WCA Regulations - Out of Hand?

[blade740]

As I was reading through these most recent discussions, I felt several times that people are starting to create and modify regulations just for the hell of it.

I agree wholeheartedly. Some of this year's regulation changes make sense: the raised/engraved logo rule from a fairness standpoint, skewb for community support, and Mean of 3 formats for a few rounds to give competition organizers additional flexibility.

However, some of the changes do not improve the sport in any way, and instead only serve to limit competitors. For example, removing [r] [f] notation from FMC: what is the point of this exactly? Even though it may be rarely used, removing the option helps no-one. In fact, I was negatively affected by last year's change removing slice moves (which was, in my opinion, another pointless change that only serves to limit cubers). Same for removing qualification rounds: these may be rarely used but removing the option altogether helps no one, and only limits flexibility for competition organizers.

Similarly, what's the point of penalizing cubers who pre-sign for events? This may be a "sloppy" practice but as far as I know there have not been any cases of judges or competitors abusing it. The only possible scenario I can see would be if a malicious judge decided to take advantage of a trusting competitor, but if that's the case there's nothing stopping me as a judge from adding a "1" to the beginning of a time AFTER it's signed (or from just drawing the arrow down and DNSing the competitor by default). I am one of the cubers who often pre-signs for all 5 attempts right from the start, and for good reason: when running smaller competitions, I'm often "pushed through" so I can begin judging/scrambling right away, and so many times I perform all 5 solves in quick succession, at the same timer, with the same judge. Approving my times in advance is simply an expediency measure, so that the judge can just write down my times and immediately take the cube for scrambling. Of course I understand that this means I am implicitly trusting whatever the judge writes down, but I still make sure to look at what they're writing just in case.

It seems to me that many of these rule changes are prompted not by the needs of competitors and organizers, but by a desire to "fix" what some WCA officials see as "inconsistencies" in the regulations. I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[Laura O]

I think we should keep in mind that these polls are always going to be heavily biased and the people who participate only represent a very small portion of the community. It's a good way to test the waters, but we shouldn't conclude that getting a majority on a speedsolving poll means that community at large agrees with the proposal.

I fully agree with that.
Another general problem with these discussions and votes is that many people do not read the topic properly or just argument from their own point of view. I think we should question the actual purpose of these discussions. It's not that I doubt that community feedback is worthwhile, but it should be from an objective and reasonable point of view.

One example: some weeks ago I heard at a competition that a competitor (regularly competing and also posting here) told someone that he read here that BLD will be Mean of 3 in competitions in 2014 and he complained that he wouldn't be able to do this and get many DNFs. And this is just one example, I could give many more.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

I'd just like to say, the fact that this was bought up by a delegate is a serious cause for concern.

 

[arcio1]

If it aint broke don't fix it.

THIS.

I think that a lot of WCA regulations make no sense. I mean, why do they ban cubes? For example coloured? Maybe they give theoretical advantages, but so what? It wouldn't change anything if everyone would be allowed to use same advantages. I thought the idea of solving cubes was to find limits, but they do everything they can to make fast people slower by for example banning tiles. In my opinion there should be only necessary and obvious regulations, like textured tiles banned for blind solving.

 

[Stefan]

qualification rounds: these may be rarely used but removing the option altogether helps no one

False. It helps people already complaining that the regulations are too long. (And I think there were some other reasons as well)

Similarly, what's the point of penalizing cubers who pre-sign for events?

It's not really a penalty. You declare empty cells to be your results.

If you don't want it, then don't declare that you want it.

This may be a "sloppy" practice but as far as I know there have not been any cases of judges or competitors abusing it.

That practice itself is abuse (of the signing procedure).

The only possible scenario I can see would be if a malicious judge

I believe it's less about "malicious" and more about *mistakes* and unclear writing.

Approving my times in advance is simply an expediency measure

How much time does that save?

I still make sure to look at what they're writing just in case.

Good that you do. What about everybody else?

if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

"If I personally don't happen to see/have a problem with it, please don't improve it"?

 

[DuffyEdge]

FMC should be mo2

 

[Mikel]

I personally do not think the WCA regulations are out of hand. I commend the WRC for all the work they put in to improve our regulations.

 

[qqwref]

I'd just like to say, the fact that this was bought up by a delegate is a serious cause for concern.

I hope you mean this in the sense of "we need to think about this process a lot more" and not "remove Bob as delegate".

It's not really a penalty. You declare empty cells to be your results.

An empty cell is not a result, and is clearly and fundamentally different from a written "DNF" or "DNS". Everyone (except a few people working on regulations now) has understood this for years. That's why when someone DNSes solves we actually write "DNS" on the scoresheet rather than just leaving it blank.

"If I personally don't happen to see/have a problem with it, please don't improve it"?

Have you seen any of the complaints about the 2014 regulation changes? Do you really think this is an improvement? I'll at least give you the benefit of the doubt as a non-native English speaker here - "don't fix what ain't broke" has the implication that often when someone tries to "fix" something that works fine they will end up with something that doesn't even work as well as it originally did. For example, trying to make the Clock notation better and ending up with a bizarre hybrid notation that makes scrambling take longer.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

I hope you mean this in the sense of "we need to think about this process a lot more" and not "remove Bob as delegate".

Yeah, I mean the first. If the delegates aren't happy with the changes being made, then it at least shows that there are some concerns even for regulations that make it into the final version.

 

[Erik]

-Wise words.-

Its early in the year, but it might be one of the best posts of 2014.

 

[Stefan]

An empty cell is not a result, and is clearly and fundamentally different from a written "DNF" or "DNS". Everyone (except a few people working on regulations now) has understood this for years. That's why when someone DNSes solves we actually write "DNS" on the scoresheet rather than just leaving it blank.

It's a result, just not explicitly written down (I guess "DNS" can be entered if you prefer it written explicitly). Once it gets signed, it becomes a result. What else would it be? Also, look at the regulation:

"A7c) The judge and competitor must both sign (or initial) the score sheet to acknowledge the result."

When you signed, you acknowledged the result! If you don't think there's a result, why would you sign when the regulations make it clear that signing is for results?

Anyway... I believe nobody wants to hand out DNSes for this. The point is to stop people abusing the signing process.

I'll at least give you the benefit of the doubt as a non-native English speaker here - "don't fix what ain't broke" has the implication that often when someone tries to "fix" something that works fine they will end up with something that doesn't even work as well as it originally did.

I do know that idiom and hate it, get the feeling it gets thrown around far too often and easily and carelessly by people who think it makes them look cool and who just don't like any change. An over-generalizing straw man, pretending the people trying to improve something don't do so for good reasons. I believe in reality, the changers don't change stuff just because they like changing stuff (I think Lucas etc have better things to do) but because they *do* consider stuff broken and *don't* consider it working fine. And the opposers might just not see that/how it was broken and not working fine.

Yes, people can make mistakes and intended improvements can fail and turn out to make things worse, but if you never attempt improvements, then you won't ever make any progress in anything. Especially if you obey anyone who happens to be opposed to the change, as there will pretty much *always* be *some* people who don't like it, no matter what the change is.

For example, trying to make the Clock notation better and ending up with a bizarre hybrid notation that makes scrambling take longer.

I'm not very much familiar with this case, but I tried both a while back and preferred the new notation and thought it's easier/clearer. And the old notation had the advantage of people being used to it, but that's a subjective short-term advantage, not necessarily an objective long-term advantage.

 

[AmazingCuber]

I just want to say something right now:

I want to thank the WRC so much for putting all that effort into the regs. They don't deserve this ****storm.

During all this discussion we have to keep in mind a couple of things:

First of all, (modern) cubing is a new sport, which means that there will be lots of rule changes and rule adjustments to find the right ones. In the first years of other sports, look at how many rule changes there were. The older cubing gets, the less rule changes will happen.

Also, just because we are used to some rules, for ex. logos, doesn't mean that they are the best rules. Sometimes a big change has to be made, especially in the early years of a sport, to make things fair.

Finally, just because something only brings a theoretical advantage now and not a practical, doesn't mean that there won't be a practical advantage sometime later on --the regs are there for preventing incidents. And yes, if I can feel a piece in BLD, it gives me an advantage, especially if I purposely try to use this advantage. And yes, sadly there are people who would or do such things.

Thanks again WRC for putting in all that effort. If people don't like the changes, they should actually help make the regs better and stop just whining.

But, I do think we should start working on regs earlier than December

 

[uberCuber]

I'm not very much familiar with this case, but I tried both a while back and preferred the new notation and thought it's easier/clearer. And the old notation had the advantage of people being used to it, but that's a subjective short-term advantage, not necessarily an objective long-term advantage.

The new scrambles requiree you to flip the clock mid-scramble. Scrambling objectively takes longer with the new notation, regardless of issues of not being used to one or the other. Sure it's not a big difference, but why purposely make it take longer than it has to?

 

[Stefan]

The new scrambles requires you to flip the clock mid-scramble. Scrambling objectively takes longer with the new notation, regardless of issues of not being used to one or the other.

If I'm not mistaken, flipping allows (more) repetition and only having to turn wheels at up-pins. When I *solve* the clock, I do flip and I do build the cross on both sides the exact same way and only turn wheels at up-pins, and it helps me prevent confusion, mistakes and delays. The same seems true for scrambling, so flipping can end up *saving* time in the end. Especially when you don't have to solve+rescramble because you didn't make a mistake.

 

[uberCuber]

If I'm not mistaken, flipping allows (more) repetition and only having to turn wheels at up-pins. When I *solve* the clock, I do flip and I do build the cross on both sides the exact same way and only turn wheels at up-pins, and it helps me prevent confusion, mistakes and delays. The same seems true for scrambling, so flipping can end up *saving* time in the end. Especially when you don't have to solve+rescramble because you didn't make a mistake.

Well, good thing it was brought up, then, because I majorly misinterpreted the new notation last time I looked at scrambles. I didn't know only the top wheels ever had to be turned (didn't even know it was possible to thoroughly scramble and solve clock without ever using the bottom wheels).

I still dislike flipping the clock mid-scramble, but now it's just a personal complaint if the new notation also has an advantage to possibly cancel out the disadvantage.

EDIT: Wait no, I just misread your comment too. I need to stop trying to think.

 

[cubernya]

One thing I would like to bring up is why competitors *must* sign the scoresheet. It was added in 2013, but I still don't understand the purpose of it. Obviously, if there is a penalty, they should sign. But otherwise, I don't see the purpose, as long as the result is legible.

 

[Jaysammey777]

One thing I would like to bring up is why competitors *must* sign the scoresheet. It was added in 2013, but I still don't understand the purpose of it. Obviously, if there is a penalty, they should sign. But otherwise, I don't see the purpose, as long as the result is legible.

I assume it is to check the time. i.e. if you get a 12.21 solve and the judge mistakenly write 21.12

 

[uberCuber]

One thing I would like to bring up is why competitors *must* sign the scoresheet. It was added in 2013, but I still don't understand the purpose of it. Obviously, if there is a penalty, they should sign. But otherwise, I don't see the purpose, as long as the result is legible.

To acknowledge that they accept what has been written on the scorecard so somebody can't later try to claim that they really got a faster time and accuse a judge of writing down a slower time than what they got.

 

[qqwref]

It's a result, just not explicitly written down (I guess "DNS" can be entered if you prefer it written explicitly). Once it gets signed, it becomes a result. What else would it be? Also, look at the regulation:

"A7c) The judge and competitor must both sign (or initial) the score sheet to acknowledge the result."

When you signed, you acknowledged the result! If you don't think there's a result, why would you sign when the regulations make it clear that signing is for results?

I feel like you're trying to create some kind of bizarre bureaucratic argument to defend an opinion you already stated, and which you've now realized makes no sense. Every person I've talked to about scoresheets, and everyone I've worked with at competitions, has implicitly and automatically assumed that a blank scoresheet does not have results on it. When people enter results at a competition, or when they judge or scramble, they universally consider an empty score box to mean that no result has so far been recorded for that solve. If you need more evidence it isn't the same as a DNS, consider combined finals - surely "1:00 DNS DNS" and "1:00" are different results? And if blank means DNS, how could you possibly write the second one?

And yes, signing acknowledges the result. So, as people have already mentioned (did you read the thread?), signing before the result indicates that whatever it is, you will acknowledge it. The order does not matter, any more than it matters whether you sign a form before or after you fill it out.

Anyway... I believe nobody wants to hand out DNSes for this. The point is to stop people abusing the signing process.

Then, oh, I dunno, don't hand out DNSes for this. As I've said before, we can all just agree that a competitor who signs the scoresheet loses the right to officially dispute the written result.

I do know that idiom and hate it, get the feeling it gets thrown around far too often and easily and carelessly by people who think it makes them look cool and who just don't like any change. [snip]

I get the feeling you're dismissing people out of hand because you have a personal interest in the new regulations and won't let any criticisms or complaints get in the way. A good idea will stand on its own, and does not need this much defending. I don't dislike change but you have to actually make sure that the new idea is better, not just different.

To be honest, I'm not seeing a lot of actual arguments FOR the new changes. Nobody's answering the problems people have brought up. Instead I just see people like you and Lucas act condescending, make nonsensical semantic arguments, pretend there are no disagreements, and complain that people didn't pay enough attention in the five days between the draft being published and the new year. I really expect better from you guys, especially if you're going to control the regulations for the entire sport.

I'm not very much familiar with this case, but I tried both a while back and preferred the new notation and thought it's easier/clearer. And the old notation had the advantage of people being used to it, but that's a subjective short-term advantage, not necessarily an objective long-term advantage.

I've mentioned before why I think the new notation is objectively worse. Quickly, two reasons are that similar-looking commands mean very different things, and that it uses nonstandard ways of representing turn amounts and parts of the puzzle. Not to mention that the new style does not fix any of the supposed problems with the old style.

 

[XTowncuber]

Basically my problem with this is that I have always enjoyed the not-so-uptight atmosphere at competitions. I like how we don't have to do everything exactly right, and that we don't have a regulation covering everything, and that we are ten times more concerned about having fun then we are about making sure regulations are followed perfectly. The new regulations seem like all they will do is make it harder for new competitors to join. (it's never any fun to be told that you're cube is not set up correctly and isn't competition legal)


And yes, I'm aware that this is a 100% terrible reason to oppose the changes

I'm with those who say "If it ain't broke don't fix it." I think that it will make the system worse by complicating things to solve a theoretical problem (unless you have some instances of cheating to share with us).