• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Possible 2011 WCA Regulations Changes

esquimalt1

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
183
Location
Canada
WCA
2008VAJG01
YouTube
esquimalt1
Well it's that time of year again where the regulations get redone so I figured we could address some ideas here.

Random Ideas:

SKEWB ADDED (lol)

Clarification for 4d: "Cube puzzles must be scrambled with the white (or the lightest colour by default) face on top and green (or the darkest adjacent face by default) on the front."
What if someone has a white cube with black stickers instead of white?

Can organizers not approve a cube because it's a knock off?

FMC clarification on how the scramble should not be related to the solution.



Discuss!
 

y3k9

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
413
Just a reminder that this is going to be a serious thread for serious discussion.
I was posting an edit.

Ok here is my idea for the KO's.:
A KO should be allowed as long as the internal mech. is in no way tampered with so that it cheats (I don't know how someone would do that but...). I also think that wca shouldn't care who produces the cube that you use.
 

DavidWoner

The Punchmaster
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
3,937
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
WCA
2008WONE01
YouTube
vault312
I was posting an edit.
What I said still applies.

Ok here is my idea for the KO's.:
A KO should be allowed as long as the internal mech. is in no way tampered with so that it cheats (I don't know how someone would do that but...). I also think that wca shouldn't care who produces the cube that you use.
This is already covered in the current regulations.


A3d1) The puzzle must rest on the mat, not on the timer part of the Stackmat.

should be clarified to:

A3d1) The puzzle must rest on the mat, not on the timer part of the Stackmat. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.

Or whatever the intended penalty is. To be honest I don't think this regulation should even exist. I feel like it was put in place with the intention of removing an unfair advantage. However, placing the puzzle on the timer is a fair advantage, since anyone can do it.
 
Last edited:

y3k9

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
413
F3a) After the inspection the competitor places the puzzle onto the Stackmat in a standing position.

Does it matter if they're standing?
 

y3k9

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
413
Oh right, sorry.

B1b1) Competitors must bring their own blindfold.
This may allow cheating, as Stefan says on his site.
 

Vincents

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
321
WCA
2006SHEU01
I'm in favor of Skewb eventually being added, but I think it would be better to have a year of testing of potential regulations first, to avoid another situation where we have to change standards partway through a puzzle lifespan.

-edit- This has already happened, right?
 
Last edited:

Tyjet66

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
453
Location
St. Paul, Minnesota
YouTube
Tyjet66
1. Add skewb.
2. Perhaps allow colored cubes, as in the plastic is colored and does not require stickers to be solved.
3. Perhaps allow the competitor suggest how the puzzle is oriented for the scramble?
4. In regards to the Blindfold issue, as Stefan's site suggests, maybe have a certain brand of blindfolds that are certified to be cheat-proof?
 

y3k9

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
413
2. Perhaps allow colored cubes, as in the plastic is colored and does not require stickers to be solved.
I'm pretty sure they don't allow this because you can see the corner tips henceforth giving you an advantage.
3. Perhaps allow the competitor suggest how the puzzle is oriented for the scramble?
This would probably overruled because it allows an advantage. But I don't know.
4. In regards to the Blindfold issue, as Stefan's site suggests, maybe have a certain brand of blindfolds that are certified to be cheat-proof?
This is a good idea.
 

masterofthebass

Premium Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
3,923
Location
Denver, CO
WCA
2007COHE01
YouTube
masterofthebass
Oh right, sorry.

B1b1) Competitors must bring their own blindfold.
This may allow cheating, as Stefan says on his site.
please stop posting in this thread. You are obviously not familiar enough with the regulations to suggest changes. It states that the main judge is supposed to check blindfolds for the possibility of cheating.
 

y3k9

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
413
please stop posting in this thread. You are obviously not familiar enough with the regulations to suggest changes. It states that the main judge is supposed to check blindfolds for the possibility of cheating.
I will lurk after this post. You can still cheat even if your blindfold is checked.
 

Tyjet66

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
453
Location
St. Paul, Minnesota
YouTube
Tyjet66
I'm pretty sure they don't allow this because you can see the corner tips henceforth giving you an advantage.

This would probably overruled because it allows an advantage. But I don't know.

This is a good idea.
Alright, I understand the stickerless cubes.
How would a different orientation give some sort of advantage? You wouldn't be able to predict what the scramble would give you regardless.
 

FatBoyXPC

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
1,795
WCA
2010LACH01
YouTube
fatboyxpc
I brought this up at Dayton Open with the delegate, but I suppose I'll bring this up here in case he forgot :p

Should we be allowed to have tools to help fix puzzle issues? This was specifically thought about as bringing a screwdriver to the table with you in case you get a 2x2 internal pop. this could be expanded to other puzzles as well though.

I remember hearing that somebody at nationals this past year had to super glue something on their 7x7 during a solve, but I'm not sure. This rule would have to be worded carefully though as you could argue that cube explorer is a "tool."
 

Tyjet66

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
453
Location
St. Paul, Minnesota
YouTube
Tyjet66
I brought this up at Dayton Open with the delegate, but I suppose I'll bring this up here in case he forgot :p

Should we be allowed to have tools to help fix puzzle issues? This was specifically thought about as bringing a screwdriver to the table with you in case you get a 2x2 internal pop. this could be expanded to other puzzles as well though.

I remember hearing that somebody at nationals this past year had to super glue something on their 7x7 during a solve, but I'm not sure. This rule would have to be worded carefully though as you could argue that cube explorer is a "tool."
You are allowed to bring tools in the case that a malfunction occurs with your puzzle; these tools may not, however, be used to assist you in solving your puzzle in any way.

Is that worded carefully enough?
 

Tall5001

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
866
Location
Albuquerque, NM
WCA
2011METZ01
YouTube
Tall5001
I say add skewb that would awesome! also i dont think that people solve slow enough to see the corner piece on a colored Gu Hong in now way shape or form does it give me an advantage especially if you turn the cube 18 turns per second (or what ever). and for the blindfold i say let people bring their own (not sure on the rule) have the judge inspect it and then still hold the paper infront of the cube
 

FatBoyXPC

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
1,795
WCA
2010LACH01
YouTube
fatboyxpc
By the way you worded it, you just said that I can't use a tool to fix my puzzle, because that just "helped" me solve it (it was in an unsolvable state, now it's solvable).
 

Specs112

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
322
Location
Ithaca, NY
WCA
2011ANDE03
By the way you worded it, you just said that I can't use a tool to fix my puzzle, because that just "helped" me solve it (it was in an unsolvable state, now it's solvable).
May not assist with solving other than by replacing pieces affected by the malfunction?

Is that any more clear?
 
Top