• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

[WCA Regulations 2014] Logos and Stickers

Kit Clement

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,294
Likes
533
Location
Portland, OR
WCA
2008CLEM01
YouTube
KitClement
Thread starter #221
Well I do have a good turning Rubik's brand 3x3 that has a logo printed on the yellow center sticker and logo printed onto the white center sticker. That would mean I would have to buy new stickers for it and most of us don't always have spare sticker sets lyeing around just to use in situations like this. Also if we know this ahead of time we would plan ahead and get our cubes ready and Comp legal before it's to late.
A two logo puzzle has never been allowed, so you should have had plenty of time to read the regulations and prepare your puzzle plan if you ever plan on using it.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Messages
4,106
Likes
2
Location
Louisville, Kentucky, United States
WCA
2010WOMA01
YouTube
michael1234252
Ooh, actual examples! Do you have a photo / know where you got it?
It's this cube And I bought it at a Puzzle store on Pier 39 in San Fransisco.

A two logo puzzle has never been allowed, so you should have had plenty of time to read the regulations and prepare your puzzle plan if you ever plan on using it.
But I was refuring to it as an example like with the Megaminx situation. Also not every cuber reads the WCA rulebook before there first comp or ask about the rules.
 
Last edited:

theZcuber

Premium Member
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
2,076
Likes
3
Location
Central NY, US
WCA
2012PRAT02
The straightforward "why": Because the Regulations only allowed 1 logo, and we've been trying to cut down on exceptions (therefore also not introducing them). This is the only puzzle I'm aware of that has two printed stickers out of the box.

Maybe it's a reasonable exception to be concerned about, but nothing changed here in 2014.
I must ask, if it were to come up in a competition, would you allow it (if you had a choice)? I would be interested to see the results of a poll of the delegates and community; I personally see nothing wrong with that. You can literally feel the middle, but we can't have a (second) logo on it.

For the record, I see no purpose in not having exceptions. If it makes the regulations more fair and better, why not?
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
1,500
Likes
81
Location
Ohio, USA
WCA
2010BRAD01
YouTube
XTowncuber
One of the biggest problems with the 2014 regulations is that they failed to solve one of the most pressing theoretical cheating situations of the current cubing age: scratch and sniff stickers.

Just think! A competitor could easy color code their cube with scratch and sniff stickers and BAM! they no longer have to do cube rotations to check a certain sticker. They can just scratch a sticker and move their nose toward it and they will instantly be able to identify which color it is. It is even more important that stickers such as these be banned from the BLD events, where the advantages are even greater. Can you imagine all of the the theoretical cheating this is allowing?!?! The ineptitude displayed by the WRC in missing this theoretical problem concerns me greatly.

Now, I know that people are going to say that this is ridiculous, and that no advantage is given to someone using scratch and sniff stickers, but we have to solve EVERY SINGLE THEORETICAL PROBLEM before our regulations can be considered complete. Some also may argue that this bans some of the top speedcubes (notably, the lubix JAWDROP), but at this point it doesn't matter how many people's puzzles are disqualified, the problem must be addressed. Another argument that I think will be common is that it will be too difficult for the judge/delegate to notice cubes with scratch and sniff stickers, but I really don't think it's too much of a problem to have the delegate sniff everyone's cube as they are called to solve (the only time that this may cause a problem is during feetsolving).

Overall, the benefits of this regulation would outweigh the downsides by far.
 

tim

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
1,692
Likes
4
Location
Karlsruhe, Germany
WCA
2007HABE01
YouTube
cin9247
One of the biggest problems with the 2014 regulations is that they failed to solve one of the most pressing theoretical cheating situations of the current cubing age: scratch and sniff stickers.

Just think! A competitor could easy color code their cube with scratch and sniff stickers and BAM! they no longer have to do cube rotations to check a certain sticker. They can just scratch a sticker and move their nose toward it and they will instantly be able to identify which color it is.
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#3j should already deal with this.

Brad I don't ever recall any cube shop or any cubes that sell/come with scratch and smell stickers.
Why does this matter? Using custom stickers is perfectly fine.
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
1,910
Likes
11
WCA
2008ANDE02
YouTube
Minxer2011
One of the biggest problems with the 2014 regulations is that they failed to solve one of the most pressing theoretical cheating situations of the current cubing age: scratch and sniff stickers.

Just think! A competitor could easy color code their cube with scratch and sniff stickers and BAM! they no longer have to do cube rotations to check a certain sticker. They can just scratch a sticker and move their nose toward it and they will instantly be able to identify which color it is. It is even more important that stickers such as these be banned from the BLD events, where the advantages are even greater. Can you imagine all of the the theoretical cheating this is allowing?!?! The ineptitude displayed by the WRC in missing this theoretical problem concerns me greatly.

Now, I know that people are going to say that this is ridiculous, and that no advantage is given to someone using scratch and sniff stickers, but we have to solve EVERY SINGLE THEORETICAL PROBLEM before our regulations can be considered complete. Some also may argue that this bans some of the top speedcubes (notably, the lubix JAWDROP), but at this point it doesn't matter how many people's puzzles are disqualified, the problem must be addressed. Another argument that I think will be common is that it will be too difficult for the judge/delegate to notice cubes with scratch and sniff stickers, but I really don't think it's too much of a problem to have the delegate sniff everyone's cube as they are called to solve (the only time that this may cause a problem is during feetsolving).

Overall, the benefits of this regulation would outweigh the downsides by far.
you little cheater. (still trying to find a way to invalidate your pyraminx WRs (when/if you get them xD I don't want to beat you, that requires practise)
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
3,557
Likes
93
Location
California
WCA
2006GARR01
YouTube
LucasGarron
For the record, I see no purpose in not having exceptions. If it makes the regulations more fair and better, why not?
That is a very fair question.

Delegates and the WRC have been getting *lots* of questions about what puzzles are allowed because the Regulations are not clear and reasonably consistent.
If the answer to a question like "am I allowed to have more than 2 stickers" is not a simple yes or no, that means keeping track of lots of cases. Very few people will feel comfortable answering questions about allowable puzzles, and everyone keeps having to deal with edge cases.

I had the hope that we could fix the inconsistent Delegate rulings by providing something clear-cut, but this thread shows that it would be very hard to do if we try to accommodate every "reasonable" exception.
While "anything goes" may be a reasonably simple policy that removes the need for exceptions, I'd like some convincing reasons that this would not make the job harder for Delegates and/or lead to even more unfair conditions. (This should address the fact that competitors may start coming up with unanticipated variations if some "currently questionable" things start being allowed.)
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
3,557
Likes
93
Location
California
WCA
2006GARR01
YouTube
LucasGarron
Now, I know that people are going to say that this is ridiculous, and that no advantage is given to someone using scratch and sniff stickers, but we have to solve EVERY SINGLE THEORETICAL PROBLEM before our regulations can be considered complete.
No. I have rejected quite a few suggestions because they address things that are not likely to happen (the first one that comes to mind is trying to solve the cube behind your back instead of using a blindfold). However, *everyone* has a puzzle, and we have some practical concerns about fairness and international consistency to address.

That said, your joke makes a good point: we shouldn't ban *everything* out of theoretical concern. But how do we decide what is a practical concern when we are trying to make things fair and consistent?
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
3,921
Likes
6
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
WCA
2011THOM01
The straightforward "why": Because the Regulations only allowed 1 logo, and we've been trying to cut down on exceptions (therefore also not introducing them). This is the only puzzle I'm aware of that has two printed stickers out of the box.

Maybe it's a reasonable exception to be concerned about, but nothing changed here in 2014.
You already have a separate line entirely dedicated to the topic of Square-1 logos; allowing for a second logo wouldn't really complicate this section of the regulations.

Anyway, I have a lot of free time right now, and I think I'm going to go through every regulation to try to find any problems/inconsistencies/redundancies, since just in the act of skimming through the 2014 changes, I noticed several regulations that presented a problem through bad wording or allowed for something that I'm not sure was intended. Once I've made my list, what would you prefer I do with it? I'm not sure posting a large list of what some might interpret as 'complaints' in a thread here would be a great idea, but I also feel bad dumping a large list of stuff on you through a PM when you've been so busy.
 

cubizh

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
601
Likes
34
Location
Portugal
WCA
2014GOME07
YouTube
cubizh
You already have a separate line entirely dedicated to the topic of Square-1 logos; allowing for a second logo wouldn't really complicate this section of the regulations.

Anyway, I have a lot of free time right now, and I think I'm going to go through every regulation to try to find any problems/inconsistencies/redundancies, since just in the act of skimming through the 2014 changes, I noticed several regulations that presented a problem through bad wording or allowed for something that I'm not sure was intended. Once I've made my list, what would you prefer I do with it? I'm not sure posting a large list of what some might interpret as 'complaints' in a thread here would be a great idea, but I also feel bad dumping a large list of stuff on you through a PM when you've been so busy.
I would say look if the problem has been posted on the wca-documents github issue tracker and post there(?)
 
Last edited:

tim

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
1,692
Likes
4
Location
Karlsruhe, Germany
WCA
2007HABE01
YouTube
cin9247
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
3,557
Likes
93
Location
California
WCA
2006GARR01
YouTube
LucasGarron
You already have a separate line entirely dedicated to the topic of Square-1 logos; allowing for a second logo wouldn't really complicate this section of the regulations.
Certainly a good point. However, we managed to settle on the simple intent of "you may have 1 logo, put it on the center if you can". 3l1a and 3l1b are more like clarifications than exception.

Changing 3l1b to allow two logos for Square-1 would make a strong exception to 3l rather than augmenting 3l1 to making it work for Square-1. (We could have tried to make 3l1 a single rule, but I think the current situation is as clear as possible, while keeping it sufficiently simple.)
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
7,830
Likes
34
Location
a <script> tag near you
WCA
2006GOTT01
YouTube
qqwref2
A simple question that hasn't been asked enough: why is it a problem if people get an advantage from being able to see more pieces on their puzzles?

Puzzles with 1.5mm tiles, or transparent pieces, or 6-colored plastic, are mass produced. Many people buy such puzzles, and many people solve them unofficially and post times. If anyone thinks it is a significant advantage (compared to things like ridges, good corner cutting, or perfect tension) they are welcome to pay the $20 or less and get one of those brands of puzzle for themself. So when you see a competitor using a puzzle like that, don't think of it as some kind of crazy modification they have done to get a leg up on everyone else. They are just using their preferred type of mass-produced puzzle. Even if you needed one to be competitive, which you don't, you could just go to the store and buy one yourself.

Besides, I can't imagine someone from outside our community looking at a solve of one of those puzzles and thinking it's not a valid solve of the puzzle. The stickers are set up the same way, the possible moves are the same, the challenge is the same. Even pillowed cubes, which everyone here accepts as not allowed, are routinely bought by non-cubers or casual puzzlers and used to do solves, make pretty patterns, or just play around with. We are the only ones making the claim that seeing more than a given number of sides somehow goes against the original intent of the puzzle. It's really not - it's just a physical limitation all the puzzles in the early days of the cube craze happened to have. There are plenty of other physical limitations that we're fine with improving upon. After all, the original Rubik's Cube was made out of wood...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
467
Likes
0
WCA
2010QIUB01
YouTube
cswstudios
A simple question that hasn't been asked enough: why is it a problem if people get an advantage from being able to see more pieces on their puzzles?

...
You make a valid point here. The only reason most people see increased visibility as a problem is that they perceive these types of puzzles to go beyond the "accepted" standard of the cube. It's not that these types of cubes are more advantageous than your standard magic cube (there are) but that these cubes are outside the scope of the commonly held definition of the "Rubik's cube". It's an external modification that completely changes how the game is played. People would then start taking advantage of cubes with increased visibility and cubing designs may become even more crazier and farther from the original idea of the cube. I think we have to draw a line somewhere.

I'm not saying that the line we have right now is the best, but extending the definition of a "Rubik's cube" may or may not create positive consequences.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
1,216
Likes
324
Location
University of Georgia
WCA
2010AMBR01
YouTube
Jaysammey777
Definition of a Rubik's cube:
a puzzle in the form of a plastic cube covered with multicolored squares, which the player attempts to twist and turn so that all the squares on each face are of the same color.

So these advantages aren't deviating from the definition of a Rubik's cube
 
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
467
Likes
0
WCA
2010QIUB01
YouTube
cswstudios
Definition of a Rubik's cube:
a puzzle in the form of a plastic cube covered with multicolored squares, which the player attempts to twist and turn so that all the squares on each face are of the same color.

So these advantages aren't deviating from the definition of a Rubik's cube
I was referring the speedcubing community's conventional limitations of the cube. For instance, the original cube was not meant to be pillowed or transparent. Most speed cubers wouldn't consider these cubes to be strictly following the 3x3 conventions. You have to acknowledge that they are difference from the original "rubik's cube". At the same time, speedcubers believe it is acceptable to make internal mechanism modifications that do deviate from the original design.

So yes, if you compare these increased visibility cubes to the original rubik's cube, there cubes are advantageous.
 
Top