One-Answer WCA Competition and Regulations Question Thread

[AlexMaass]

I don't understand what you mean by this :/

theres loads of possibilities for what would be considered a clock misalignment that should get a +2, whereas on other puzzles its much more simpler, kit said in the cubecast the exact reason why they don't do it.

 

[YouCubing]

theres loads of possibilities for what would be considered a clock misalignment that should get a +2, whereas on other puzzles its much more simpler, kit said in the cubecast the exact reason why they don't do it.

Oh ok, but before I got a Clock DNF average in comp
GRRRRR
I thought one tick off was a +2.

 

[Kit Clement]

Oh ok, but before I got a Clock DNF average in comp
GRRRRR
I thought one tick off was a +2.

Define what you think "one tick off" means.

 

[YouCubing]

Define what you think "one tick off" means.

Off by one dot, o' clock, 30 degrees, click, gear tooth, etc.

 

[supercavitation]

Off by one dot, o' clock, 30 degrees, click, gear tooth, etc.

On how many clock faces?

 

[YouCubing]

On how many clock faces?

the 4 "corners" on one side, and all the clocks on the other side.

 

[supercavitation]

the 4 "corners" on one side, and all the clocks on the other side.

+2 misalignment penalties are mostly so that if you drop the cube and a layer misaligns as a result of the impact, you don't get DNF-ed for it, at least in theory. I'm not sure there's even a way to do that to a clock.

 

[Ronxu]

the 4 "corners" on one side, and all the clocks on the other side.

What if the last move isn't with all pins up so one or more corners are solved?

 

[YouCubing]

What if the last move isn't with all pins up so one or more corners are solved?

Meh. Idk.

Also, I propose a thing:
If ONLY one piece with exactly two colors on it is detached form the puzzle at the end of the solve, it isn't a DNF.
This is because single edge flips are impossible on all WCA puzzles.
3x3, 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, 7x7, Pyraminx, Megaminx and Square-1 all have edges that are impossible to flip without flipping another one. I know someone who got a DNF for this reason, and it kind of sucked because the edge obviously couldn't have been flipped.

 

[Dene]

A single corner twist also isn't possible. Neither is a corner twist and a flipped edge... etc.

We aren't trying to let people get away with being careless. Solve the puzzle properly; it isn't that hard, you only do it like 100 times a day.

 

[YouCubing]

A single corner twist also isn't possible. Neither is a corner twist and a flipped edge... etc.

We aren't trying to let people get away with being careless. Solve the puzzle properly; it isn't that hard, you only do it like 100 times a day.

But I mean like if an edge popped out, and you stopped the timer, there's really only one possible configuration for it.

 

[Kit Clement]

There used to be regulations that essentially allowed for any pop that had only 1 way to reassemble the pieces would be solved, which was already confusing and ambiguous enough and led to difficult calls. Allowing edge pops and other kinds of pops where there's only 1 *possible* way to reassemble the puzzle would require judges to have knowledge of the puzzle on top of this, making the line between solved and not solved even blurrier.

Kind of similar to how implementing clock +2s would require judges to know the way the puzzle works, it's far from obvious what "1 move" is on a clock.

 

[YouCubing]

There used to be regulations that essentially allowed for any pop that had only 1 way to reassemble the pieces would be solved, which was already confusing and ambiguous enough and led to difficult calls. Allowing edge pops and other kinds of pops where there's only 1 *possible* way to reassemble the puzzle would require judges to have knowledge of the puzzle on top of this, making the line between solved and not solved even blurrier.

Kind of similar to how implementing clock +2s would require judges to know the way the puzzle works, it's far from obvious what "1 move" is on a clock.

Hm, good point. But if someone was judging, then shouldn't they know most of the WCA regs?
Idk, just always found that interesting

 

[joshsailscga]

Hm, good point. But if someone was judging, then shouldn't they know most of the WCA regs?
Idk, just always found that interesting

Oh ok, but before I got a Clock DNF average in comp
GRRRRR
I thought one tick off was a +2.

Competitors are also supposed to be aware of the regs...

 

[Dene]

But I mean like if an edge popped out, and you stopped the timer, there's really only one possible configuration for it.

If an edge and a corner pop out there's only one possible configuration. Where to draw the line? How about actually solving the cube... wouldn't that be nice?

 

[Damien Porter]

If an edge and a corner pop out there's only one possible configuration. Where to draw the line? How about actually solving the cube... wouldn't that be nice?

Yes it would be, but it would also be nice if our cubes didn't break on us mid solve.

In my opinion no matter how many pieces are out, as long as there is only one way to reassemble a solvable cube it should either be considered solved or a +2. Yes I am aware for cubes like a 7x7, a large amount of pieces can theoretically be missing. I also think that miss reassembled cubes or corner twists etc should just be a +2. Though these regulations would admittedly be very difficult.

 

[Goosly]

Yes it would be, but it would also be nice if our cubes didn't break on us mid solve.

Use a decent cube, turn decently and solve your cube before stopping the timer. It really isn't that hard.

 

[Ranzha]

But I mean like if an edge popped out, and you stopped the timer, there's really only one possible configuration for it.

There are two possible configurations: flipped and solved.

Flipped would result in a DNF. Solved wouldn't. Since it cannot be guaranteed the cube would be solved if the edge were to be reattached, it is a DNF.
This idea applies to pieces with only one coloured face. Suppose a centre cap falls off your 3x3 at the end of a solve. Since there is only one possible way to reattach the cap, the puzzle is considered solved.

 

[Kit Clement]

Here are examples of how we used to handle defects:

5b5) If, after the solve, non functional parts of the puzzle are still defect (like a centre cap of a cube) or not fully rotated (like a 5x5x5 centre piece twisted in its spot), but the puzzle is otherwise unambiguously solved, the puzzle is considered solved. (discretion of the main judge)

5b5) If parts of the puzzle are still defective or not fully placed at the end of the attempt, the result is recorded as the worst state obtainable by repairing the puzzle (see Regulation 5b3).

The actual implementation of this policy caused tons of confusion and inconsistencies around the world. I'm sure there are better ways to implement a more lenient solved state policy, but it would take a very detailed set of regulations and would likely still be applied very inconsistently. Internally, I believe is no desire to move back to more liberal rules for the solved state -- the current rules are simple to enforce and ensure fairness. As Dene has said here many times, it's the competitor's job to solve the cube -- if your puzzle is too flimsy or loose and causes you to DNF, then you should consider finding a more stable puzzle.

 

[newtonbase]

During a blind solve can I ask the judge how long the solve had taken so far? I'm guessing not?