[WCA Regulations 2014] Logos and Stickers

[qqwref]

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.

Yeah, that's the thing. Puzzles have changed a lot already, and although a current speedcube does look pretty similar to an original cube on the outside, the mechanisms are extremely dissimilar. We have crazy internal geometry, anti-pop mechanisms, and pieces molded in multiple parts, with many different variations that all function roughly the same. I don't have a problem with them changing even more as long as the puzzle remains the same. And as I said, people are already using pillowed and transparent cubes (and cubes with tiles) outside of competitions, and there hasn't been non-WCA-related backlash about them not counting as Rubik's Cubes, needing different UWRs, etc.

Remember, I'm not saying there isn't an advantage. I'm saying it's just another mass-produced variant, and it is still the same puzzle, so any advantage you may get is a fair advantage, just like the advantage of using a WeiLong or ShuangRen. I personally don't think you will ever NEED pillowed or stickerless or thickly tiled or transparent puzzles to compete at a high level, but if that ever was the case, you could just buy one. I think it's more fun if we can just go for the best times that are possible, and use our favorite freely available puzzles. Why restrict it?

 

[Zoé]

Yeah, that's the thing. Puzzles have changed a lot already, and although a current speedcube does look pretty similar to an original cube on the outside, the mechanisms are extremely dissimilar. We have crazy internal geometry, anti-pop mechanisms, and pieces molded in multiple parts, with many different variations that all function roughly the same. I don't have a problem with them changing even more as long as the puzzle remains the same. And as I said, people are already using pillowed and transparent cubes (and cubes with tiles) outside of competitions, and there hasn't been non-WCA-related backlash about them not counting as Rubik's Cubes, needing different UWRs, etc.

Remember, I'm not saying there isn't an advantage. I'm saying it's just another mass-produced variant, and it is still the same puzzle, so any advantage you may get is a fair advantage, just like the advantage of using a WeiLong or ShuangRen. I personally don't think you will ever NEED pillowed or stickerless or thickly tiled or transparent puzzles to compete at a high level, but if that ever was the case, you could just buy one. I think it's more fun if we can just go for the best times that are possible, and use our favorite freely available puzzles. Why restrict it?

That was also my point in my earlier message and I'm still waiting for an answer...

 

[BaMiao]

Yeah, that's the thing. Puzzles have changed a lot already, and although a current speedcube does look pretty similar to an original cube on the outside, the mechanisms are extremely dissimilar. We have crazy internal geometry, anti-pop mechanisms, and pieces molded in multiple parts, with many different variations that all function roughly the same.

I see this attitude around a lot, and I just have to disagree. Advantages given from using a stickerless cube are fundamentally different from advantages from improved mechanisms, lube, etc. One improves turning speed, while one increases the amount of information a competitor can gather at once. It is basically a judgement call on which advantages we should allow. This judgement call needs to be done in a way that is both consistent with the basic concept of the puzzle, and easy to apply and enforce.

You said yourself- "a current speedcube does look pretty similar to an original cube on the outside". I think that's a reasonable place to draw the line, and that's the judgement call the WCA has made. A speedcube should look like a rubik's cube from the outside, and stickerless/pillowed cubes look different in a way that gives an advantage, so should be banned. You can argue about what judgement you would make, but this decision is at least based on a logical argument.

Why are we talking about stickerless cubes again, anyway?

 

[Zoé]

You said yourself- "a current speedcube does look pretty similar to an original cube on the outside". I think that's a reasonable place to draw the line, and that's the judgement call the WCA has made. A speedcube should look like a rubik's cube from the outside, and stickerless/pillowed cubes look different in a way that gives an advantage, so should be banned. You can argue about what judgement you would make, but this decision is at least based on a logical argument.

But then, what do you define as an original cube ?
Because for example the first mass produced megaminx was the supernova which has very different proportions from the currently used megaminxes. So then according to you, should the other types of megaminxes (that everyone uses now) be banned because they have bigger edge pieces for example and they could give advantage for lookahead on the edges compared to the supernova ?

 

[Lucas Garron]

But then, what do you define as an original cube ?

Perhaps that's a fair question. However, I think the basic idea of each of the official puzzles is completely clear.

How's this for judging what is still a Rubik's Cube?
If someone's first reaction on a puzzle is "wow, that's a nice Rubik's Cube", that means the modifications don't change the basic concept. If the first reaction is more like "Is that still a Rubik's Cube?" then you're probably straying into new territory.

I think such a reaction is pretty common for stickerless cubes, ridged puzzles (which I still find a little questionable), see-through cubes, and pillowed cubes.

Now, just because a puzzle is different doesn't mean it gives an advantage, but many puzzles are nominally designed with speedcubing improvements in mind, or at least to provide a new aspect/experience while solving. So many of these improvements have some sort of advantage, which means the line is much more subjective.

 

[Goosly]

How's this for judging what is still a Rubik's Cube?
If someone's first reaction on a puzzle is "wow, that's a nice Rubik's Cube", that means the modifications don't change the basic concept. If the first reaction is more like "Is that still a Rubik's Cube?" then you're probably straying into new territory.

That is extremely vague and subjective. It seems to me that it will be impossible for delegates to make consistent decisions about banning puzzles.

 

[Lucas Garron]

That is extremely vague and subjective. It seems to me that it will be impossible for delegates to make consistent decisions about banning puzzles.

I'm not suggesting that as a rule for Delegates. I should have made it clear that the post was more like brainstorming.

However, these puzzles correlate pretty well with questionable puzzles precisely *because* delegates (like all cubers) would have such a response. There is usually an email thread in the Delegate list any time a weird puzzle comes up.

It's perfectly fine to allow some puzzles that initially look weird. As I've said many times, we just need something fair and consistent, which requires more of a community compromise than a consensus.

 

[patrickcuber]

I dont care about this conversation. all i really want to know is if a dayan logo is legal.

 

[Lucas Garron]

I dont care about this conversation. all i really want to know is if a dayan logo is legal.

As long as you're not doing BLD with an overlay logo, yes. Please try reading the Regulation about logos and let us know if it doesn't answer your question clearly.

 

[Erik]

Update:
the Logo Rules caused quite a few problems during de Wilg open. At Multi BLD at least 1 out of 5 cubes were illegal to use because of logos or slightly chipped stickers that could theoretically be used to identify one of the faces. Also I sadly had to inform the delegate that his square-1 had 2 logo's, so he decided to DNF both of the solves he did so far.
In the end after Multi BLD a few of the cubes were hard to identify. As people borrowed some cubes for big attempts it was sometimes a bit of a challenge to get the cubes back to their owners.

I have to say that I think these regulations are not being followed consistently. Especially at Multi BLD delegates don't really check all cubes and even if they do intent to do so, it often happens that cubes slip through and have already been scrambled before the delegate even has the chance to check them.

Please note that I just want to inform you about how these regs are usually enforced at competitions.

Also I would like to add that if the goal of the WRC/WCA is that competitors have no way of theoretically finding out which face is which, the current regulations do not suffice whatsoever.

 

[PJKCuber]

This is a dumb question, but one of the stickers on my 3x3 has a really small chip around the corner. About the size of a pen/pencil point. Is it competition legal?

 

[guysensei1]

This is a dumb question, but one of the stickers on my 3x3 has a really small chip around the corner. About the size of a pen/pencil point. Is it competition legal?

Yes.

I mean, even Alex Lau's cube with super chipped stickers is allowed.

 

[Lucas Garron]

This is a dumb question, but one of the stickers on my 3x3 has a really small chip around the corner. About the size of a pen/pencil point. Is it competition legal?

3j1) Puzzles are permitted to have reasonable wear, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.

If Alex's stickers are *very* chipped, they shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Wilhelm]

If the "chipping" is equally spread across the cube it's legal I think. Only if there is a big part missing on one of the stickers or you can otherwise easily recognise the piece because of one of the stickers it's not allowed. So for example if half of the white sticker on the white red edge is missing and you can identify by that it's forbidden. But it always depends on the judge I think

 

[Lucas Garron]

If the "chipping" is equally spread across the cube it's legal I think. Only if there is a big part missing on one of the stickers or you can otherwise easily recognise the piece because of one of the stickers it's not allowed. So for example if half of the white sticker on the white red edge is missing and you can identify by that it's forbidden. But it always depends on the judge I think

"Thinking" is often useful, but may not be as useful if there are facts at hand. I would prefer that people cite sources or observations instead of opinions/interpretations (unless the conversation calls for that).
A lot of the Regulations/Guidelines are structured so that you can get the official answer from them. (If not, that's a flaw.)

In any case, Wilhelm is indeed right: at most competitions you'll see that a reasonable, even amount of wear is allowed. But if stickers are chipped enough that some pieces become pretty obvious to distinguish, they shouldn't be allowed.

3j1 comes under 3j, which talks about "differences that significantly distinguish any piece from a similar piece". 3j1 is explicitly stating that a bit of wear is allowed, but I hope the combination of 3j and 3j1 make it clear *why* some (even) wear is allowed: you shouldn't be able to distinguish stuff that shouldn't be distinguishable (because cheating).

In any case, the person ultimately in charge of what puzzles are allowed is the Delegate. If you've been to a competition, you'll probably know that the responsibility is actually delegated to the scramblers in practice.
By the time it gets to the judge, it's usually too late. In some extreme cases, the judge may notice, though. (And they should!)

 

[Wilhelm]

"Thinking" is often useful, but may not be as useful if there are facts at hand. I would prefer that people cite sources or observations instead of opinions/interpretations (unless the conversation calls for that).
A lot of the Regulations/Guidelines are structured so that you can get the official answer from them. (If not, that's a flaw.)
the Delegate. If you've been to a competition, you'll probably know that the responsibility is actually delegated to the scramblers in practice.
By the time it gets to the judge, it's usually too late. In some extreme cases, the judge may notice, though. (And they should!)

Of course it's better to have facts but I didn't want to present something wrong as a fact . In not a delegate and don't know the WCA Regulations so detailled that I could prove my assumption. But at my last competitions we had some incidences where I witnessed this discussion so I am pretty sure that's the way to go

 

[Lucas Garron]

But at my last competitions we had some incidences where I witnessed this discussion so I am pretty sure that's the way to go

Ah, excellent! Those are good discussions to have, and to tell us about!

We're actually glad to hear about those, because they are very valuable in telling us what actually goes on around the world.

 

[Wilhelm]

Ah, excellent! Those are good discussions to have, and to tell us about!

We're actually glad to hear about those, because they are very valuable in telling us what actually goes on around the world.

Sorry I meant discussion with a delegate

 

[Lucas Garron]

Sorry I meant discussion with a delegate

Yeah, I presumed.

 

[Lazy Einstein]

Cool questions on the first post to answer. Imma do this.

1) Should we keep logos on the 2x2 or not?
I think we should keep them. In the 15 seconds of inspection, you are going to want to be thinking of what case you are going to make and on what face. Seeing that is usually quite the task. I don't see how the logo could ever aid this process. You'd be thinking way too much. I'd like to see Rami and Chris weigh in on this

2) Is the theoretical possibility of counting parity important enough to not allow logos for 4x4x4 and 6x6x6?
No. I don't think using logos would be worth it to the solver in a "speed" solve setting. The 15 seconds would be much better used to predict your first set of moves and look ahead provides you with enough information to see parities that considering the logo seems like it would be more detrimental.

3) Should we consider having different logo regulations for BLD and speedsolving?
Probably yes, I don't do blind your. Since memo is a part of your BLD times, BLD seems like it should have it's own regulations to ensure that no unfair advantages may arise without interfering with regular events.

4) What kinds of logos should we allow? Should they need to be a brand logo, or can we allow custom logos? Is "delegate discretion" enough to manage custom logos?
Visually logos should be similar to colour of face that logo is on and almost identical height of the rest of the stickers on your cube.
Custom logos should be allowed
"Delegate Discretion" seems to be sufficient. If the WCA is not confident is this, they should administer an experiment of some kind to verify if "delegate discretion" is effective or not.

5) Are logos important to you for the purpose of identifying your own cubes at a competition? If so, do you feel this hurts your ability to keep track of puzzles?
I like logos because it allows me to have a brand, which is not only fun, but very effective in helping me identify which puzzle is mine. I definitely feel better knowing my puzzles are labelled versus not being.