Improving WCA Regulation A5b

[Erik]

It has come to my attention that regulation A5b is very unclear:

'A5b) While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competitor must not have any assistance from anyone or any object (other than the surface). Penalty: disqualification of the solve.'

Because it is stated so direct ('any object') it is hard to be able to estimate what is and what is not allowed to bring to a competition. If you'd take it literally, nothing would be allowed. I will give some examples:

1. earmuffs, they are additional objects that aid you. They provide a better surrounding, by blocking out noise. Currently always allowed.
2. sheet of paper to block the timer. Some people like to have a small sheet of paper on the timer to not be distracted by the blinking lights or the time itself to check break-down times for example. Currently not allowed.
3. listening to music during solving. Blocks out noise, and might get you in a nice rythm for solving. Currently not allowed.
4. Bringing your own airconditioning or lamp: changing the present environment provided by the organization. Currently not allowed.
5. Bring a second stackmat, to put under the normal mat to provide more elasticity in the surface. It helps during feet and compensates for the competitions where there is a carpet, rubber or any other non hard-as-concrete floor. Currently not allowed (though it has been done and apparently been approved by delegates).

I think we have to ask ourselves several questions here:
- are the examples stated above unwanted, unfair or ok to do?
- are the current regulations (especially A5b) written in a way that clearly states which of the unwanted or unfair things are to blocked out, and the ok-things approved?
- which (additional) regulations, or regulation-change might help to get this clear for everyone?

If we can come up with some good ideas, they might be approved by the WCA for the regulations in 2012.

p.s. I know such things should be discussed on the WCA forum, but we all know discussions there are slow since not many people watch that forum

 

[Mike Hughey]

It seems to me that this is a difficult thing to handle on a generic basis. Some items seem more permissible than others; it seems like we may need regulations to handle each item that should be allowed, and then generically disallow all others.

Someone mentioned wearing glasses or contacts; it does seem almost nonsensical to disallow them, but I could see how a really strict interpretation of this rule could prevent using glasses, regardless of how silly that is.

1. earmuffs, they are additional objects that aid you. They provide a better surrounding, by blocking out noise. Currently always allowed.

Also earplugs; I use earplugs, but not earmuffs.

5. Bring a second stackmat, to put under the normal mat to provide more elasticity in the surface. It helps during feet and compensates for the competitions where there is a carpet, rubber or any other non hard-as-concrete floor. Currently not allowed (though it has been done and apparently been approved by delegates).

I hadn't thought of doing this. This issue really bugs me. A carpet under the stackmat can make as much as a minute difference in average feet solving speed for me; it seems like we really need some sort of regulation to make feet solving more uniform from competition to competition. I suspect the main reason no one ever addresses this issue is because so many people want feet to go away as an official event. But if we're going to keep it as an official event, I'd like some regulation to make the conditions more uniform.

Overall, I'd really like to see rule A5b not change much. Something like:

A5b) While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competitor must not have any assistance from anyone or any object (other than the surface or objects specifically allowed by other rules). Penalty: disqualification of the solve.

Then add rules for each item that we decide to allow, such as glasses and earplugs or earmuffs.

 

[qqwref]

I think we should clarify what we mean by "assistance". The regulation is really intended to prevent people or objects from providing a real aid to solving, so that the solver gets an unfair advantage over another. So what we want to prohibit is (a) people or objects external to the puzzle being used to help physically turn it, and (b) other people or objects providing information/hints about the puzzle state or the solving method/algorithms. Perhaps we could just be more explicit about this. If we were, as one example, it would be clear that we want to prohibit headphones with algorithm information or with a communication link to another person who could provide advice, but that we don't prohibit headphones that simply play music or block out noise.

IMO the regulation as it is right now is even more vague than Erik says - it should also disqualify any lighting (this makes it easier to see the puzzle), any kind of drugs including caffeine and necessary medicines, any communication at all from the judge, any kind of breathable atmospheric gas in the competition venue, etc.

 

[Erik]

Mike: this thing about feet was actually discussed with Henrik, Sébastien, Tyson, Ron, Rafael Cinoto, Vidar Klungre and myself. The thing here was that we noticed there is an unfair advantage/disatvantage between competitions as the floor changes (for example I'm about 5 seconds faster when solving with a stackmat on top of a carpet in comparison to stackmat on concrete). There have been big competitions on carpet (US Open, WC 2009, Asian Open 2010) as well as on harder floors.
The idea I had was to make 2 mats (bring your own if you want to) and put it on top/under the present mat in order to ban out any of the floors' influence (with 2 mats you dont notice the floor at all). Of course this is against A5b since you bring an object other than provided by the organizers. An other option would be to fold the mat to achieve the same effect, though this isn't very pretty... double matting is forbidden by current regulations

QQ: that's exactly what the problem is. It is common sense that some things are ok, and some things not. There are, however some objects that are doubtful (the sheet that covers the timer, an extra stackmat for feet, etc.) and need to be discussed here before we can make a proposal to change any regulations. Now that I think of it, the regulation is not vague at all. It is confusingly strict the way it is stated and therefore causes friction. It's about the boundaries, and how to translate the boundaries into regulations.

My personal opinion:
- earmuff/earplugs: are ok, they help you concentrate and not aid you directly, it must however not hamper the strictly needed communication with the judge
- bringing your own chair/table/airconditioning: are not ok, they help you in a similar way as earmuffs (optimizing the environment), but are too much of a burden on the organization
- sheet of paper to block the timer: not ok, since it keeps the judge from doing his/her work
- listening to music: generally ok, but because of the risk of hints on the music any earplugs should be disconnected to their devices and be silent
- a second stackmat for feet: ok, since you don't make an extra advantage, you only compensate for the bad floor in comparison with other competitions. I think fairness = if possible make the conditions of the environment the same (though the regulations don't state directly that conditions on different competitions should be as equal as possible)
- contact lenses: not even discussing this

For feet Sébastien proposes:
"Adding D2

D2) Before the solve

D2a) Competitors are allowed to bring their own stackmat and to put it under the existing Stackmat."

 

[Pedro]

- a second stackmat for feet: ok, since you don't make an extra advantage, you only compensate for the bad floor in comparison with other competitions. I think fairness = if possible make the conditions of the environment the same (though the regulations don't state directly that conditions on different competitions should be as equal as possible)


For feet Sébastien proposes:
"Adding D2

D2) Before the solve

D2a) Competitors are allowed to bring their own stackmat and to put it under the existing Stackmat."

And who is going to judge if "you don't make an extra advantage, you only compensate for the bad floor"?

I think extra mat assists the solve, and should not be allowed...unless we can do like track & field and standardize the competition floors, people are going to have different conditions in different competitions. That is not a problem since for everything else you hold the puzzle with your hands...I think it's an inherent "problem" to feet solving.

(If we would allow an extra mat, it should have no additional restrictions...if you want it, you bring it, end of story.)

 

[Lucas Garron]

I have long been in favor of a set of guidelines that complement the regulations. (Somewhat like the US constitution + laws and court rulings that carry out those intentions.)

These clarifications could easily be included in a guideline section where the WCA clarifies what it considers admissible, without filling up the regulations with unnecessary details.

 

[Kian]

I have long been in favor of a set of guidelines that complement the regulations. (Somewhat like the US constitution + laws and court rulings that carry out those intentions.)

These clarifications could easily be included in a guideline section where the WCA clarifies what it considers admissible, without filling up the regulations with unnecessary details.

Yes, like a common law understanding. That's what we have now, but it would be a good idea to have it codified. In golf we have a "decisions" section of the rules. In it there are explanations of more unique situations that fall in the gray area of the rules of the game. This section outlines the ruling the rules committee has made on a specific set of circumstances. I think this would complement our WCA rules well.

For issues that will arise which we haven't thought of yet we will have to defer to the judgment of the WCA delegate to determine whether or not a specific incident is in accordance with the our rules. After that it can be added to the decisions section.

The extra benefit of this section is that it doesn't have to be voted on and changed every year. Decisions should be submitted to the board and then posted. In the event that the board disagrees with a ruling, then that should be handled on a case by case basis and a posting with a board-sanctioned ruling should be added.

 

[Kirjava]

I think extra mat assists the solve, and should not be allowed...unless we can do like track & field and standardize the competition floors, people are going to have different conditions in different competitions. That is not a problem since for everything else you hold the puzzle with your hands...I think it's an inherent "problem" to feet solving.

An extra mat could make picking up a magic easier.

Objects shouldn't be banned just because they assist a solve - that's an invalid complaint. It's really something that needs to be looked at individually for each object.

Unfortunately, there are too many options to state explicitly how they are handled in the rules. Guidelines would be a nice solution for helping the delegate judge if something is valid or not. However, different delegates may interpret this information differently leading to unequal conditions.

There's also too much grey area on certain things. I can see people being split on several objects being valid or not.

 

[Sebastien]

@Everybody: Section D in the regulations is the feetsolving section. I.e. my proposal D2a would only apply to feetsolving. I'm clarifying this as I have the feeling that Pedro and Kirjava where not aware of that.

And who is going to judge if "you don't make an extra advantage, you only compensate for the bad floor"?

[...] people are going to have different conditions in different competitions.

Actually a second mat is compensating every floor, not only bad floor. Means, that with 2 mats instead of one the floor matters much less.

The direct result is having similar condiditions in different competitions.

However, different delegates may interpret this information differently leading to unequal conditions.

There is no difference to the regulations in that point - there is always room for different interpretation, no matter how many rules and additional information you provide. But the more detailed that information is, the less different will these interpretations be.

 

[Kirjava]

I'm clarifying this as I have the feeling that Pedro and Kirjava where not aware of that.

I'm addressing A5b and not feetsolving.

There is no difference to the regulations in that point - there is always room for different interpretation, no matter how many rules and additional information you provide. But the more detailed that information is, the less different will these interpretations be.

Modifying A5b and replacing it with general guidelines could introduce more grey area as not everything will be outright banned like it is now.