Should WCA allow the pushing of Clonk Pins during inspection?

[lucazdoescubingstuff]

• F3a) The competitor must not change the positions of any pins from their scrambled positions before the start of the solve. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).

I've seen this come up in the WCA forums, so I decided to also put this here.

For me, I think we should be allowed to push them during inspection, they only give the competitor only a bit of advantage. And what if someone accidentally pushes them, then that would be a big loss for them (definitely not talking about me).

So what are your guys thoughts about this? Please don't argue or smth, just sharing of thoughts.

 

[Tabe]

This is a hard no for me. We should not let competitors change the state of the puzzle in inspection.

 

[GeographicalCuber]

I say no as it's basically the same as doing a couple of moves in 3x3 inspection.

 

[Samuel Baird]

I would be highly in favor of it as it would solve many of the current issues with the event that come as a consequence of disallowing pin manipulation during inspection.

Inconsistent treatment compared to other events:
-clock is the only puzzle that forces competitors/judges to place the puzzle in a specific orientation on the mat. This causes inexperienced competitors/judges to sometime sometimes lay clocks face down on the mat (resulting in extras or DNFs)
-competitors unfamiliar with the puzzle will already try to change the pin state during inspection (requiring extras or DNFs). This is because manipulating a pin is not considered a move and does not contribute to the solved state of the puzzle, yet is illegal to manipulate in inspection.
-bumping pins (especially with magnetic puzzles now being popular) is significantly easier to do by mistake than make a turn. This results in a DNF which is somewhat harsh given how easy the mistake is to make and how little of an advantage it could give

These factors also make it take longer to instruct judges how to properly judge for the event as these aspects of judging only apply to clock and are inconsistent with other events.

Transportation
-puzzles currently can cause problems during transport by getting bumped/falling over which requires extras (extra competition time) as well as specialized covers (which can be quite expensive if you get good quality 3D printed covers)
-requires special training for runners. I have found locally that properly staffing clock can be quite difficult as having a single bad runner can cause several incidents resulting in delaying the competitions

Misscrambles
-there have been several concerns about the fairness of some scrambles due to pins being misscrambled or changed during transportation
-several notable instances of competitors doing the inverse of the pin state as the notation better follows other events if pins are treated as moves. Ex. UR means to put the UR pin up, but a more logical approach would be to push the pins down.
-several notable instances of competitors receiving puzzles that have had an incorrect pin state

Ultimately, a lot of people don’t see the extras as problems. Any time that an extra occurs, the following happens:
1. competition time is wasted as the puzzle has to go through the whole scrambling procedure again and as everything comes to a standstill at that solving station when calling over the delegate to get an extra
2. Unfairness is introduced as some competitors get completely different scrambles as other competitors in their group, this is especially concerning as clock is a highly scramble dependent event. Yes, scrambles are used in other events, but I have never seen it to the same extend as in clock (plus these extras are avoidable with regulation changes)
3. Delegate and organizer time is dedicated to focusing on how judges are lifting covers, how runners are running, and granting extras

There have been several other proposals to help fix some of the issues mentioned, but they all treat the symptoms rather than the cause—that pins can’t be manipulated in inspection.

The only significant drawback of allowing pins to be manipulated during inspection is that it makes the event slightly easier, especially for those at the top level as pin state can make a solve more difficult/easy. The issue with this is that we are already having issues with misscrambles and the WRC is planning to legalize them, meaning that despite recognizing that pin state can play a significant role in solves the WCA is fine with competitors getting different pin states in some instances. Ultimately these alternative solutions, while helping reduce the need for extras, only increase the complexity, cost, and time needed to hold the event, which only encourages fewer organizers wanting to hold the event, many individuals to ask for the removal of the event, and overall confusion and unfairness.

As someone who has grown my local clock community from nothing to a significant group, one of my biggest regrets was growing local interest in clock in the first place. I continue holding clock at competitions because there is now a demand, but I have come to strongly dislike the event from a logistical perspective. Ultimately, allowing pin manipulation during inspection would allow the event to be held in a way that is more fair, takes less time, and reduces our local competition cost.

 

[SkewbIsTheBestEvent]

I would be highly in favor of it as it would solve many of the current issues with the event that come as a consequence of disallowing pin manipulation during inspection.

Inconsistent treatment compared to other events:
-clock is the only puzzle that forces competitors/judges to place the puzzle in a specific orientation on the mat. This causes inexperienced competitors/judges to sometime sometimes lay clocks face down on the mat (resulting in extras
-competitors unfamiliar with the puzzle will already try to change the pin state during inspection requiring extras or DNFs. This is because pins are no moves and do not contribute to the solved state of the puzzle, yet they are illegal to manipulate in inspection.

These factors also make it take longer to instruct judges how to properly judge for the event as these aspects of judging only apply to clock and are inconsistent with other events.

Transportation
-puzzles currently can cause problems during transport by getting bumped/falling over which requires extras (extra competition time) as well as specialized covers (which can be quite expensive if you get good quality 3D printed covers)
-requires special training for runners. I have found locally that properly staffing clock can be quite difficult as having a single bad runner can cause several incidents resulting in delaying the competitions

misscrambles
-there have been several concerns about the fairness of some scrambles due to pins being misscrambled or changed during transportation
-several notable instances of competitors doing the inverse of the pin state as the notation better follows other events if pins are treated as moves. Ex. UR means to put the UR pin up, but a more logical approach would be to push the pins down.
-several notable instances of competitors receiving puzzles that have had an incorrect pin state

Ultimately, a lot of people don’t see the extras as problems. Any time that an extra
1. competition time is wasted as the puzzle has to go through the whole scrambling procedure again and as everything comes to a standstill at that solving station when calling over the delegate to get an extra
2. Unfairness is introduced as some competitors get completely different scrambles as other competitors in their group, this is especially concerning as clock is a highly scramble dependent event
3. Delegates time is dedicated to focusing on how judges are lifting covers, how runners are running, and granting extras

There have been several other proposals to help fix some of the issues mentioned, but they all treat the symptoms rather than the cause—that pins can’t be manipulated in inspection.

The only significant drawback of allowing pins to be manipulated during inspection is that it makes the event slightly easier, especially for those at the top level as pin state can make a solve more difficult/easy. The issue with this is that we are already having issues with misscrambles and the WRC is planning to legalize them, meaning that despite recognizing that pin state can play a role in solves the WCA is fine with competitors getting different pin states in some instances. Ultimately these alternative solutions, while helping reduce the need for extras, only increase the complexity, cost, and time needed to hold the event which only encourages fewer organizers wanting to hold the event, many individuals to ask for the removal of the event, and overall confusion and unfairness.

I agree. I was scrambling for a competition and I remember I had to scramble so many extras because pins fell down. A few competitors had 2-3 extras because of it. The competition was behind schedule because of this.

 

[Samuel Baird]

I agree. I was scrambling for a competition and I remember I had to scramble so many extras because pins fell down. A few competitors had 2-3 extras because of it. The competition was behind schedule because of this.

I have definitely seen it myself many times. Fortunately I don’t think I have ever had to open the E3s but I have seen significant amounts of competition time unnecessarily wasted as a result of this.

Competitions held in communities with a lot of experience/well trained staff such as US nationals or a Southeastern competition in the USA, tend to experience fewer problems because of their experience but it can be hard to get to that point when organizers have little incentive to hold the event considering how difficult it can be to run at times.

I honestly thing that biggest improvement that can ever happen to clock as an event (2nd to qiyi clock) would be to allow pin manipulation during inspection, as it could easily allow for the event to be held more often, which could result in a greater interest and growth.

 

[NmeCuber]

I do not think this should be allowed, but the wca should legalize miscrambles only if a pin was pushed down in transit or something. That way if a runner accidentally pushes down a pin in transit you don't need rescrambles and waste valuable competition time. But pushing pins in inspection imo is like doing moves. I mean pushing pins up or down have notation, so they count as moves. (Just thought of something, you don't need a specific pin state to finish the puzzle. You can't get +2ed or dnfed for pin state).

 

[Samuel Baird]

I do not think this should be allowed, but the wca should legalize miscrambles only if a pin was pushed down in transit or something. That way if a runner accidentally pushes down a pin in transit you don't need rescrambles and waste valuable competition time. But pushing pins in inspection imo is like doing moves. I mean pushing pins up or down have notation, so they count as moves. (Just thought of something, you don't need a specific pin state to finish the puzzle. You can't get +2ed or dnfed for pin state).

why exactly would you not support allowing pins to be manipulate during inspection, yet be in favor of allowing competitors to get different pin states?

 

[NmeCuber]

why exactly would you not support allowing pins to be manipulate during inspection, yet be in favor of allowing competitors to get different pin states?

Miscrambles cost time. This could mean losing an extra round of some event, or the cutoff gets lowered, which is no fun for anybody.

 

[NigelTheCuber]

My opinion:
No, but if the cover is lifted and the pins are in a different order than the supposed scramble, it shouldn't be a DNF

 

[xyzzy]

I voted nay, because I think allowing pin movement during inspection is solving the problem ineffectively.

"My" proposal (= I'm pretty sure I read this somewhere else and it made sense to me; it's not actually mine):

1. Remove pin adjustment at the end of clock scrambles. Scrambles always end with all pins up.
2. Puzzle is to be delivered to the competitor flat, with pins up. (Provided that it's not deliberate, a puzzle delivered the wrong way, with all four pins toggled, does not warrant an extra scramble. The runner/judge should nevertheless still make their best effort to ensure that the puzzle is delivered correctly.)
3. Pins may not be moved during inspection.
4. Competitor may place the puzzle on the table/surface in any orientation before starting the timer, provided that the pins aren't moved. (Note: on Lingaos with sufficiently strong magnets / stiff pins, it's very much possible to have the clock rest on the pins with all four pins down. This isn't possible on the Qiyi Clock.)

This equally well solves almost all of the problems Samuel Baird listed above with the current clock regs. The only remaining problem is that of unintentional pin movements during inspection, but afaict this already isn't a problem with enough practice. We do DNF competitors for accidental turns in other events, and (contrary to Samuel) it seems very reasonable to count pin moves as actual moves even if they're considered to be "free" in the usual turn metrics.

(Analogy: square-1 solutions are often measured in the slice metric, where U and D turns are considered to be free, but you can still get +2/DNF penalties for misaligning the top and bottom layers.)

if the cover is lifted and the pins are in a different order than the supposed scramble, it shouldn't be a DNF

It already isn't. The competitor is never (supposed to be) punished for mistakes outside their control.

 

[PapaSmurf]

I think I agree with xyzzy. Clock is notouriously difficult to transport, and it would make sense to have them in the same position every time. As they don't contribute to the "solvedness" of the puzzle (they can be in any state for the puzzle to be solved, unlike pyra tips for example), being consistent about it would be at least semi ideal. It would also be consisent with every other event not allowing the solver to manipulate the puzzle during inspection.

 

[GenTheSnail]

While I do think having the pins always up is as good a solution as we're gonna get, I can't really be in favor of it as it eliminates a lot of the nuance for top level solvers' inspection (Although it's certainly better than allowing pin moves during inspection). It feels a bit like mandating that every pyraminx solve must have two tips twisted. You'll never get an unlucky case with all 4, but never get a proper skip.

Ultimately, I'm not particularly invested in this debate. Not a fan of clock being in the WCA in the first place tbh either, but so be it.

 

[abunickabhi]

I think there should be liberty in unintentionally pushing clock pins as it does not improve the solve drastically.

 

[Thom S.]

they only give the competitor only a bit of advantage

as it does not improve the solve drastically.

The consensus seems that there IS a difference between a certain solve and it's counterpart with Pin positions differently.
A single turn on 4x4+ also doesn't differ the solve much, although there is a chance that move gave you an advantage. Or disadvantage.

 

[GeographicalCuber]

The WCA should only allow accidental pin changes during inspection, not deliberate ones.

 

[lucazdoescubingstuff]

While I do think having the pins always up is as good a solution as we're gonna get, I can't really be in favor of it as it eliminates a lot of the nuance for top level solvers' inspection (Although it's certainly better than allowing pin moves during inspection). It feels a bit like mandating that every pyraminx solve must have two tips twisted. You'll never get an unlucky case with all 4, but never get a proper skip.

Ultimately, I'm not particularly invested in this debate. Not a fan of clock being in the WCA in the first place tbh either, but so be it.

i agree with this

 

[Xatu]

If it's by accident i agree. If it's on purpose I dissagree.

 

[Running for cube]

The WCA should only allow accidental pin changes during inspection, not deliberate ones.

I voted nay. The only problem with your proposal is how do we know if it’s an accidental or deliberate pin change? The competitor could easily move it on purpose and fake it off as accidental. There is too much of a gray line here.

 

[sDLfj]

I think that as long as when the solve starts it needs to be the same as the scramble. If the pins are moved during inspection, it's fine, but only if they are moved back to the correct position before the timer starts, if not, it's a DNF.