WCA Guidelines 2012

[@uguste]

9f14: If the averages are the same, then the sum can only be up to 0.01 off.

But there still is a difference.

10e3: There is no +2 for FMC. It's solved or not solved. Stupid MBLD problem? The only problem is the +2 to +(n*2), which really isn't a problem

I know there is no +2 for FMC, but it is not clearly stated in the regulations. And I think having a +2 penalty in blind doesn't make sense because it is against the "spirit" of blind solving. In blind you don't go as fast as in speedsolving, and I never saw someone get a +2 in blind because the cube was unintentionally misaligned. You can also use the penalty with M2 : if you don't remember if you have to do M2 or not, you can just do R2 at the end of the solve and get a +2 penalty instead of a DNF.

 

[Mike Hughey]

10e3: There is no +2 for FMC. It's solved or not solved. Stupid MBLD problem? The only problem is the +2 to +(n*2), which really isn't a problem

I disagree - there is a stupid multiBLD problem. The problem is what to do if someone reaches the maximum time for the solve and then has a +2. This is not handled by the regulations: does it get treated as valid but with +2 time, or does it get treated as DNF (because the time is then over the limit)? Ron has made a pronouncement on the WCA Forum, but it's not covered in the regulations. We need to solve this stupid multiBLD problem. One way of doing it would be to remove +2 penalties for multiBLD, saying anything over 45 degrees off is a DNF.

If we're really going to allow stickerless cubes in BLD but not in speedsolving, that seems to justify the idea of having different rules for +2 as well between BLD and speedsolving.

 

[DrKorbin]

I never saw someone get a +2 in blind because the cube was unintentionally misaligned.

I had +2 in blind on official competition once upon a time, and it was unintentionally.
I would also suggest discussing this or other issues in specific threads (or you can create them if there is no), to make it simple for organizers collecting suggestions and questions ITT.


QUESTION (don't know which section): What is the current status of pillowed 7x7 cubes?
Here Ron told they are permitted at least until a cubic is generally available and widely used.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

QUESTION (don't know which section): What is the current status of pillowed 7x7 cubes?
Here Ron told they are permitted at least until a cubic is generally available and widely used.

Personally, I think that they should stay allowed. If they were to become banned, would it be the first original version of a cube that is not allowed in competition?

 

[Sebastien]

I get the feeling that we should have released the new regulations before starting that thread...

QUESTION (H): In multi-bld, if a competitor reaches his time limit, and some of his cubes have misalignment, are they treated as +2 or not solved?
(It seems to me Ron has said they are not solved, but I can't provide a link).

SUGGESTION (4d): If there is black and no white, the cube is scrambled black on top, green (or darkest adjanced color) on front.
link

SUGGESTION (2e1): Nationality is exactly a citizenship (i.e. you have a passport of this country (but how must young people who have no passport be treated?)), not membership of a nation in the sense of ethnic group.
link

SUGGESTION (5b): If a single corner twists in place, the competitor is allowed to twist it in place.

Suggestion 4g) [?]: Scrambling orientation for non-cubic puzzles (e.g., pyra, mega): Lightest color on bottom, darkest adjacent color on front

Suggestion (3c): The rules for stickerless cubes should be the same for speedsolving and blindsolving - there should be no difference. I think I'd prefer that they be allowed, but the rules should be consistent either way.

All this is either already implemented or in discussion.

If it stays within the 25% limit, then it was legal to send them both to finals. If it doesn't, neither can go. As it stands now, one can't go and one can, but they can both be held back

Exactly this! There is no other logical way to treat this situation. But perhaps we should add the sum of all counting solves as criteria before better single...

 

[cubernya]

I get the feeling that we should have released the new regulations before starting that thread...

I don't think anyone would have a problem with the WRC releasing a draft version to the public, which could take care of a lot of issues already brought up

 

[Ranzha]

QUESTION (1f2) I know this should probably fall under discretion of the main judge, but what if a competitor doesn't know notation for a specific event? In particular, I can think of a few events that this could apply to, namely megaminx and clock (and perhaps even square-1).
Magics lol

 

[hcfong]

QUESTION (1f2) I know this should probably fall under discretion of the main judge, but what if a competitor doesn't know notation for a specific event? In particular, I can think of a few events that this could apply to, namely megaminx and clock (and perhaps even square-1).
Magics lol

if you don't know the notation for a specific puzzle, there's a good chance you don't know how to solve it. I think it's generally accepted that not knowing the notation for a puzzle because you simply don't know how to solve it, is a valid excuse not to scramble for that event.

But I guess this could be clarified in the guidelines.

 

[5BLD]

Well, why should there be 'excuses' not to scramble etc? Won't there be enough volunteers anyway?
Also I am one of those who doesn't really know how to read sq1 notation but can solve it, albeit slowly. Megaminx too.

 

[vcuber13]

QUESTION (1f2) I know this should probably fall under discretion of the main judge, but what if a competitor doesn't know notation for a specific event? In particular, I can think of a few events that this could apply to, namely megaminx and clock (and perhaps even square-1).
Magics lol

what we do is have a person than knows how to scramble scramble for the fastest person or two and when they are done they start scrambling

for example at the last comp Justin scrambled for me and when i was done he scrambled for Neil and Neil and I scrambled most of the cubes after because we are so much faster at it.



Edit:

QUESTION
3l) Cube puzzles must have at most one logo. For Rubik's Cube or bigger cube puzzles the logo must be placed on one of the centre pieces.

what about square1s?

 

[Ranzha]

what we do is have a person than knows how to scramble scramble for the fastest person or two and when they are done they start scrambling

for example at the last comp Justin scrambled for me and when i was done he scrambled for Neil and Neil and I scrambled most of the cubes after because we are so much faster at it.

This is often the case around these parts as well. There are usually very experienced competitors at the scrambling table, so it has never been a practical issue. However, the technical issue still kinda remains.
Perhaps, "For ease of competition flow, competitors should familiarise themselves with scrambling notation for the event(s) they are competing in."

QUESTION
3l) Cube puzzles must have at most one logo. For Rubik's Cube or bigger cube puzzles the logo must be placed on one of the centre pieces.

what about square1s?

If "centre piece" relates to a piece connected to the core (or something; uncertain how to phrase this), the logo on Square-1s is most definitely on a centre piece.

 

[Sebastien]

"For ease of competition flow, competitors should familiarise themselves with scrambling notation for the event(s) they are competing in."

How would that be helpful compared to the current version?

Of course, every competitor must be available for scrambling and judging for every event. A delegate in a bad mood can disqualify you if you don't know how to scramble a specific puzzle, so better learn how to scramble all puzzles (this is really not much work). This never happens in practice, as there are almost always enough people that can scramble a puzzle.

 

[Ranzha]

How would that be helpful compared to the current version?

Of course, every competitor must be available for scrambling and judging for every event. A delegate in a bad mood can disqualify you if you don't know how to scramble a specific puzzle, so better learn how to scramble all puzzles (this is really not much work). This never happens in practice, as there are almost always enough people that can scramble a puzzle.

Sure, a delegate can disqualify a competitor for not knowing, but that would be a dick move. It's unethical and doesn't promote the positive atmosphere competitions should strive to have (for the betterment of the community, and the like).

A couple of examples I can think of right now:
At some competitions I go to, there is a young competitor who only competes in Magic. Assuming this competitor doesn't know how to solve other puzzles presently, asking this competitor to scramble for other puzzles would be folly.
In a different case, at the last competition I went to, there was a first-time competitor who was entering 3x3 and 3x3OH. At this point, this competitor didn't know how to solve any other puzzles. He had no previous access to these puzzles (which aids significantly in familiarising with scrambling notation).
Therefore, I think my suggestion is a lot easier to abide by from both a technical and practical point of view.

 

[cubernya]

I have a question: If the regulation says should, then why does it say disqualification...

 

[vcuber13]

whats an example?

 

[cubernya]

whats an example?

That competitors should be available for scrambling
1f2) All competitors should be available for scrambling, if needed by organisation team. Penalty: disqualification of the competitor for the competition.

Another suggestion:
2h) Competitors must be fully dressed. Competitors may dress in jeans, pants, shorts, slacks, skirts, foot-wear, T-shirts or dress shirts. Hats may be worn. Clothes must not display vulgar language or have inappropriate pictures.
This could easily be change to "Competitors must be appropriately dressed."

 

[Ranzha]

That competitors should be available for scrambling
1f2) All competitors should be available for scrambling, if needed by organisation team. Penalty: disqualification of the competitor for the competition.

Either change to "must" or make the penalty less severe. Or, you know, change to what I suggested earlier.

 

[cubernya]

Either change to "must" or make the penalty less severe. Or, you know, change to what I suggested earlier.

If it says should, there can't be a penalty. Things just don't work that way. It was must a few years ago, but it was changed because not all competitors know notation. However, lots of puzzles can be solved intuitively (realistically any cubic puzzle, using some blockbuilding on 2x2, Heise on 3x3, OBLBL on bigcubes), or the notation is completely different from typical speedsolving notation (Megaminx).

I'm also in favor of making SiGN the official notation, especially for fewest moves where it's already generally accepted (I think)

 

[Mike Hughey]

With regard to availability for scrambling, I think the intent is really something like this:
1. If you're a competitor, you should make yourself available for scrambling. That means you're willing to scramble (even if you don't know how - if you don't know how, you must be willing to be taught).
2. If you as a competitor refuse to scramble when asked, simply because you're unwilling (not because you're unable), then you can be disqualified from the competition.

I suspect this is really what was intended by the regulation. Since it is somewhat unclear, it would probably be nice to clarify it.

------------

One thing that I think might be nice to add to the guidelines:

Suggestion(G4 and G5): It would be helpful to have very clear instructions on how Magic and Master Magic should be judged. In particular, mention that the competitor should not be touching the puzzle either before the timer starts or after the timer stops, and mention the valid hand positions for starting and stopping the timer. I realize the current regulations (A4b, A4b1, A6c, A6d, and A6e) all actually cover these issues, but I fear that too many people judging Magic or Master Magic may not think about how significant this is with those puzzles, and I think it would be helpful to clarify it explicitly. Perhaps it's silly of me to bring this up, because it's already officially in the rules, but I just tend to think it needs more weight.

Additional clarification on rules A4b and A6c might be nice too. The way I interpret the rules is this: for A4b, you must have some part of at least two fingers touching the stackmat as your hands come off the timer, and for A6c, you must have some part of your hand past your wrist (palm or fingers) touching the timer at the end. Note that A6c doesn't require fingers to be touching - some people seem to think it does. Note also that A6c doesn't guarantee that A6d and A6e will be followed - you can be fully holding the puzzle while stopping the timer legally according to A6c - it's only A6d and A6e that prevent it.

 

[Dene]

If we're really going to allow stickerless cubes in BLD but not in speedsolving, that seems to justify the idea of having different rules for +2 as well between BLD and speedsolving.

But there's a much easier solution to that :tu