New 2015 WCA Regulations (Effective July 1, 2015)

[guysensei1]

With the Bob Burton methon, you actually get your LL skip after (IIRC) at most 4 such layers, assuming you solve them in the most intuitive way. This is not the same thing as getting a DNF every second solve because you don't know some kind of parity fix.

4? Couldn't you go on and on for much longer without getting an ll skip?

Also couldn't you just re scramble the cube and resolve till no parity?

 

[Hssandwich]

4? Couldn't you go on and on for much longer without getting an ll skip?

Also couldn't you just re scramble the cube and resolve till no parity?

Assuming you only know one type of insertion for the pieces and its mirror, eg. R U' R' / L' U L, the maximum number of times it can take is four.

Also, what is considered parity on pyraminx? I have heard people saying that 2 flip is a parity.

 

[Username]

Also, what is considered parity on pyraminx? I have heard people saying that 2 flip is a parity.

There is none, but that was not what he was saying.

There was an earlier comparison to 4x4(?) parity screwing up every other solve

 

[EMI]

4? Couldn't you go on and on for much longer without getting an ll skip?

Also couldn't you just re scramble the cube and resolve till no parity?

I don't think so, because that is effectively the same as trying to solve a 2x2 by doing random moves, except that it won't take as long. In theory, it will at some point be solved, but I believe the definition of "being able to solve a 2x2" is meant in a different way
What's propably allowed though in this case is simply doing an r move and resolving the centers with comms like U2 Rw U2 Rw', because that will result in having no parity afterwards.

 

[Rubiks560]

This "Require competitors to take the event seriously" is extremely dumb. Who cares if Brandon Mikel does a 69 FMC? How much additional time does that REALLY waste? Who can really say he isn't doing his best? I mean, I guess I could see the good intention of the regulation, but really, why are we taking this so seriously? I personally am not a fan of my new stickerless cube overlords, but chill out. Comps are for fun. Who cares if someone takes a little longer to do their stuff?

That's the thig, Brandon's 69 *doesnt* waste time. He ALWAYS finishes at least 30 min before everyone else and then proceeds to help in any way needed. It's just because of a few butt hurt delegates who can't stand the number 69. Guarantee they wouldn't care if the number was 68.

 

[Coolster01]

I think there should be a short, online, multiple-choice, open book quiz on the regulations. Passing the quiz would show new competitors have at least a basic understanding of the regulations before their first comp.

One of these questions should be:

Which of the following is the best choice if you want to experience a world record and abide with the regulations?

a. Pressure the competitor by saying, "Can I record you?" and putting your camera on their solving table, thus making it obvious to them that an easy scramble is coming.
b. Don't tell the competitor anything at all.
c. Reveal the easy scramble to the competitor beforehand so that they can practice the scramble to get a fast time.
d. Tell the competitor that there exists and easy scramble, but don't tell him/her the scramble.

 

[Myachii]

One of these questions should be:

Which of the following is the best choice if you want to experience a world record and abide with the regulations?

a. Pressure the competitor by saying, "Can I record you?" and putting your camera on their solving table, thus making it obvious to them that an easy scramble is coming.
b. Don't tell the competitor anything at all.
c. Reveal the easy scramble to the competitor beforehand so that they can practice the scramble to get a fast time.
d. Tell the competitor that there exists and easy scramble, but don't tell him/her the scramble.

Obviously c.

In all seriousness there really shouldn't be a need for a regulations quiz. People should know them.

Instead of making people take a quiz they should punish people more for infractions of the regulations. This will encourage people to learn them like the pledge of allegiance (or whatever you 'muricans learn)

 

[Dene]

In all seriousness there really shouldn't be a need for a regulations quiz. People should know them.

"There really shouldn't be a need for police. People should just behave".

 

[Myachii]

"There really shouldn't be a need for police. People should just behave".

That's a bit of an extreme example. Besides it does say to familiarize yourself with the regulations before attending competitions.
People who accidentally break regulations don't do so extremely. Most extreme breaches of regulations are done purposefully.
People who purposefully break regulations are few and far between. Besides, if someone wanted to attend a comp to cheat then they would cheat on the regulations quiz too. You can't win.

 

[Genius4Jesus]

That's a bit of an extreme example. Besides it does say to familiarize yourself with the regulations before attending competitions.
People who accidentally break regulations don't do so extremely. Most extreme breaches of regulations are done purposefully.
People who purposefully break regulations are few and far between. Besides, if someone wanted to attend a comp to cheat then they would cheat on the regulations quiz too. You can't win.

My point of having a regulations quiz wasn't to prevent cheaters, it was so new competitors can prove they know how competing in an official WCA comp works. This could prevent bad timer starts/stops and other issues new competitors bring because they don't know (and haven't proved) that they understand the regulations.

As for people cheating on a quiz so they can come and cheat at a competition... Cheating is intentional, and to do something intentionally you have to understand what you are doing. So, to cheat the regulations at a comp you have to know the regulations, therefore you would be able to pass a regulations quiz.

 

[AustinReed]

I think there should be a short, online, multiple-choice, open book quiz on the regulations. Passing the quiz would show new competitors have at least a basic understanding of the regulations before their first comp.

I'm totally a fan of this. I read all the regulations before my first competition and I assumed everyone did the same.

Come on, the quiz wouldn't be a big deal or anything.

 

[Lucas Garron]

I don't think that forcing competitors to pass some sort of quiz/qualification is appropriate. The onus should be on us to make the Regulations clear to them. See this.

Also, for anyone who might not know:

2t) Each competitor must be familiar with and understand the WCA Regulations before the competition.

 

[FailCuber]

Yay! Stickerless cubes!

 

[APdRF]

I don't think that forcing competitors to pass some sort of quiz/qualification is appropriate. The onus should be on us to make the Regulations clear to them. See this.

Also, for anyone who might not know:

Me and a friend did a video trying to explain all the basic stuff a newer competitor should know, maybe it's useful to put there, it has english subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O_iWRGq4K8

Also, I'm so happy with all the changes that will occur with these new regulations, good job!

 

[Genius4Jesus]

Doesn't regulation 2t make is so that it is the competitor's responsibility to know the regulations? I read over the regulations several times and understood them before my first competition. But, I do know many new competitors do not understand the regulations and require frequent correction.

So if the WCA wishes to "enforce" regulation 2t, wouldn't a new competitor have to prove they know the regulations? Through a quiz or something like that?

To be clear I don't think there needs to be a regulations quiz. I just think it would be beneficial.

 

[qqwref]

I don't like the intentional-poor-results clause. Sure, there certainly are instances where someone can waste a noticeable amount of time and should be punished for that (e.g. 10 minute speedsolves on purpose when they are much faster). On the other hand, if you want to prevent extremely long solves, that's what hard cutoffs are for. The thing is, I've seen a lot of examples of intentionally bad solves that are either...
(a) Things that hurt a competitor's results but don't waste a substantial amount of time, like putting in long (but still <80) FMC solutions, or going for a lot of simultaneous +2 errors;
(b) Someone not trying hard after they ruin the solve (a big pop, a mistake on an early step, etc.), and possibly spending a little extra time to get near a particular time boundary;
(c) Someone simply not being good at an event but hoping to get some official results anyway (the "solving a puzzle without knowing enough algorithms to solve it every time" thing, or most new people in BLD, or anyone who isn't sure they'll make the cutoffs).
Are these really situations where we should be penalizing the competitor more than they already are? Competitions are not that serious or fast-paced of a thing that someone not performing optimally will be a problem.

It also brings up the point of people using alternate methods. At my last comp I wanted to get some official 3x3x3 times with my columns method, and probably 'wasted' about 20-25 seconds of comp time compared to what I would get with CFOP (although I might have made up for it by not making the second round ). Should I really have been DNF'd for having the audacity to not get the best times I possibly can?

I don't think that forcing competitors to pass some sort of quiz/qualification is appropriate. The onus should be on us to make the Regulations clear to them.

Making it readable and clear is great, but it doesn't help much if they don't look at it

Also, for anyone who might not know:
2t) Each competitor must be familiar with and understand the WCA Regulations before the competition.

Same thing though, since that clause is inside the regulations, someone who doesn't look at the regulations would never know they have to look at the regulations

 

[Kit Clement]

(a) Things that hurt a competitor's results but don't waste a substantial amount of time, like putting in long (but still <80) FMC solutions, or going for a lot of simultaneous +2 errors;
(b) Someone not trying hard after they ruin the solve (a big pop, a mistake on an early step, etc.), and possibly spending a little extra time to get near a particular time boundary;
(c) Someone simply not being good at an event but hoping to get some official results anyway (the "solving a puzzle without knowing enough algorithms to solve it every time" thing, or most new people in BLD, or anyone who isn't sure they'll make the cutoffs).
Are these really situations where we should be penalizing the competitor more than they already are? Competitions are not that serious or fast-paced of a thing that someone not performing optimally will be a problem.

Since this is at's the delegate's discretion, it's their call as to whether they want to apply this. For (a), I think that an intentional 80 move solution can be acceptable in certain circumstances, but not so much at a competition like US Nationals when there might be a ton of these solutions, as well as people submitting things that may look like solutions that end with "LOL" or "DNF" (which happens more than you'd think...). For (b) and (c), I don't see this ever being enforced. We can technically already disqualify people who will likely not meet time limits, but this is never done in practice. It's just nice to have a regulation that delegates can fall back on when competitors are really screwing around and wasting time -- we can have a talk with them and have some sort of regulation to back up what we're saying to make sure that they don't repeat the behavior.

It puts a lot of trust on the delegates, but again, by appointing them, we are trusting them already.

 

[Lucas Garron]

For the "intentionally poor results" change, I think a good, concise viewpoint is "is the competitor wasting resources?" (at the discretion of the Delegate).
This covers 80 move solutions or extra-long solves if it would waste solution checking/judge time in a large round, while still allowing shenanigans if things are more lax.

 

[AustinReed]

It puts a lot of trust on the delegates, but again, by appointing them, we are trusting them already.

Well, it's not like that ever goes wrong.

(c), I don't see this ever being enforced. We can technically already disqualify people who will likely not meet time limits, but this is never done in practice. It's just nice to have a regulation that delegates can fall back on when competitors are really screwing around and wasting time -- we can have a talk with them and have some sort of regulation to back up what we're saying to make sure that they don't repeat the behavior.

Then why have it? That's like putting in a law just to say "Oh, we'll never arrest anyone for it." It's almost like a "pick and choose" usage of a regulation which I think is awful.

(a), I think that an intentional 80 move solution can be acceptable in certain circumstances, but at a competition like US Nationals when there might be a ton of these solutions, as well as people submitting things that may look like solutions that end with "LOL" or "DNF" (which happens more than you'd think...)

Who's to say that something is intentional or not? With the whole "FMC using a mean" thing now, I wouldn't blame anyone for trying to write down whatever solution comes to their head. I average low 30s for FMC, but if there's 10 minutes left and I don't have anything, I can write down a CFOP solution just so I have something to turn in and not get a DNF mean. Does that mean I'm "wasting time" or intentionally getting a bad result? I feel like this is such a huge ambiguity/gray area for my own comfort.

 

[Lucas Garron]

Making it readable and clear is great, but it doesn't help much if they don't look at it

Competition websites often tell competitors/registrants to be familiar with the Regulations.
I believe the registration form for Worlds requires an explicit acknowledgement of Regulation 2t.

The current Regulations are daunting, but we need a lot of the edge cases, so I don't think we're going to be able o make people look at all of it. Hence, the idea to go with official guides explaining the core parts they must know. (If that works out, 2t could be modified to state that they mainly need to know those things, but also understand that the rest of the Regulations apply.)