[WCA Regulations 2014] Logos and Stickers

[Dene]

So does this mean that it's now necessary to bring a metric ruler with me to competitions I'm delegating?

There was always a thickness standard. The only thing that has changed is the specific number. So really nothing should be different to how you always treated it.

 

[Bob]

There was always a thickness standard. The only thing that has changed is the specific number. So really nothing should be different to how you always treated it.

Well what changed was "the general available thickness" rule...that was vague enough to eliminate the need for measuring any of the tiles I've ever come across.

 

[Erik]

I would like to take this moment to thank the following:

The WCA for forcing me to ruin 2 of my best cubes I have for no reason at all:
- first of all my wonderfull tiled Mefferts (original) Megaminx I have been using for over 8 years in competition now.
- second: my 4x4 with Mefferts tiles.

Seriously WHY do you force me to ruin these cubes? I can probably not use them ever again in competition because it is quite hard to get rid of all the residue and to put on some tiles with the exact same colours. Especially for Megaminx I am quite sure this will be the end for me of taking part in this event. There are no tiles with the exact same colours as the ones of the original puzzle: lookahead will be gone and my times will go up about 15 seconds.
Remember: this has NOTHING to do with the fact that you theoretically have a MINOR advantage of thicker tiles. Everyone knows this advantage theoretical advantage does NOT cause faster times.

 

[Mollerz]

I would like to take this moment to thank the following:

The WCA for forcing me to ruin 2 of my best cubes I have for no reason at all:
- first of all my wonderfull tiled Mefferts (original) Megaminx I have been using for over 8 years in competition now.
- second: my 4x4 with Mefferts tiles.

Seriously WHY do you force me to ruin these cubes? I can probably not use them ever again in competition because it is quite hard to get rid of all the residue and to put on some tiles with the exact same colours. Especially for Megaminx I am quite sure this will be the end for me of taking part in this event. There are no tiles with the exact same colours as the ones of the original puzzle: lookahead will be gone and my times will go up about 15 seconds.
Remember: this has NOTHING to do with the fact that you theoretically have a MINOR advantage of thicker tiles. Everyone knows this advantage theoretical advantage does NOT cause faster times.

Agreed, did absolutely nobody consider that a large majority of fast megaminxers actually use mf8 tiles and do none of them realise the significant difference between these and stickers regarding colour and grip?

 

[qqwref]

This isn't about wanting to remove a bunch of competitors who use cubes that give them an unfair advantage. Thick tiles (1.2mm or whatever they are) are ubiquitous in megaminx. Erik Akkersdijk (9 megaminx WRs) used a tiled minx; Stefan Pochmann (7 WRs) used a tiled minx; Balint Bodor (6 WRs) used a tiled minx; Simon Westlund (4 WRs) used a tiled minx. There are only 2 minx WRs ever that weren't by one of those 4 people.

And now these puzzles are illegal, because of the choice of some people who probably aren't world-class at the event? Should we make minxers solve with gloves too, just to add insult to injury? Some minxes can be very sharp, you know. It's for safety.

 

[suushiemaniac]

Just one question: Regulation 3d3) clarifies that the current in-use tiles by Mefferts or Mf8 are too thick by 0.2mm, which is even less than the thickness of some stickers. Does anybody in here believe that shaving off the tiles on a megaminx by two hundreths of a cm (thus adjusting them to the rules) would eliminate the "you-can-see-more-sides-than-you-are-supposed-to" issue?

 

[KongShou]

So many complaints at the mega tiles.

 

[TimMc]

What's the Quality Control like on mf8 tiles?

Are they actually 1.2mm thick or are some batches thinner or thicker?

The intention might be to ban mf8 tiles but if a competitor presents an mf8 Megaminx with tiles that are no more than 1mm thick then I'll allow it based on the new regulations.

Tim.

 

[AvGalen]

These sticker/tiles rules don't prevent against any practical way of cheating except for M2-parity in blindfolded
They also do not prevent against theoretical cheating because having scratches under the stickers, differently modded pieces, differently tightened pieces and probably many many more are just as easy to abuse but harder to detect.
They DO make the lives of delegates/organizers easier because they can say "no" more easily

However,
Too many common puzzles would suddenly become invalid which people will never expect.
Making the original tiled Mefferts Megaminx illegal but keeping the original rounded VCube 7 is far too arbitrary. I actually think there is a higher percentage of people that use tiled minxes than rounded 7x7x7 (I don't have proof, but I bought tiled minxes much more recent than rounded 7's)

The ones who benefit from these rules are the delegates and cube shops. The ones that suffer are the competitors.
The negatives are very real, the benefits are mostly hypothetical.
The rules didn't get more clear, they got harder to understand.
(allowing the use of stickers for FMC now seems really odd although I agree that it should be allowed)

[Highly controversial stuff coming below]
Why not make it as simple as this (and yes, that would allow for transparent cubes, it would put a burden on the judge/delegate to make judgement calls and it could create discussions)
1) All puzzle brands, sizes, modifications, stickers, logos, tiles are allowed as long as they don't change the possible and non-possible moves of the original puzzle.
2a) It is allowed to have anomalies on the puzzle as long as those anomalies are not used by the competitor to get an unfair advantage
2b) Determination of such anomaly-abuse will be done by the judge and/or delegate.
2c) Penalty: all results from the competitor for that competition become DNF and an official investigation might be started leading to more severe penalties.
2d) It is the responsibility of the competitor to bring a legal cube and if he has doubts about the anomalies on his puzzle he should resolve these before handing in his puzzle for scrambling.

The main point of the above is to allow everyone to use the puzzle they want to use as long as it is fair. I realise it will cause some conflicts so to avoid most abuse I suggest high penalties. This should scare of the cheaters while it allows for everyone to cube without worrying about theoretical problems
[ducks]

 

[Lucas Garron]

Why not make it as simple as this (and yes, that would allow for transparent cubes, it would put a burden on the judge/delegate to make judgement calls and it could create discussions)
1) All puzzle brands, sizes, modifications, stickers, logos, tiles are allowed as long as they don't change the possible and non-possible moves of the original puzzle.
2a) It is allowed to have anomalies on the puzzle as long as those anomalies are not used by the competitor to get an unfair advantage
2b) Determination of such anomaly-abuse will be done by the judge and/or delegate.
2c) Penalty: all results from the competitor for that competition become DNF and an official investigation might be started leading to more severe penalties.
2d) It is the responsibility of the competitor to bring a legal cube and if he has doubts about the anomalies on his puzzle he should resolve these before handing in his puzzle for scrambling.

If you'd like to "propose" this, could you provide specific changes to the Regulations with these applied? (e.g. download the sources, make changes in a text editor, email them to me)

 

[Jaysammey777]

@AvGalen

The only problem with this is the inconsistency from competition to competition. WCA is currently trying to make a uniform law to make the law the same for everyone. They achieved this, but in such a way that most people disagree with some of the regulations added. If an alternative is suggested it would still need to reach the original goal: which is to have non controversial regulations.

 

[tim]

2a) It is allowed to have anomalies on the puzzle as long as those anomalies are not used by the competitor to get an unfair advantage

How would you enforce such a rule? You can't guess the intentions of the competitor. Or did you mean "as long as those anomalies can not be used ..."?

 

[AvGalen]

If you'd like to "propose" this, could you provide specific changes to the Regulations with these applied? (e.g. download the sources, make changes in a text editor, email them to me)

I will spend time for that tomorrow night if you can point me to a "how-to" for using github. I am using Visual Studio 2013 for coding and it now has git support as well. I saw it mentioned over and over in the regulations thread but I need a small starter.

I am personally not very much interested in making an airtight rulebook. Of course consistency is great but I have been to enough competitions to know that lots of small and sometimes bigger things happen that are in the spirit of the WCA but against the rules. I would personally never give a penalty to a kid that picks up the cube after his first 2 minute solve just before I write down the time. That kid is not interested that it would be more correct and fair to give him a penalty because the same would happen to a sub 10 solver on the other side of the world during his 100th competition.
I think the current rules are much too detailed and try to cover every possible thing that can go wrong individually. Even very experienced people don't know every rule anymore. I would like to attempt a restoration of "use common sense as much as possible". I think it is better to have 1 umbrella-rule than 20 tissue-rules. Because of that I have applied to become a WRC member.

How would you enforce such a rule? You can't guess the intentions of the competitor. Or did you mean "as long as those anomalies can not be used ..."?

No, I really meant to allow anomalies that COULD be abused, as long as they aren't! I also mentioned how enforcement would be done. The judge and delegate can make such judgement calls. I also mentioned that because of the high penalty and general goodwill of competitors there will not be many problems. Please don't stop reading after 2a, the rest of the rules are necessary for balancing the freedom for the competitor with the fairness that is needed for a competition

 

[Lucas Garron]

I will spend time for that tomorrow night if you can point me to a "how-to" for using github. I am using Visual Studio 2013 for coding and it now has git support as well. I saw it mentioned over and over in the regulations thread but I need a small starter.

GitHub has started making it easier to do this on the site itself, but I don't know of a good tutorial that focuses on simple use. I'll be busy, but you could ask Tim (knows a lot) or Sarah (has been working well with a basic flow).

I would personally never give a penalty to a kid that picks up the cube after his first 2 minute solve just before I write down the time. That kid is not interested that it would be more correct and fair to give him a penalty because the same would happen to a sub 10 solver on the other side of the world during his 100th competition.

I like to think that we trust Delegates to make such decisions.
(I know you're not concerned about that specific example, but in the case of picking up the cube, there is a +2 instead of DNF at the judge's discretion, and I don't think it's too mean if you're 2 minutes. Presumably you'd learn quickly.

II think the current rules are much too detailed and try to cover every possible thing that can go wrong individually. Even very experienced people don't know every rule anymore. I would like to attempt a restoration of "use common sense as much as possible". I think it is better to have 1 umbrella-rule than 20 tissue-rules.

That's a totally valid point of view. For one, Article A and related procedures have become rather overspecified.
And some things like "what puzzle is allowed" or "requirements for organizers" or "scrambler specifications" can be put somewhere else without really hurting things.

However, we'd need to be careful that the result would is not a lean version of the Regulations that require a lot of unwritten rules to work properly.
Because then we're in the current situation (or maybe 2 years back), but a new cuber can't inform him/herself without looking in a lot of places and asking questions.

Because of that I have applied to become a WRC member.

Great! As I've been telling some people, you can do just as much good without actually being on the WRC. But if you think it would be better to be on the WRC proper, you're welcome to apply. Whom did you contact?

 

[tim]

No, I really meant to allow anomalies that COULD be abused, as long as they aren't! I also mentioned how enforcement would be done. The judge and delegate can make such judgement calls. I also mentioned that because of the high penalty and general goodwill of competitors there will not be many problems. Please don't stop reading after 2a, the rest of the rules are necessary for balancing the freedom for the competitor with the fairness that is needed for a competition

I didn't stop reading. I was just wondering how you would distinguish someone using 5mm tiles in order to peak at the back color of the BR piece from someone using 5mm tiles without looking at the BR piece during his solve. I don't think you can distinguish that. If you want to have an authority to decide whether a cube is legal or not (2d sounds like that, but needs to be done before the solve, otherwise it's just too late), that's fine, but has the issues Jaysammey777 mentioned.

 

[tim]

GitHub has started making it easier to do this on the site itself, but I don't know of a good tutorial that focuses on simple use. I'll be busy, but you could ask Tim (knows a lot) or Sarah (has been working well with a basic flow).

The workflow using Github (without using git locally) would be:

1.) Create a Github account
2.) Fork https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents by clicking on "Fork"
3.) Go to your version of the repository and create a new branch with a decent name for what you're trying to do (e.g. "add-skewb") (https://github.com/blog/1377-create-and-delete-branches)
4.) Change to the new branch, go to wca-regulations.md and click on "Edit". You should now be able to edit the markdown file and enter a commit message once you're done.
5.) Create a pull request: https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request where you explain what you changed and why.

Using git locally gives you much more options, though. For example you could rewrite the history and fix bad commit messages.

 

[AvGalen]

(I know you're not concerned about that specific example, but in the case of picking up the cube, there is a +2 instead of DNF at the judge's discretion, and I don't think it's too mean if you're 2 minutes. Presumably you'd learn quickly.
Great! As I've been telling some people, you can do just as much good without actually being on the WRC. But if you think it would be better to be on the WRC proper, you're welcome to apply. Whom did you contact?

I wouldn't have a big problem to give someone a +2 for starting/stopping wrongly, but giving that kid a DNF for picking up the cube too quickly AFTER the solve....I just wouldn't do that.
I contacted the board by email, asking them how I could get the mean-of-3 FMC annuled. They told me to apply for a board or WRC membership. So I applied for the WCR.

I didn't stop reading. I was just wondering how you would distinguish someone using 5mm tiles in order to peak at the back color of the BR piece from someone using 5mm tiles without looking at the BR piece during his solve. I don't think you can distinguish that. If you want to have an authority to decide whether a cube is legal or not (2d sounds like that, but needs to be done before the solve, otherwise it's just too late), that's fine, but has the issues Jaysammey777 mentioned.

Yes, there will need to be a judgement and sometimes that might be difficult and different from judge to judge. I think that is acceptable. If you make the risk of getting caught high enough and the penalty high enough you can prevent almost every problem already because there is so little to gain from cheating.

The workflow using Github (without git) would be:

1.) Create a Github account
2.) Fork https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents by clicking on "Fork"
3.) Go to your version of the repository and create a new branch with a decent name for what you're trying to do (e.g. "add-skewb") (https://github.com/blog/1377-create-and-delete-branches)
4.) Change to the new branch, go to wca-regulations.md and click on "Edit". You should now be able to edit the markdown file and enter a commit message once you're done.
5.) Create a pull request: https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request where you explain what you changed and why.

Thanks. This is very similar to what I expected. I setup an account and had a look around. However I think it is time to get horizontal now and start going tomorrow night

 

[ThomasJE]

[Highly controversial stuff coming below]
Why not make it as simple as this (and yes, that would allow for transparent cubes, it would put a burden on the judge/delegate to make judgement calls and it could create discussions)
1) All puzzle brands, sizes, modifications, stickers, logos, tiles are allowed as long as they don't change the possible and non-possible moves of the original puzzle.
2a) It is allowed to have anomalies on the puzzle as long as those anomalies are not used by the competitor to get an unfair advantage
2b) Determination of such anomaly-abuse will be done by the judge and/or delegate.
2c) Penalty: all results from the competitor for that competition become DNF and an official investigation might be started leading to more severe penalties.
2d) It is the responsibility of the competitor to bring a legal cube and if he has doubts about the anomalies on his puzzle he should resolve these before handing in his puzzle for scrambling.

The main point of the above is to allow everyone to use the puzzle they want to use as long as it is fair. I realise it will cause some conflicts so to avoid most abuse I suggest high penalties. This should scare of the cheaters while it allows for everyone to cube without worrying about theoretical problems
[ducks]

Could I recommend changing 2a to:

2a) It is allowed to have anomalies on the puzzle as long as those anomalies can not and does not give the competitor an unfair advantage. This judgement should be made by the WCA delegate.

This would outlaw transparent cubes and pillowed cubes (with the exception of 7x7 of course should we keep it).

 

[Lucas Garron]

2a) It is allowed to have anomalies on the puzzle as long as those anomalies can not and does not give the competitor an unfair advantage. This judgement should be made by the WCA delegate.

Then we're worse off than the current situation.
Fact is, a lot of things *can* give someone an unfair advantage (which doesn't necessarily mean making them faster). According to this, a Delegate is justified in enforcing any parts of the original proposal in this thread, so I'm not sure we'd end up with a fair result.

 

[Erik]

I didn't stop reading. I was just wondering how you would distinguish someone using 5mm tiles in order to peak at the back color of the BR piece from someone using 5mm tiles without looking at the BR piece during his solve. I don't think you can distinguish that. If you want to have an authority to decide whether a cube is legal or not (2d sounds like that, but needs to be done before the solve, otherwise it's just too late), that's fine, but has the issues Jaysammey777 mentioned.

I'm really wondering if any of the WCA delegates or WRC members actually truly believe you can use tiles/transparent cubes/coloured plastic/rounded cubes to 'cheat' and use the characteristics of these cubes to actually be faster than on a 'normal' cube (the answer can be different per cube). When the answer is yes, can you please point me to any evidence that would support this?

In the specific case of tiles: can anyone give me a reason that 1.5+mm would be thick enough for cheating and 1 mm isn't?