# Questionable wca regulations

#### mookiemu

##### Member
They should absolutely not. A slice move is turning 2 layers a once just like a r is really turning L x. Just because M' is one motion does not men it's one move. (I get that r isn't a perfect example because rotations don't count as move but the point was you're just combing multiple thing into one turn.)
It all depends on how you look at it. If I turn just the center slice without turning the two sides, it's just one move. That's no different than an R turn. If you turn the right layer and the other two layers don't move, it's just one one move. But by the logic employed in making a center slice turn count as two moves even if the other two slices don't move is no different than counting a right turn as two moves even if the other two slices don't move. I can't really see the difference. If that's the case, why not then consider a cube turn as three moves? After all, all three slices are turning. It's all perspective.

#### ruffleduck

##### Member
If that's the case, why not then consider a cube turn as three moves? After all, all three slices are turning. It's all perspective.
A "cube turn" (which is actually just called a rotation) doesn't change the state of the cube at all and exists only as a convenience. It's easier for many to write y R U R' U' than to have to convert it into B U B' U', for example.

#### WarriorCatCuber

##### Member
Center slice moves should count as one turn in fewest moves events.
If this was to be done, it should have been done from the beginning. It changes everything that has to do with FMC strategies/cube theory

#### minxer293

##### Member
If you want a regulation changed, make a proposal about it on the WCA Forum. You'll have a much better chance of it actually being considered if you make a serious proposal there, rather than just stating your opinion in a random forum.

#### kubesolver

If you want a regulation changed, make a proposal about it on the WCA Forum. You'll have a much better chance of it actually being considered if you make a serious proposal there, rather than just stating your opinion in a random forum.
It isn't a random forum.
And it's a perfect place to discuss what regulation people dislike without actually starting political campaign to change them.

E.g I think it's a great place for me to state my dislike for the competition frequency limit. I should and would do much more research into the rationale behind this rule before posting an actual proposal to change it on the wca forum

#### Kit Clement

In my experience the best thing for growth of local communities are fixed frequent (e.g. weekly) local tournaments that attract 10-30 people. The same venue, the same easy organization. An event where a sporadic traveler can meet the locals.

...

I also think it would even out the chances for all good people to get more records. The current situation massively favors people who have means (both in terms of money and time) to travel all over the world / continent attending every possible comp.

Many people would see this as a major downside to lowering the competition frequency restrictions. Not all areas would be able to support weekly official events (venue availability, delegate availability, etc.), and so the frequency at which someone would get to compete would vary greatly. This is already true, but would be even more exaggerated if restrictions were dropped. Hyper-frequent comps were becoming more common in many places, but I distinctly remember Poland in 2014 having competitions nearly every weekend somewhere in the country, with many of the top competitors attending all of them. For that time, this was significantly more than most (if not all) other areas of the world. This was one of the reasons that the proximity policy was put in place - to help standardize access to competitions. Additionally, having hyper-frequent competitions (i.e. weekly) would honestly make competitions feel less like competitions. Competitions are set up to give you a handful of chances to break records or your own bests, which puts some amount of pressure on those solves and makes them feel more special. Having them every week in the same location doesn't make them feel so special anymore, and cheapens the atmosphere of that competition.

Honestly, the current restrictions don't really get in the way of holding too many competitions that wouldn't have otherwise happened in my delegating experience. It was more of an issue in more populated areas (eastern US, some parts of Europe, etc.), but the rules have significantly relaxed since being introduced, and there are still ways to circumvent the restrictions if you have good reasons (e.g. non-overlapping events, twin competitions). It seems to me though that your main argument is that we should hold competitions far more regularly as if they were more like club meetings, but I strongly disagree with that notion.

#### kubesolver

For some background: I am also from Poland and indeed the frequent competitions system is quite common here. I personally had quite a few competitive hobbies and most of them have enjoyed weekly or even more frequent local competitions. The others didn't due to too small player base (e.g. I was the only Go player in my hometown).

Having them every week in the same location doesn't make them feel so special anymore, and cheapens the atmosphere of that competition.
Yes, but.
It introduces an extra lower tier of competition that feels more like a friends meeting than huge convention.
That doesn't cheapen the atmosphere of those bigger convention-like events in any way.
World champs will always feel super-special regardless of how many weekly comps are there all over the world.

Additionally, having hyper-frequent competitions (i.e. weekly) would honestly make competitions feel less like competitions.
(...) which puts some amount of pressure on those solves and makes them feel more special.
People do thousands solves a week. Few competitive solves every week will still feel special and those at major comps even more special.

In European football top players play 50 competitive games per year, and sometimes 3 games per week at the peak of the season. Each of these games definitely feels like a serious competition both to players and to thousands people watching them.

Competitions are set up to give you a handful of chances to break records or your own bests,
OK. I misunderstood that.
I thought the WCA competitions are in place to make sure the solves are performed and the records are broken under fair, standardized conditions and not to limit the ability of people to break records.

It seems to me though that your main argument is that we should hold competitions far more regularly as if they were more like club meetings, but I strongly disagree with that notion.
Yes, that's exactly my argument and thanks for taking your time to address it.

#### mookiemu

##### Member
It isn't a random forum.
And it's a perfect place to discuss what regulation people dislike without actually starting political campaign to change them.

E.g I think it's a great place for me to state my dislike for the competition frequency limit. I should and would do much more research into the rationale behind this rule before posting an actual proposal to change it on the wca forum
Exactly! Thank you. I am a Fewest Moves hobbyist and I am fond of center slice moves. But, I have no intention of competing. So it would be silly for me to submit a formal request. That doesn't mean I can't vent on a forum like this. On a side note, if I use center slice moves and count them as half turns, I average about 25-30 moves. lol.

If this was to be done, it should have been done from the beginning. It changes everything that has to do with FMC strategies/cube theory
I know. It's just wishful thinking on my part.

#### Tabe

##### Member
Many people would see this as a major downside to lowering the competition frequency restrictions. Not all areas would be able to support weekly official events (venue availability, delegate availability, etc.), and so the frequency at which someone would get to compete would vary greatly.
I don't see why this would be a concern of the WCA. Artificially limiting the number of competitions in this manner seems to go directly against the WCA mission:

WCA Mission Statement said:
Our mission is to have more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair and equal conditions.
I suppose the argument would be that "fair and equal conditions" would be violated by having very frequent comps in one area and less-frequent comps in another. I would argue that it's pretty clear "fair and equal conditions" in the mission statement is referring to the conditions of the competitions themselves - rule structure, scrambles, and so forth.

This was one of the reasons that the proximity policy was put in place - to help standardize access to competitions.
I don't see why this is a concern. It seems wrong to punish areas that can support frequent competitions simply because another area is not. Maybe the one area should work on growing their competitor base so they CAN support more comps?

Additionally, having hyper-frequent competitions (i.e. weekly) would honestly make competitions feel less like competitions.
Again, I don't see why this would be a concern of the WCA, especially when "more competitions" is right in the mission statement.

Competitions are set up to give you a handful of chances to break records or your own bests, which puts some amount of pressure on those solves and makes them feel more special. Having them every week in the same location doesn't make them feel so special anymore, and cheapens the atmosphere of that competition.
Disagree. They're still competitions, there's still pressure.

More frequent competitions would grow the number of cubers, something that is directly in line with the mission of the WCA.

The major drawback to increasing competitions is access to delegates but that's a WCA issue. Currently, people are actively discouraged from trying to become delegates. Increased competitions would create a need for more delegates but would also increase the pool of people who could do the job.

#### xyzzy

##### Member
Currently, people are actively discouraged from trying to become delegates.
Wait, what? Do you have more details on this? (I guess I'm a bit out of touch.)

#### OreKehStrah

##### Member
I want markers so I can see difference between yellow and white in a room without bright light. If the color blind can mark pieces, why can't we all ? I know there is the suspicion people might make some they can recognize, thus knowing the backside of top pieces. But is this really a problem ? And why should colorblind have an advantage ?
If you can’t tell the difference then use my color scheme and your problem will be solved

#### Tabe

##### Member
Wait, what? Do you have more details on this? (I guess I'm a bit out of touch.)
When I asked what the process was for becoming a delegate, specifically "How can I become a delegate?", the answer was "The best way to not become a delegate is to ask how to become a delegate."

#### Future

##### Member
"All the results of a round are considered to take place on the last calendar date of the round."

Is it possible that some competitor is given an extra that takes place on the next day thus delaying any record that happened earlier that round?

My personal least favorite WCA regulation is

I have heard arguments from Kit on LBL podcast that he'd rather see this regulation even more strict.
If I remember correctly the arguments were that having too many competitions would make average competition smaller, therefor less attractive and possibly less appealing to newcomers and would limit the growth of speedcubing community. There was also an argument that allowing people more record-breaking attempts is somehow undesired.

In my experience the best thing for growth of local communities are fixed frequent (e.g. weekly) local tournaments that attract 10-30 people. The same venue, the same easy organization. An event where a sporadic traveler can meet the locals.

I don't think current bigger comps would suffer from that addition.

I also think it would even out the chances for all good people to get more records. The current situation massively favors people who have means (both in terms of money and time) to travel all over the world / continent attending every possible comp.
I can relate to this for I only go to comp about once a year because i live in small district off the cost of holland and dont have the time to got to comps which are hours away

#### cometcubes

##### Member
4b3e) 5x5x5 Cube, 6x6x6 Cube, 7x7x7 Cube, and Megaminx: sufficiently many random moves (instead of random state), at least 2 moves to solve.

...what?

#### ruffleduck

##### Member
4b3e) 5x5x5 Cube, 6x6x6 Cube, 7x7x7 Cube, and Megaminx: sufficiently many random moves (instead of random state), at least 2 moves to solve.

...what?
Those cubes are scrambled with random moves, and not random state. It would be computationally too taxing to generate a random state scramble for those cubes. Despite not being random state, the chances of getting a 2-mover on those puzzles are astronomically low. So that's not something you have to worry about.

#### Porcupine01

##### Member
You cant use a smartcube, even if its dead/not paired to anything

#### Porcupine01

##### Member
But there’s not a good way to tell if a smart cube’s battery is dead. Also, why use a smart cube if hardware for normal cubes is better?
I'm just saying, why cant you use one, not that you would,but why cant you?

#### BenChristman1

##### Member
I'm just saying, why cant you use one, not that you would,but why cant you?
Once again, because it’s hard to tell if a smart cube is dead or if it’s not connected. It’s better to just play it safe and not allow them.

#### the dnf master

##### Member
Do any of you know someone who has competed as stateless?