WCA Regulations 2012

[danthecuber]

Inevitably, the generation 3 Speedstacks timers will need to be used at competitions, as generation 2 timers are no longer sold on http://www.speedstacks.com/ . Since these timers have accuracy of up to 3 decimal places, what has been considered as to how to deal with this new accuracy?

 

[Stefan]

split into the actual Regulations and a Guidelines document

Can that Guidelines document also include decisions like which pillowed/colored cubes can be used in which events? I've been thinking of creating an FAQ page to list official decisions for such questions that aren't really obvious from the regulations but that shouldn't be explicitly covered in the regulations.

 

[DavidWoner]

This thread will be heavily moderated.

Well pretty much every single proposal for 2011 is going to carry over to 2012 considering nothing was changed. As Daniel said earlier, quite a few measures were approved but nothing was done. A lot were just simple changes in language, etc

-Abolishing the position of "main judge" and just replacing them with the delegate, as this ends up happening all the time anyway.

- Abolishing 2h
2h) Competitors must be fully dressed. Competitors may dress in jeans, pants, shorts, slacks, skirts, foot-wear, T-shirts or dress shirts. Hats may be worn. Clothes must not display vulgar language or have inappropriate pictures.

as it is overly specific and technically invalidates all barefoot feet solves. Also all of these things are inherently covered under 2f
2f) Competitors must obey venue regulations and conduct themselves in a manner considerate of others at all times during the competition and while at the competition venue.

- Clarification of conflict between A6d and A6e, using this video as an example of conflict http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCG1tp3dLrc
# A6d) The competitor must fully release the puzzle before stopping the timer. Penalty: 2 seconds.
# A6e) The competitor must not touch or move the puzzle until the judge has inspected the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=939

- Clearer definition of scrambling orientation and ambiguity of "lightest color."
http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=941

- Defining scrambling orientation for non-cubic puzzles, such as pyraminx. The WCA scrambler outputs with Red on front and Blue on bottom, and I suggest this be adopted as the scrambling orientation for pyraminx. Megaminx should be scrambled with white top, and the lightest adjacent green in front. Etc.

- Possible further clarification of Magic solved states http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=950

- I'd like the WCA clock scrambler to produce horizontal scrambles, as it is now the scrambles are horrendous to read.

More to be added later.

 

[Carlos]

I have a propose concerning the OH event. I think that cubers should not be able to use the table while solving. I've seen some arguments saying that it is not an advantage to the fast cubers, only for the beginners, which would not make big difference. Although, we have seen lately that even some WR has been set while using the table.

 

[ben1996123]

I have a propose concerning the OH event. I think that cubers should not be able to use the table while solving. I've seen some arguments saying that it is not an advantage to the fast cubers, only for the beginners, which would not make big difference. Although, we have seen lately that even some WR has been set while using the table.

I think this was added in the 2011 regulations, and pretty much everyone does it, so I doubt it will be removed.

 

[whauk]

and why is this a problem?

 

[StachuK1992]

That's no argument.
You provided no reason for why table use should not be allowed. None at all.

 

[Dene]

I think this was added in the 2011 regulations, and pretty much everyone does it, so I doubt it will be removed.

History of regulation changes
For your reference, changes to 2009 regulations:
Art. C1b1 removed. Using surface should also be possible for one-handed solving. There is no big advantage. [standardisation, clarity]

 

[okayama]

Is there a possibility of a "Mean of 3" format for 333FMC?
There have been some "Best of 3" competitions for FMC, but I believe "Mean of 3" is better than "Best of 3".

I like that a person with short solutions on average win, not a person with just a single lucky solution.

EDIT: Of course I don't mean deletion of "Best of X" formats, but mean just addition of "Mean of 3". This provides an option for organizers. Is there a major hurdle for the addition?

 

[Carlos]

*about the OH without using table*

Yeah, I actually didn't post any argument because we already discussed about this here in the forum and I thought it just needed to be remembered now that is the right moment to make the changes.

Someone said "pretty much everybody does it". They "probably" does it because it's allowed, which don't prove rather this is right or wrong.

My point is that OH is supposed to be an event that makes the speedsolving more difficult/fun in a different way, and as we are totally able to solve without a surface (which doesn't aply in the feet event), I think the difficulty of not touching anywhere should be included in the competition. Is it just me or using table looks so "handicap"?

For example, if a OH world record holder gets invited to a tv show or something and get to show his skills, it looks very "wrong" to me that the truth is for him to think/say: "oh, sorry, I know it's called just 'one-handed', but I can only show my best if you provide a table for me".

 

[StachuK1992]

One major problem with changing the table use rule is that all of the old averages/singles were under looser guidelines, thus bringing about an instance like "OLD MULTIBLD." What's your suggestion concerning this?

 

[Rpotts]

If you can't use the table what happens if you drop the cube? DNF?

 

[Carlos]

One major problem with changing the table use rule is that all of the old averages/singles were under looser guidelines, thus bringing about an instance like "OLD MULTIBLD." What's your suggestion concerning this?

I think that doing this 'old multi bld' thing would not be a good option because there are so many records and it would take a lot of effort to separate (as the records set before the rule change will be counting as the new rule), and this is not a very big/important change as it was in the multi bld. I suggest ignoring (yes...) that it was different before as it was ignored when using the table began to be allowed. I know that exists the difference, but it is the best option I thought and in my opinion we should correct it this as soon as possible, so in the future this won't be a problem anymore. More time not changing = the bigger the problem of changing some day.

If you can't use the table what happens if you drop the cube? DNF?

No, it would work exactly as it was before. The judge is perfectly capable of telling rather the cube was dropped (which is not a problem) or the cuber is taking advantage of the table.

 

[Dene]

No, it would work exactly as it was before. The judge is perfectly capable of telling rather the cube was dropped (which is not a problem) or the cuber is taking advantage of the table.

That's putting a lot of responsibility on the discretion of the judge, especially if someone solves with the cube very close to the surface anyway.

 

[Rpotts]

Yea, what if they only hold the cube a few inches above the table, partially lose grip of the cube so it hits the table but they are still holding it, and the make a turn before they completely pull if back up into their hand?

 

[Carlos]

Huh? When you drop, the cube gets totally off of your hand, and it's not worth to do this when you are simply trying to align layers. I don't think this is a problem, the rules didn't allow using the table before and nobody had complaints about what you are saying.

 

[hcfong]

Before I start a new thread for this, I just want to see if people want to discuss amending regulation 1e2) All competitors should be available for judging, if needed by organisation team. Penalty: disqualification of the competitor for the competition.

I know it's not really a regulation that affects the solve directly, but it is there to help a competition to move on. I think the wording is ambigious, because 'should' indicates a strong preference, rather than an absolute requirement, and still there is a penalty.

The issue is that I've seen people simply refuse to judge, even after repeated calls by the organiser or WCA delegate, and I've never seen someone being disqualified for that. Okay, I'm quite inexperienced in terms of competitions, but I doubt anyone has ever been disqualified for refusing to judge.

So, my proposal would be to change the wording of this regulation, and possibly for 1f2, either to making it an absolute requirement by replacing 'should' with 'must', or removing the penalty.

If you want to discuss this, let me know and I'll consider opening a new thread for this.

 

[kinch2002]

Is there a possibility of a "Mean of 3" format for 333FMC?
There have been some "Best of 3" competitions for FMC, but I believe "Mean of 3" is better than "Best of 3".

I like that a person with short solutions on average win, not a person with just a single lucky solution.

EDIT: Of course I don't mean deletion of "Best of X" formats, but mean just addition of "Mean of 3". This provides an option for organizers. Is there a major hurdle for the addition?

Out of interest, do you know how many comps have had 3 round of FM? I agree that mean can be a much better measure but is it really practical to have so many rounds?

 

[Kirjava]

Using surface should also be possible for one-handed solving. There is no big advantage.

Funny.

 

[Dene]

Funny.

Well, to be fair, Piti doesn't use the surface from what I've seen.