• 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!

Concerns about FMC regulations

AlphaSheep

Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
1,083
Location
Gauteng, South Africa
WCA
2014GRAY03
I know this is going to sound stupid, but I always found the fact that FMC competitors are given a written scramble AT ALL to be somewhat impure.

Why not just give them a single scrambled cube, as in all the other events?

Make them match-the-scramble to find a "scramble" for the cube. Then they can use that as their "scramble" and even do NISS, etc.

I understand that would drastically (negatively) affect the way FMCers find solutions and waste a minute or two (from the arbitrary 1-hour limit), but it would certainly avoid this entire debate and would standardize the regulations.
I've done this at home. It only takes a couple minutes to find the first solution anyway. After that, every shorter solution you find makes scrambling a tiny bit quicker anyway. Lots of fun and I actually wouldn't mind if the WCA went that route.

Implementing it would be as simple as leaving the scramble off the FMC sheet and leaving just the picture.
 
Last edited:

pglewis

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
1,268
Location
Cincinnati
WCA
2016LEWI07
I understand the mindset of not wanting to leave anything to chance or having to rely on someone else's decision. But when you enforce everything with hard and fast rules you can end up with silly situations because, "sorry, that's the rule". This is why we have courts and judges. I personally prefer case by case evaluation beyond a certain point because the cubing Gods have a way of throwing you novel situations that the rules can't anticipate.

Also, half of me says this is a discussion to fix a nonexistent problem. It seems clear that the original situation that spawned the discussion would not have been subject to a DNF in a competition. The other half of me knows that you can end up painted into a corner when you don't anticipate future problems, so I won't completely poo-poo it. But it's definitely leaning towards much ado about nothing for me.
 
Top