[WRC] How to Provide Feedback on the draft of the new Regulations

[Dene]

No. This can happen during scrambling too. I've had it a few times in competition on loose cubes. It results in an extra attempt.

In this case, without any proof that the corner was twisted during solving (how could you possibly prove that after the solve?), the decision I make as delegate is to blame the competitor for using such a loose cube, and I DNF the solve if they left the corner twisted (or go with the time the competitor got if they fully solved it in the end).

 

[riffz]

In this case, without any proof that the corner was twisted during solving (how could you possibly prove that after the solve?), the decision I make as delegate is to blame the competitor for using such a loose cube, and I DNF the solve if they left the corner twisted (or go with the time the competitor got if they fully solved it in the end).

I think that this is a reasonable course of action. We can't just give competitors more solves because they claim a corner was twisted during scrambling. Given that we can't review video evidence, it is way to easy to quickly and subtly twist a corner when you know a solve is going to be slow and request and a new one.

I guess that creates the problem of needing scramblers we can trust to be responsible and careful. At all of the competitions I've been to, pretty much anyone can volunteer to scramble. What if you wanted to sabotage one your fellow competitor's solves to ruin their average and increase your chances of winning?

 

[Ickathu]

- 3i) "Pillowed" and other modified versions of puzzles are permitted only if the modification does not make any additional information available to the competitor (e.g. identity of pieces), as compared to an unmodified version of the same puzzle.

How can it be pillowed without giving away information from other pieces? This is gonna be a problem, I think, because people are going to see this as open to interpretation and then get mad when they can't use their main because the delegate thinks it makes other info available and the competitor does not. Don't you think?

 

[Stefan]

I guess that creates the problem of needing scramblers we can trust to be responsible and careful.

Here's an idea to help against this problem, other scramble mistakes (wrong turns, or even applying the wrong scramble resulting in repetitions), and cheating and forgetting to solve the cube before handing it in: We could print the eight corner stickers on U and D on the score sheet, and the judge checks them. Can be printed on the back, or on the side next to each scramble and then folded to the back. And it could be done with all cube sizes and similarly with other puzzles.

Or at least the four corner stickers on U, which would catch half of the accidental corner twists and still be good against other scramble mistakes and cheating and forgetting to solve beforehand, plus it's even quicker and can be checked without taking the cube out of the cover box.

 

[Erik]

How do you know it was during scrambling, and you didn't accidentally twist it while solving? I probably do the latter more often than the former. And even if *you* believe that it wasn't you but the scramblers, how do you convince the judge?

Ron was my judge the last time, feel free to discuss it with him. He and me were both convinced I didn't twist any corner during the solve, it is the judge's responsibility to check that I don't do anything illegal.

 

[Stefan]

it is the judge's responsibility to make sure I don't do anything illegal.

If I see you do something illegal, I know that you have done something illegal.
If I *don't* see you do something illegal, I *don't* know that you haven't.

But yes, it depends on the case, and if your judges were convinced, then they were. Though I'd say you're not quite representative, as both your ability and your sincerity are deservedly more trusted than the average nobody's.

Of course you were right about your (main?) point that it can happen during scrambling, I'm just saying that it doesn't and shouldn't always result in an extra attempt.

 

[Erik]

Of course it doesn't always have to result in an extra attempt. If it happened during scrambling it should though. But what if it happened during scrambling, the judge is not paying enough attention to the solve and then the competitor notices the corner is twisted. The judge doesn't know 100% for sure the competitor didn't do anything because of his own failure.
What is to be decided then?

If all delegates would react like Dene said he would, you could DNF competitors by sneakily twisting a corner while scrambling. (or at least slow them down a lot when they decide to fix it instead of asking for an extra attempt)

 

[Stefan]

(oops, somehow my post got duplicated while editing...)

Of course it doesn't always have to result in an extra attempt.

Well, I assumed that's what you meant when you said "It results in an extra attempt.".

If it happened during scrambling it should though.

Yes, but in reality we simply don't have that knowledge. And your "the judge is not paying enough attention" sounds like it's easy to see and a fault of the judge to not see it. When I accidentally twist a corner during solving, I usually don't even see it myself unless it's a corner I happen to watch at that moment. I usually only somewhat feel it and suspect - not know - it until I get to OLL. If I myself can't see it and can barely feel it, how is the judge supposed to see it? Furthermore, we're talking about the case where it *didn't* happen during the solve, which is even harder to "see" for the judge.

 

[Ickathu]

Speaking of corner twists, just noticed this:

- 5b3c) If the puzzle is unsolvable, and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner piece, the competitor may correct the corner piece by twisting it in place without disassembling the puzzle

What if I'm a noob with a rubik's brand and I can't twist the corner? Am I not allowed to pop out an edge?

 

[Sebastien]

Am I not allowed to pop out an edge?

Is there any reason to assume this?

Spoiler

no, there is not. If a rule says that you may do something it makes logically no sense that you assume that you are not allowed to do something else.

Besides, the general case is covered by 5b.

 

[Ickathu]

Is there any reason to assume this?

Spoiler

no, there is not. If a rule says that you may do something it makes logically no sense that you assume that you are not allowed to do something else.

Besides, the general case is covered by 5b.

Oh right lol. :fp

TYPO on this one:

- 9r1b) Any limit to the number of competitors permitted in the qualification round of the event, and any limit tothe maximum number of those competitors who will proceed to the first round.

 

[Stefan]

Speaking of corner twists, just noticed this:

- 5b3c) If the puzzle is unsolvable, and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner piece, the competitor may correct the corner piece by twisting it in place without disassembling the puzzle

That rule is the exact reason we started talking about the issue. You accidentally our discussion.

 

[cuBerBruce]

I notice they've changed from Half Turn Metrics to Block Turn Metrics.... can anyone explain the different to me please, they sound the same.

PLEASE CHANGE THE WORDING IN THE REGULATIONS. This definition of block turn metric is just totally wrong with what it has commonly meant. Moving two inner layers together on a 4x4x4, for example, is considered one block turn. I don't think that is what the definition in the regulations is trying to convey. It's very badly worded in the first place, so I'm not even clear what it's supposed to mean. Please don't try to make "block turn" mean something different from what it commonly means today. A block turn means moving any "block of layers" together, and a face layer does not need to be one of the layers.

 

[riffz]

We could print the eight corner stickers on U and D on the score sheet, and the judge checks them. Can be printed on the back, or on the side next to each scramble and then folded to the back.

I'm not fond of this idea. It would take a fair amount of effort to execute and I feel like its a bad idea to have part of the cube state displayed on the scorecard. What if we were to assign one person at each scrambling table the role of checking the scrambled cube against the picture displayed in the scrambling program? That way the scramblers wont have to pause and slow down the flow of the competition. Ideally, this is the time that the cube should be checked anyway.

We could even display an image with some greyed out corner stickers if it would make it easier to check that the scramble is correct.

 

[Stefan]

This doesn't stop the WCA from applying their own filters to the scramblers, this just removes any inconsistency.

Now we just need to hide that code, and you'll never even know.

 

[Kirjava]

Now we just need to hide that code, and you'll never even know.

What if I discover it without it's implementation being announced? Scandal!

 

[Stefan]

PLEASE CHANGE THE WORDING IN THE REGULATIONS. This definition of block turn metric is just totally wrong with what it has commonly meant. Moving two inner layers together on a 4x4x4, for example, is considered one block turn. I don't think that is what the definition in the regulations is trying to convey. It's very badly worded in the first place, so I'm not even clear what it's supposed to mean. Please don't try to make "block turn" mean something different from what it commonly means today. A block turn means moving any "block of layers" together, and a face layer does not need to be one of the layers.

Support for Bruce's view: our wiki/Thom and qqwref and perfredlund, and at least Bruce used it that way for years on Domain of the Cube, I guess without people complaining. Those were the only places I checked.

What is meant seems to be block turns that include an outer layer, what you call twist turns. Is that a well-established name?

Do we actually need to use a name? And do we need a metric for something other than for 3x3 at all? I don't see us do FMC for anything else, and with the scramble requirement being "must use wca scrambler", I don't think we need a more general metric than HTM.

 

[Stefan]

What if I discover it without it's implementation being announced? Scandal!

With "hide" I meant that you can't find it. Kirjava-proof. Like inside a class that's ostensibly about magics.

 

[Stefan]

What if we were to assign one person at each scrambling table the role of checking the scrambled cube against the picture displayed in the scrambling program? That way the scramblers wont have to pause and slow down the flow of the competition.

Well it's not like you get a scramble person for free. That person could instead be scrambling (and checking his own scramblings).

Ideally, this is the time that the cube should be checked anyway.

What time do you mean? (Sounds like you just mean after it has been scrambled, but that's the only way.)

I'd find it ideal to check it so that there's no gap from checking to judge. Also, we already have:

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.

 

[Stefan]

I feel like its a bad idea to have part of the cube state displayed on the scorecard.

If the back of the card isn't safe enough, then what about each judge having their own card? That might also encourage people to take their judging duty more seriously and not just judge when they feel like it.