WCA Regulations 2012

[Lucas Garron]

I shall also use this post to ask the question 'Who actually has the authority to change the regs?' I assume only the board, but for them to come to well-informed decisions they would have to read through a lot of material posted by people. WCA forum isn't always particularly active, and this forum only covers the views of the English-speaking community.

Only the WCA board can change the regulations. In the past, this has meant that Ron read through the WCA forums and tried to update the rules according to consensus.
The idea this year is to have a Regulations Committee of 2-3 people that operates like any standards committee. As many people could help with the regulations who wanted, but the Regulations Committee would put together a revised version of the regulations to the WCA board. The board is the one with the power to approve it, but the Regulations Committee would be responsible for ensuring that the proposal matched community consensus.

I don't know if I'll be one of those 2-3 people, but I'm starting it off here by asking the community to assemble their concerns. Yes, speedsolving.com is only English-speaking, but it is the largest and most international forum where such discussion can take place. Hopefully, most people with constructive comments can get their views represented here so that they are represented in the WCA forum discussion that leads to a final revision.

[Erik]

Only the WCA board can change the regulations. In the past, this has meant that Ron read through the WCA forums and tried to update the rules according to consensus.
The idea this year is to have a Regulations Committee of 2-3 people that operates like any standards committee. As many people could help with the regulations who wanted, but the Regulations Committee would put together a revised version of the regulations to the WCA board. The board is the one with the power to approve it, but the Regulations Committee would be responsible for ensuring that the proposal matched community consensus.

I don't know if I'll be one of those 2-3 people, but I'm starting it off here by asking the community to assemble their concerns. Yes, speedsolving.com is only English-speaking, but it is the largest and most international forum where such discussion can take place. Hopefully, most people with constructive comments can get their views represented here so that they are represented in the WCA forum discussion that leads to a final revision.

It sounds like a good idea that some people would get involved with this more actively and structured than has been done by the board or Ron alone. Also from the perspective that the WCA is something that has power because of the community, not the WCA that has power over the community. Lots of questions arise immediatly though:

Will this Regulations Committee already be active this year? Who is part of this committee? How do you get selected as member of this committee? Is 2-3 people enough? How would the committee present the results of the yearly investigation? Etc.

[Lucas Garron]

Will this Regulations Committee already be active this year? Who is part of this committee? How do you get selected as member of this committee? Is 2-3 people enough? How would the committee present the results of the yearly investigation? Etc.

This is still to be figured out, since Tyson put it into motion only last night. As of right now, all the delegates have been informed that work is starting, and it's likely that any of them who are interested will be involved with the process.
The actual committee will probably be like the IAC: a small group of people (selected by the board) who communicate directly with the board and administer the discussions and assemble the proposal.

Will the committee be active in 2012? Hopefully. We'll see about getting out the 2012 regulations first.
Who is part of this committee? Probably anyone with enough responsibility who can commit time.
How do you get selected as member of this committee? Contact the WCA board if you're interested in being a significant part of this.
Is 2-3 people enough? For the actual WCA communications? I think yes.
How would the committee present the results of the yearly investigation? I have in mind that they would publicly propose a new version of the regulations, with a full list of changes and each change supported by citations about how consensus was reached.


In short, something like this:
- Everyone in the community may discuss.
- Any responsible people can get involved in discussing the details of making changes in the regulations.
- 2-3 people are responsible for making everything comes together for the WCA.

[MaeLSTRoM]

I had an idea for a change in regulations for multiBLD:

-The maximum time allowed for solving is 10*(number of cubes), not exceeding 60 minutes.
-Time penalties can be added to solves so that they exceed this time limit.

in this scenario, 3/3 in 29:58 with all +2'd is a final time of 30:04

[Forte]

Random consideration: how about cutting +2 from BLD altogether? I just remember at Vancouver Open when I didn't undo a setup move in the middle of solving edges, but all the other edges weren't on that layer, so it was +2. I think things like that should warrant a DNF, but that might just be me.

[kinch2002]

Random consideration: how about cutting +2 from BLD altogether? I just remember at Vancouver Open when I didn't undo a setup move in the middle of solving edges, but all the other edges weren't on that layer, so it was +2. I think things like that should warrant a DNF, but that might just be me.

Then you'd not be allowing for people who stop the timer too fast and end up with a move out or something (or the dropping of the cube misaligned a layer) - in which case if you're not allowing that then you shouldn't allow any +2s in sighted solving either.

[Mike Hughey]

I had an idea for a change in regulations for multiBLD:

-The maximum time allowed for solving is 10*(number of cubes), not exceeding 60 minutes.
-Time penalties can be added to solves so that they exceed this time limit.

in this scenario, 3/3 in 29:58 with all +2'd is a final time of 30:04

I think I remember that this was suggested in the WCA Forum thread a long time ago, shortly after Ron gave his "ruling". I really like this approach - I think it makes the most sense.

[TMOY]

I think I remember that this was suggested in the WCA Forum thread a long time ago, shortly after Ron gave his "ruling". I really like this approach - I think it makes the most sense.

I second that too. The purpose of time limits is to make competitions manageable, not to punish people, and following that logic the decision of DNFing someone or not for exceeding the time limit should be based on the actual length of the solve before penalties are added, not after.

[Dene]

Just something I thought about when catching up on the WCA forums. In this post here it is brought up that there is one (and there are actually many more) regulations which serve as guidelines and not actual regulations. I think it would be worth removing these "regulations" from the WCA regulations, and creating a new "guidelines" section, to which these sorts of regulations can be moved to. Any thoughts?

[Lucas Garron]

Just something I thought about when catching up on the WCA forums. In this post here it is brought up that there is one (and there are actually many more) regulations which serve as guidelines and not actual regulations. I think it would be worth removing these "regulations" from the WCA regulations, and creating a new "guidelines" section, to which these sorts of regulations can be moved to. Any thoughts?

I've been advocating this for a long while. Unless someone objects with a good argument, or offers a good alternate structure, I will try to ensure that the regulations get split into the actual Regulations and a Guidelines document. There is already a proposal in progress that incorporates this, but I'm waiting to hear back from the WCA board before posting it on the forums for public feedback.