Towards "Anything Goes" (WCA Puzzle Policy)

[Dene]

Is there anywhere to actually discuss if the issue of whether to introduce these rules into the regulations or not, or has that already been decided?

This process is only just beginning and you have time to contribute. I know it's a big ask, but it would be very welcome if you could come up with your own set of regulations as an opposing view to what is proposed in this thread.

 

[Sebastien]

Is there anywhere to actually discuss if the issue of whether to introduce these rules into the regulations or not, or has that already been decided?

As Lucas said, this is not yet decided. The goal of this thread was to bring this proposal to a reasonable state, to make it a valid option, that it ain't yet because of soem weak points that need to be fixed.

However, the same goes for our current regulations.

This thread (AFAIK). I am sure there are discussions among the delegates as well, but that is not for us to be part of

Actually, there aren't really any internal discussions since the topic was moved to here.

 

[elrog]

I would support this proposal if some changes were made.
- Cubes should have to have an opaque body. This would ban transparent cubes and keep people from putting lights that can shine through the plastic inside certain pieces.
- All cubes should have to have a uniform coloring system (such as only stickers, only tiles, only colored plastic, or only paint). This has been said before, but I thought I'd say it again.

This is my interpretation of part of what (X) was trying to say that was not understood by some:
- While it is true that everyone can use stickerless cubes if they provide an advantage, this would make everyone use stickerless cubes in order to not have a disadvantage.

This being said, allowing stickerless cubes contradicts the whole "Anything goes" idea if they do indeed provide an advantage. I personally do not think stickerless cubes provide a feasible/useable advantage.

Also, I do think that discussion about what changes may be made to cubes in the future should be discussed here, as it would affect the proposed regulations.

I would make the suggestion that all shape mods are allowed provided that the shape has the same planes of symmetry as the original puzzle, but what about shape mods that change what is visible? I do not think pillowed cubes are a big deal, because you can see more sides from looking at one side, but you cannot see the back layer on any side at the same time. The amount of gained visibility equals the lost visibility. What I'm worried about is a cube that has the corners brought out or edges sunk in. This could allow you to see colors on the back corners that you couldn't see before if colored a certain way. Should this be added as a rule as well as limiting the number of stickers to the number of stickers originally on the puzzle (54 for the 3x3x3)? What if a sticker were made large enough to fold over an edge of the puzzle (I'm not talking about an actual edge piece)? If you said they couldn't fold a sticker over an edge, what if the edge were rounded to the point it can no longer be called an edge?

Sorry if the above paragraph is hard to understand. I don't know how to put what I'm talking about in words any better than that.

 

[Dene]

Sorry if the above paragraph is hard to understand. I don't know how to put what I'm talking about in words any better than that.

I can understand it clearly. And like some others in this thread, you don't actually support the "anything goes" ideal at all. Instead of thinking about how you might modify this proposal, why not try and roughly describe how you would make a proposal of your own? It certainly sounds like you have a reasonably clear idea of what you think should be allowed. This would contribute a lot more to the discussion.

 

[elrog]

And like some others in this thread, you don't actually support the "anything goes" ideal at all.

The original proposal in this thread was to be towards anything goes, not actually anything goes. Nobody thinks we should allow anything and everything. What I said still in the direction of anything goes compared to the current regulations, just like every proposed idea in this thread. Also, how am I supposed to write a large list of regulations when there are parts I don't really care about. (Like BLD. No offence to anyone.)

 

[Dene]

The original proposal in this thread was to be towards anything goes, not actually anything goes. Nobody thinks we should allow anything and everything. What I said still in the direction of anything goes compared to the current regulations, just like every proposed idea in this thread. Also, how am I supposed to write a large list of regulations when there are parts I don't really care about. (Like BLD. No offence to anyone.)

Lol I don't mean re-write the whole regulations, just the relevant parts regarding puzzles.

And what you were proposing sounded rather restricting to me. The proposal in this thread really is attempting to get as close to allowing anything as possible. You seem to be somewhere in the middle, and I don't want others to get confused about whether you (or others) actually support this proposal or not.

It isn't about the general idea (being more liberal with what we allow), it is about this specific proposal, and what you think about it.

 

[Lucas Garron]

Just to give some progress, since the grace period is up:

The WRC/Board have spent some time discussing the options.

While Sébastien's proposal is in the right spirit, the whole discussion has shown that *any* set of puzzle Regulations will require intricate details (and clarifications for edge cases). While there is a philosophical point behind allowing arbitrary puzzles, most competitors' real concern is that they want to use certain specific puzzles they like.

We're currently finalizing changes to allow printed/painted colors (in light of the fact that such speedcubes are now being mass-produced) and thicker Megaminx tiles, which were the main concerns about 2014 Regulations.
This will bring the Regulations more in line of our goal to allow nearly all popular puzzles from 2013 to remain legal.
(To be explicit, this means two-color FangShis will also remain allowed for the time being.)

I'd like to emphasize that this is a pragmatic decision, not a permanent ruling. We're going to look at allowing other specific "advantages" like stickerless cubes.
However, this will require some work to make sure that we don't allow anything overly broad when we introduce them.

 

[~Adam~]

We need a good reason to change the policy to start allowing them, and the reasons have never been "good enough".

They save money on stickers.

No piece can be distinguish by touch.

New competitors who arrive at a competition who's only speed cube is a stickerless can actually use them.
(I know people are meant to read the regs before going to their 1st comp but that situation does occur)


The only reason not to allow them seems to be, 'It goes against Ernö's original idea of what a Rubik's cube is'.

Is that a good reason? He never put any thought into how the design could be optimised to produce the fastest times. It was just an engineering project and spacial awareness challenge iirc.

Perhaps people just like "stickerless" cubes because they literally prefer not to have stickers. Maybe a better version of the new Rubik's speedcubes would satisfy them.

So people who like stickerless cubes have to wait for a good cube which looks like the new Rubik's brand speed cube?

This process also adds to the production cost which we would see amplified by the time it gets to the consumer. I believe C4U released an expensive cube just like the new Rubik's about 4 years ago.

The reason why company's make stickerless cubes is because they sell well and almost cost the same to produce. If that cost goes up it's likely sales will drop and they will stop producing them.

This is obviously pure speculation but fairly logical IMO.

 

[Lucas Garron]

They save money on stickers.

In an age where new speedcubes 1) come out frequently, 2) turn really well, and 3) are fairly affordable, how many people keep their cubes long enough and restiker them frequently?

I understand that cubes/shipping are more expensive for some countries, and that not everyone has a income with a large discretionary budget (kids in particular), but I think enabling competitors to "save money on stickers" is a weak argument.
If someone can get some actual numbers on this, that would be useful.

No piece can be distinguish by touch.

That's actually a great argument in favor.
(I wonder why I haven't seen anyone state it before.)

New competitors who arrive at a competition who's only speed cube is a stickerless can actually use them.
(I know people are meant to read the regs before going to their 1st comp but that situation does occur)

I think it is definitely fair to require competitors to use cubes that meet our standards.

In case someone brings a disallowed cube (which happens for a variety of reasons), there is usually someone else who can lend them one.

The only reason not to allow them seems to be, 'It goes against Ernö's original idea of what a Rubik's cube is'.

Is that a good reason? He never put any thought into how the design could be optimised to produce the fastest times. It was just an engineering project and spacial awareness challenge iirc.

Is that a bad reason? The event is about solving Rubik's Cubes, so we should be restricting competitors to a some definition of what a Rubik's Cube is.

The question, of course, is what that definition should be.

This is obviously pure speculation but fairly logical IMO.

That... doesn't make any sense?
If you believe your argument, put your weight behind it.

 

[~Adam~]

If you believe your argument, put your weight behind it.

I foolishly left that in, in retrospect. Thanks for reading. I hope I brought up a couple of points worth mentioning.

 

[Jaysammey777]

how many people keep their cubes long enough and restiker them frequently?

Me

In case someone brings a disallowed cube (which happens for a variety of reasons), there is usually someone else who can lend them one.

But that is not in their best interest.


Regarding definitions, nobody know what they are talking about (see sexy move thread).

Regarding can't feel for pieces, this argument was brought up in the logos thread

Sorry, on a phone, didn't want to do the tedious work it takes to break up a post

 

[Mollerz]

In an age where new speedcubes 1) come out frequently, 2) turn really well, and 3) are fairly affordable, how many people keep their cubes long enough and restiker them frequently?

I understand that cubes/shipping are more expensive for some countries, and that not everyone has a income with a large discretionary budget (kids in particular), but I think enabling competitors to "save money on stickers" is a weak argument.

I resticker my cubes quite a lot, and I know a ton of people who hate restickering but I force them to due to regulations.

 

[Lucas Garron]

I've started a semi-official list of reason for/against stickerless puzzles: https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/177

I hope I brought up a couple of points worth mentioning.

Yeah, you motivated me to start that list, in case anyone else brings up good points we didn't already have in our mind.

 

[Mollerz]

I've started a semi-official list of reason for/against stickerless puzzles: https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/177


Yeah, you motivated me to start that list, in case anyone else brings up good points we didn't already have in our mind.

Another thing you have to remember about the "advantage" of seeing stickers from the side/back whilst looking at the front: At high speeds it is extremely difficult to see, and does not necessarily take less time than normal. A couple of the fastest cubers, Feliks, Mats and Bill spring to mind on this matter, they already do not pause when transitioning from F2L-OLL-PLL on current stickered cubes so again, no difference. I agree this can be easily used at much slower speeds, but the advantage gained is completely minimal.

Also, another thing, and I think this is the most important point in my mind. Everyone has that advantage, but I doubt that many will switch purely for this advantage. The majority of people that will switch from stickered to stickerless cubes will be those who have stickerless cubes already as their main but are forced to use stickered in competition.

Also with this, I do think pillowed cubes should be allowed as well.

 

[AmazingCuber]

Everyone says that sticker less cubes don't provide advantages, but why does everyone want them allowed and why is everyone faster with them? I personally think that the advantage is definitely there, it's just unconscious.

 

[TMOY]

In an age where new speedcubes 1) come out frequently, 2) turn really well, and 3) are fairly affordable, how many people keep their cubes long enough and restiker them frequently?

People who do multi with a large number of cubes for example. When a new speedcube gets released, I don't buy 10 or 12 of them at once, I buy one or eventually two and continue to use my older cubes for multi as well.

 

[Erik]

Everyone says that sticker less cubes don't provide advantages, but why does everyone want them allowed and why is everyone faster with them? I personally think that the advantage is definitely there, it's just unconscious.

Personally I like stickerless cubes because they are perfect. Perfect in the sense that there are 0 flaws in the stickers, there is nothing interfering, no black plastic behind the stickers. And still I never managed to get faster with them than any non-stickerless cube ;-)

And yes, also that you never need to buy new stickers is nice. Not because it costs money, but just because it's a pain to change stickers. That's what I like about tiles as well.

 

[qqwref]

"The WCA puzzle policy has always been conservative" - I don't think so. Before stickerless and pillowed cubes were not popular or even mass-produced, in practice you could use pretty much any mass-produced cube as long as it was stickered with a single color on each side. For the time this was extremely competitor-friendly, and the only other official group suggesting rules on what cubes were allowed was Seventowns with its "official Rubik only" policy. Remember, the WCA is just over a decade old; the only tradition is the one we make.

 

[~Adam~]

Everyone says that sticker less cubes don't provide advantages, but why does everyone want them allowed and why is everyone faster with them? I personally think that the advantage is definitely there, it's just unconscious.

I am no faster with a stickerless cube however a stickerless is my main. Erik brought up most of the reasons why I like mine but I will add that I take it everywhere with me. It gets thrown in a bag and no damage can be done to stickers. It might get placed down in liquid and it wipes clean instead of having to replacing stickers. Simply it is more convenient.

 

[~Adam~]

Although someone may not purposely cheat they might sub-consciously spot the piece quicker or give a great special awarness on the stickerless cube (as well as pillowed puzzles) causing slightly quicker times.

Cheat? Is it cheating to use a WeiLong instead of a Rubik's brand? Both are legal and one is obviously far superior.

If stickerless cubes were allowed to be used in competition everyone would have the option to use them.
Would everyone switch to stickerless?
I highly doubt it. The advantage really isn't that great if even measurable.

If the issue is 'people might be quicker with them' then surely that's a good thing. That's what we are all trying to achieve. However, I spend half of my solves using stickerless cubes and my times don't appear to vary. I know I'm only one data point but I would personally love to see if anyone can take advantage of this potential boost to times. I don't expect this to happen.