New Ideas for 2010 WCA Regulations?

[Dene]

I think that the competitors should be called up in a certain order. (ex. alphabetically) It would be nice to know when and if you were called, instead of hoping that your scorecard was in the stack for a while. Also, it is rather annoying when you are called up for a new event while you are solving a different puzzle.

This is possible, but it would certainly put extra weight on the organisers. It would also be impossible to maintain during competitions, for competitors that don't come when called, etc.

 

[qqwref]

I know it sounds weird but in my opinion we should remove the +2 rule at all! It should be solved or DNF only. Almost every +2 solve is because we rush the end of the solve to get a better time, ending up with a worse one. (That's why a +2 on 7x7x7 happens rarely and happens often on a magic.)

We should learn to solve the puzzles. Correct me if I'm wrong but for example in the final of the World Championship there were no or only a few +2-s, because the competitors focused on their solves enough to avoid this penalty case.

Maybe you haven't had this problem, but +2s are not all cases of "I will not bother fixing the last side, because it is just 2 seconds". I've seen and experienced cases where the cube was solved when the competitor dropped it but ended up a move off for some other reason; for example, maybe the cube is just too loose, or maybe it fell off the table or something and misaligned. It is very unfair to completely disqualify a solve just because of a mistake that may not have even been the competitor's fault.

As for the cube just turning: I have this a lot on 2x2 (Eastsheen cubes suck) and the only possible solution would be to spend an extra 0.5s carefully placing the cube down. But this is not a viable solution because 0.5s is a lot on 2x2 - it can be the difference between 3rd and 6th or 7th place. I know this problem does not come up all that often at the highest level, but it definitely does come up, and I think that giving a huge penalty (like DNF) for bad luck will just add frustration, make people slower, and make luck more of an issue as opposed to skill.

The thing is that we do not have advanced enough equipment to check the state of the cube as it leaves a competitor's hands. If we did then we would not need the +2 rule because a competitor who really did solve the cube would always be considered to have solved it. Because of a bouncy surface and some competitors having loose cubes, there are always going to be misalignments that happen completely by accident, and declaring that that should be a DNF is ridiculous.

 

[Muesli]

I know it sounds weird but in my opinion we should remove the +2 rule at all! It should be solved or DNF only. Almost every +2 solve is because we rush the end of the solve to get a better time, ending up with a worse one. (That's why a +2 on 7x7x7 happens rarely and happens often on a magic.)

We should learn to solve the puzzles. Correct me if I'm wrong but for example in the final of the World Championship there were no or only a few +2-s, because the competitors focused on their solves enough to avoid this penalty case.

Maybe you haven't had this problem, but +2s are not all cases of "I will not bother fixing the last side, because it is just 2 seconds". I've seen and experienced cases where the cube was solved when the competitor dropped it but ended up a move off for some other reason; for example, maybe the cube is just too loose, or maybe it fell off the table or something and misaligned. It is very unfair to completely disqualify a solve just because of a mistake that may not have even been the competitor's fault.

As for the cube just turning: I have this a lot on 2x2 (Eastsheen cubes suck) and the only possible solution would be to spend an extra 0.5s carefully placing the cube down. But this is not a viable solution because 0.5s is a lot on 2x2 - it can be the difference between 3rd and 6th or 7th place. I know this problem does not come up all that often at the highest level, but it definitely does come up, and I think that giving a huge penalty (like DNF) for bad luck will just add frustration, make people slower, and make luck more of an issue as opposed to skill.

The thing is that we do not have advanced enough equipment to check the state of the cube as it leaves a competitor's hands. If we did then we would not need the +2 rule because a competitor who really did solve the cube would always be considered to have solved it. Because of a bouncy surface and some competitors having loose cubes, there are always going to be misalignments that happen completely by accident, and declaring that that should be a DNF is ridiculous.

When a golfball hits a flag, it isn't in. When a cube is not moving on the table and the timer is stopped with 1 move remaining, it is a +2.

 

[antros]

20%!??!?! That's a 48s penalty on a4:00 7x7 solve. It would absolutely destroy any average that has a +2 in it. 20% of solve time is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.

in Magic +2 this is sometimes 200%, in 2x2 sometimes 100%, in Pyra sometimes 50% , THIS ABSOLUTELY DESTROY AVERGES!

 

[Olivér Perge]

I've seen and experienced cases where the cube was solved when the competitor dropped it but ended up a move off for some other reason; for example, maybe the cube is just too loose, or maybe it fell off the table or something and misaligned. It is very unfair to completely disqualify a solve just because of a mistake that may not have even been the competitor's fault.

How is that not the competitors fault? He/she was the one who dropped the cube knowing that it might turn over a bit. If it's not 100% his/her fault, you should admit that it's his/her responsibility. If you want to avoid these cases, get a better cube!

As for the cube just turning: I have this a lot on 2x2 (Eastsheen cubes suck) and the only possible solution would be to spend an extra 0.5s carefully placing the cube down.

Yes!

I once... (who am i kidding?) I broke my magic during an official solve so many times. It was my fault, i got a DNF.

 

[Olivér Perge]

20%!??!?! That's a 48s penalty on a4:00 7x7 solve. It would absolutely destroy any average that has a +2 in it. 20% of solve time is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.

in Magic +2 this is sometimes 200%, in 2x2 sometimes 100%, in Pyra sometimes 50% , THIS ABSOLUTELY DESTROY AVERGES!

If a +2 destroys an average, solve the cube and you will not get one! Yes it sounds sarcastic, but what else you could do?

 

[esquimalt1]

I would also like all these nonsense regulations about "cube must have stickers or not-to-big-tiles with a maximum of 1 logo and everything in perfect condition" to be scrapped or at least not enforced for anything except blind as it is a much bigger problem for competitors than it is actually an advantage for them.

Yes, the stuff about the logos and the stickers isn't going to give you any advantage in a speed solve.

This is just false, and I don't like strong unsubstantiated statements like that.

Why did we not use to hold up covers for BLD? Because it's not too easy to peek under a blindfold unsuspiciously, and no one would bother to cheat.

I remember seeing Dan and qq have a discussion; Dan had a worn 4x4x4 wing sticker that he had gotten used to, so didn't have to look at the other side of it. Cheating is on the rise, and we shouldn't permit anything that clearly allows "cheating." That said, I'd like to see the specific regulations relaxed, and I believe the delegate should have the leniency to decide about cubes that don't clearly follow the rules.

Yeah, that's a good point you brought up there. You're right.

 

[Lucas Garron]

I've seen and experienced cases where the cube was solved when the competitor dropped it but ended up a move off for some other reason; for example, maybe the cube is just too loose, or maybe it fell off the table or something and misaligned.

My favorite one: drop the cube straight-down, solved and well-aligned, and end up a U' off.

Anyhow, you're talking about cubes that were solved when dropped. How about solves that weren't, but would have been solved except for the peculiarities of our timing system?

 

[EmersonHerrmann]

That video makes me very sad. I +1 whoever said that we should be able to use transparent cubes, they should just be looked at just in case someone is trying to cheat.

 

[DavidWoner]

I think that the competitors should be called up in a certain order. (ex. alphabetically) It would be nice to know when and if you were called, instead of hoping that your scorecard was in the stack for a while.

Organizers are busy enough as it is. If the competitor can't pay attention while they are calling names then that is their problem.

Also, it is rather annoying when you are called up for a new event while you are solving a different puzzle.

This is the fault of the organizer, and will happen regardless of the regulations.

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

I know it sounds weird but in my opinion we should remove the +2 rule at all! It should be solved or DNF only.

How do you suppose we retroactively remove all +2's from the database?

 

[Lucas Garron]

I think that the competitors should be called up in a certain order. (ex. alphabetically) It would be nice to know when and if you were called, instead of hoping that your scorecard was in the stack for a while.

Organizers are busy enough as it is. If the competitor can't pay attention while they are calling names then that is their problem.

Hmm, we should use the projector for that. Thanks for making me think about it.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I would also like all these nonsense regulations about "cube must have stickers or not-to-big-tiles with a maximum of 1 logo and everything in perfect condition" to be scrapped or at least not enforced for anything except blind as it is a much bigger problem for competitors than it is actually an advantage for them.

Yes, the stuff about the logos and the stickers isn't going to give you any advantage in a speed solve.

This is just false, and I don't like strong unsubstantiated statements like that.

Why did we not use to hold up covers for BLD? Because it's not too easy to peek under a blindfold unsuspiciously, and no one would bother to cheat.

I remember seeing Dan and qq have a discussion; Dan had a worn 4x4x4 wing sticker that he had gotten used to, so didn't have to look at the other side of it. Cheating is on the rise, and we shouldn't permit anything that clearly allows "cheating." That said, I'd like to see the specific regulations relaxed, and I believe the delegate should have the leniency to decide about cubes that don't clearly follow the rules.

Yeah, that's a good point you brought up there. You're right.

I just want to make it clear now, even though I've mentioned it before: as far as I'm concerned, I cheat on every 6x6x6 BLD solve I do. The problem is that my partially modded 6x6x6 is such that I can feel which slice has the alignment problem, and from that I can tell whether or not I have the cube properly oriented after the middle centers are done. So yes, this is a problem, and it's a good thing 6x6x6 BLD is not an official event.

 

[CitricAcid]

I think there should be some more leeway on the Magic penalties.

With all the crappy Magics most people have, people are getting +2s

more than half the time.


Maybe make it 4 panels instead of 2?

 

[syuhei222]

At least, +2 penalty for ALL events is not reasonable.

 

[Ranzha]

Considering magic solving: must the three joined rings be face up at the end of a solve? Nowhere in the regulations does it say that.

 

[Jai]

If you check out some magic vids, you'll see that it doesn't have to. A lot of people have it face down at the end of the solve, and that's okay.

 

[esquimalt1]

Considering magic solving: must the three joined rings be face up at the end of a solve? Nowhere in the regulations does it say that.

G4a) The puzzles must be completely flat on the surface, with either of the two sides on top.

So that means that they can be either side.

 

[qqwref]

We might wanna add a bit on magic-type events to the regulations that says the judge must check it after every solve. On master magic I start and end with the connected side on bottom, and sometimes the judge doesn't bother to check it because I guess they assume what I'm doing is correct. I've never taken advantage of this to cheat, but someone in theory could.

 

[Olivér Perge]

I know it sounds weird but in my opinion we should remove the +2 rule at all! It should be solved or DNF only.

How do you suppose we retroactively remove all +2's from the database?

I didn't say we should remove already existing results with +2, that's not even possible, or if is, it would be very hard.

I said from now on it should be solved or DNF.