WCA has now banned stickerless cubes for BLD. Thoughts?

[ThomasJE]

A poll possibly? What section would I put it under?

Constructive Speedcubing Discussion

 

[Kirjava]

I mean that the WCA might not want to cause any friction between themselves and VCubes.

 

[Meep]

The stickerless cube 'ban' isn't so much a ban but rather clarifying something that shouldn't have been allowed in the first place. The V-7 has been implied to be allowed as it was the only 7x7 available when the 7x7 event was introduced. Whether it shouldn't be allowed now is another thing, but using the stickerless cube as a reason seems silly.

 

[Michael Womack]

What do you mean with 'rocking the boat with VCubes'? If they get annoyed with the banning of the V7, tough.

Some people Like the pillowed 7x7 also they still have there's from the time before the SS7x7 came out.

 

[ducttapecuber]

Here is my point with banning pillowed 7x7's compared to banning stickerless cubes in BLD:
First thing is that stickerless cubes are banned in normal solving because of obvious cheating capabilities. Stickerless cubes where still allowed in BLD because that particular "advantage" did not apply to BLD solving. I do see the advantage of memo-ing a stickerless cube however 4 out of 5 serious BLD solvers use stickerless because they don't have to change these stickers. Having the colored plastic gives a slight advantage to memo-ing but not greatly. I do however believe that there was no need for the ban; however I understand why the ban was put into place. As compared to the pillowed v7 you have a different advantage; you can slightly see the stickers better. I feel that this is not great enough or important enough to completely ban the first 7x7 available. Think of the immediate consequences of banning it:
1. You know that Verdes (v-cube owner) will throw a fit and sue Shengshou (he has a very big temper)
2. Shengshou is the only cubic 7x7, therefore creating a cubing monopoly. (which are illegal in the US)
3. This would cause a huge decrease in 7x7 competitors.
4. This would anger many people
Just to name the big ones

This pillowed v-cube was the first 7x7. It was revolutionary with its pillowed design, Verdes figured out a way to make a 7x7 with it being structurally sound. Banning the v7 is like banning a Rubik’s 4x4 because it has a different mechanism. [B]That is all the pillowed is, a revolutionary mechanism[/B]

Just think about the consequences of banning the pillowed v7 before you do.

-Ducttapecuber

 

[qqwref]

2. Shengshou is the only cubic 7x7, therefore creating a cubing monopoly. (which are illegal in the US)

Uh, no. There is no law against monopolies, just against situations where a monopoly uses its power to prevent competition in an unfair way. I think it's pretty clear here that any other cube company could start producing cubical 7x7s if they wanted to and had the resources.

Banning the v7 is like banning a Rubik’s 4x4 because it has a different mechanism. That is all the pillowed is, a revolutionary mechanism

Pillowing isn't a "mechanism", it's a shape - a shape which, according to some people, provides an advantage to solvers when compared to the more natural cube design. The revolutionary part of the V-cubes design was the way the puzzle would remain stable even if the puzzle was thrown against a hard surface, some pieces were removed, or very inaccurate turns were made. There is absolutely nothing in the mechanism itself that prevents the V-cube company from producing a cubic 7x7 with the exact same outer dimensions as the Shengshou one.

 

[piece popper]

It's totally pointless to ban such cubes in any event.

 

[BenVdd]

Main arguments against banning pillowed 7x7 :
1) First of its kind for x-amount of years meaning it was the only one that could be used for the event.
2) If you ban it alot of ppl will quit because they own a pillowed 7x7.

my counter arguments. :
1)There shouldnt have been a 7x7 event before a cubic shaped 7x7 was mass-produced.
the pillowed 7x7 being the first massproduced one did not change "the basic concept of a 7x7" from cubic to pillowed. and therefor should be illegal under current rules.
No one can honestly say they thought the first mass produced 7x7 puzzle would be pillowed and therefor the basic concept of a 7x7 cannot be a pillowed version.

2) This should not be a reason to break the rules, instead it could be a potential reason to alter the rules so that the 7x7 pillowed version can become legal.

 

[CubeRoots]

solution could be just cut out any rule about puzzles not being allowed to make more pieces visible. If wca truly followed that logic mini cubes should be banned too. Too many contradictions, and too many people disagree with wca ( a majority imo) on this matter. Pisses me off

 

[Meep]

my counter arguments. :
1)There shouldnt have been a 7x7 event before a cubic shaped 7x7 was mass-produced.
the pillowed 7x7 being the first massproduced one did not change "the basic concept of a 7x7" from cubic to pillowed. and therefor should be illegal under current rules.
No one can honestly say they thought the first mass produced 7x7 puzzle would be pillowed and therefor the basic concept of a 7x7 cannot be a pillowed version.

7x7 was added to the regulations after the pillowed one was mass produced. It has nothing to do with the 'basic concept of a 7x7' predicting whether it's going to be pillowed or not when it's created. What some people are getting at is that the pillowed 7x7 arguably defined what the 'basic concept of a 7x7' is. People aren't saying that it changed the basic concept to itself, but rather it started the basic concept.

 

[BenVdd]

... People aren't saying that it changed the basic concept to itself, but rather it started the basic concept.

How did producing a 7x7 start a basic concept of a puzzle.

If you imagine a higher order puzzles that are not produced yet. You would imagine them to be cubic. But yet you say that this would not "start" it's basic concept? The basic concept would only be "started" as soon as someone makes it?

 

[Meep]

How did producing a 7x7 start a basic concept of a puzzle.

If you imagine a higher order puzzles that are not produced yet. You would imagine them to be cubic. But yet you say that this would not "start" it's basic concept? The basic concept would only be "started" as soon as someone makes it?

Before people ever thought 7x7s would ever be mass produced or part of competitions, they probably envisioned a cubic one. But after they were mass produced, the pillowed one was what was widely accepted as 'the 7x7 Rubik's Cube.' This was the time when they were considered to be added to competitions, and likely what people pictured when writing the regulations. We don't know for sure, but it's debatable.

 

[qqwref]

I think the situation was more along the lines of "the only available pillowed 7x7 breaks the rules, so in order to make the event possible we'll allow it until there's a good alternative".

 

[BenVdd]

Before people ever thought 7x7s would ever be mass produced or part of competitions, they probably envisioned a cubic one. But after they were mass produced, the pillowed one was what was widely accepted as 'the 7x7 Rubik's Cube.' This was the time when they were considered to be added to competitions, and likely what people pictured when writing the regulations. We don't know for sure, but it's debatable.

And thats the reason why i stated that there shouldn't have been a 7x7 event untill a 7x7 that fell under the rules was produced.

 

[piece popper]

Why don't you just put transparent stickers on a stickerless cube and call that a stickered cube?

 

[Noahaha]

Why don't you just put transparent stickers on a stickerless cube and call that a stickered cube?

Because the technical problem with stickerless cubes would still be there.

 

[piece popper]

What is the technical problem? What if the first cube ever made was painted instead of stickered?

 

[antoineccantin]

What is the technical problem? What if the first cube ever made was painted instead of stickered?

The problem with stickerless cubes is not that there are no stickers, but that you can see the colours on other sides without directly looking at it.

 

[Noahaha]

What is the technical problem?

The problem is that you are only supposed to receive a specific amount of information when looking at a face of a cube, being the colors on that side of the cube. With a stickerless cube you are able to see the stickers of adjacent sides without actually looking at them. The differences between cubes should be in what they look like and in the way they turn, not in how they can be used.

What if the first cube ever made was painted instead of stickered?

What if the first baseball players used metal bats?

 

[Noahaha]

This is mainly an argument against stickerless cubes being banned for everything but BLD. They give just as much of an advantage in BLD as in regular solving, so they should be banned for neither or for both. I personally think they should be banned for both because of this advantage they give, but at the very least the rules should be consistent for BLD and non-BLD events, and this is why I support the complete banning of stickerless cubes.