WCA Guidelines 2012

[Ranzha V. Emodrach]

what we do is have a person than knows how to scramble scramble for the fastest person or two and when they are done they start scrambling

for example at the last comp Justin scrambled for me and when i was done he scrambled for Neil and Neil and I scrambled most of the cubes after because we are so much faster at it.

This is often the case around these parts as well. There are usually very experienced competitors at the scrambling table, so it has never been a practical issue. However, the technical issue still kinda remains.
Perhaps, "For ease of competition flow, competitors should familiarise themselves with scrambling notation for the event(s) they are competing in."

QUESTION
3l) Cube puzzles must have at most one logo. For Rubik's Cube or bigger cube puzzles the logo must be placed on one of the centre pieces.

what about square1s?

If "centre piece" relates to a piece connected to the core (or something; uncertain how to phrase this), the logo on Square-1s is most definitely on a centre piece.

[Sebastien]

"For ease of competition flow, competitors should familiarise themselves with scrambling notation for the event(s) they are competing in."

How would that be helpful compared to the current version?

Of course, every competitor must be available for scrambling and judging for every event. A delegate in a bad mood can disqualify you if you don't know how to scramble a specific puzzle, so better learn how to scramble all puzzles (this is really not much work). This never happens in practice, as there are almost always enough people that can scramble a puzzle.

[Ranzha V. Emodrach]

How would that be helpful compared to the current version?

Of course, every competitor must be available for scrambling and judging for every event. A delegate in a bad mood can disqualify you if you don't know how to scramble a specific puzzle, so better learn how to scramble all puzzles (this is really not much work). This never happens in practice, as there are almost always enough people that can scramble a puzzle.

Sure, a delegate can disqualify a competitor for not knowing, but that would be a dick move. It's unethical and doesn't promote the positive atmosphere competitions should strive to have (for the betterment of the community, and the like).

A couple of examples I can think of right now:
At some competitions I go to, there is a young competitor who only competes in Magic. Assuming this competitor doesn't know how to solve other puzzles presently, asking this competitor to scramble for other puzzles would be folly.
In a different case, at the last competition I went to, there was a first-time competitor who was entering 3x3 and 3x3OH. At this point, this competitor didn't know how to solve any other puzzles. He had no previous access to these puzzles (which aids significantly in familiarising with scrambling notation).
Therefore, I think my suggestion is a lot easier to abide by from both a technical and practical point of view.

[theZcuber]

I have a question: If the regulation says should, then why does it say disqualification...

[vcuber13]

whats an example?

[theZcuber]

whats an example?

That competitors should be available for scrambling
1f2) All competitors should be available for scrambling, if needed by organisation team. Penalty: disqualification of the competitor for the competition.

Another suggestion:
2h) Competitors must be fully dressed. Competitors may dress in jeans, pants, shorts, slacks, skirts, foot-wear, T-shirts or dress shirts. Hats may be worn. Clothes must not display vulgar language or have inappropriate pictures.
This could easily be change to "Competitors must be appropriately dressed."

[Ranzha V. Emodrach]

That competitors should be available for scrambling
1f2) All competitors should be available for scrambling, if needed by organisation team. Penalty: disqualification of the competitor for the competition.

Either change to "must" or make the penalty less severe. Or, you know, change to what I suggested earlier.

[theZcuber]

Either change to "must" or make the penalty less severe. Or, you know, change to what I suggested earlier.

If it says should, there can't be a penalty. Things just don't work that way. It was must a few years ago, but it was changed because not all competitors know notation. However, lots of puzzles can be solved intuitively (realistically any cubic puzzle, using some blockbuilding on 2x2, Heise on 3x3, OBLBL on bigcubes), or the notation is completely different from typical speedsolving notation (Megaminx).

I'm also in favor of making SiGN the official notation, especially for fewest moves where it's already generally accepted (I think)

[Mike Hughey]

With regard to availability for scrambling, I think the intent is really something like this:
1. If you're a competitor, you should make yourself available for scrambling. That means you're willing to scramble (even if you don't know how - if you don't know how, you must be willing to be taught).
2. If you as a competitor refuse to scramble when asked, simply because you're unwilling (not because you're unable), then you can be disqualified from the competition.

I suspect this is really what was intended by the regulation. Since it is somewhat unclear, it would probably be nice to clarify it.

------------

One thing that I think might be nice to add to the guidelines:

Suggestion(G4 and G5): It would be helpful to have very clear instructions on how Magic and Master Magic should be judged. In particular, mention that the competitor should not be touching the puzzle either before the timer starts or after the timer stops, and mention the valid hand positions for starting and stopping the timer. I realize the current regulations (A4b, A4b1, A6c, A6d, and A6e) all actually cover these issues, but I fear that too many people judging Magic or Master Magic may not think about how significant this is with those puzzles, and I think it would be helpful to clarify it explicitly. Perhaps it's silly of me to bring this up, because it's already officially in the rules, but I just tend to think it needs more weight.

Additional clarification on rules A4b and A6c might be nice too. The way I interpret the rules is this: for A4b, you must have some part of at least two fingers touching the stackmat as your hands come off the timer, and for A6c, you must have some part of your hand past your wrist (palm or fingers) touching the timer at the end. Note that A6c doesn't require fingers to be touching - some people seem to think it does. Note also that A6c doesn't guarantee that A6d and A6e will be followed - you can be fully holding the puzzle while stopping the timer legally according to A6c - it's only A6d and A6e that prevent it.

[Dene]

If we're really going to allow stickerless cubes in BLD but not in speedsolving, that seems to justify the idea of having different rules for +2 as well between BLD and speedsolving.

But there's a much easier solution to that