# [WRC] How to Provide Feedback on the draft of the new Regulations



## Vincents (Sep 12, 2012)

The draft of the new Regulations is being released for a two-week community review period:


 Download wca-regulations-2012.md and wca-guidelines-2012.md
 Open the files in a good plain text editor (e.g. Notepad++ or Sublime Text, *not* Notepad.exe), read through and make any suggested changes. If you have any open concerns, you can add "[NOTE: This is a note]".
 Send the files to Lucas / the WRC. We will add them to the repository, so we can view your changes/notes and discuss them.

Please keep notes constructive. We made quite a few changes, none of them light-heartedly. You may also post in this thread, but if you'd like propose any specific changes (WORDING IS IMPORTANT), follow the process above.

Please note that the Regulations are accompanied by the Competition Guidelines. Many of the suggestions (e.g. organizers should prepare awards) have been moved to Guidelines, so that's why you don't see those in the Regulations.

- The WCA Regulations Committee

-----

Some important changes (not guaranteed to be a complete list):

For Competitors:

 A4e), A6i) Penalties are cumulative.
 Guideline 11e) Competitors may keep solving during appeals.
 No slice moves for Rubik's Cube: Fewest Moves.
 If a regional record is broken multiple times on the same day, only the best one counts.

For Judges/Scramblers

Stopwatch results under 10:00 are measured to 100ths.
 H1b2) 10-second warning for the end of multi BLD; any cubes in hand will count as DNF.
 4d1) Scrambling: Black is *not* to be treated as white.

For Organizers/Delegates:

 1c3a) All scrambles from competitions must be saved and submitted with the results.
 1c) Most responsibilities and powers are now assigned to the Delegate, who may assign them to others.
 Guideline 2d) Competitor birthdates and contact info is private.
 A2c1) Using scorecards as covers is no longer permitted. Organizers should prepare sufficient cube covers before the competition. (In an emergency, properly folded paper can be used to make impromptu covers.)
 Video evidence is now allowed.


----------



## Dene (Sep 12, 2012)

Is it possible to get a list of the changes you have made from the previous regulations? Or do we just have to open up both copies to compare everything closely?


----------



## nccube (Sep 12, 2012)

I guess it would be a good idea to delete the regulations concerning Magics, as they will not be official next year.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Sep 12, 2012)

nccube said:


> I guess it would be a good idea to delete the regulations concerning Magics, as they will not be official next year.



The intention is to have these released and official before 2013.


----------



## Mikel (Sep 12, 2012)

Vincents said:


> - Send the files to Lucas.



Could you provide the best way to do this?


----------



## Vincents (Sep 12, 2012)

Mikel said:


> Could you provide the best way to do this?



The WRC email is [email protected].


----------



## Vincents (Sep 12, 2012)

Dene said:


> Is it possible to get a list of the changes you have made from the previous regulations? Or do we just have to open up both copies to compare everything closely?



Hi Dene,

We had a document where we marked off all changes and deletions, but the entire thing got so messy (I'd be surprised if even 5% of the Regulations have been untouched) that we didn't consider it useful anymore. I would suggest reading this as a whole new set of Regulations.

Some big things that I can think of right now:
- Removal of the main organizer, and transferal of most powers to the Delegate. The Delegate may then delegate duties as s/he sees fit.
- Moving of the Article on awards to Guidelines.
- Change in the requirements for hosting a competition. Most of the suggested old limits have also been moved to Guidelines.
- All penalties are now cumulative.
- How to deal with StackMat Pro times.
- "Stickerless" GuHongs (and similar) explicitly banned.
- Arbitrary orientation prior to inspection.
- How to deal with puzzle defects post-attempt.
- etc etc. (there are many more)


----------



## Dene (Sep 12, 2012)

10e3) If one move is required, the puzzle shall be considered solved with a time penalty (+2 seconds).


----------



## Noahaha (Sep 12, 2012)

Vincents said:


> - All penalties are now cumulative.
> ...
> - "Stickerless" GuHongs (and similar) explicitly banned.



Does this mean 2 +2s make a +4?

The second one is a great decision. My opinion is that stickerless actually helps MORE for blind than for speedsolving since seeing back colors eliminates cube rotations during memo (I've tried it).


----------



## ben1996123 (Sep 13, 2012)

What if someone gets a 59:59 6/6 +2 in multibld, is it 1:00:01?


----------



## BlueDevil (Sep 13, 2012)

- 5b3c) If the puzzle is unsolvable, and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner piece, the competitor may correct the corner piece by twisting it in place without disassembling the puzzle.

Glad this has been explicitly referenced. I also support this rule.


----------



## Vincents (Sep 13, 2012)

The +2 debate is coming.


----------



## Julian (Sep 13, 2012)

5b3c) If the puzzle is unsolvable, and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner piece, the competitor may correct the corner piece by twisting it in place without disassembling the puzzle.

I like this, but I think problems can arise. If you get to OLL with just one twisted corner (and you would have had supermanOLL), you will almost always twist into place the remaining corner. This could conceivably give you an unfair advantage.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 13, 2012)

2ae <3


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Sep 13, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> 2ae <3



Which one is that? I may just be incompetent, but I can't find a 2ae


----------



## Stefan (Sep 13, 2012)

Vincents said:


> We had a document where we marked off all changes and deletions, but the entire thing got so messy (I'd be surprised if even 5% of the Regulations have been untouched) that we didn't consider it useful anymore.



Challenge accepted!
http://www.stefan-pochmann.info/diff.html
Wow that took me way too long.


----------



## BlueDevil (Sep 13, 2012)

Julian said:


> 5b3c) If the puzzle is unsolvable, and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner piece, the competitor may correct the corner piece by twisting it in place without disassembling the puzzle.
> 
> I like this, but I think problems can arise. If you get to OLL with just one twisted corner (and you would have had supermanOLL), you will almost always twist into place the remaining corner. This could conceivably give you an unfair advantage.


At this point your cube would have had to pop, so I don't think the difference between an OLL skip and performing an OLL is a huge difference, the time will be lousy anyway.


----------



## Noahaha (Sep 13, 2012)

BlueDevil said:


> At this point your cube would have had to pop, so I don't think the difference between an OLL skip and performing an OLL is a huge difference, the time will be lousy anyway.



Not true. I twist corners by accident all the time.


----------



## BlueDevil (Sep 13, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> Not true. I twist corners by accident all the time.



well then I guess that's an issue. The regulations say the fix can't give you an extra advantage, but if you were going to get an OLL skip anyway, then it technically isn't an advantage. Don't know if an extra regulation could properly cover this issue...


----------



## PandaCuber (Sep 13, 2012)

Wow I read the entire thing lol. 
Whats this about the Logo? I didnt get it. What if i have a cube without a logo in the center?


----------



## Noahaha (Sep 13, 2012)

BlueDevil said:


> well then I guess that's an issue. The regulations say the fix can't give you an extra advantage, but if you were going to get an OLL skip anyway, then it technically isn't an advantage. Don't know if an extra regulation could properly cover this issue...



It's an issue if you would get 2-corners twisted, but instead you get one and it ends up being an OLL skip. I think that a twisted corner without a pop should be a DNF since it's very easy to twist corners by "accident". I don't know if anyone else remembers this, but at Yale Fall 2012 there was a head to head and Rowe's cube was scrambled with a twisted corner. IIRC he got a sub-10 anyway and no one could tell that he fixed a corner twist.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 13, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> IIRC he got a sub-10 anyway and no one could tell that he fixed a corner twist.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAdGl3byCC8


----------



## AustinReed (Sep 13, 2012)

I never understood why people freak out about the removal of stickerless cubes. They obviously provide some advantage, and therefore it needs to be definitely removed.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 13, 2012)

AustinReed said:


> They obviously provide some advantage, and therefore it needs to be definitely removed.



So should we remove all cubes better than the original Rubik's ones?


----------



## JasonK (Sep 13, 2012)

3d1) Exception: Competitors with a medically documented visual disability may use textured puzzles with different textures on different faces. Textures/patterns must be uniform per face. Each face should have a distinct colours, to aid in scrambling and judging.

This should probably be clarified to exclude blindfold solving. I know blind people are unlikely to be competing in BLD, just seems like something that should be mentioned.


----------



## Noahaha (Sep 13, 2012)

Stefan said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAdGl3byCC8



Twist-corner might be the fastest OLL.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 13, 2012)

JasonK said:


> 3d1) Exception: Competitors with a medically documented visual disability may use textured puzzles with different textures on different faces. Textures/patterns must be uniform per face. Each face should have a distinct colours, to aid in scrambling and judging.
> 
> This should probably be clarified to exclude blindfold solving. I know blind people are unlikely to be competing in BLD, just seems like something that should be mentioned.



_B1d) The competitor must use a puzzle without textures, markings, or other features that distinguish similar pieces._

But yeah, it's not clear which rule wins.


----------



## riffz (Sep 13, 2012)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> Which one is that? I may just be incompetent, but I can't find a 2ae



I think he meant 2a3:


> - 2a) Any person may compete in a WCA competition if he:
> ...
> - 2a3) Is not suspended by WCA Board.



EDIT: He meant A2e.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 13, 2012)

riffz said:


> I think he meant 2a3:



That regulation has been there already, though, and was highly unlikely to be changed/removed, so I doubt Thom would express joy about it still being there.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Sep 13, 2012)

riffz said:


> I think he meant 2a3:



That's what I originally thought too, but as Stefan pointed out, there's no real reason (that I can see) Thom would be excited about that regulation.


----------



## Ranzha (Sep 13, 2012)

Thank the gods for 5b3c. #apologies


----------



## Dene (Sep 13, 2012)

Stefan said:


> Challenge accepted!
> http://www.stefan-pochmann.info/diff.html
> Wow that took me way too long.



I love you.


----------



## Vincents (Sep 13, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> Twist-corner might be the fastest OLL.



You can only twist corners if you suffered a "puzzle defect" (which is a section I intend to clarify in the future anyway). If it wasn't a defect and you just twisted it, well, DNF. And if it was intentional, I would highly suggest taking up another hobby, because I don't think you'd be allowed to compete for a while.


----------



## Godmil (Sep 13, 2012)

Oooh, Kirjava, have you noticed this one:
"4b1) Generated scrambles must not be inspected before the competition, and must not be filtered or selected in any way by the WCA Delegate."


I notice they've changed from Half Turn Metrics to Block Turn Metrics.... can anyone explain the different to me please, they sound the same.


----------



## DrKorbin (Sep 13, 2012)

Godmil said:


> I notice they've changed from Half Turn Metrics to Block Turn Metrics.... can anyone explain the different to me please, they sound the same.



I think M, E, S moves are not allowed in FMC now. And for 6x6 and 7x7 2R move changed to 2Rw (or just Rw), 3R to 3Rw.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 13, 2012)

Oops, I meant A2e. ^_^



Godmil said:


> Oooh, Kirjava, have you noticed this one:
> "4b1) Generated scrambles must not be inspected before the competition, and must not be filtered or selected in any way by the WCA Delegate."



This doesn't stop the WCA from applying their own filters to the scramblers, this just removes any inconsistency.


----------



## Erik (Sep 13, 2012)

Thank you Stefan for making the changes visible, it must've been a lot of work! 
I've read and reviewed the regulations and have send it back to the WRC with my comments. I hope some things will be changed because of them.


----------



## Noahaha (Sep 13, 2012)

Vincents said:


> You can only twist corners if you suffered a "puzzle defect" (which is a section I intend to clarify in the future anyway). If it wasn't a defect and you just twisted it, well, DNF.



Sounds good.


----------



## Erik (Sep 13, 2012)

Vincents said:


> You can only twist corners if you suffered a "puzzle defect"



No. This can happen during scrambling too. I've had it a few times in competition on loose cubes. It results in an extra attempt.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 13, 2012)

Erik said:


> This can happen during scrambling too. I've had it a few times in competition on loose cubes.



How do you know it was during scrambling, and you didn't accidentally twist it while solving? I probably do the latter more often than the former. And even if *you* believe that it wasn't you but the scramblers, how do you convince the judge?


----------



## Dene (Sep 13, 2012)

Erik said:


> No. This can happen during scrambling too. I've had it a few times in competition on loose cubes. It results in an extra attempt.



In this case, without any proof that the corner was twisted during solving (how could you possibly prove that after the solve?), the decision I make as delegate is to blame the competitor for using such a loose cube, and I DNF the solve if they left the corner twisted (or go with the time the competitor got if they fully solved it in the end).


----------



## riffz (Sep 13, 2012)

Dene said:


> In this case, without any proof that the corner was twisted during solving (how could you possibly prove that after the solve?), the decision I make as delegate is to blame the competitor for using such a loose cube, and I DNF the solve if they left the corner twisted (or go with the time the competitor got if they fully solved it in the end).



I think that this is a reasonable course of action. We can't just give competitors more solves because they claim a corner was twisted during scrambling. Given that we can't review video evidence, it is way to easy to quickly and subtly twist a corner when you know a solve is going to be slow and request and a new one.

I guess that creates the problem of needing scramblers we can trust to be responsible and careful. At all of the competitions I've been to, pretty much anyone can volunteer to scramble. What if you wanted to sabotage one your fellow competitor's solves to ruin their average and increase your chances of winning?


----------



## Ickathu (Sep 13, 2012)

- 3i) "Pillowed" and other modified versions of puzzles are permitted only if the modification does not make any additional information available to the competitor (e.g. identity of pieces), as compared to an unmodified version of the same puzzle.

How can it be pillowed without giving away information from other pieces? This is gonna be a problem, I think, because people are going to see this as open to interpretation and then get mad when they can't use their main because the delegate thinks it makes other info available and the competitor does not. Don't you think?


----------



## Stefan (Sep 13, 2012)

riffz said:


> I guess that creates the problem of needing scramblers we can trust to be responsible and careful.



Here's an idea to help against this problem, other scramble mistakes (wrong turns, or even applying the wrong scramble resulting in repetitions), and cheating and forgetting to solve the cube before handing it in: We could print the eight corner stickers on U and D on the score sheet, and the judge checks them. Can be printed on the back, or on the side next to each scramble and then folded to the back. And it could be done with all cube sizes and similarly with other puzzles.

Or at least the four corner stickers on U, which would catch half of the accidental corner twists and still be good against other scramble mistakes and cheating and forgetting to solve beforehand, plus it's even quicker and can be checked without taking the cube out of the cover box.


----------



## Erik (Sep 13, 2012)

Stefan said:


> How do you know it was during scrambling, and you didn't accidentally twist it while solving? I probably do the latter more often than the former. And even if *you* believe that it wasn't you but the scramblers, how do you convince the judge?



Ron was my judge the last time, feel free to discuss it with him. He and me were both convinced I didn't twist any corner during the solve, it is the judge's responsibility to check that I don't do anything illegal.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 13, 2012)

Erik said:


> it is the judge's responsibility to make sure I don't do anything illegal.



If I see you do something illegal, I know that you have done something illegal.
If I *don't* see you do something illegal, I *don't* know that you haven't.

But yes, it depends on the case, and if your judges were convinced, then they were. Though I'd say you're not quite representative, as both your ability and your sincerity are deservedly more trusted than the average nobody's.

Of course you were right about your (main?) point that it can happen during scrambling, I'm just saying that it doesn't and shouldn't always result in an extra attempt.


----------



## Erik (Sep 13, 2012)

Of course it doesn't always have to result in an extra attempt. If it happened during scrambling it should though. But what if it happened during scrambling, the judge is not paying enough attention to the solve and then the competitor notices the corner is twisted. The judge doesn't know 100% for sure the competitor didn't do anything because of his own failure. 
What is to be decided then? 

If all delegates would react like Dene said he would, you could DNF competitors by sneakily twisting a corner while scrambling. (or at least slow them down a lot when they decide to fix it instead of asking for an extra attempt)


----------



## Stefan (Sep 13, 2012)

(oops, somehow my post got duplicated while editing...)



Erik said:


> Of course it doesn't always have to result in an extra attempt.



Well, I assumed that's what you meant when you said _"It results in an extra attempt."_.



Erik said:


> If it happened during scrambling it should though.



Yes, but in reality we simply don't have that knowledge. And your _"the judge is not paying enough attention"_ sounds like it's easy to see and a fault of the judge to not see it. When I accidentally twist a corner during solving, I usually don't even see it myself unless it's a corner I happen to watch at that moment. I usually only somewhat feel it and suspect - not know - it until I get to OLL. If I myself can't see it and can barely feel it, how is the judge supposed to see it? Furthermore, we're talking about the case where it *didn't* happen during the solve, which is even harder to "see" for the judge.


----------



## Ickathu (Sep 13, 2012)

Speaking of corner twists, just noticed this:


> - 5b3c) If the puzzle is unsolvable, and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner piece, the competitor may correct the corner piece by twisting it in place without disassembling the puzzle


What if I'm a noob with a rubik's brand and I can't twist the corner? Am I _not_ allowed to pop out an edge?


----------



## Sebastien (Sep 13, 2012)

Ickathu said:


> Am I _not_ allowed to pop out an edge?



Is there any reason to assume this?



Spoiler



no, there is not. If a rule says that you _may_ do something it makes logically no sense that you assume that you are not allowed to do something else.

Besides, the general case is covered by 5b.


----------



## Ickathu (Sep 13, 2012)

Sebastien said:


> Is there any reason to assume this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh right lol. :fp

TYPO on this one:


> - 9r1b) Any limit to the number of competitors permitted in the qualification round of the event, and any limit *tothe* maximum number of those competitors who will proceed to the first round.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 13, 2012)

Ickathu said:


> Speaking of corner twists, just noticed this:
> 
> 
> > - 5b3c) If the puzzle is unsolvable, and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner piece, the competitor may correct the corner piece by twisting it in place without disassembling the puzzle



That rule is the exact reason we started talking about the issue. You accidentally our discussion.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Sep 13, 2012)

Godmil said:


> I notice they've changed from Half Turn Metrics to Block Turn Metrics.... can anyone explain the different to me please, they sound the same.



PLEASE CHANGE THE WORDING IN THE REGULATIONS. This definition of block turn metric is just totally wrong with what it has commonly meant. Moving two inner layers together on a 4x4x4, for example, is considered one block turn. I don't think that is what the definition in the regulations is trying to convey. It's very badly worded in the first place, so I'm not even clear what it's supposed to mean. Please don't try to make "block turn" mean something different from what it commonly means today. A block turn means moving any "block of layers" together, and a face layer does not need to be one of the layers.


----------



## riffz (Sep 13, 2012)

Stefan said:


> We could print the eight corner stickers on U and D on the score sheet, and the judge checks them. Can be printed on the back, or on the side next to each scramble and then folded to the back.



I'm not fond of this idea. It would take a fair amount of effort to execute and I feel like its a bad idea to have part of the cube state displayed on the scorecard. What if we were to assign one person at each scrambling table the role of checking the scrambled cube against the picture displayed in the scrambling program? That way the scramblers wont have to pause and slow down the flow of the competition. Ideally, this is the time that the cube should be checked anyway.

We could even display an image with some greyed out corner stickers if it would make it easier to check that the scramble is correct.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 13, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> This doesn't stop the WCA from applying their own filters to the scramblers, this just removes any inconsistency.



Now we just need to hide that code, and you'll never even know.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 13, 2012)

Stefan said:


> Now we just need to hide that code, and you'll never even know.



What if I discover it without it's implementation being announced? Scandal!


----------



## Stefan (Sep 13, 2012)

cuBerBruce said:


> PLEASE CHANGE THE WORDING IN THE REGULATIONS. This definition of block turn metric is just totally wrong with what it has commonly meant. Moving two inner layers together on a 4x4x4, for example, is considered one block turn. I don't think that is what the definition in the regulations is trying to convey. It's very badly worded in the first place, so I'm not even clear what it's supposed to mean. Please don't try to make "block turn" mean something different from what it commonly means today. A block turn means moving any "block of layers" together, and a face layer does not need to be one of the layers.



Support for Bruce's view: our wiki/Thom and qqwref and perfredlund, and at least Bruce used it that way for years on Domain of the Cube, I guess without people complaining. Those were the only places I checked.

What is meant seems to be block turns that include an outer layer, what you call twist turns. Is that a well-established name?

Do we actually need to use a name? And do we need a metric for something other than for 3x3 at all? I don't see us do FMC for anything else, and with the scramble requirement being _"must use wca scrambler"_, I don't think we need a more general metric than HTM.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 13, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> What if I discover it without it's implementation being announced? Scandal!



With "hide" I meant that you can't find it. Kirjava-proof. Like inside a class that's ostensibly about magics.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 13, 2012)

riffz said:


> What if we were to assign one person at each scrambling table the role of checking the scrambled cube against the picture displayed in the scrambling program? That way the scramblers wont have to pause and slow down the flow of the competition.



Well it's not like you get a scramble person for free. That person could instead be scrambling (and checking his own scramblings).



riffz said:


> Ideally, this is the time that the cube should be checked anyway.



What time do you mean? (Sounds like you just mean after it has been scrambled, but that's the only way.)

I'd find it ideal to check it so that there's no gap from checking to judge. Also, we already have:

_A2d) When taking the puzzle from the scrambler, *the judge does a quick general inspection of thorough scrambling* of the puzzle. In case of doubt the judge contacts the scrambler for a detailed check._


----------



## Stefan (Sep 13, 2012)

riffz said:


> I feel like its a bad idea to have part of the cube state displayed on the scorecard.



If the back of the card isn't safe enough, then what about each judge having their own card? That might also encourage people to take their judging duty more seriously and not just judge when they feel like it.


----------



## Noahaha (Sep 13, 2012)

I think more judging errors occur than scrambling errors. For example during OH at SJC I started solving two handed and the mother judging me didn't notice a problem. About halfway through the solve I noticed, stopped the timer and told her it was a DNF. She could not figure what had happened. Another time I was judging and did not pay quite enough attention during the timer-stop, but I was fairly sure the competitor was still touching the cube when he stopped the timer. I had to ask him just to double check and he admitted to it, but I'm not sure if I would have given him a +2 if he had said he wasn't still touching the cube. I think a lot of penalties are missed like this.

I think this could be fixed with a mandatory rule that you have to have a fixed judge at each timer or a rule where delegates choose people to judge who are experienced enough. The downside is that this would obviously cause some efficiency issues, so another solution is to say anyone can judge if they read some short instructions on judging that specify all the penalties that a judge needs to be able to make. Of course, misalignments and timer malfunctions can be handled by a delegate, but everything that happens during the solve is the judge's domain.


----------



## Erik (Sep 13, 2012)

Stefan said:


> (oops, somehow my post got duplicated while editing...)
> Well, I assumed that's what you meant when you said _"It results in an extra attempt."_.
> 
> 
> ...



- No, I ment that it should happen when it is the scramblers fault. Good thing we cleared it up.
- I agree that it's hard to see, nonetheless my point still remains that it is then possible for a scrambler to DNF someone by twisting a corner during scrambling. How can we deal with this?


----------



## Henrik (Sep 13, 2012)

Ickathu said:


> - 3i) "Pillowed" and other modified versions of puzzles are permitted only if the modification does not make any additional information available to the competitor (e.g. identity of pieces), as compared to an unmodified version of the same puzzle.
> 
> How can it be pillowed without giving away information from other pieces?



You are correct right there!
Pillowed cubes are per say banned as well as stickerless. (7x7 being the exception for pillowed)


----------



## Stefan (Sep 13, 2012)

Erik said:


> it is then possible for a scrambler to DNF someone by twisting a corner during scrambling. How can we deal with this?



You could learn to quickly check for yourself during inspection 



Henrik said:


> Pillowed cubes are *per say* banned as well as stickerless.



per se


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 13, 2012)

Stefan said:


> With "hide" I meant that you can't find it. Kirjava-proof. Like inside a class that's ostensibly about magics.



I would generate quadrillions of 2x2x2 scrambles and see if any 2 movers popped up. Nothing is Kirjava-proof :3


----------



## vcuber13 (Sep 13, 2012)

F3) At the end of the inspection period, the competitor shall place the puzzle onto the mat in a standing position. He must not change the positions of any pins from their scrambled positions before the beginning of the solve. Penalty: time penalty (+2 seconds).

so if i change the state of a pin its a plus 2 and not a dnf?


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 13, 2012)

By the new regulations, it seems to me that a competitor would receive a +2 penalty if he or she were to place the clock down _flat_ on the table with the pins facing up, with a scramble ending in UUUU (or dddd), before starting the timer, although they didn't alter the scrambled position of the clock.

(Sorry that sentence was kinda long...)


----------



## cuBerBruce (Sep 13, 2012)

Stefan said:


> What is meant seems to be block turns that include an outer layer, what you call twist turns. Is that a well-established name?


Well, at least Dan Hoey used the terms quarter-twist metric and half-twist metric in the old "cube lovers" archives. He clearly defined it for 3x3x3 cube here and "qtw" for 4x4x4 here. (Hoey used a fixed DLB model for 4x4x4 in his post to avoid rotated versions of the same cube position, but clearly it is a equivalent to allowing single- or double-layer turns on 6 faces.) Reid's optimal solver source also refers to face turns (3x3x3) as twists, as do a lot of posts in the old cube lovers archives, it seems to me.

It seems more commonly these days, when a face layer must be included, it's called "face-turn metric." This is consistent with the term as used on the 3x3x3, and simply turning face layers is not sufficient on larger cubes, so the extension of "face-turn metric" in this way seems rather logical.


----------



## Dene (Sep 13, 2012)

Erik said:


> If all delegates would react like Dene said he would, you could DNF competitors by sneakily twisting a corner while scrambling. (or at least slow them down a lot when they decide to fix it instead of asking for an extra attempt)



This would certainly be a serious issue. Unfortunately I don't think there is any practical solution to avoiding sabotage as long as people are volunteering to help. If we were a bigger organisation taking in money and people were getting paid for their "work" then we could have extra layers of protection to avoid sabotage, but obviously this is not the case now, and possibly not ever. 



Stefan said:


> Here's an idea to help against this problem, other scramble mistakes (wrong turns, or even applying the wrong scramble resulting in repetitions), and cheating and forgetting to solve the cube before handing it in: We could print the eight corner stickers on U and D on the score sheet, and the judge checks them. Can be printed on the back, or on the side next to each scramble and then folded to the back. And it could be done with all cube sizes and similarly with other puzzles.



Talk about creating serious practicality issues XD . Not a chance that work the way things currently are >.<


----------



## Bob (Sep 13, 2012)

In case anybody is interested, here are my notes that I took while looking at this set of regulations.

I'm not really in a debating mood, and arguing against many of these regulations will probably prove moot, so I'll probably keep my involvement in this thread limited.

1f) Why Exception? All puzzles are scrambled.
1f2) What if competitor does not know how?
1h2) This means that for Nationals, we will have to either keep track of who is in which heat when we call up the next one even though the current one is not yet done. Either that, or lose time by waiting until all heats are done. Seems like this regulation will waste time at large competitions.
** I'm glad to see the role of main judge is gone. 
2c1) Is it worth mentioning that registration must be paid, too? Or is that being lumped into "completed registration." Ideally, I'd say that if somebody owes the WCA money, they cannot compete.
2e1) Any reason why we don't want to create our own list? If the Wiki article is changed, we may be violating our own regulations.
2k4) Comma doesn't go there
3d) What other possibilities are there?
3f) I think this is too thick. It allows peaking.
3i1) Why permit pillowed 7? Cubic 7s are now readily available, cheaper, and I've heard better than the pillowed version.
3i2) What if the colors are not visible inside on a stickerless? And even has a different color border that you can't peak around the sides? What's wrong with that?
3m1) There are megaminxes being mass produced that break this rule.
4b1) Will they at least be filtered by the scrambling program? If a cube is only 1 move away from solved state, it is technically solved (with penalty) before the timer even starts. We're okay with this?
5a) broken wires??
5b) So the competitor is not allowed to ignore it?
7e) MUST be smoke free? MUST have reasonable noise level?
7f1b) No alternative possible? What about mousepads?
9b1) Magic? Master Magic?
9f12c) So with 3/6 or 4/8 in the same time, 3/6 is a better result? Does this seem counterintuitive?
9o) Written weird.
9r1b) tothe
10g) Magic/Master Magic
11e) So if the timer malfunctions, the competitor must say so before the attempt is over? What if he doesn't notice?
A6b1) In all cases, I have seen this to be USER ERROR and not a timer malfunction unless I could replicate this on my own. I still feel very strongly this rule needs to be removed. Why not just keep Rule A6b2 for ALL times (.01 and up). If you got <.06 but can't show it was error, DNF.
A7c1) In other words, I can choose not to sign and the delegate has to sign all of my times for me?
Article D) Stupid event. Still think we should ditch it.
Article G) Soon gone.
Article H) 1/2 is still a valid Multi score?
Z3) Incomplete thought


Note that I essentially consider Magic to be gone. By the time these regulations are enacted, Magic will be gone. If it's not, we should just delay the effective date for the regs. Or just note that the regs for Magic will follow the old regs until they are phased out at the end of the year.


Seriously, why did somebody decide on a specific number of practice solved for Magic? That change will affect only a couple competitions, if any.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 14, 2012)

Bob said:


> Note that I essentially consider Magic to be gone. By the time these regulations are enacted, Magic will be gone. If it's not, we should just delay the effective date for the regs.



Someone already pointed out the magics and Tim said _"The intention is to have these released and official before 2013"_. Would you really want to delay the new regs with all their improvements, just because of magics? Why? What's the problem with leaving them in there for a little while?


----------



## Ickathu (Sep 14, 2012)

Is there a reason that there is not Article 6?



> - 5c) If a competitor has a puzzle defect, this does not give him the right to an extra attempt.
> 
> 
> ## Article 7: Environment


----------



## Lucas Garron (Sep 14, 2012)

It seems that twisting a corner is the hottest topic here. The issue here is that we need a fair and consistently enforceable rule.

If a competitor can end up with a single twisted corner for OLL, there are always going to be ambiguous cases where it's unclear if the competitor was at fault. I believe the best we can say is that twisting a single corner is allowed, *for fixing parity* only.

Now, we need to figure out the best way to make this as fair as possible in all situations, without allowing abuse.
If we allow competitors an extra attempt for a corner twist during scrambling, competitors could try to abuse it if they had a bad solve with a (questionably) unintentional corner twist.
If we don't extra attempts at the discretion of the judge / Delegate, then competitors might have unfair treatement, because of who judged them and how.
If we never allow them, then that's unfair to the competitors who get them, who have to deal with an unexpected issue.

In any case, I don't think we can should competitors for using loose cubes, and we *definitely* cannot allow delegates to give inconsistent rulings (yes, I'm looking at you, Dene).

Here's my suggestion:


 Leave Regulation 5b3c as it is.
 Consider adding a Guideline instructing scramblers to check the top and bottom stickers of the corners, especially if they suspect a twist.
 Don't award extra attempts for unexpected twisted corners.

If you'd like to have further discussion (which is welcome), could we take it to a separate thread?



Alright. I've tried to select all the remaining posts worth responding to:



Dene said:


> 10e3) If one move is required, the puzzle shall be considered solved with a time penalty (+2 seconds).


Indeed. We are *not* removing +2 penalties for misalignment in this revision. Please don't discuss it further.



ben1996123 said:


> What if someone gets a 59:59 6/6 +2 in multibld, is it 1:00:01?


Yes. See the corresponding Guidelinesp/url].



Stefan said:


> Challenge accepted!
> [url]http://www.stefan-pochmann.info/diff.html





Stefan said:


> Wow that took me way too long.


Want another challenge? Match up the Regulations and Guidelines by numbering. 



JasonK said:


> 3d1) Exception: Competitors with a medically documented visual disability may use textured puzzles with different textures on different faces. Textures/patterns must be uniform per face. Each face should have a distinct colours, to aid in scrambling and judging.
> 
> This should probably be clarified to exclude blindfold solving. I know blind people are unlikely to be competing in BLD, just seems like something that should be mentioned.



Has this ever happened? The most appropriate solution here is probably to have two cubes, a textured one for memo and an untextured one for execution. This is such a rare case that the Delegate should be able to handle it; I'm strongly in favor of avoiding contigency rules that are unlikely to happen at all.
If this ever becomes important to clarify, we can add a Guideline.





cuBerBruce said:


> PLEASE CHANGE THE WORDING IN THE REGULATIONS. This definition of block turn metric is just totally wrong with what it has commonly meant. Moving two inner layers together on a 4x4x4, for example, is considered one block turn. I don't think that is what the definition in the regulations is trying to convey. It's very badly worded in the first place, so I'm not even clear what it's supposed to mean. Please don't try to make "block turn" mean something different from what it commonly means today. A block turn means moving any "block of layers" together, and a face layer does not need to be one of the layers.





cuBerBruce said:


> Well, at least Dan Hoey used the terms quarter-twist metric and half-twist metric in the old "cube lovers" archives. He clearly defined it for 3x3x3 cube here and "qtw" for 4x4x4 here. (Hoey used a fixed DLB model for 4x4x4 in his post to avoid rotated versions of the same cube position, but clearly it is a equivalent to allowing single- or double-layer turns on 6 faces.) Reid's optimal solver source also refers to face turns (3x3x3) as twists, as do a lot of posts in the old cube lovers archives, it seems to me.
> 
> It seems more commonly these days, when a face layer must be included, it's called "face-turn metric." This is consistent with the term as used on the 3x3x3, and simply turning face layers is not sufficient on larger cubes, so the extension of "face-turn metric" in this way seems rather logical.



Hm, I always thought this is what BTM meant, and what you says is BTM was some sort of contiguous block turn metric. I don't like FTM, because it loses the concepctual emphasis of "block" instead of "face". I can see this becoming confusing to beginners. FTM is also associated a lot with 3x3x3, and I don't really consider "Rw" a face turn. It might work, but I think it just doesn't "fit".
How do we encapsulate "grab as much as you wnat from one side of the cube, and turn it all together"?
Outer Block Turn Metric? (OBTM?) I wanted to use an existing term.

I was hoping to use BTM as an established, simple way to describe this. I want the Regulations to call it *something*, else people have to refer to the "old" WCA metric/notation vs. the "new" specification, and things will only get worse if we ever amend things again.

(This whole thing is why I wanted to solidfy existing notation / metric standards in a separate project a few years ago, but that never happened. I'm also really sad that the WCA adopted SiGN-contradicting notation right when we made SiGN.)

I'm inclined to go with Stefan's suggestion, and just define metric for 3x3x3.
I'm just against calling it "half turn metric", because "half turn" is a historical way to describe it, not an intuitive one. And it doesn't make slice moves clear.
Perhaps FTM is our only option. Any other brilliant ideas?




Noahaha said:


> I think this could be fixed with a mandatory rule that you have to have a fixed judge at each timer or a rule where delegates choose people to judge who are experienced enough. The downside is that this would obviously cause some efficiency issues, so another solution is to say anyone can judge if they read some short instructions on judging that specify all the penalties that a judge needs to be able to make.



It's generally not good to mandate these aspects of how a competition should be run. If competition organizers didn't have the freedom to try different systems, we probably wouldn't have learned to be so efficient. And some competitions need more flexibity.

Anyone is welcome to make a good judging guide and promote its use to organizers.




vcuber13 said:


> F3) At the end of the inspection period, the competitor shall place the puzzle onto the mat in a standing position. He must not change the positions of any pins from their scrambled positions before the beginning of the solve. Penalty: time penalty (+2 seconds).
> 
> so if i change the state of a pin its a plus 2 and not a dnf?



Yes. Perhaps we clarify that we should only allow a +2 in the case where a clock fell over unintentionally. Anyone object to that?
Does anyone have any good examples of clocks falling over or competitors changing pins by accident?

Someone else's comment reminded me, though, that it might be good to separate the sections, so that the standing clock is mandatory and the pin changes have a time penalty.



Bob said:


> In case anybody is interested, here are my notes that I took while looking at this set of regulations.


Noted.



Ickathu said:


> Is there a reason that there is not Article 6?


All of it was optional, so it's been moved to the Guidelines. We don't want old references to Regulations to become invaled, so the other articles keep their number, leaving a gap.


----------



## Bob (Sep 14, 2012)

Stefan said:


> Someone already pointed out the magics and Tim said _"The intention is to have these released and official before 2013"_. Would you really want to delay the new regs with all their improvements, just because of magics? Why? What's the problem with leaving them in there for a little while?



I just find it a little ridiculous to change the regulations for Magic now. I think it would be better that if we are enacting these in 2012, that for Magics it just says to refer to the old regs.


----------



## uberCuber (Sep 14, 2012)

Bob said:


> 3i1) Why permit pillowed 7? Cubic 7s are now readily available, cheaper, and I've heard better than the pillowed version.



The current world record is with a pillowed 7, and the world record holder in question has stated that he is not nearly as good with the cubic 7, which is very difficult to use for people with smaller hands.


----------



## Dene (Sep 14, 2012)

Lucas Garron said:


> In any case, I don't think we can should competitors for using loose cubes, and we *definitely* cannot allow delegates to give inconsistent rulings (yes, I'm looking at you, Dene).



Hang on now, back up the bus, before accusations are thrown around. In what way do you think my rulings are inconsistent?



Lucas Garron said:


> Indeed. We are *not* removing +2 penalties for misalignment in this revision. Please don't discuss it further.



Fat chance. Can the reasons for this decision be made public at the very least? Considering the massive public discussion, towards which I contributed a significant amount of my time.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Sep 14, 2012)

Lucas Garron said:


> Yes. Perhaps we clarify that we should only allow a +2 in the case where a clock fell over unintentionally. Anyone object to that?
> Does anyone have any good examples of clocks falling over or competitors changing pins by accident?



At N8W8 2012, Rob Yau's clock fell over after inspection, causing the solve to be DNF. Lars Vandebergh was the judge iirc.




uberCuber said:


> The current world record is with a pillowed 7, and the world record holder in question has stated that he is not nearly as good with the cubic 7, which is very difficult to use for people with smaller hands.



I am very much in agreement with this. Also, by blocking pillowed 7x7, you are forcing a monopoly of choice onto people, and I certainly don't want to have to buy another 7x7 to be able to compete.


----------



## Sebastien (Sep 14, 2012)

Bob said:


> 3i1) Why permit pillowed 7? Cubic 7s are now readily available, cheaper, and I've heard better than the pillowed version.



In contrast to every other pillowed puzzle, the pillowed 7x7x7 IS the puzzle which was added as event back in 2009.



Bob said:


> I just find it a little ridiculous to change the regulations for Magic now. I think it would be better that if we are enacting these in 2012, that for Magics it just says to refer to the old regs.



As long as they are official the regulations deal with them. We didn't put any effort in this and it is really completely useless to comment on this, seriously.


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 14, 2012)

Lucas Garron said:


> Perhaps we clarify that we should only allow a +2 in the case where a clock fell over unintentionally. Anyone object to that?
> Does anyone have any good examples of clocks falling over or competitors changing pins by accident?



In one of my DNFs at N8W8, my clock wobbled as I placed it down and it fell over and changed the pins. Lars declared this as a DNF.

"A6e) The competitor must not touch or move the puzzle until the judge has inspected the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF). Exception: If no moves have been applied, a time penalty (+2 seconds) may be assigned instead, at the discretion of the judge."

I think this needs to be changed to "The competitor must not intentionally touch or move the puzzle except in the case of preventing the puzzle from falling, until..."

What if the puzzle lands in the competitor's lap after solving it? Also it's probably in the interest of the competitor to prevent damage done to their puzzles so it would be helpful to let the competitors save their puzzles from falling. Here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjfuJNNNzbY&t=235s

In another one of my clock solves at N8W8, I finished my solve and stopped the timer, and the clock almost rolled off the table until a judge from another table saved it.


----------



## Sebastien (Sep 14, 2012)

Robert-Y said:


> In one of my DNFs at N8W8, my clock wobbled as I placed it down and it fell over and changed the pins. Lars declared this as a DNF.



That was a correct ruling based on the current regulations. But this outlines one of the big issues we fixed in the new version: There were lots of cases where nop penalty was set for things people are not allowed to do.



Robert-Y said:


> "A6e) The competitor must not touch or move the puzzle until the judge has inspected the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF). Exception: If no moves have been applied, a time penalty (+2 seconds) may be assigned instead, at the discretion of the judge."
> 
> I think this needs to be changed to "The competitor must not intentionally touch or move the puzzle except in the case of preventing the puzzle from falling, until..."
> 
> ...



I disagree with your proposal. it is the responsibility of the competitor to put down the puzzle appropriately after the solve. If you release your puzzle in a way that it is going to fall down the table, then this is your fault. You can decide then to save it and get a +2 penalty or to let it fall down and get no penalty. I personally never touch my puzzle after I drop it after a solve. Especially during OH my cube fell down the table in competition at least 10 times or so. I never catched it as this is not allowed and my puzzle was never damaged.

If a judge catches your puzzle, then you are lucky but this should be reported immidiately and that judge should be warned not to do so anymore.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 14, 2012)

Sometimes "solves" were replaced by "attempts", but not all. At least some more instances should be replaced as well. For example:

_G1a) The competitor may do at most two practise solves on the competition timer. When the judge and competitor mutually agree, the official attempts will start. From then on, all attempts will be treated as official attempts._

This rule explicitly uses both "solves" and "attempts". If I practice with the magic rotated 180 degrees so that the end state is not the solved state, I could argue I'm not "solving". And only practice *solves* are limited. Practice attempts aren't limited, though I suspect that they were intended to be. G4/G4a should maybe also say "attempt", and maybe more places as well. It's a bit confusing, not clear why we say "solves" sometimes and "attempts" other times.


----------



## ardi4nto (Sep 14, 2012)

Vincents said:


> For Competitors:
> 
> No slice moves for Rubik's Cube: Fewest Moves.



TNoodle still lists M, S, and E in instruction part as valid moves in FMC sheet. It should be removed.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Sep 14, 2012)

Dene said:


> Can the reasons for this decision be made public at the very least? Considering the massive public discussion, towards which I contributed a significant amount of my time.


The reason *is* the massive public dicsussion. Some of the WRC members definitely want to have the discussion, but at the moment it would be counter-productive to discussing all the other changes.



Stefan said:


> Sometimes "solves" were replaced by "attempts", but not all. At least some more instances should be replaced as well. For example:
> 
> _G1a) The competitor may do at most two practise solves on the competition timer. When the judge and competitor mutually agree, the official attempts will start. From then on, all attempts will be treated as official attempts._


I tried very hard to make this consistent, using these definitions. However, I had to make many kinds of find-and-replace-only-some operations, and I might have missed some in this case.

If you've just seen a few cases, would you mind pointing them out? Otherwise, I'll go through and check all mentions of "solve"/"attempt" again.




ardi4nto said:


> TNoodle still lists M, S, and E in instruction part as valid moves in FMC sheet. It should be removed.


TNoodle has a bunch of changes pending on the Regulations since last release, including this. They will be removed.


----------



## ThomasJE (Sep 14, 2012)

Why are slice moves being removed in FMC?


----------



## Stefan (Sep 14, 2012)

Lucas Garron said:


> If you've just seen a few cases, would you mind pointing them out? Otherwise, I'll go through and check all mentions of "solve"/"attempt" again.



Only noticed those that I mentioned (in the magics article). And I understood those terms differently than your definitions, so I'm useless anyway


----------



## Bob (Sep 14, 2012)

Sebastien said:


> In contrast to every other pillowed puzzle, the pillowed 7x7x7 IS the puzzle which was added as event back in 2009.


We also used to allow unlimited time for MultiBLD in 2009, but that doesn't mean we should allow it now. It is the only cube puzzle inconsistent with our regulations. The reason for allowing pillowed 7x7 was because no cubic 7x7 was available. That's no longer the case. The reasoning behind the regulation is obsolete.





Sebastien said:


> As long as they are official the regulations deal with them. We didn't put any effort in this and it is really completely useless to comment on this, seriously.


The only reason I mention Magic at all is because you guys decided to add a regulation that makes the event *EVEN LONGER! *


----------



## Stefan (Sep 14, 2012)

Bob said:


> The only reason I mention Magic at all is because you guys decided to add a regulation that makes the event *EVEN LONGER! *



I don't see it. Which regulation is that?


----------



## shelley (Sep 15, 2012)

PandaCuber said:


> Wow I read the entire thing lol.
> Whats this about the Logo? I didnt get it. What if i have a cube without a logo in the center?



This is not a new regulation. What part of "at most one" do you not understand?

Regarding accidental corner twists during scrambling, that would be a result of the competitor's failure to maintain his cube in proper working order and he should have to deal with the consequences. No extra solves should be awarded in that case.


----------



## DrKorbin (Sep 15, 2012)

shelley said:


> Regarding accidental corner twists during scrambling, that would be a result of the competitor's failure to maintain his cube in proper working order and he should have to deal with the consequences.



It is a duty of scrambler to check if he scrambled correctly. If the corner was twisted during scrambling and scrambler didn't noticed that then he failed to do his job. Why is it a competitor's failure?


----------



## Stefan (Sep 15, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> It is a duty of scrambler to check if he scrambled correctly.



Says who?


----------



## DrKorbin (Sep 15, 2012)

Stefan said:


> Says who?



Yeah, I fail to provide a direct link for it. Next time an organizer asks me to scramble, I will just do random moves - I'm not responsible for anything anyway.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Sep 15, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> Yeah, I fail to provide a direct link for it. Next time an organizer asks me to scramble, I will just do random moves - I'm not responsible for anything anyway.



I agree with your sentiment, but do you check all six sides after scrambling? I honestly don't. If there were a corner twist on DBL and I didn't feel it, I wouldn't notice by looking at the cube.

How about on Megaminx?


----------



## DrKorbin (Sep 15, 2012)

Tim Reynolds said:


> I agree with your sentiment, but do you check all six sides after scrambling?


Only if I have time to do it, and at the beginning of a round I don't have time.

BTW, there was a paragraph in the regulations that said you don't have to rescramble 6x6 and 7x7 (with the permission of the delegate), and it is gone. Does it mean a scrambler must rescramble 7x7?


----------



## Ranzha (Sep 15, 2012)

I read A2c1, and does this mean we'll no longer be able to use simple scorecards as cube covers?


----------



## DrKorbin (Sep 15, 2012)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> I read A2c1, and does this mean we'll no longer be able to use simple scorecards as cube covers?



Yes, it is explicitly written in guidelines:

A2c1) [CLARIFICATION] In the past, score cards have been used to cover puzzles while leaving somes sides exposed. This is no longer permitted.


----------



## ThomasJE (Sep 15, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> Yes, it is explicitly written in guidelines:
> 
> A2c1) [CLARIFICATION] In the past, score cards have been used to cover puzzles while leaving somes sides exposed. This is no longer permitted.



So we can't use paper for BLD?


----------



## JasonK (Sep 15, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> So we can't use paper for BLD?



Apparently not, has to be a proper cover.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Sep 15, 2012)

I don't want to bring up the full debate here, but I'm annoyed at the change for stickerless cubes. Deciding to not allow them I can handle, even if I strongly disagree with it. Banning them completely when they were previously allowed for BLD (and have been used to set WRs iirc) is pretty irritating. After my last comp I bought a new stickerless cube to see what they were like, thinking that I could use it for BLD. I like the cube and prefer it for BLD, but now I can't use it if these rules become official. Any chance we could continue to allow them for BLD for the sake of consistency? I would hate to lose one of my good cubes for MBLD, which I _only_ bought under the belief that it was legal (even knowing it might become illegal would have made me buy the black version).


----------



## Stefan (Sep 15, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> Yeah, I fail to provide a direct link for it. Next time an organizer asks me to scramble, I will just do random moves - I'm not responsible for anything anyway.



You'd violate

_4a)	A scrambler must apply the scramble sequences._


----------



## Bob (Sep 15, 2012)

Stefan said:


> I don't see it. Which regulation is that?



The one that allows competitors to do 2 practice solves. I have not been allowing more than one since like 2009.

We don't allow it for any other puzzle. Why is that regulation even in there? If I go up for my 3x3 solve, can I tell the judge to wait so that I can do two practice solves first?



bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> I don't want to bring up the full debate here, but I'm annoyed at the change for stickerless cubes. Deciding to not allow them I can handle, even if I strongly disagree with it. Banning them completely when they were previously allowed for BLD (and have been used to set WRs iirc) is pretty irritating. After my last comp I bought a new stickerless cube to see what they were like, thinking that I could use it for BLD. I like the cube and prefer it for BLD, but now I can't use it if these rules become official. Any chance we could continue to allow them for BLD for the sake of consistency? I would hate to lose one of my good cubes for MBLD, which I _only_ bought under the belief that it was legal (even knowing it might become illegal would have made me buy the black version).



They should not have been allowed in the first place. They were accidentally allowed because somebody thought that they did not violate our regulations, but they do. The way the regs are written, those cubes have ALWAYS been a violation. This change is a long time coming.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Sep 15, 2012)

Bob said:


> They should not have been allowed in the first place. They were accidentally allowed because somebody thought that they did not violate our regulations, but they do. The way the regs are written, those cubes have ALWAYS been a violation. This change is a long time coming.



What about the fact that Ron at some point said they were legal for BLD (possibly in hindsight of the rules being misinterpreted before, but the reason is irrelevant) surely that affects their previous status even if the regs hadn't been updated? It seems absurd to me that these cubes can be used to set WRs, then become banned. And what about people who buy a stickerless cube thinking that they can use it, only to later be told that they wasted their money, doesn't that seem unfair?


----------



## Stefan (Sep 15, 2012)

Bob said:


> The one that allows competitors to do 2 practice solves.



Uh... are you seriously complaining about _"*add* a regulation that makes the event EVEN LONGER!"_ when it's a *change* from

_"The competitor may do practice solves on the competition timer."_
to
_"The competitor may do *at most two* practi*s*e solves on the competition timer."_?

That looks like making the event *shorter*, not longer. From unlimited practice to at most two times. No?



Bob said:


> I have not been allowing more than one since like 2009.



Then you clearly violated the regulations. Unless I'm missing that it's specified elsewhere that you're allowed to overrule _"The competitor may do practice solve*s*"_.


----------



## DrKorbin (Sep 15, 2012)

Stefan said:


> You'd violate
> 
> _4a)	A scrambler must apply the scramble sequences._



Then I will do
<some random moves> <the scramble provided> <some random moves>


----------



## Stefan (Sep 15, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> Then I will do
> <some random moves> <the scramble provided> <some random moves>



You forget
4e)	Competitors must solve the same scramble sequences or scrambled positions per group of competitors.

Could you do me a favor and just finally suggest that the regulations/guidelines should clarify the checking of the scrambles like I want you to?


----------



## DrKorbin (Sep 15, 2012)

Stefan said:


> You forget
> 4e)	Competitors must solve the same scramble sequences or scrambled positions per group of competitors.


I didn't forget that. Yes, if a scrambler scrambles wrong, competitors won't have the same scrambles, but whose fault is it?
(Oh no, regs say "competitors must", so it is their fault, lol).


Stefan said:


> Could you do me a favor and just finally suggest that the regulations/guidelines should clarify the checking of the scrambles like I want you to?


Suggestion: the regulations should clarify that the checking of the scrambles is scrambler's/judge's/some special man's duty.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 15, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> I didn't forget that. Yes, if a scrambler scrambles wrong, competitors won't have the same scrambles, but whose fault is it?
> (Oh no, regs say "competitors must", so it is their fault, lol).



If you're intentionally causing it not to be the case (like with your intentional extra scrambling), you're clearly knowingly/actively violating the regulations. Completely different from a scrambler making an innocent mistake and not noticing.


----------



## Sebastien (Sep 15, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> So we can't use paper for BLD?



Did you know that not all paper on earth is used to procude score cards? 



Stefan said:


> Then you clearly violated the regulations. Unless I'm missing that it's specified elsewhere that you're allowed to overrule _"The competitor may do practice solve*s*"_.



This. Furthermore a competitor has to be ready within a minute. So if a competitor refuses to start after a minute you can just DNF his next solve (A3b1).


----------



## Stefan (Sep 15, 2012)

Sebastien said:


> Furthermore a competitor has to be ready within a minute. So if a competitor refuses to start after a minute you can just DNF his next solve (A3b1).



With the planned new regulations, yes. Not with the current ones.


----------



## Sebastien (Sep 15, 2012)

I know.

I was actually mainly refering to this:



Bob said:


> If I go up for my 3x3 solve, can I tell the judge to wait so that I can do two practice solves first?


----------



## jazzthief81 (Sep 16, 2012)

Lucas Garron said:


> Yes. Perhaps we clarify that we should only allow a +2 in the case where a clock fell over unintentionally. Anyone object to that?
> Does anyone have any good examples of clocks falling over or competitors changing pins by accident?


I don't like it. It's making the rule more complicated for the sole purpose of allowing competitors to be sloppy when starting their solves.

The only time I've ever seen a clock fall over unintentionally was that time I judged Robert Yau at N8W8 Summer 2012 and it was clear he was rushing things. If he would have kept it steady, this would not have happened. It was just carelessness more than anything else.


----------

