Should WCA allow the pushing of Clonk Pins during inspection?

[Tabe]

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.

It's required to be placed vertically but the competitor can orient it however they choose with that minor restriction. They can face either way and there's no restrictions on rotation of the clock within that vertical orientation.

While I think clocks should be delivered flat for simplicity, I don't find its current treatment regarding placement to be at all inconsistent.

 

[Fukuoka Kengo James]

I think if a pin is pushed halfway and returned back to its initial position, it should be okay but if someone is moving multiple pins no matter it is intentional or unintentional, it should not be allowed.

 

[GeographicalCuber]

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.

When I said that I meant as in if they move accidentally in the cover.

 

[Jorian Meeuse]

I don't have a clock so what I'm saying might be wrong, but here's what I think:
I think the pins on a clock are very similar to cube rotations: they don't affect the state of the cube, and all they do is set the cube up so that the moves you are going to do will actually work. If you see it that way, the way the pins are setup is just like the orientation of a 3x3. Since you are allowed to place a 3x3 (or any other cube) in any orientation you wish, I think you should be allowed to set the pins in any 'orientation' (setup) you wish.

 

[Fukuoka Kengo James]

I will say no as if you turn the pins, the gears can actually move.

 

[quanloh]

I would follow some others' opinion:
All pins pushed up by scrambler.

Cube rotation is allowed in other puzzles because it doesn't effect the solves.
For example, a clockwise turn on white face will result a same effect regardless how you rotated the cube,
so the same action from different competitors have the same effect.

I don't think pushing the pins in inspection should be allowed,
as it will change the state of the puzzle,
which means the same action from different competitors will have different effect.

 

[Samuel Baird]

It's required to be placed vertically but the competitor can orient it however they choose with that minor restriction. They can face either way and there's no restrictions on rotation of the clock within that vertical orientation.

While I think clocks should be delivered flat for simplicity, I don't find its current treatment regarding placement to be at all inconsistent.

I mean, 33% of possible orientations isn’t exactly a small number

as I mentioned, this can definitely cause problems with competitors/judges that assume that regulations for clock are consistent with the other speedsolving events and that it follows A2e

I do think that delivering the puzzle flat solves some issues (and would be desirable over the current regulations) but it also creates inconsistencies as 50% of competitors receive scrambles with pins up on one side while the other 50% receive the same side with pins down. Even if you regulate it with “lightest size of the puzzle gets delivered facing up” I would imagine that this would introduce a large number of “runner misscrambling” incidents. As I mentioned in my original post, pin state can definitely play a significant role in solves (especially at a high level) so I think doing anything that we can to reduce the potential for competitors getting different pin states is desirable. Additionally, starting a solve with the puzzle laying flat is significantly slower than with the puzzle standing, which would give a huge advantage to results using our current regulations. Records would be significantly harder (if not impossible) to break in many cases.

Is there any reason in particular that you would prefer an alternative to allowing pin manipulation in inspection?

 

[lucazdoescubingstuff]

I think the pins on a clock are very similar to cube rotations

THAT'S THE EXACT THING I THOUGHT

 

[Tabe]

Is there any reason in particular that you would prefer an alternative to allowing pin manipulation in inspection?

Real simple - competitors shouldn't be able to change the state of the puzzle in inspection.

You're asking for clock to be treated like other puzzles on one hand but asking for it to be different on the other.

 

[cuberswoop]

Real simple - competitors shouldn't be able to change the state of the puzzle in inspection.

That leaves another question. Do the pins count as a state the puzzle is in? The answer is no, because it doesn't matter what pins are up or down when the solve is over, all that matters is the dials on the clock all point towards 12 o clock.

 

[Tabe]

That leaves another question. Do the pins count as a state the puzzle is in? The answer is no, because it doesn't matter what pins are up or down when the solve is over, all that matters is the dials on the clock all point towards 12 o clock.

The pins absolutely are part of the state of the puzzle - they control the turning of dials. That they are ignored as part of the solved state is irrelevant.

 

[Samuel Baird]

Real simple - competitors shouldn't be able to change the state of the puzzle in inspection.

You're asking for clock to be treated like other puzzles on one hand but asking for it to be different on the other.

pins are a bit weird so it's a bit hard to label them neatly, no matter what is done they will be different from other events in some way so we might as well go with the way that makes things run smoother and won't penalize competitors in many ways more similar in the regs to puzzle orientation than applying moves. Clock itself is a very different event, which is why I wouldn’t be opposed to making changes that make (/keep) it different, but also help resolve the problems with running it. I think that trying to keep everything as is because of "tradition" rather than exploring change to improve competitor experience is definitely a way to limit new ideas and growth for the event overall.

 

[Jorian Meeuse]

The pins absolutely are part of the state of the puzzle - they control the turning of dials. That they are ignored as part of the solved state is irrelevant.

so are cube rotations. If you do R U F2 D it might make an x-cross from a certain angle, but if you do y2 beforehand it does nothing. Pins on clock and cube rotations on a cube are both just a setup to make sure the moves you do serve the purpose you do them for

 

[Mike Hughey]

The pins absolutely are part of the state of the puzzle - they control the turning of dials. That they are ignored as part of the solved state is irrelevant.

I don't buy this. If they are part of the state of the puzzle, then they should be placed in the solved state in order to consider the puzzle solved. Meaning there should be a proper definition of what the solved state of the pins is (like tips in pyraminx), and if they're not in the proper state, the puzzle is not solved. Meaning we need to invalidate all clock solves so far, since this has never been checked (or defined).

 

[quanloh]

Few points I think we need to be on same page.

1. Pins positions are not used to judge if a clock is solved.
2. Initial pin position does affect the solution of the puzzle.
3. Rules are man made, and we are man-making them.

I see many of us debating with 1 vs 2 but they are in fact 2 different topic,
and not contradicting each other:

a. Should the pin position included in a "solved criteria"?
b. Should the pin position included in a "proper initial state"?

"a" in my opinion does not matter,
since all participants "automatically" agree that pin positions are not included in a "solved" criteria when they sign up for clock,
and that's a common ground for all participants.

"b" in my opinion does matter.
To the extreme,
if a scramble is only 2 moves away from being solved,
the pin positions does affect the solving time as re-position them takes time and thus affect the result,
therefore IMO pin position should not be tempered with before actual solving.
There might be room for WCA to review the rules to ensure the "fairness", (forced pin position in scrambles or better transportation etc.)
but as far as I can tell,
there is not method to prevent accidental pin position change in inspection,
so I think the current rule sets is currently the best we can do.

 

[cubeman69]

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.

Unless the judge is supposed to know what order the pins were in, I don’t see how this would work. Most people don’t memorize that kind of thing, so I respectfully disagree wit your idea. I think it should be allowed overall though because 1. Its easy to accidentally push, 2. It doesn’t seem to give a huge advantage.

 

[Tabe]

so are cube rotations. If you do R U F2 D it might make an x-cross from a certain angle, but if you do y2 beforehand it does nothing. Pins on clock and cube rotations on a cube are both just a setup to make sure the moves you do serve the purpose you do them for

Disagree. Based on pin placement, you literally can or can't do a move you want. Rotations don't allow/disallow moves - they just change the layer you need to move.

 

[Tabe]

I don't buy this. If they are part of the state of the puzzle, then they should be placed in the solved state in order to consider the puzzle solved. Meaning there should be a proper definition of what the solved state of the pins is (like tips in pyraminx), and if they're not in the proper state, the puzzle is not solved. Meaning we need to invalidate all clock solves so far, since this has never been checked (or defined).

Fair enough. You and I fundamentally disagree on this. I

 

[Samuel Baird]

Few points I think we need to be on same page.

1. Pins positions are not used to judge if a clock is solved.
2. Initial pin position does affect the solution of the puzzle.
3. Rules are man made, and we are man-making them.

I see many of us debating with 1 vs 2 but they are in fact 2 different topic,
and not contradicting each other:

a. Should the pin position included in a "solved criteria"?
b. Should the pin position included in a "proper initial state"?

"a" in my opinion does not matter,
since all participants "automatically" agree that pin positions are not included in a "solved" criteria when they sign up for clock,
and that's a common ground for all participants.

"b" in my opinion does matter.
To the extreme,
if a scramble is only 2 moves away from being solved,
the pin positions does affect the solving time as re-position them takes time and thus affect the result,
therefore IMO pin position should not be tempered with before actual solving.
There might be room for WCA to review the rules to ensure the "fairness", (forced pin position in scrambles or better transportation etc.)
but as far as I can tell,
there is not method to prevent accidental pin position change in inspection,
so I think the current rule sets is currently the best we can do.

Point b is one reason that I think legalizing pin pushing in inspection would be very beneficial everyone gets equal opportunity and doesn’t have to worry about pins being misscrambled (which seems like it has been an issue) or being extra careful about transporting clocks

 

[xyzzy]

I do think that delivering the puzzle flat solves some issues (and would be desirable over the current regulations) but it also creates inconsistencies as 50% of competitors receive scrambles with pins up on one side while the other 50% receive the same side with pins down.

They shouldn't! Scramble ends in a specific pin state (all up), puzzle gets delivered flat in that specific pin state. Pin state does not get changed until the competitor starts the timer.

My proposal on page 1 allowed for all-pins-wrong misscrambles only when unintentional, which is the same policy the WCA already applies for 6, 7 and megaminx misscrambles. The scrambler (and runner) is not supposed to deliberately misscramble, and should make a reasonable effort to ensure that the puzzle arrives at the competitor in exactly the computer-generated scramble state.

------

The big reason I'm not comfortable with allowing pin movement in inspection is that we don't allow any puzzle manipulation besides the usual rigid motions during inspection for literally every other event. (Rigid motion meaning whole-puzzle movement and whole-puzzle rotation; think of it as if every moving part was glued in place.)

Pin movement is not a rigid motion; as Tabe points out, it very clearly affects the functioning of the rest of the puzzle.

Fukuoka Kengo James also brought up a very interesting point: you can turn the clocks through the pins too. If you allow one type of pin movement, why not all types of pin movement? Why only the one specific type? (On second thought, there are reasonable counterarguments to this specific point, so I don't really take this as a strong argument for disallowing inspection pin moves; exercise for the reader.)

I don't buy the "pins aren't considered when checking for solvedness so they don't matter" argument either. If that's really the stance you're going with, then I actually would suggest that the correct fix is to change the regs so that the solved state does depend on the pins. DNF if you don't end with all pins pointing the same way. (You know what they say about contraposition!)

It's not a perfect analogy (so please don't argue with me about how the correspondence isn't exact; I know), but consider again square-1. You can be off by (1,0) (30 degrees) at the end and the puzzle is still considered solved without penalty, but that doesn't mean that you're allowed to do (1,0)s or (0,1)s in inspection.