One-Answer WCA Competition and Regulations Question Thread

[mark49152]

I agree with @tseitsei that this is just common sense, but to my mind, this is already explicit in the regulations under 3a3 "Each puzzle variation must have moves, states, and solutions functionally identical to the original puzzle." If you intentionally twist corners (other than just once to fix a defect) you are effectively adding a new move type and changing the functionality of the puzzle.

 

[guysensei1]

I agree with @tseitsei that this is just common sense, but to my mind, this is already explicit in the regulations under 3a3 "Each puzzle variation must have moves, states, and solutions functionally identical to the original puzzle." If you intentionally twist corners (other than just once to fix a defect) you are effectively adding a new move type and changing the functionality of the puzzle.

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

 

[1973486]

I think the issue is that it's not clear enough for a 9 year old to understand.

 

[AirbusCube]

If my cube explodes during a solve and all pieces fall out, can I assemble the cube into a solved state?

 

[Rcuber123]

If my cube explodes during a solve and all pieces fall out, can I assemble the cube into a solved state?

No

 

[Goosly]

If my cube explodes during a solve and all pieces fall out, can I assemble the cube into a solved state?

• 5b2) Any repair to a puzzle must not give the competitor any advantage in solving the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).

So, only if your puzzle was solved already and it exploded when you dropped it on the table.

 

[guysensei1]

If during MBLD I accidentally make a move on one of the cubes while still memorising, is the entire attempt DNFed or just that one cube, making my best possible result (n-1)/n ?

 

[Goosly]

If during MBLD I accidentally make a move on one of the cubes while still memorising, is the entire attempt DNFed or just that one cube, making my best possible result (n-1)/n ?

Just undo it and continue. You may not apply moves. Accidentally making one and cancelling it is not applying a move, imo.

• B3c) The competitor must not apply moves to the puzzle during the memorisation phase. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).

 

[tseitsei]

I think the issue is that it's not clear enough for a 9 year old to understand.

Do you really honestly believe that most 9 year old people attending to competitions have actually read the regulations?

Sadly the answer is no, so even if we had written "YOU CAN'T INTENTIONALLY TWIST CORNERS!" on the first page of the regulations he very probably still wouldn't have seen that...

A much bigger problem than the exact wording of our regulations is that we have competitors and judges that are completely oblivious about the regulations. But that is also hard to fix since all the judging is based on volunteering but I wont talk about that here because we already have another topic for that...

 

[guysensei1]

Just undo it and continue. You may not apply moves. Accidentally making one and cancelling it is not applying a move, imo.

• B3c) The competitor must not apply moves to the puzzle during the memorisation phase. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).

If that logic holds, then I can apply my memo to the cube, check if it's solved, then undo my memo to get it back to the original scrambled state 'I undid all the moves, should be fine right?'

maybe I'm doing the slippery slope fallacy here, but it doesn't feel right to me

 

[DGCubes]

If that logic holds, then I can apply my memo to the cube, check if it's solved, then undo my memo to get it back to the original scrambled state 'I undid all the moves, should be fine right?'

maybe I'm doing the slippery slope fallacy here, but it doesn't feel right to me

There's also this regulation:

• A3c1) The competitor must not apply moves during inspection. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).

One solve in Drew's Pyraminx WR average at Nats 2014 was DNFed because he went over 60 degrees in inspection, so I would assume that, no, you cannot do a turn and undo it in MBLD without a DNF.
Good point about whether or not the entire attempt should be DNFed. I one time accidentally made a move in a 2 cube multi, believed it was a DNF, called someone else over (I forget if it was a delegate or just the proctor of the MBLD room), and we DNFed it.

 

[mark49152]

I think the issue is that it's not clear enough for a 9 year old to understand.

If someone doesn't understand that twisting corners is cheating, they should not be competing, regardless of age. It shouldn't be necessary to read the regs to know that.

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

Where's the regulation that made my 3.94 a 3.99 on 2x2 a while ago (the one about ambiguous times)?

 

[tseitsei]

If during MBLD I accidentally make a move on one of the cubes while still memorising, is the entire attempt DNFed or just that one cube, making my best possible result (n-1)/n ?

I dont know but if I was judging that I would definitely just DNF that one cube.

 

[AlphaSheep]

Where's the regulation that made my 3.94 a 3.99 on 2x2 a while ago (the one about ambiguous times)?

It's in the guidelines

• A7c+) ADDITION If a result signed by a competitor is found to be incomplete or unreadable, it should be interpreted the worst reasonable way (e.g. "1:05" will be considered 1:05.99, "25.X3" will be considered 25.73 if X could be either a 1 or a 7). Given that the Stackmat timer displays a time of X:0Y.ss as X:Y.ss, a missing tens digit should be considered more likely than a missing ones digit (e.g. "1:2.27" will be considered 1:02.27). The judge who signed an ambiguous result may be requested to clarify it, at the discretion of the score taker.

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

It's in the guidelines

• A7c+) ADDITION If a result signed by a competitor is found to be incomplete or unreadable, it should be interpreted the worst reasonable way (e.g. "1:05" will be considered 1:05.99, "25.X3" will be considered 25.73 if X could be either a 1 or a 7). Given that the Stackmat timer displays a time of X:0Y.ss as X:Y.ss, a missing tens digit should be considered more likely than a missing ones digit (e.g. "1:2.27" will be considered 1:02.27). The judge who signed an ambiguous result may be requested to clarify it, at the discretion of the score taker.

I suggest something like "If the competitor can offer sufficient proof that an ambiguous scorecard was incorrectly interpreted to the Delegate, during or after the competition, the time can be corrected."

BTW, the second that is added I would get Kit to fix a 2x2 time I got 2 years ago lol

 

[Daniel Lin]

Not trying to be annoying by bringing this up again(lol), but the regs still aren't that clear
"Each puzzle variation must have moves, states, and solutions functionally identical to the original puzzle."
That means an corner twist is an automatic DNF, right? regardless of whether it was intentional or not

 

[tseitsei]

Not trying to be annoying by bringing this up again(lol), but the regs still aren't that clear
"Each puzzle variation must have moves, states, and solutions functionally identical to the original puzzle."
That means an corner twist is an automatic DNF, right? regardless of whether it was intentional or not

Once again pls people. Use common sense!
And once again IMO spirit of the regulations is more important than the exact wording of the regulations

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

The regulations list corner twists as a defect.

 

[One Wheel]

For BLD: the regulations state that the competitor must supply their own blindfold, and the guidelines recommend that the delegate check the blindfold. I know I can get one for $2.50 at the cubicle, and that's not exactly going to break the bank, but could I, say, wear a hat and pull it down over my eyes? A thin stocking cap is translucent, and obviously wouldn't work, but a thick stocking cap or a baseball cap?