WCA has now banned stickerless cubes for BLD. Thoughts?

[Noahaha]

Here is my argument against everyone who agrees with stickerless cubes being allowed for BLD but not normal solving:

The advantage of seeing more than three sides of the cube at a time, INSIGNIFICANT as it may be, is still GREATER than the advantage of seeing colors mid-turn during a sighted solve.

So, if you are going to argue with this, PLEASE argue that stickerless cubes should be allowed for all events and not just BLD (although I do not support this opinion), since the argument for removing stickerless cubes from BLD is a DIFFERENT argument from the INITIAL reasoning for removing them from sighted solving.

Thank you.

EDIT: 1000 - Not really proud of this for some reason.

 

[Isaac Paurus]

Ridiculous.

 

[musicninja17]

that's true, but it sorta depends on the person.

Well then, we have to regulate that too then, don't we? Gives some people an unfair advantage.
Additionally, I would have to say they need to ban pillowed 7x7's for sake of consistency if they're truly worried about that.

 

[qqwref]

I think the only reason they haven't banned pillowed 7x7x7s yet is that they need to wait longer to make sure everyone has a decent SS.

 

[sneaklyfox]

I find it interesting to read the arguments on both sides. But personally, I don't really care that they are banned because I don't do BLD or have a stickerless cube. But I suppose that if they were made legal in competition then I would probably get a stickerless to see if they really feel smoother or if I can use them properly/get used to how they look. I think I prefer the classic look...

 

[StephenC]

qqwref:

I think the only reason they haven't banned pillowed 7x7x7s yet is that they need to wait longer to make sure everyone has a decent SS.

So how long do we wait for that to happen? Why does the same argument not apply to multi-blind? Should we not wait until all multi-blind participants that have bought stickerless cubes, have bought stickered and otherwise legal cubes? Or do we allow people that had stickerless cubes before the regulation to continue using them? Surely you mean to say that we should wait until the majority of 7x7 participants have a SS. We could never wait for all of them to get a SS before enforcing the regulations, as there will probably always be a few people that do not want to get a SS. I am fairly convinced that you meant the majority of 7x7 participants, not all of them.

I think that most 7x7 participants already have a ShengShou. I request that you view this poll for evidence of my argument POLL. I think that most of the people in this poll would use a SS 7x7 in competition. While I don't really think that the advantage of the pillowing of the V7 gives much advantage, it does violate the regulations (or at least it is inconsistent, since pillowed cubes are not allowed in any other event).

If we do not allow people to use stickerless cubes because of the negligible advantage, then we certainly have to apply the same reasoning to using pillowed cubes. The point here is that this is inconsistent, and that we should apply the regulations equally.

I think that we should be as consistent as possible, and harshly apply the regulations. I think that it would be better for us to change the regulations, then allow them to be infringed in certain circumstances. I think that this calls for a change in policy. Under the current regulations, both stickerless cubes and pillowed cubes should not be allowed. This is a stupid rule, and instead of trying to argue that it is not being violated, we should change it.

We need a better definition of "the basic concept of a puzzle." I don't think that there is anybody that would argue that a stickerless GuHong is not a 3x3, nor do I think that there is anybody that would argue that the V7 is not a 7x7. A spherical 3x3 is still a 3x3, as is a stickerless 3x3. I think that the WCA would gladly welcome regulations that were better defined, and that more people are happy with. We should come up with a set of changes to the regulations that we are all happy with, and then petition the WCA to change them.

 

[prażeodym]

Most Cubers have bought colored cubes for blind, because they didn't want to change stickers and have problems with this (because if any sticker will be diffrent, You have to change it for blind because it could help You). Mb they should ban all cubes exept Rubik's studio one, so we could taste fantastic rules from 1982

 

[Carrot]

just ban pillowed 7x7x7s now...

 

[studzien]

What is really bad about this decision is creating a bad precedent of changing any rules in any way without any real argument just for the sake of consistency.
To believe in WCA's good intentions would be the most convenient here, but its expectancy of 'bellyfeeling' the new regulations simply disallows to do so.

 

[pepkin88]

I'd like to post some of my thoughts and opinions on this subject:

• Some said that you can avoid rotating cube while memorizing in BLD with the colored cubes. I don't agree with that. Although I'm not a top BLD cuber, I think that the delicate tint of shadow in a colorful environment doesn't tell you anything. And even if it does, you HAVE to rotate the cube to be sure what color it is. It isn't speedsolving, you won't reaffirm the color after a couple of turns. You have to know the color or you get DNF.
• Why so short time to adapt the new regulations?
• I think that consistency is the least important aspect here. If some regulations are hurting some cubers (with no impact on others) in a cause of consistency, they shouldn't be implemented.
• In my opinion WCA is going the wrong way and is starting to be inconsistent itself.
  What is wrong in “getting the advantage”? Is that some cubes will be used more frequently than others? We already have that with DaYans over Rubik's Studio. Doesn't WCA see that it bans more and more cubes in sake of mere vision about the perfect cube? First were transparent cubes, than colored ones, now colored ones second time, in the future pillow cubes and probably also these with tiles (they also grants you vision of the back faces, especially in Megaminx). These are also 3x3, their mathematical properties are the same, the same cases, the same solved state, the same way to tell whether it is solved, the same turns you can make, the same methods you solve them with.
  So maybe is it a historical reason? The first cubes were Rubik's Studio, today we have DaYans, they are very different that the old cubes, even more different is a Void Cube with cross with centers inside, which is still legal on the competitions. So no, today cubes are different than, the original ones.
  So why put the border in cubes and allows ones and ban others? Are these “bad cubes” increase human skills, have they an autosolving mode, do they help with recognizing and blink the cubies you are currently looking for, do they use the engine to rotate faces faster? Of course not. They are just regular cubes with the possibility to identify the back colors. They even require more skill from solver, who wants to take full advantage of his cube. What happened to the meaning of the competitive sports? Faster, higher, stronger, remember?

Just one more:

For everybody: I emailed the board on this, and this is the response I got from Ron:

Hi all,

I actually hate these discussions. I just do not understand why people keep on discussing this matter when there is an easy solution: just use "normal" cubes. There are many good cubes!
There must be a boundary for what is allowed and what isn't. There are definitely examples of cubes that WOULD give an advantage, or would change the way we solve. Maybe this specific cube does not give a big advantage, but at least the regulation is better than making a complex regulation of what is allowed and what isn't.

Have fun,

Ron

Pardon me, but this statement sounded to me like “We know the best, we are doing it for your good, so just shut up.”
At least I know now that the democracy isn't welcome.

 

[Meep]

Just to throw it out there, the regulations never did have an exception for BLD. Whether you're looking at it or not while solving, the basic concept of the puzzle has been enhanced. Regardless of whether you can take advantage of the partial-turn color visibility or not, it can debated whether it should have been allowed in the first place.

I feel the problem they're trying to address was the ambiguity of the regulations (from reading Ron's e-mail above) in addition to possibly consistency.

 

[arcio1]

I have one simple question for everyone who keeps saying that banning stickerless cubes is good decision because those cubes help with anything: SO WHAT?!
If it was allowed, everyone could use it, so everyone would have same advantage, SO.. it wouldn't be unfair to anybody! Using stickered dayan cubes is an advantage, too, because they turn better than e.g. Rubik's brand cubes. So it should be banned, too, shouldn't it..?
And "for consistency" isn't an argument.

 

[prażeodym]

I think that Magics will be removed just to have "consistency" of rules, then some other weird events like feet and OH and blind, just to simplify the rules.

 

[Schmidt]

So I can't use this cube for BLD anymore?!?

Oh well.

 

[TMOY]

Just to throw it out there, the regulations never did have an exception for BLD.

And that's IMHO definitely a bad thing. The requirements are not the same for speed and for BLD. And I've already had cubes accepted for speed but rejected for BLD at the same comp, which is always annoying. At least if it was set in the rules then things would be clear.

Personally I would prefer complex but solid rules over rules which are simple only for the sake of simplicity and which create more problems than they are solving. But maybe that's just me.

 

[pjk]

Of cause you are allowed to turn faces during memorization. You are just not allowed to make moves.

So I can do R4 and U4 during memo? Have you seen anyone do this, and if so, why? Or do you mean you can turn, just not over 45 degrees?

Please use a dictionary if you don't know what consistency means. If you do, then I can't see how you could not know why that decision is consistent in the given context.

Of course I know what consistency means in general, but in this case it is very vague. Consistency of puzzles? Consistency of colors, plastic, what? Because stickerless was banned from 3x3 speedsolve we should ban it from blind? That shouldn't be a valid reason by any means; they are two different events with different rules. Let's be honest, stickerless in blind hardly gives any advantage at all. What is the point of consistency in this situation?

 

[JasonK]

So I can do R4 and U4 during memo? Have you seen anyone do this, and if so, why?

In what way is U4 not a move? If a move means "turning a face more than 45 degrees", then U4 is definitely one.

 

[Petro Leum]

it was stupid and it is stupid, but at least the rules are clear now.

 

[Lucas Garron]

Delegates / Board members / and WRC members had different reasons for supporting this decision.

In my opinion, the most important thing is that the rules are clear and fair.
It's much clearer to define which puzzles are allowed, and have those rules apply to all relevant events. That includes consistency for stickerless cubes.

Colored-plastic stickerless cubes show extra information while solving (e.g. during a turn), and the consensus of WCA officials is that stickerless cubes should not be allowed.
In the end, decisions like this are arbitrary, but the point is that the rules should be fair to all competitors in all countries. For that, we just need to agree on *some* conventions for which puzzles are allowed, and which are not.

(Hopefully, the new format of the Regulations + Guidelines will help with that, as tricky as it is to try to put those together.)

 

[A Leman]

Since my only great cube is a colored cube, this is disappointing. What about Marcel’s WR's? Should they be null because he was retroactively cheating? Do people honestly think his records are so unassailable just because of the cube he used? I seriously doubt it.