may be worth it if the results is clearly good enough, but it is something to be aware of.

Also, are you aware of Sarah's effort to create a "lite" version of the Regulations?


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 7, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> 2013 was a first pass to simplify things without changing the main structure. The Regulations could be simplified a more, but we'd need a clear place to put the "extra" stuff. The Guidelines are one place, but we don't have a clear place on the WCA site, say, to put the requirements for organizers. At least everything is *somewhere* in the Regulations or Guidelines right now, so the last thing I want is to split up information so that no one knows where it is (much less what it is). We can fix that (e.g. new WCA navigation, central pages with links), but that takes time and help.
> 
> I'd like to note that moving things around a lot will invalidate old discussions (and links) because of renumbering. That may be worth it if the results is clearly good enough, but it is something to be aware of.
> 
> Also, are you aware of Sarah's effort to create a "lite" version of the Regulations?


Yes I am  http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...itor-Must-Know&p=939556&viewfull=1#post939556

As a fellow coder I think that having github for this is great. But I also know that if you shake things up too much these version tracking systems can be limiting. Don't worry, I understand what you are asking of me.


----------



## Natanrig (Jan 7, 2014)

I have come to post here as it has been here where so many thoughtless and thankless opinions have been expressed.

I have seen delegates, WRC members and Board members put in 1000+ hours into the 2014 regulation changes, but I have yet to see a post thanking them for the work and time they have selflessly devoted to this with no intent other than to serve the community and to make our passion more fun and fair. I mostly see senseless, half-baked ideas and arguments being thrown around. So, here is my personal take on some of these issues. I hope this serves to enlighten people as to our motives and reasoning.

1. Logoes and BLD events
What great ill have we done the community here? Not because other things cannot be regulated/enforced does it mean that we should not do this for things that can easily be. And let us be honest in our arguments. Who has a cube with different tensioning on one face so that it may be used to orient it blindfolded? Or is anyone really planning on changing their tensioning for this? How hard can it be to recognize your cube if you put a little paper marker under one of the caps? Seriously, if someone is really complaining about this, get some perspective.

2. Thick tiles
This is a point where I will take most of the responsibility. My limited experience with the Latin community is what prompted me to suggest that we should make this consistent with the rest of the regulations in the sense that back colors should not be visible. The Latin community being “young”, I had seen very few people using tiled puzzles and I assumed this was similar elsewhere. I admit that I was wrong and that this change affected many more people than I expected. However, the need for consistency remains and this change has to be effected sooner or later (as much as pillowed 7x7s have to go). There are talks now of a phase-out period, so we shall wait and see what comes of them.

3. FMC mean of three
How is this decision to the detriment of fun or fairness? Should we please blindfolded solvers and skewb fans and anybody else as long as they are not Board members? Resenting official recognition to others is pathetic. Will records cease to be records if they are not officially acknowledged? Perspective again, or has anybody been terribly wronged by this?

4. Painted/printed colors
Sure, if people have nothing better to do than gripe and be a pain, they will complain about this change. People will gripe if we are too specific and people will gripe if we try to simplify. How low does the percentage of people hypothetically affected has to be for us to be allowed to introduce a simplification?

I am sure the frustration and discontent can be felt throughout this post, but please take a second to really put yourselves in our shoes. You wouldn’t be all smiles if you had put in so much work and effort into something so little appreciated either, or if you had to see people call the product of so much work "nonsense", "bulls--t" and other less than flattering adjectives. If anybody feels offended by my post, it is probably because the shoe fits, and their whining and nitpicking is as little appreciated as our efforts apparently are.

-Natán


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 7, 2014)

Natanrig said:


> Who has a cube with different tensioning on one face so that it may be used to orient it blindfolded? Or is anyone really planning on changing their tensioning for this?


This is slightly off topic: Even without considering the new regulations on logos, what is preventing people from doing this tension "hack"? In fact, should we even be preventing this?


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 7, 2014)

Robert-Y said:


> This is slightly off topic: Even without considering the new regulations on logos, what is preventing people from doing this tension "hack"? In fact, should we even be preventing this?



I'd love to see someone try to come up with a practical and reasonable way to prevent it. Aside from my 6x6/7x7, I never put significant effort into tensioning cubes, and so my cubes naturally tend to have uneven tensions. As it is, I can already figure out my orientation on my main 3x3 blindfolded, and not because of anything intentional.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 7, 2014)

Natanrig said:


> I have seen delegates, WRC members and Board members put in 1000+ hours into the 2014 regulation changes, but I have yet to see a post thanking them for the work and time they have selflessly devoted to this with no intent other than to serve the community and to make our passion more fun and fair. I mostly see senseless, half-baked ideas and arguments being thrown around. So, here is my personal take on some of these issues. I hope this serves to enlighten people as to our motives and reasoning.
> 
> 
> 1. Logoes and BLD events
> ...


You have seen 1000+ hours of work and I am sure that is true. I would personally like to thank everyone for their work as they are indeed not thanked for this much. From a community point of view we haven't really seen or heard anything from all this though and we feel like lots of decisions where suddenly dropped on us at the very end of the year and became active very soon after. I personally cannot imagine that the regulation changes itself required so much work. From a software-development-point-of-view I would say that a projectmanager should have been assigned and stepped in. So the entire backend was changed/cleaned up but did it actually accomplish any user-facing goal or should this work just be seen as improving the base?


1. If you want to prevent cheating you start with the big things first. This rule adds a rule but doesn't make cheating more difficult. Tensioning is one option but modding and under-the-sticker-feeling is just as easy. This rule seems like DRM: You try to prevent cheating but cheating will still be possible in another way while at the same time you are putting a burden on all the honest people.
2. Thank you for explaining why you suggested this and for not pushing it through. I don't see this pressing need for consistency but I am going to submit an alternative proposal tonight as I wrote previously.
3. I have addressed this in great detail in another thread and in posts to the board. The summary is that I think this event is now more inconsistent than before and that to many changes were made at the same time that created an event that isn't the event most people want it to be.
4. Most people don't understand why this rule is needed at all and I actually haven't seen an explanation for it yet. I read this entire thread but didn't find it. Again this rule seems to have no benefit for the competitor and means people cannot use their current cube anymore.


I understand that sometimes rules need to be made to keep things fair and consistent but if the rule doesn't achieve it's goal and has side-effects that influence competitors directly it probably should be stopped. These rules are made with good intentions but if the results are mostly negative it will be seen as bloat/bureaucracy and that point seems to have been reached.


I am not taking an armchair position on this. I will get actively involved and hope that I will be able to make some changes that will benefit competitors while still promoting fair sportsmanship


----------



## Dene (Jan 7, 2014)

Natanrig said:


> I have seen delegates, WRC members and Board members put in 1000+ hours into the 2014 regulation changes, but I have yet to see a post thanking them for the work and time they have selflessly devoted to this with no intent other than to serve the community and to make our passion more fun and fair. I mostly see senseless, half-baked ideas and arguments being thrown around. So, here is my personal take on some of these issues. I hope this serves to enlighten people as to our motives and reasoning.



Hi Natan,

I just wanted to respond to this based on my own experience.

One has to be careful when resenting the negative feedback of the community. The vast majority of people (myself previously included) have no idea of the functioning of the WCA in terms of regulations, the board and the WRC. One cannot expect people on an open forum such as this to come up with objections/arguments against regulation changes that are thorough and take all aspects into consideration, when they have no idea what goes into things in the first place.

In fact, this is the perfect place for "half-baked ideas and arguments" to be discussed and fleshed out until they become something tangible with the guidance of more informed members of the community. It might not be pretty or nice to read through, but this is the best platform for discussions about changes, past and future, to be had. With any luck, these can turn into productive discussions that lead to real, positive change.

I would recommend you don't read too much into what people say, as they are naive to the hard-work realities of what goes into this organisation. Instead, focus on what productive things can come out of what you see on here.


----------



## XTowncuber (Jan 7, 2014)

Natanrig said:


> 4. Painted/printed colors
> Sure, if people have nothing better to do than gripe and be a pain, they will complain about this change. People will gripe if we are too specific and people will gripe if we try to simplify. How low does the percentage of people hypothetically affected has to be for us to be allowed to introduce a simplification?


Will someone please tell me why this change was made? Anybody?


----------



## cubizh (Jan 7, 2014)

XTowncuber said:


> Will someone please tell me why this change was made? Anybody?


The regulations commit of the logo changes is detailed here. 
For the discussion that triggered it, see issues #13 and #33 for further details.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 7, 2014)

uberCuber said:


> I'd love to see someone try to come up with a practical and reasonable way to prevent it. Aside from my 6x6/7x7, I never put significant effort into tensioning cubes, and so my cubes naturally tend to have uneven tensions. As it is, I can already figure out my orientation on my main 3x3 blindfolded, and not because of anything intentional.


This is exactly the reason that I wrote my (future) proposal the way I did. Almost every cube contains some anomalies that make cheating possible. Having such anomalies shouldn't be prevented. It is the abuse of such anomalies that should be prevented (which is impossible) and punished


----------



## XTowncuber (Jan 7, 2014)

cubizh said:


> The regulations commit of the logo changes is detailed here.
> For the discussion that triggered it, see issues #13 and #33 for further details.


I still can't see the place where they discussed that change. Painted colors are not the same as colored plastic.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 7, 2014)

cubizh said:


> The regulations commit of the logo changes is detailed here.
> For the discussion that triggered it, see issues #13 and #33 for further details.


I read the commit changes where it just seems that all references to paint disappeared. I also read #13 and #33 and didn't read any explanation. Having this access to the regulations is great and is a real eye-opener. But I am either missing the point of these links or there simply was no reason for removing paint


----------



## cubizh (Jan 7, 2014)

XTowncuber said:


> I still can't see the place where they discussed that change. Painted colors are not the same as colored plastic.





AvGalen said:


> I read the commit changes where it just seems that all references to paint disappeared. I also read #13 and #33 and didn't read any explanation. Having this access to the regulations is great and is a real eye-opener. But I am either missing the point of these links or there simply was no reason for removing paint


Unfortunately that was all I could find regarding the subject. 
More discussion on logos was held in this thread, but not specifically regarding painted stickers.
Perhaps I am missing something which is a strong possibility, of course.
But for the moment, your guess is as good as mine.


----------

