New Ideas for 2010 WCA Regulations?

[qqwref]

So what happens if the cube leaves the competitor's hands in the state of a +2 then by complete accident and by bad luck it misaligns another face resulting in a DNF? Should the competitor suffer the DNF even though it would've been just a +2 second penalty?

Yes, I think this should be DNF. The +2 rule is originally meant (in my mind) as a safeguard against cases where the cube was solved but it got misaligned when dropped (by accident). I've never seen a cube misalign by two non-parallel slices when dropped, so having the +2 rule limited to cubes that are one turn off is reasonable. Even with the rule, though, the idea is not to make it so you are free to keep the cube a turn off, but as a protection against accidental random turns. If the cube leaves your hands a turn off at the end of a solve, you don't really deserve this kind of protection, because you didn't really solve it.


@ anyone who thinks it should be the competitor's responsibility to make sure the cube doesn't misalign: the WCA wants to be fun and fair, and I don't see how forcing people to carefully place their cubes down (when split-second timing is an issue) is fun. Removing +2 isn't fair either, because people with very light/bouncy or loose cubes will suddenly be penalized. Even if it might make more sense to not have the rule, I think it would make competing less enjoyable.

This discussion would normally take place on the WCA forums.

I get that the discussion is happening here out of convenience, but it concerns me when we use this site more and more for official discussions. Should one of the over zealous mods decide to ban someone over a violation of forum customs, we are then hindering that person's ability to contribute to these discussions. How someone acts on a fan-created forum, and his or her ability to contribute to official matters should be independent of each other, in my opinion.

I agree with you, but I don't really know a better way. It is difficult to use the WCA forum because anyone who needs to participate would need to make new accounts for it; on the other hand discussions in speedsolving are relatively easy to look up and contribute to. I also think many more people read this forum than the WCA forum because of higher overall activity.

 

[deadalnix]

For example one could not bother with look ahead and just go flat out and then pause the timer while searching for an F2L pair

You could also stop after the last pair to recognise OLL and then again for PLL recognition.

No, you don't get the way it works.

The only thing that stop is the srawn time, not the timer.

For exemple, I stop the timer at 5s during 1s. During this second I see that my cube isn't finished yet. So I pick up my cube back and continue cubing.

The timer will not stop to run. So when I pick up my cube, the timer will draw 6s.

Maybe this pseudo code will be more clear :

StartTimer();
var R = null;
while(handsOnTheTimer()){
    wait();
}

setLEDoff();
var run = true;
while(run){
    while(!handsOnTheTimer()){
        draw(getTime());
    }

    R = getTime();
    draw(R);
    while(handsOnTheTimer() && run){
        if(getTime()-R >= 2s) run = false;
    }
}

setLEDon();
stopTimer();

 

[Bryan]

Atually, I think the stackmat is the problem.

I think we should have a timer that internally stop after something like 2s. let me explain.

2 seconds? How long does it take you to do Magic?

Besides, I would be very opposed to regulation changes that would require the purchase of new equipment.

We also need a regulation that handles who advances to the next round. Right now, you aren't required to take the top competitiors. You can go by nationality, who you like, etc. Plus, the x,x-2,x-2 rounds (where x is the # of competitors) in some competitions is bad.

 

[Pedro]

We also need a regulation that handles who advances to the next round. Right now, you aren't required to take the top competitiors. You can go by nationality, who you like, etc.

Indeed that needs clarification. While it may seem obvious to have the fastest people advancing, one could do whatever he wants because that's not explicit in the regulations.

Plus, the x,x-2,x-2 rounds (where x is the # of competitors) in some competitions is bad.

I didn't get this part. What is bad?


- I agree with +2 penalty for clock. I didn't have a clock before, but now I do and realise that DNF is pretty harsh when you are a "1 hour" move away from solved. I don't think half a turn should be +2, but at least 1 or 2 moves.

- I also agree with +2 penalty for inner slice misalignment. Yeah, yeah, it's technically 2 moves, but many people do it as one move (just watch some H perm videos) and corners-first people are really punished by this.

- Another thing I was thinking the other day is about the # of people required to have an extra round. Why do we need 100 people to do 4 rounds? I mean, it goes like 8, 16...100 O_o
Yes, of course having 4 rounds with 20 people is not good, but I think a lower number than 100 should be used. If organizers have time and are willing to do an extra round, and have like 70 competitors, why shouldn't it be allowed?
Then comes the question of how much should it be. I'd say something like 50 would be fair(er). Or maybe 8, 16, 32, but 32 seems a little low.


EDIT

Made a thread for this at the WCA forum: http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=821
Post there if you feel like (your ideas will have more...hmm..."power" also)

 

[Dene]

A lot of interesting points have been made in this thread since I went to bed, but I will just pick on this one (Sorry Dave ).

And, while i am at it, i think Team events should become official. Team solve and Team BLD would be sufficient. I know, i must have lost my mind!

While I am aware that team events are fun, I think they should not be official; if you want to do them, then do them in your own time .
The problem: almost impossible to judge. I mean, really, almost impossible. I don't think I need to explain further, but if you object then feel free to say so.

 

[Olivér Perge]

Olivér, ok imagine that we do not have a +2 or other penatly, only DNF.
In Your opinion the following situation should be DNF???

You are kidding, right? If not, my answer is: No, it shouldn't be a DNF.

@ anyone who thinks it should be the competitor's responsibility to make sure the cube doesn't misalign: the WCA wants to be fun and fair, and I don't see how forcing people to carefully place their cubes down (when split-second timing is an issue) is fun. Removing +2 isn't fair either, because people with very light/bouncy or loose cubes will suddenly be penalized. Even if it might make more sense to not have the rule, I think it would make competing less enjoyable.

What? So the competitions are enjoyable only if you get good results? For me the fun part is not the race with the time... And if you are really that nervous about finishing a puzzle (which you've done like 100,000 times correctly), I think you should either work on your nerve or practice the end of the solve.

I'm pretty sure +2 gives us safety, because we are used to it. If it would be only DNF we would change our style a bit (or not at all) and we would have not so much more DNFs. In my opinion.

DNF stands for "Did Not Finish" and in a +2, the competitor technically did not finish the cube.

I agree with that. Is it looks like a solved puzzle? (I know, by the current regulation it is a +2.)

 

[Dave Campbell]

A lot of interesting points have been made in this thread since I went to bed, but I will just pick on this one (Sorry Dave ).

And, while i am at it, i think Team events should become official. Team solve and Team BLD would be sufficient. I know, i must have lost my mind!

While I am aware that team events are fun, I think they should not be official; if you want to do them, then do them in your own time .
The problem: almost impossible to judge. I mean, really, almost impossible. I don't think I need to explain further, but if you object then feel free to say so.

No worries, Dene. Actually, i don't do team stuff, so it is not something i want to do on my own time. I was speaking strictly as a cubing enthusiast. I just think that it is interesting when it is done right. It also has the added bonus of creating more social interaction and a reason for people to partner together. And from a spectator standpoint, it can be pretty entertaining.

I don't think it is impossible to judge, you merely need clear rules. And, like everything, it will go through an period of evolution where we find rules that need to be more explicit, or altered. It is not necessarily a 2010 item, i suppose. But i think it would be nice to work towards it at some point. Many other traditional solo "sports" have a team aspect. I think we could do it.

 

[Dene]

I guess you're right. But then again, many other "sports" have far stricter conditions for competing. Cubing is generally seen as a more laid back "sport", with rules in place, but a lot of leniency. To judge team-cubing there would have to be very strict conditions in place for there to be any element of fairness.

 

[Olivér Perge]

I don't think it is impossible to judge, you merely need clear rules. And, like everything, it will go through an period of evolution where we find rules that need to be more explicit, or altered. It is not necessarily a 2010 item, i suppose. But i think it would be nice to work towards it at some point. Many other traditional solo "sports" have a team aspect. I think we could do it.

How about world ranking? If I compete with more persons, how do you count the ranking?

 

[Mike Hughey]

I don't think it is impossible to judge, you merely need clear rules. And, like everything, it will go through an period of evolution where we find rules that need to be more explicit, or altered. It is not necessarily a 2010 item, i suppose. But i think it would be nice to work towards it at some point. Many other traditional solo "sports" have a team aspect. I think we could do it.

How about world ranking? If I compete with more persons, how do you count the ranking?

It should be possible to do it with points, like is done with Tennis Doubles rankings. Not that I fully understand the system, but surely something like that is possible.

 

[esquimalt1]

I don't think it is impossible to judge, you merely need clear rules. And, like everything, it will go through an period of evolution where we find rules that need to be more explicit, or altered. It is not necessarily a 2010 item, i suppose. But i think it would be nice to work towards it at some point. Many other traditional solo "sports" have a team aspect. I think we could do it.

How about world ranking? If I compete with more persons, how do you count the ranking?

Well, you could just have, this person + this person for the world rankings. And on the individual person's profile, their number ranking would just be the best time they got with whoever.

 

[Carrot]

I would be so happy if it was optimal scrambles for pyraminx... doing a 25 moves long scramble on a pyraminx, which I averagely solve in about 11-13 moves... NO WAY!!! it's like have 100 moves long 3x3x3 scrambles

ohh... and then a rule saying something like "Odder should not be allowed to scramble 5x5x5-7x7x7, megaminx, clock, square-1... even though he knows how to scramble it"

 

[Pedro]

I would be so happy if it was optimal scrambles for pyraminx... doing a 25 moves long scramble on a pyraminx, which I averagely solve in about 11-13 moves... NO WAY!!! it's like have 100 moves long 3x3x3 scrambles

Isn't is like that already? http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/scrambles/scramble_pyraminx2009.htm

 

[Bryan]

I don't think it is impossible to judge, you merely need clear rules. And, like everything, it will go through an period of evolution where we find rules that need to be more explicit, or altered. It is not necessarily a 2010 item, i suppose. But i think it would be nice to work towards it at some point. Many other traditional solo "sports" have a team aspect. I think we could do it.

I think if Team was ever to become an event, it should go through a trial period while we figure out the proper regulations. And not, "Oh, let's just do this for a year and change the next year." I'm thinking a year where the results are unofficial and won't count when the real regulations go into effect. This would be to avoid the Old-MultiBLD and new MultiBLD scenario.

Yes, all events have had different rules throughout the year, but no event has had significant changes.

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

I would be so happy if it was optimal scrambles for pyraminx... doing a 25 moves long scramble on a pyraminx, which I averagely solve in about 11-13 moves... NO WAY!!! it's like have 100 moves long 3x3x3 scrambles

Isn't is like that already? http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/scrambles/scramble_pyraminx2009.htm

Well, it's currently random-state, but not optimal.

How about average of 5 for FEET? Getting a pop on that is fatal: Ouyang Yunqi 7:19.59 2:11.13 1:47.46 => 3:46.06

 

[esquimalt1]

I don't think it is impossible to judge, you merely need clear rules. And, like everything, it will go through an period of evolution where we find rules that need to be more explicit, or altered. It is not necessarily a 2010 item, i suppose. But i think it would be nice to work towards it at some point. Many other traditional solo "sports" have a team aspect. I think we could do it.

I think if Team was ever to become an event, it should go through a trial period while we figure out the proper regulations. And not, "Oh, let's just do this for a year and change the next year." I'm thinking a year where the results are unofficial and won't count when the real regulations go into effect. This would be to avoid the Old-MultiBLD and new MultiBLD scenario.

Yes, all events have had different rules throughout the year, but no event has had significant changes.

For team BLD how wouldn't it be difficult for the team to be solving with the judge holding the paper?

 

[Carrot]

I would be so happy if it was optimal scrambles for pyraminx... doing a 25 moves long scramble on a pyraminx, which I averagely solve in about 11-13 moves... NO WAY!!! it's like have 100 moves long 3x3x3 scrambles

Isn't is like that already? http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/scrambles/scramble_pyraminx2009.htm

Just an example...

I got L U R L' R U' R B' R' U' R U B R L' B b from the scramble... which is... 17 moves...

Petrus style: L' R' B' L' | U' B U | B R B' R B R B b' [15 moves including tip...]
WO: U L' R' B' | L' B' L' B | R L R B R B' U' b' [16 moves including tip.. damn a bad solve haha =D
hard scramble though ;D

 

[Dave Campbell]

I think if Team was ever to become an event, it should go through a trial period while we figure out the proper regulations.

I was thinking something along the same lines after my last post. Of course, the initial reaction by some will be that we are free to hold unofficial events already, so nothing has changed anyway. I had thought Sweden was doing team events already in their unofficial events, but i could not find any results to verify it. But I'd like to see us, as a community, standardize the would-be regulations together and have everyone follow them during this trial period.

As for ranking, i'd think you are ranked according to which ever team you are part of that is the highest. But that is just off the top of my head, perhaps there are solid reasons for not doing it as such. However, i don't think a challenge in ranking should be the basis for not having an event.

 

[DavidWoner]

9f3) All counted results and averages/means are measured in natural numbers, with averages/means rounded to the nearest tenth (x.04 becomes x.0, x.05 becomes x.1).

WAAAAT?!?!?!

 

[Bryan]

But I'd like to see us, as a community, standardize the would-be regulations together and have everyone follow them during this trial period.

As for ranking, i'd think you are ranked according to which ever team you are part of that is the highest. But that is just off the top of my head, perhaps there are solid reasons for not doing it as such. However, i don't think a challenge in ranking should be the basis for not having an event.

Yes, someone needs to propose some team-BLD regulations that people can follow and if there's something that's inconvenient, figure it out, but not simply ignore it.

Also, I always thought team-BLD rankings might be done by a "position" ranking. So you could be ranked by either "caller" or "executor". And in the display rankings, it could have who your partner was. Of course, this would require that positions stay the same during an average/mean, but I think that should be fine. The reason I think it should be this way is that the caller position requires a lot more skill than the executor.

The regulations do not address the event of a tie.

9f14) If in 'Mean of' and 'Average of' rounds competitors have the same average/mean result, then the order in the results for these competitors is based on the best result per competitor, with lower meaning better.