New Ideas for 2010 WCA Regulations?

One point I have discussed with a few of you already outside of this forum is the subject of scrambles for a competition. As it stands, anyone can organise a competition and as long as a delegate is present, it is recognised by the WCA. At the moment, the organiser (who may or may not be the delegate) provides the scrambles for the competition, which is obviously a very important part of the organisation process. Recently I had a few comments from people following a single solve I did in a competition that I happened to organise. As this was a very fast and considerably lucky solve for me several people made the suggestion that I had cheated in some way. While this was somewhat hurtful to me, for if you actually know me, you will be aware that I would never contemplate such a thing, it did bring a very important matter to light. Trust is essentially being placed in those that may not necessarily have earned it. What I would suggest is that the delegate is responsible for organising the scrambles for a competition.

I think this is a good point to bring up. For the NZ open, I insisted that I supplied the scrambles, even though I did not organise the competition. Although the organiser of the Melbourne Open does not know it yet, I will be insisting that I supply the scrambles for that competition too.
The problem I have, is that I fear that I will get a good time one day, and that it will look suspicious.
I also worry about Feliks getting a WR, and us being accused of cheating. I would never cheat, and the possibility will not be available for anyone else to cheat. However anyone can still accuse.
I also like Jimmy's suggestion. Who wants to do it?
 
A head to head competition is not to determine who is the fastest cuber, but to provide entertainment and to give anyone a chance to win!

It may well be what will get us on ESPN!

Ideally I would not want head to head to be timed, but have some more primal racing mechanism. Maybe whoever is done first drops their solved cube in some shared spot.
 
One point I have discussed with a few of you already outside of this forum is the subject of scrambles for a competition. As it stands, anyone can organise a competition and as long as a delegate is present, it is recognised by the WCA. At the moment, the organiser (who may or may not be the delegate) provides the scrambles for the competition, which is obviously a very important part of the organisation process. Recently I had a few comments from people following a single solve I did in a competition that I happened to organise. As this was a very fast and considerably lucky solve for me several people made the suggestion that I had cheated in some way. While this was somewhat hurtful to me, for if you actually know me, you will be aware that I would never contemplate such a thing, it did bring a very important matter to light. Trust is essentially being placed in those that may not necessarily have earned it. What I would suggest is that the delegate is responsible for organising the scrambles for a competition.

I think this is a good point to bring up. For the NZ open, I insisted that I supplied the scrambles, even though I did not organise the competition. Although the organiser of the Melbourne Open does not know it yet, I will be insisting that I supply the scrambles for that competition too.
The problem I have, is that I fear that I will get a good time one day, and that it will look suspicious.
I also worry about Feliks getting a WR, and us being accused of cheating. I would never cheat, and the possibility will not be available for anyone else to cheat. However anyone can still accuse.
I also like Jimmy's suggestion. Who wants to do it?

I tried to register for the WCA forum but encountered difficulties, so I can't bring it up there just yet... I will try again shortly. I'm glad you share this concern. If anything I think it would do no harm to ensure that the delegate always provides scrambles and doesn't really seem to make that much of a difference for a lot of people. Me getting a good time was yes, incredible, especially as I have still to average sub 20 in a competition, which just makes me look so amazingly suspicious, I will be the first to admit! If you don't actually know me however, there is no reason why you wouldn't think I had cheated. I'm not a delegate, I'm not in any way connected with the WCA, despite having competed for a reasonable length of time, so why not point the finger? With Feliks not competing as often as some of the other supermegafast people it could really put you in the firing line should he get a WR, you are right. I was sort of surprised when I organised my first competition that such responsibility was in my hands really, it seems very obvious to me that people that haven't been recognised by the WCA shouldn't have that specific responsibility of providing something so important.
 
A head to head competition is not to determine who is the fastest cuber, but to provide entertainment and to give anyone a chance to win!

It may well be what will get us on ESPN!

Ideally I would not want head to head to be timed, but have some more primal racing mechanism. Maybe whoever is done first drops their solved cube in some shared spot.

very true. that'd be fun, and a shot on espn would me nice.
 
I'm waiting for my account to be approved on WCA forums, so I'll post this here for now. I'll post it over there whenever I'm approved.:

3e) Twisty puzzles must either have coloured stickers or coloured tiles.
Some puzzles have their colors printed on, but are otherwise indistinguishable from other, comparable, puzzles with stickers/tiles (I’m specifically thinking about the small white Diansheng’s that some use for OH). Could this be changed to allow those puzzles for use? I think that 3c, 3d, 3j, and 3k together prevent people from interpreting a lack of 3e as “I can use my painted cube now!”.

3l) Cube puzzles must have at most one logo. For Rubik's Cube or bigger cube puzzles the logo must be placed on one of the centre pieces.
I think the Mefferts’ 4x4’s(?) have logos on multiple faces, but are somehow still allowed; yet, I couldn’t actually find a provision that specifically excluded them from 3l. I think there should be some clarification on this.

11f) The main judge and WCA delegate must not support their decisions with video or photograph analysis.
This confuses me. What situations was this regulation meant to cover?

A3d) At the end of the inspection, the competitor must place the puzzle back onto the Stackmat, in the orientation and position he wishes.
Is the timer considered part of the Stackmat? If so, can the puzzle be placed on the timer itself, between the hands?

I don’t know if adding team BLD is an option at all, but here is a set of possible regulations I came up with. If there is support, this could be applied in a 1 year test run of unofficial events at competitions to determine feasibility.
TEAM BLD: Competitors shall register in sets of 2, with one being designated the “caller” and the other the “executor”.
1. (Identical to A1) Attempts for events categorized under Speed Solving must abide to the following procedure.
a. (Identical to A1a) The time limit is 10 minutes, or less/higher if announced before the event.
b. (Identical to A1b) A stopwatch is used for time measurement, in addtino to a Stackmat, if the time limit is higher than 10 minutes. If the puzzle solving time is under 10 minutes, the Stackmat time is the result, otherwise the stopwatch time is the result.
2. Scrambling
a. The competing team hands over the puzzle to the scrambler and waits in the competitors area until they is called to compete.
b. (Identical to A2b) A scrambler scrambles the puzzle according to the regulations in Article 4.
c. The competing team must not see the puzzle between the time when the puzzle is scrambled and the start of the inspection phase.
d. (Identical to A2d) When taking the puzzle from the scrambler, the judge does a quick general inspection of thorough scrambling of the puzzle. In case of doubt the judge contacts the scrambler for a detailed check.
e. (Identical to A2e) The judge places the puzzle onto the Stackmat and covers it completely with an object.
3. Inspection
a. Before starting the solve, the competing team may inspect the puzzle.
i. The competing team has a maximum of 15 seconds for inspecting the puzzle and starting the solve.
b. Before the judge uncovers the puzzle, the executor must don the blindfold (provided by judge).
c. The judge resets the timer and stopwatch.
i. When the judge and competing team mutually agree within one minute that the competing team is ready to begin the inspection, the judge says ‘READY?’.
ii. When the competing team confirms, the judge uncovers the puzzle after 1 second. At the same time the judge starts the stopwatch.
d. At no point during inspection is the caller allowed to touch the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
e. During inspection the executor is allowed to pick up the puzzle.
i. The competing team must not apply moves. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
ii. If the pieces of the puzzle are not fully aligned, then the executor may fix it, only to align the faces (for cubes the alignment must not exceed 45 degrees).
iii. The executor may reset the timer before the competing team starts the solve.
f. The competing team is not allowed to make notes during inspection.
g. At the end of the inspection, the executor must place the puzzle back onto the Stackmat, in the orientation and position he wishes.
i. When the inspection time reaches 8 seconds, the judge calls ‘8 seconds’.
ii. When the inspection time reaches 12 seconds, the judge calls ‘GO’.
4. Starting the solve
a. The executor must place his hands flat on the elevated sensor area of the Stackmat, with his fingers touching the sensors and with palms down. Penalty: 2 seconds.
i. Neither caller nor executor can have any physical contact with the puzzle before the solve is started. Penalty: 2 seconds.
b. The competing team starts the solve by confirming that the timer light is green, then removing the executor’s hands from the timer, thus starting the timer.
i. The competing team must start the solve within 15 seconds after the start of the inspection. Penalty: 2 seconds.
ii. The competing team must start the solve within 17 seconds after the start of the inspection. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
c. Time penalties for Starting the Solve are not cumulative. There is a maximum of 1 time penalty for Starting the Solve.
5. During the solve
a. While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the caller and executor are allowed to communicate with each other.
b. While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competing team must not have any communication with anyone other than the judge. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
c. While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competing team must not have any assistance from anyone or any object (other than the surface). Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
d. At no point during the solve is the caller allowed to touch the puzzle.
e. During the full solve the judge must keep a sheet of paper or a similar object between the executor’s face and the puzzle, unless the puzzle is in a position where peeking at the puzzle is not possible.
f. The executor must not look at the puzzle state any time during the solve. Penalty: Disqualification of the solve.
6. Ending the solve
a. When using a Stackmat, the executor ends the solve by releasing the puzzle and then stopping the timer.
i. It is the executor’s responsibility that the timer is stopped correctly.
ii. (Identical to A6c) The timer must be stopped using both hands, with both hands flat and palms down. Penalty: 2 seconds.
iii. The executor must fully release the puzzle before stopping the timer. Penalty: 2 seconds.
b. When using a stopwatch, the executor ends the solve by placing the puzzle back onto the surface and notifying the judge that the solve has ended. At that moment the judge stops the timer.
c. The executor may remove the blindfold before stopping the timer, but after removing the blindfold no moves must be applied to the puzzle anymore. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
d. The competing team must not touch or move the puzzle until the judge has inspected the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
e. The competing team must not reset the timer until the judge has written down the result on the competition sheet. Penalty: disqualification of the solve (courtesy of judge).
f. (identical to A6g) The judge must inspect the puzzle without making moves or aligning faces and must determine whether the puzzle has been completely solved.
g. (identical to A6h) In case of a dispute no moves or alignments must be applied to the puzzle until
the dispute has been settled, involving the main judge if needed. Penalty: disqualification of the solve (courtesy of judge).
h. (identical to A6i) Time penalties for Ending the Solve are not cumulative. There is a maximum of 1 time penalty for Ending the Solve.
7. Administration
a. (identical to A7a) If the judge decides the solve was correct, the judge calls ‘OK’.
b. (identical to A7b) The judge writes down the result of the solve on a competition sheet, and signs the sheet with name or signature.
c. (identical to A7c) The competing team is responsible for checking the result on the sheet, immediately after the judge has written it down.
d. If the judge gives a penalty, then judge calls 'PENALTY'. The competing team must sign the score sheet.
e. If the result is DNF, then the judge calls ‘NO FINISH’. The competing team must sign the score sheet.
f. At the end of the competing team’s round the judge delivers the competition sheet to the score taker.
 
I don’t know if adding team BLD is an option at all, but here is a set of possible regulations I came up with. If there is support, this could be applied in a 1 year test run of unofficial events at competitions to determine feasibility.
TEAM BLD:
(rules....)

I would really like to have TeamBLD as an official event and I think a 1 year unofficial test run may be a good stepping stone. I read through your rules and I didn't catch anything "wrong" with them, they look fine at first glance. The only thing that I can think there may be some debate over is whether or not the caller and executor can talk during inspection. I'm in favor of communicating during inspection, but some people aren't.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to come up with some possible regulations for TeamBLD. Much better than simply suggesting it. :)
 
I reposted them on WCAForums, and two things were immediately caught:

Firstly, 5e should be removed (sticking something between the blindfold and the cube), otherwise the caller can't see the cube well. The judge just has to make sure the executor isn't cheating.

Secondly, it was also mentioned this is basically the same thing as blindfold, except the person holding the cube is allowed to communicate with one person other than the judge (the caller), who is not allowed to touch the cube at any point. The reason I wrote it all out is because it was either that or saying "follow all speedsolving and blindfold regulations, except change the word competitor to competing team except in these regulations where you should change it to executor and these regulations where it should be caller, and etc etc.". I can probably come up with something in the "standard" convention though it might get a tad messy.
 
I think there is one problem with competitive team BLD. In the current official events, we avoid cheating by not looking at other people's cubes for too long. But in team BLD, there is one person yelling out the solution, which can allow cheating. If we make everybody go at the same time, some people might talk too loudly and distract the other teams. Perhaps we should give everybody different scrambles?
 
I reposted them on WCAForums, and two things were immediately caught:

Firstly, 5e should be removed (sticking something between the blindfold and the cube), otherwise the caller can't see the cube well.

Well, I didn't say that it should be removed. But that's the whole issue with Team BLD is we need to prevent the executor from cheating. Trusting the judge makes sure the executor can't (in normal BLD) has failed in the past.

You're in trouble if you remove it, you're in trouble if you keep it. Something else needs to be done, which is why if people are serious about Team BLD, it needs some burn-in time.

Of course, Team Double-BLD doesn't have this issue :)
 
I think the solution is to have better blindfolds. Perhaps we could create something that is like a normal blindfold (rests on the nose) but with a curtain of extra fabric coming down over the nose, so that the competitor cannot possibly see the cube if it is held in front of their face.
 
I think the solution is to have better blindfolds. Perhaps we could create something that is like a normal blindfold (rests on the nose) but with a curtain of extra fabric coming down over the nose, so that the competitor cannot possibly see the cube if it is held in front of their face.

Swimming goggles that are made black are (close to) flawless for that, and easy and fairly cheap to make (like $5 for a cheap pair of goggles)
 
I haven't read this thread in total, and I haven't read earlier years' threads, so I don't know if this have been discussed, but I'll post it anyway.

First thing:
The thing that "A +2 on 7x7 doesn't mean anything, make it 20%!" or something like that, feels strange to me! The point is to "punish" the competitor for not making the final move, or making it wrong. Lifting your hands from the timer, and making it right wouldn't take 20% of the solve, but 2 seconds. And it would take about 2 seconds for Magic too, not 20% (like 0.20s).

Second thing:
WCA and the cubing community (of course) try to minimize the possibilities of cheating on blindsolving, but to me it seems like we're missing something. If I wanted to cheat with my memo, the only thing I would need is a friend, that tells me how the cube is scrambled, if he/she gets to do the solve before me!
If I had a swedish friend on a competition in USA, Italy or something, they wouldn't have any idea at all if we are talking about grasshoppers or the cube I just memorized.

The solution might be to have double competition areas, and hen you've done your first solve, you go to area #2, that is separated from #1. And when area #1 is empty, the competitors that have made their second solve, go there before their third.
 
Why not having 2x2x2 blind as an official event ? We got it for 3x3x3 to 5x5x5 and it would be faster for 2x2x2.

And it lead to new method like speedblind. It would be a pretty interesting event.
 
Why not having 2x2x2 blind as an official event ? We got it for 3x3x3 to 5x5x5 and it would be faster for 2x2x2.

And it lead to new method like speedblind. It would be a pretty interesting event.

It wouldn't be long before someone good at 2x2 got a very easy scramble with a 1 move FL or something and got a stupidly fast time on it.
 
Back
Top