• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Puzzle Changes: painted/printed colours and 1.5mm tiles for all puzzles

Erik

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
2,661
Location
Enschede, Netherlands, Netherlands
WCA
2005AKKE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Actually, I was thinking the other direction. It's not necessarily desired, but I think many cubers would feel like they would be at a disadvantage NOT using it, so many would feel forced to switch.

EDIT: I also think you are making a pretty strong assumption about the intelligence and foresight of the average speed cuber :p I really don't think many would be pro underwater OH BLD

Just to be clear: I do think stickerless cubes should be allowed!

About the intelligence and foresight: Maybe I do, but then again, maybe not. Most cubers are not even 16+ nowadays (not that a 15 year old can't be intelligent). I sadly don't have the possibility to do some proper statistical analysis right now, but it wouldn't suprise me if 95% of all cubers haven't even attended 5 competitions. Also: the vast majority of cubers don't really care that much about how things are organized, they just want to have fun and solve their cubes.
 

Lucas Garron

Administrator
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
3,718
Location
California
WCA
2006GARR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
First of all: it would be nice to get some kind of feedback on my previous post. The delegates at the competition and me think these issues need further discussion.

The current answer: Those puzzles should not be legal.
If you want to insist on using tiles close to 1.5mm, fine; make the Delegate go measure it. But the intention is to disallow such thick tiles, except for Megaminx.
(Vincent suggested to make the transition as simple as possible for the grace period/2013, so we kept 1.5mm. Otherwise, it would be 1mm.)

"Further discussion" of our future policy for puzzles will hopefully be led by Kit Clement in the next few months.

Though delegate voting is a step in the right direction to more fairness and 'democracy' I do urge the WRC/WCA to rethink about delegate voting. Not because I think it's bad, but because I think there are better groups of cubers to have the "right to vote" than all delegates.

I am conviced a significant number of delegates does not posses the necessary knowledge or/and experience or/and skill to be able to make the right choices here. There are a lot of experienced cubers out there whose opinion is much more valuable than those delegates I am talking about. Interpreting regulations and making decisions based on regulations is a whole different world than actually understanding the community and even another world than knowing what is good for the community.

I also have several concerns about Delegate voting. However:
  • Delegates have the most experience with the Regulations and how to enforce/interpret them.
  • Delegates are already a specially vetted set of people involved with the WCA.
  • Delegates are privy to more detailed discussions on the Delegates list, often related to specific incidents that can addressed with Regulation changes (I don't like this, but I'm not sure we can change that very soon).
  • Delegates represent wide *international* experience.

We can revisit this once we have general user accounts on the WCA website. (In particular, that might allow us to get more impartial information about "community opinion".)
But I think Delegate votes are the best choice for now.
 

GoldenPhoenix

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
5
Location
Jacksonville Fl.
YouTube
Visit Channel
It's already hard enough to judge whether the advantages of current stickerless cubes are fair -- partially because we don't have definitions (e.g. fair compared to what?).
If we make a reckless change to allow them, we might find ourselves having to decide this all over again. Even if we want to have an "anything goes" policy, the Regulations might get more complicated -- or their interpretations could.
(What if someone makes a cube with cubies that are so rounded that you can almost always see the back side?)

You make a good point, with the whole post, but with this part in particular. This also explains why pillowed cubes are not allowed. I simply think (possibly erroneously) that an advantage so slight is less of a factor of solving time and more of a factor of data absorption. There is a physical limit to how fast the cube can actually be turned by a human being, and how fast humans can process data, there gets to be a point, which I think we have reached, or at least gotten close to, that picking up data sooner will not result in a faster time because the instructions through the nervous system take time to be executed, rendering the acquisition of such data at a higher speed moot. (in short, I doubt that anyone will make it below a 4 second solve, and i find it highly unlikely that the current record will be beaten any time soon, the ease of knowing the state of the puzzle won't change the speed noticeably)
 

Erik

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
2,661
Location
Enschede, Netherlands, Netherlands
WCA
2005AKKE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The current answer: Those puzzles should not be legal.
If you want to insist on using tiles close to 1.5mm, fine; make the Delegate go measure it. But the intention is to disallow such thick tiles, except for Megaminx.
(Vincent suggested to make the transition as simple as possible for the grace period/2013, so we kept 1.5mm. Otherwise, it would be 1mm.)

"Further discussion" of our future policy for puzzles will hopefully be led by Kit Clement in the next few months.

You failed to answer the core of my post at all. I don't see any justification or remotely good reason in keeping it the way it is besides "it's easy because it is the way it already is". I'm seriously starting to doubt if the WRC is actually understanding the community or know what is good for it.
And thanks for the advice, next time I will make the delegate(s) measure (which is practically impossible to do as I explained before).


I also have several concerns about Delegate voting. However:
  • Delegates have the most experience with the Regulations and how to enforce/interpret them.
You can most definitely not say this about a significant number of delegates. There are delegates who didn't even visit many more than 5 competitions. Mostly it's just the fact that they seem responsible and happen to live in a certain place which make them delegate. I'm not saying they can't do their job, but that there are more suited people.

  • Delegates are already a specially vetted set of people involved with the WCA.

Yes, this is a practical advantage I agree.

  • Delegates are privy to more detailed discussions on the Delegates list, often related to specific incidents that can addressed with Regulation changes (I don't like this, but I'm not sure we can change that very soon).
I'm not happy about this either. From what I have heared from several delegates though is that these discussions are mostly only led by a couple of delegates and that the vast majority doesn't say a word.

  • Delegates represent wide *international* experience.
*laughs* this is a total non-argument. While this is true for the handfull of experienced delegates, most delegates merely delegate comps in their own country or the direct bordering countries. I don't need to tell you there are some competitors who have been to over 10 countries and 100+ competitions who are not a delegate.


Btw. Fun fact: this would mean that of the WRC only Vincent would be able to vote ;-)
 
Last edited:

Lucas Garron

Administrator
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
3,718
Location
California
WCA
2006GARR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
You failed to answer the core of my post at all. I don't see any justification or remotely good reason in keeping it the way it is besides "it's easy because it is the way it already is". I'm seriously starting to doubt if the WRC is actually understanding the community or know what is good for it.
And thanks for the advice, next time I will make the delegate(s) measure (which is practically impossible to do as I explained before).

The justification *is* that our puzzle policy is conservative.

I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but unfortunately I haven't really heard of anyone else in the community who really wants to use thick tiles for anything but Megaminx.
In particular, I created a poll in this subforum after people complained about the 2014 changes. Only 4 out of 108 people voted that they use a puzzle with tiles over 1mm.

You can most definitely not say this about a significant number of delegates. There are delegates who didn't even visit many more than 5 competitions. Mostly it's just the fact that they seem responsible and happen to live in a certain place which make them delegate. I'm not saying they can't do their job, but that there are more suited people.
But these are specifically the people whose job it is to understand and enforce the Regulations. Even if they don't have so much experience, they have had to make sense of the entire Regulations and enforce them
I'm not inherently against other people, but this is a "pre-vetted" aspects of the Delegates.

From what I have heared from several delegates though is that these discussions are mostly only led by a couple of delegates and that the vast majority doesn't say a word.
Yeah, that part is also annoying. It's pretty hard to know if a change would impact an isolated region of the world if those people don't frequent English-speaking forums and their Delegate doesn't respond on the list.

(It was really hard to get information on whether anyone in the world really uses , [r], rotations for FMC.)

*laughs* this is a total non-argument. While this is true for the handfull of experienced delegates, most delegates merely delegate comps in their own country or the direct bordering countries. I don't need to tell you there are some competitors who have been to over 10 countries and 100+ competitions who are not a delegate.
I think you misunderstood; perhaps I was ambiguous.

I don't mean that every Delegate has wide international experience; I meant that Delegates as a whole represent international experience.
By necessity, if something has happened at a competition in the world, *some* Delegate should know about it.
Delegates are also a fairly small set of people for whom this property (at least one member knows about any given part of the world) applies.

(Also, Delegates *on average* certainly have more international experience than most competitors.)

Btw. Fun fact: this would mean that of the WRC only Vincent would be able to vote ;-)
I don't inherently mind that. It wouldn't even affect the vote much either way.

But I believe the votes should be public, and that every Board/WRC member should required to vote in order to disclose their stance.
(This is stated in the issue I linked to.)

If you care particularly much about Delegate voting, feel free to start a separate thread. We'd be happy to hear alternative proposals that are practical to implement, not too controversial, and wouldn't take too much time/work while we are already trying to set up Delegate voting.
 

Erik

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
2,661
Location
Enschede, Netherlands, Netherlands
WCA
2005AKKE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The justification *is* that our puzzle policy is conservative.

I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but unfortunately I haven't really heard of anyone else in the community who really wants to use thick tiles for anything but Megaminx.
In particular, I created a poll in this subforum after people complained about the 2014 changes. Only 4 out of 108 people voted that they use a puzzle with tiles over 1mm.

I think Conversvative is just a hollow phrase here, maybe you still didn't really get what I was asking or argumenting (maybe I didn't explain well enough). Also I think you overestimate my own "win" here (it's not like I don't have other 4x4's). The thing I am worried about here is the way the decision was made (according to the delegates at the competitions there was a lot of negative feedback internally, which you ignored) and the reasons it was made for. The fact that the WRC made this decision even though it is totally impractical, has resistance among the delegates and in lesser amounts the plain unfairness are the reasons.

Btw, the irony/hypocricy of not wanting to bad puzzles which suddenly have "0.x mm too thick" tiles, but thinking it is ok to let all delegates vote (suited or not), is not to be missed here.

But these are specifically the people whose job it is to understand and enforce the Regulations. Even if they don't have so much experience, they have had to make sense of the entire Regulations and enforce them
I'm not inherently against other people, but this is a "pre-vetted" aspects of the Delegates.

Just because it is their job, doesn't mean they are the best at doing it and certainly does not mean they are the best at doing something beyond enforcing regulations. You know as well as I do that the country/state the competitor lives in is a huge, if not the main, reason someone gets to be a delegate. For example Arnaud van Galen would be a great delegate, but he isn't because there are already 2 delegates in the Netherlands.

Yeah, that part is also annoying. It's pretty hard to know if a change would impact an isolated region of the world if those people don't frequent English-speaking forums and their Delegate doesn't respond on the list.

(It was really hard to get information on whether anyone in the world really uses , [r], rotations for FMC.)

I think you misunderstood; perhaps I was ambiguous.

I don't mean that every Delegate has wide international experience; I meant that Delegates as a whole represent international experience.
By necessity, if something has happened at a competition in the world, *some* Delegate should know about it.
Delegates are also a fairly small set of people for whom this property (at least one member knows about any given part of the world) applies.


Access to knowledge about what is going on is just a result of the non-transparent way of the WCA-organisation itself. It does in no way garuantee that all delegates actually do know about what is going on (or has been going on for the past years).

(Also, Delegates *on average* certainly have more international experience than most competitors.)

This claim is totally vague, unmeasurable and most importantly totally irrelevant. I think you know my point is that there are some competitors who's opinion is more valuable than those of some delegates. Maybe you don't like this since it means the WCA is not perfect, but it is the truth and it'd be a shame and another sign of lack of.

If you care particularly much about Delegate voting, feel free to start a separate thread. We'd be happy to hear alternative proposals that are practical to implement, not too controversial, and wouldn't take too much time/work while we are already trying to set up Delegate voting.

Here it is: "use the right people for the right tasks to get the right result". Maybe this doesn't exactly suit your much time/work thing, but you shouldn't be scared of doing the right thing, just because it is not easy.
 

Lucas Garron

Administrator
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
3,718
Location
California
WCA
2006GARR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Here it is: "use the right people for the right tasks to get the right result". Maybe this doesn't exactly suit your much time/work thing, but you shouldn't be scared of doing the right thing, just because it is not easy.

That quoted phrase almost sounds like an instruction to be politically manipulative.

In any case, we are *not* scared of doing the right thing just because it isn't easy.
Some of the 2014 changes were because they are the "right thing", not the popular/easy thing.
And right now, given the strong community preference for stickerless puzzles, we're trying to do the "right thing" by taking the time to get the puzzle regs right, instead of just putting into effect an "anything goes" change that might cause trouble down the line.

Responding a lot on this forum is also not "easy", but it is the right thing, because means our process/stance becomes more transparent about anything someone asks.


In any case, I've responded a lot on this thread.
If you'd like to discuss the puzzle policy, that is alright, but please focus on how to improve it instead of criticizing the past/current policy.
If you'd like to continue talking about Delegate voting, please post here or contact the WRC/Board.
 

Erik

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
2,661
Location
Enschede, Netherlands, Netherlands
WCA
2005AKKE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Not sure what you mean by "politically manipulative", I tried to compress exactly what is necessary into a single sentence. It may sound like common sense, but it looks like it is not being followed consistently. I'll look forward to further discuss in the other thread.

It is very nice to see that the discussion about for example stickerless cubes is continuing, I will do my best to contribute something to it.

I am sad though, that it is apparently not possible to get a clarification for the way things went. You failed to comment on my arguments/questions, and make me feel the WRC just does what it wants without needing to justify itself to the community or even their own delegates.

The rules about tiles were quite ok and made sense, until you starting changing them back and forth. The only thing that was not right in the regulations was that the exception was only for megaminx. After all, other puzzles use about the same thickness of tiles as well (I've seen 3x3, 4x4, 5x5's, pyraminxes etc equiped with these). All delegates however did either not know or did not care about this. In reality the "or generally available thickness" rule applied for all puzzles (not only non-cubic) and was maintained this way, by all delegates and board members (afaik nobody ever got their cubes banned for their tile thickness). The way to improve the regs is to get rid of the exception and for example allow the "generally available thickness" for all puzzles. In this case criticizing/removing it = improving it.

Btw I do appreciate the fact that you respond a lot.
 
Last edited:
Top