Towards "Anything Goes" (WCA Puzzle Policy)

[stoic]

I've always supported the previous regulations, and saw the logic behind them (although admittedly "basic concept of the puzzle" maybe wasn't the best phrase to put some of them behind).
So. A complete about-turn? Ok, I can deal with that. As Keynes said "when the facts change, I change my mind".
But have the facts changed? Is the possible advantage both theoretical and negligible? Or does the ubiquity of these puzzles negate possible advantage (anyone can get one and use it)? Could the same regulatory effect be gained by simply saying "we allow pillowed and stickerless puzzles" and not specifying tile thickness?
I've nothing against the proposal (in fact, looking at the response so far I'm generally supportive) but beware of unintended consequences (which is what this thread is about anyway, I guess).
So yeah.

 

[Dene]

Being able to see all last layer stickers can and probably will be used as an unfair advantage by some people.

So I guess you are also against having tiles of unlimited thickness?

And what about transparent cubes? This proposal does not ban them.

 

[ThomasJE]

So I guess you are also against having tiles of unlimited thickness?

I think the delegate's discretion should be used. Ridiculous tiles should be banned, but tiles like the ones on some megaminxes should be.

And what about transparent cubes? This proposal does not ban them.

Same point that I made before. Being able to see all stickers at once will eventually be used by somebody.

There are obvious points that should be detailed in the regulations, but the rest should be down to the delegate's discretion.

 

[Lucas Garron]

I Like this because I don't think the puzzle makers where thinking of unfair advantages on speedsolving when they made the puzzles, let's hope that they continue with the same mentality and they don't try to find the boundaries of the regulations like in Formula 1.

They're thinking of advantages. Sure, some puzzles are just made to look cool, but speedcubes are sold on the fact that they give you advantages.
If this amounts to a smoother internal mechanism, it's always been clear that this is allowable. The problem is when a new puzzle gives a *qualitatively* different advantage, because then there is usually a defensible argument that the advantage is unfair.

My personal worry is that we *will* see an uptick in testing the boundaries, and end up with a more complicated "line" than before. But this is impossible to tell.

I've nothing against the proposal (in fact, looking at the response so far I'm generally supportive) but beware of unintended consequences (which is what this thread is about anyway, I guess).

Definitely a good way to put it. A lot of people are looking at this as "yay, competitors can now use stickerless/pillowed cubes that they like!", but this is opening the doors to a general policy.

I think the delegate's discretion should be used.

Unfortunately, "delegate's discretion" is no longer reasonable in 2014.
Whereas the original 2014 change was meant to remove room for Delegate discretion by being specific, I suppose the hope here is that competitors will only bring reasonable puzzles, and Delegate discretion will not be necessary unless a competitor is being egregious.

However, Delegate discretion is undesirable. For any repeating cases, we will either need Delegates to discuss and settle on interpretations (creating a de facto set of complicated rules), or live with a lot of inconsistency. The latter hasn't really worked for us.



(Also, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned anything about logos yet. Is the 2014 change reasonable enough that no one would want to change it? Or has no one actually read the proposed change and wondered if puzzles should stay restricted to one logo?)

 

[ThomasJE]

Unfortunately, "delegate's discretion" is no longer reasonable in 2014.
Whereas the original 2014 change sought to reduce this by being specific, I suppose the hope here is that competitors will only bring reasonable puzzles, and Delegate discretion will not be necessary unless a competitor is being purposely egregious.

However, Delegate discretion is undesirable. For any repeating cases, we will either need Delegates to discuss and settle on interpretations (creating a de facto complicated set of rules), or live with a lot of inconsistency. The latter hasn't really worked for us.

What about moving the puzzle regulations to a new section entitled 'Technical regulations'; again a bit like F1?

 

[Lucas Garron]

What about moving the puzzle regulations to a new section entitled 'Technical regulations'; again a bit like F1?

Ooh, let's move them into a separate article.
Or how about listing the interpretations in a separate document?

Hmm.

A common concern is that the Regulations (esp. regarding puzzles) should not be complicated to understand. It doesn't really matter where they go, but puzzle regulations be as easy as possible for a Delegate/competitor to interpret. That requires being complete and concise.

 

[irontwig]

Any reasoning behind removing the poll? If you want to know what the community thinks wouldn't having a poll be helpful? Instead of a crapload of posts consisting of "Sure why not?" and "It's like unfair advantages and stuff".

 

[Jaysammey777]

(Also, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned anything about logos yet. Is the 2014 change reasonable enough that no one would want to change it? Or has no one actually read the proposed change and wondered if puzzles should stay restricted to one logo?)

Originally I did not notice that logos were 3l. Considering WCAs proposal of no logos on even number cubes a while back. I decided to have my own color scheme with no logos. So in some ways I agreed with the 3l even when some of it was not proposed.

I agree with removing it, because of puzzles such as some mf8 and Mefferts original puzzles have multiple logos. As well when a cuber has his own personal logo that looks pretty cool. Many people do not have an option to resticker sometime, which can cause them not to compete in the event.

3j2 and 3j3 should be kept IMO. But with 3j1 I feel that many one handed cubes are more comfortable the chipped stickers. And eventually if the puzzle is always solve with the same style one handed the markings become very similar and indistinguishable. There is only some time where they are and not comp legal.

 

[ThomasJE]

Ooh, let's move them into a separate article.
Or how about listing the interpretations in a separate document?

Hmm.

A common concern is that the Regulations (esp. regarding puzzles) should not be complicated to understand. It doesn't really matter where they go, but puzzle regulations be as easy as possible for a Delegate/competitor to interpret. That requires being complete and concise.

I meant a separate area for each puzzle. Of course there would be repetitions between puzzles, but it allows for more specific rulings for each puzzle and it's an easy reference to check the legality of one particular puzzle.

 

[Jaysammey777]

I meant a separate area for each puzzle. Of course there would be repetitions between puzzles, but it allows for more specific rulings for each puzzle and it's an easy reference to check the legality of one particular puzzle.

I think they are trying to avoid being specific to cause less commotion among the community to still make it fun.

 

[stoic]

Might order one of these in a couple of months: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FCaoQkb4fI

Interesting. If we go forward with an "anything goes" regime, how much pillowing could be engineered into a puzzle like this? Could we end up with pyraminxes which don't resemble pyraminxes anymore? And would that be ok?

 

[Lucas Garron]

Any reasoning behind removing the poll? If you want to know what the community thinks wouldn't having a poll be helpful? Instead of a crapload of posts consisting of "Sure why not?" and "It's like unfair advantages and stuff".

We know that the community "supports" this change. We still expect them to refrain from posts like that.

I removed the poll because I do not want to have the impression that this is a proposal ready to be voted on. While it may have most of the major changes that would be in the final proposal, it needs some work. That's what this thread is for.

I meant a separate area for each puzzle. Of course there would be repetitions between puzzles, but it allows for more specific rulings for each puzzle and it's an easy reference to check the legality of one particular puzzle.

Perhaps not a bad idea, but that is not how the Regulations are designed right now.
This belongs in an FAQ, but the WCA site is not set up for putting that in a clear place. The Guidelines are the best place right now, but it's unclear what level of detail is currently appropriate.

I'd also like to see a *very* convincing proof of concept that this will not make things more complicated.

 

[Methuselah96]

Interesting. If we go forward with an "anything goes" regime, how much pillowing could be engineered into a puzzle like this? Could we end up with pyraminxes which don't resemble pyraminxes anymore? And would that be ok?

Similar to this, could someone use a completely spherical 3x3?

 

[qqwref]

Here's an additional idea: perhaps we should only allow puzzles that are freely available (i.e. mass produced now or in the past), or not obviously distinguishable from a freely available type. The idea is that nobody can design their own totally different "closed source" puzzle and then use it in competition to gain a truly unfair advantage. I know of at least one case of someone going against this proposed rule, and while he was already the best solver at the time, it is still something I'd want to prevent going forward.

(By "not obviously distinguishable from a freely available type" I just want to ensure nobody has to go memorizing every type of cube and carefully checking mechanisms. A megaminx with 1.5mm tiles is fine; a megaminx with 10mm tiles is not fine because that is not similar to a mass-produced puzzle, and thus may give an unfair advantage because no other competitor can get a puzzle like that.)

Similar to this, could someone use a completely spherical 3x3?

Sure, why not? Have fun getting decent times with it though

 

[Methuselah96]

Sure, why not? Have fun getting decent times with it though

Wouldn't that be a big nuisance for the scramblers/judges?

 

[ThomasJE]

Here's an additional idea: perhaps we should only allow puzzles that are freely available (i.e. mass produced now or in the past), or not obviously distinguishable from a freely available type. The idea is that nobody can design their own totally different "closed source" puzzle and then use it in competition to gain a truly unfair advantage. I know of at least one case of someone going against this proposed rule, and while he was already the best solver at the time, it is still something I'd want to prevent going forward.

I'm against it. If someone wants to go to the trouble of designing their cube, making it, and then the cost, then they should be allowed to use it in competition.

And anyway, it's not an unfair advantage. Everyone has the same opportunity to create their own cube.

(By "not obviously distinguishable from a freely available type" I just want to ensure nobody has to go memorizing every type of cube and carefully checking mechanisms. A megaminx with 1.5mm tiles is fine; a megaminx with 10mm tiles is not fine because that is not similar to a mass-produced puzzle, and thus may give an unfair advantage because no other competitor can get a puzzle like that.)

How did he get those tiles? Could someone else independently have got those tiles as well?

And good luck solving a 10mm tiled megaminx.

 

[rj]

Love this. Let's do it.

 

[XTowncuber]

- As before, Regulation 3m is the most important regulation of Article 3: if a puzzle fulfills all other regulations, the puzzle can be used in competition.
- Some vague/impracticable terms like "basic concept of a puzzle" or "make any additional information available" have been removed without replacement. As a direct result (3m), puzzles that have not been allowed for a long time would be allowed in the future, i.e. "pillowed" cubes or "stickerless" cubes.
- Justification: Simplification and consistency. While those puzzles do undeniably provide a *theoretical* advantage because of making more information visible, a *practical* advantage is very questionable and at most marginal and thus negligible.
- A thickness limit for tiles is no longer defined.
- Justification: Simplification and consistency. While thick tiles do undeniably provide a *theoretical* advantage because of making more information visible, a *practical* advantage is very questionable and at most marginal and thus negligible.
- "either" in 3d, "with uniform texture" in 3d2, 3d4 and "self-applied markings" in 3j have been added to cope with corner cases and possible abuse of the newly provided freedom.

I am Drew Brads and I approve this message.

 

[Kit Clement]

Something people should note about these changes:

- 3d4) The body of a puzzle having coloured stickers, coloured tiles or painted colours to define the colours of its faces is required to have a uniform colour.

This regulation bans all two-toned fangshi puzzles. This is not an intention of the WCA, but instead a consequence of the new regulations not addressing similar pieces (old 3j). This was removed because it technically bans cubes that have pieces with asymmetrical seams (weilong, huanying), which was inconsistent with the actual practice of the WCA. There doesn't seem to be a clear way to fix this, but if you have an idea that is simple and accommodates for both asymmetrical pieces and two toned puzzles, you should propose it.

Very surprised that there has been no push back from this. When banning two toned fangshi cubes was proposed last time, there was an uproar. Are people actually reading the proposed regulations and thinking of the potential consequences?

 

[Lucas Garron]

Very surprised that there has been no push back from this. When banning two toned fangshi cubes was proposed last time, there was an uproar. Are people actually reading the proposed regulations and thinking of the potential consequences?

No idea. For those who *do* care: You should read over the proposed change as it stands, think of cubes you believe should/should not be legal, and see if there's a mismatch.