One-Answer WCA Competition and Regulations Question Thread

[guysensei1]

Is this counted as an intentionally poor result?
Someone is very slow at 3bld, say sup-10 minutes. He wants to do multiblind. He can't do 2/2 in 20 minutes, however, he can do it in 30 minutes. So he submits 3 cubes in a competition but only looks at 2 of them, just to get a 2/3 official result.

 

[Goosly]

Is this counted as an intentionally poor result?

No.

Considering his skills and the time limit, that is the best result he can get. Trying to get the best possible result is the opposite of intentionally poor.

 

[mark49152]

Is this counted as an intentionally poor result?
Someone is very slow at 3bld, say sup-10 minutes. He wants to do multiblind. He can't do 2/2 in 20 minutes, however, he can do it in 30 minutes. So he submits 3 cubes in a competition but only looks at 2 of them, just to get a 2/3 official result.

IMHO that is not an intentionally poor result. The competitor is paying a 2-point price for the benefit of extra time and a choice of scrambles. It's tactical, but it's still the competitor's intent to get the best result they think they are capable of.

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

IMHO that is not an intentionally poor result. The competitor is paying a 2-point price for the benefit of extra time and a choice of scrambles. It's tactical, but it's still the competitor's intent to get the best result they think they are capable of.

But they are intentionally spending longer than the 20 minute time limit for 2 cubes, isn't going over the time limit a poor result?

 

[AlphaSheep]

If 1 point is the best the person can do, then it's definite not a poor result. Also, I don't think choosing the number of cubes counts as part the attempt. It's quite common in MBLD for the top competitors to do fewer cubes than the maximum they're capable of, and it would be unreasonable to force people to do so.

 

[mark49152]

But they are intentionally spending longer than the 20 minute time limit for 2 cubes, isn't going over the time limit a poor result?

2/3 in 30 mins is not as poor as DNF in 20 mins. The tactics might be questionable but the result isn't. If the intent was to prevent people doing this, the regs should be updated or clarified, because at the moment it's down to subjective interpretation.

 

[Loiloiloi]

Which cube company has indirectly produced the most World Records (obviously not counting FMC)

 

[aolong boy]

Me and a friend of mine are intending to host a competition sometime next year. Although we both looked on the WSSA website and saw that it told us to borrow timers, we couldn't find anywhere to actually borrow/rent timer from someone. Can anybody tell me where to go to borrow/rent timers?

 

[tx789]

Me and a friend of mine are intending to host a competition sometime next year. Although we both looked on the WSSA website and saw that it told us to borrow timers, we couldn't find anywhere to actually borrow/rent timer from someone. Can anybody tell me where to go to borrow/rent timers?

You should ask the delegate you plan on having at the comp about this.

 

[obelisk477]

Me and a friend of mine are intending to host a competition sometime next year. Although we both looked on the WSSA website and saw that it told us to borrow timers, we couldn't find anywhere to actually borrow/rent timer from someone. Can anybody tell me where to go to borrow/rent timers?

Yep. Your first step in planning any competition should be to contact the closest delegate, and have an answer ready with a possible spot for a venue. Everything else comes after that

 

[guysensei1]

In the past I was able to start MBLD whenever I want. I just needed a delegate, a room, and a judge. After some troubles with this bad "cheating" Maskow they decided that everybody needs to start their MBLD in one moment. It was bad, because it always generate delays, ALWAYS, because people are solving different things, and usually the room for the MBLD is just to small for all the people and their judges. In the past I usually solved MBLD in empty or almost empty room, because most people wanted to do it later, I was always first. After that I was forced to do MBLD in too small room, full of people, in bad hours, with delays, when after few minutes of memorisation many of them are just starting to solve those cubes, what is loud as hell because they are sitting next to me. It's not always the thing. Some rooms are fine and big enough, some organisers are aware of it, but just after those changes they didn't know it, they weren't ready for it, so I was lost. Some organisers care about MBLD and are able to find room big enough. Some don't. In the past it didn't matter because I was able to solve MBLD when I was ready, without waiting for anybody.

Quote from Maskow, on Reddit.

Is this change a mandatory thing or is it just a delegate preference?

 

[AlphaSheep]

Quote from Maskow, on Reddit.

Is this change a mandatory thing or is it just a delegate preference?

It's not mandatory, but a logistical preference that's partly because of this new regulation (which came into effect in April):

• 4b4) Each scramble sequence should be applied during a maximum time frame of 2 hours. This time frame starts when the scramble sequence is applied for the first time.

It means if a competition wants to do the old "do it whenever you want" style, then [unless they have a very good reason not to], they have to have a new set of MBLD scrambles every two hours, so competitors may get different scrambles, which is not recommended.

• 1h++) RECOMMENDATION All attempts in the final round of an event, as well as all Fewest Moves Solving attempts, should have the same scramble sequences for all competitors (i.e. only 1 group).

That's why more and more competitions are holding MBLD and big BLD in a single shorter time slot rather than throughout the day. The choice to make everyone start at the same time, rather than throughout the 2 hour time span is delegate preference.

Edit: wording regarding "should" as discussed below.

 

[Goosly]

4b4) Each scramble sequence should be applied during a maximum time frame of 2 hours.
(...)
It means if a competition wants to do the old "do it whenever you want" style, they have to have a new set of MBLD scrambles every two hours

No.
"Should" does not mean "have to have".

 

[Loiloiloi]

No.
"Should" does not mean "have to have".

In the context of the regulations it does.

 

[AlexMaass]

In the context of the regulations it does.

Wording
Uses of the words "must", "must not", "should", "should not" and "may" match RFC 2119.

and when you go to RFC 2119 it says:

3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

 

[Jaysammey777]

In the context of the regulations it does.

Actually according to the regs:
Should means that there may exists valid reason in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

 

[AlphaSheep]

My interpretation of "should" here (which is in line with the definition linked in the regs) is this. If the delegate plans on using the scrambles over 2 hours but the there's a delay in the middle of the MBLD round and the round ends up taking 2 and a half hours, then that's OK. If a delegate chooses to just ignore the regulation completely, then that's not OK. The regulation needs to use the word "should" here and not "must" because otherwise the first situation with a delay would make the round invalid.

But yes, "should" does not mean "have to", so I've fixed my earlier post.

 

[Goosly]

If a delegate chooses to just ignore the regulation completely, then that's not OK.

1h++ seems a good reason to ignore it though.
Over here (Belgium, Netherlands), bigbld is often held as a do-whenever-you-want-event, so it doesnt take up space in the schedule (not a lot of people do it anyway) and not all of the people competing in it (+ their judges) are unavailable for helping at the same time.

 

[AlphaSheep]

1h++ seems a good reason to ignore it though.
Over here (Belgium, Netherlands), bigbld is often held as a do-whenever-you-want-event, so it doesnt take up space in the schedule (not a lot of people do it anyway) and not all of the people competing in it (+ their judges) are unavailable for helping at the same time.

As far as I understand, 4b4 was actually added to stop this very practice. If the same scrambles are used all day, there's a much higher chance of scrambles leaking, or someone who does the solve earlier in the day uploading a video before others have done that scramble. I'd say 4b4 is a reason to ignore 1h++, rather than the other way around.

 

[Goosly]

If the same scrambles are used all day, there's a much higher chance of scrambles leaking, or someone who does the solve earlier in the day uploading a video before others have done that scramble.

Bigbld & multibld are (as far as I know) the only events for which it would be useful to use scrambles for longer than two hours. People who compete in those events are smart/mature enough to not leak scrambles.