Should stickerless cubes be allowed in WCA competition?

[Bob]

I think that the thickness on tiles in the regs is too much. 1.5mm is a lot.

 

[irontwig]

I don't care that it's hard to utilize the advantage that stickerless cubes provide. It's an advantage, you can see extra information from certain angles. Just because people haven't been taking advantage of that information doesn't mean it's not there.

How does that matter at all though if everyone is allowed to use said advantage?

 

[Bob]

How does that matter at all though if everyone is allowed to use said advantage?

Let's make it a rule that you can put a mirror standing on the front of the table. It won't matter that you can see the back of the cube because everyone is allowed to use said advantage.

Let's make it a rule that you can make moves during inspection. It won't matter at all because everyone is allowed to use said advantage.

Let's make it a rule that you can stop the timer with the puzzle in your hands. It won't matter at all because everyone is allowed to use said advantage.

Let's make it a rule that you are allowed to keep your eyes open instead of using a blindfold during BLD. It won't matter at all because everyone is allowed to use said advantage.

 

[Kian]

How does that matter at all though if everyone is allowed to use said advantage?

Bob's response well documents the absurdity of that argument. You are proving that it wouldn't be "unfair", given that everyone could conceivably have the same advantage if they so chose. The same would be true if we allowed any of the things he mentions, but it doesn't make them good rules.

Like Tim said, it is an advantage from normal solving and I don't like the idea of providing additional information on the cube, even if it is not currently usable.

 

[Pyjam]

Stickerless cubes should be allowed because more than 50% think so.
Is it a good argument?

 

[Godmil]

Stickerless cubes should be allowed because more than 50% think so.
Is it a good argument?

Nope.
Ad Populi isn't a good argument.
If there was a poll which was "Do you think all WCA comps should be free to enter and have cash prizes?" I think it would a) get a lot of 'yes' votes and b) stress out a few organisers.

 

[Pedro]

Stickerless cubes should be allowed because more than 50% think so.
Is it a good argument?

No, because those 50-some percent are 144 people.

 

[Pyjam]

Nope.
Ad Populi isn't a good argument.
If there was a poll which was "Do you think all WCA comps should be free to enter and have cash prizes?" I think it would a) get a lot of 'yes' votes and b) stress out a few organisers.

Good! I hoped this answer!

So...

Is democracy a bad idea and it should be abandoned in politics?

Or sometime an argument is good in a context and bad in another. And then, irontwig's argument is valid and bob's aren't.

 

[zhanchi03]

If anyone was allowed to use them, then why would it make a difference?

 

[Godmil]

Is democracy a bad idea and it should be abandoned in politics?

No, I don't think so. Politicians should reflect a) the will and b) the best interests of the people (even if some of the decisions aren't that popular).
Almost everyone would like to pay less taxes, cause not everyone understands how important it is. Politicians have to make tricky decisions about this, but in the end if they're not improving peoples quality of life then they wont be reelected.
difficult subject, I like that you brought it up

 

[irontwig]

Let's make it a rule that you can put a mirror standing on the front of the table. It won't matter that you can see the back of the cube because everyone is allowed to use said advantage.

Let's make it a rule that you can make moves during inspection. It won't matter at all because everyone is allowed to use said advantage.

Let's make it a rule that you can stop the timer with the puzzle in your hands. It won't matter at all because everyone is allowed to use said advantage.

Let's make it a rule that you are allowed to keep your eyes open instead of using a blindfold during BLD. It won't matter at all because everyone is allowed to use said advantage.

Thanks for being reasonable and not completely ridiculous.

 

[Bob]

Thanks for being reasonable and not completely ridiculous.

I was hoping the absurdity of my response would show how flawed that argument is and prevent others from using it. All I did was apply your logic to some other rules that we already have in the Regulations. As Kian pointed out, what you suggested makes the regulation fair--it would be the same for everyone--but that does not make it a good regulation.

If anyone was allowed to use them, then why would it make a difference?

...but apparently somebody else is using the same logic. Seriously? Ok, here goes again...

Let's make it so that inspection time is now 1 hour. Everyone will be allowed to use it, so it won't make a difference.

Let's make it so that you can use a Rubik's Touch Cube in competition and you are allowed to use Solve Mode so that the puzzle solves itself. Everyone will be allowed to use it, so it won't make a difference.

Let's make it so that outside assistance is permitted during a solve. Everyone will be allowed to use it, so it won't make a difference.

Let's make it so that during OH, you can use both hands. Everyone will be allowed to use it, so it won't make a difference.

Let's make it so that if the cube is off by >45 degrees, there is no penalty. Everyone will be allowed to use it, so it won't make a difference.

Let's make it so that if your cube pops in a solve, that solve won't count and you get a brand new opportunity to solve. Everyone will be allowed to use it, so it won't make a difference.

 

[Vincents]

I was hoping the absurdity of my response would show how flawed that argument is and prevent others from using it. All I did was apply your logic to some other rules that we already have in the Regulations. As Kian pointed out, what you suggested makes the regulation fair--it would be the same for everyone--but that does not make it a good regulation.



...but apparently somebody else is using the same logic. Seriously? Ok, here goes again...

Let's make it so that inspection time is now 1 hour. Everyone will be allowed to use it, so it won't make a difference.

Let's make it so that you can use a Rubik's Touch Cube in competition and you are allowed to use Solve Mode so that the puzzle solves itself. Everyone will be allowed to use it, so it won't make a difference.

Let's make it so that outside assistance is permitted during a solve. Everyone will be allowed to use it, so it won't make a difference.

Let's make it so that during OH, you can use both hands. Everyone will be allowed to use it, so it won't make a difference.

Let's make it so that if the cube is off by >45 degrees, there is no penalty. Everyone will be allowed to use it, so it won't make a difference.

Let's make it so that if your cube pops in a solve, that solve won't count and you get a brand new opportunity to solve. Everyone will be allowed to use it, so it won't make a difference.

Hey, that last one...

 

[irontwig]

I was hoping the absurdity of my response would show how flawed that argument is and prevent others from using it.

I would hope that you would see the huge difference between merely allowing a different version of the same puzzle and having rules that completely break an event. My point is that allowing sticker less cubes that may or may not have an advantage is as 'unfair' as the current situation with allowing cubes that turn better than others. If you care enough you would get the puzzle that might make you perform better. Do you honestly think that sticker less cubes make that big of a difference?

 

[Pyjam]

I was hoping the absurdity of my response would show how flawed that argument is and prevent others from using it.

The absurdity of your answer only showed that your analogy is flawed, not that the argument is bad.

 

[Vincents]

The absurdity of your answer only showed that your analogy is flawed, not that the argument is bad.

The absurdity of his answer shows that the same argument being used to support A may in fact be used to demonstrate absurdities. The analogy is sound.

Bob is trying to state that simply using the argument that <A should be allowed> because all competitors may take advantage of <A>, thus not providing an advantage to any competitor at the expense of others, to argue that <A should be allowed> is flawed. He has provided other examples of <B should be allowed>, <C should be allowed>, and demonstrated absurdities if those lines of reasoning are followed. Thus, he has concluded (you only need one counterexample to disprove something!) that the argument is flawed.

Also, I will submit that it does indeed provide an advantage to competitors who were not able to use such techniques because of a redefinition of the concept of what information can be provided from the puzzle.

 

[Pyjam]

The argument is certainly incomplete. We should say: stickerless cubes don't break the game, if they provide an advantage like good shoes in running or a good corner cutting in speedcubing then use them.

In the contrary, Bob's examples break the game.

 

[offscott]

It would be ok for blindsolving, wouldn't it? There's no reason it shouldn't, I don't think.

 

[Ickathu]

...because you can still see the other colors over the top of the pieces. Or you can turn U and D a little bit (< 45 degrees) and see the other colors.

 

[AlexByard]

Stickerless 2x2's should be aloud. In my opinion.