## Draft version WCA regulations 2007

Ron (2007-01-12 10:50:00 +0000)
Hi fellow cube fans, Please review the [url=http://www.speedcubing.com/events/regulations2007.html:5yh9qpbt]draft version[/url:5yh9qpbt] of the WCA regulations 2007, with the following [url=http://www.speedcubing.com/events/regulations_history.html:5yh9qpbt]changes[/url:5yh9qpbt]. Post your feedback in this thread. Have fun, Ron
CraigBouchard (2007-01-12 12:26:34 +0000)
I still don't like the look of the "Ending the Solve" A6c) The timer must be stopped using both hands, with both hands flat and palms down. Penalty: 2 seconds (maximum of 1 time penalty for Ending the Solve). My concern is that even though you have article A6d A6d) The competitor must fully release the puzzle before stopping the timer. Penalty: 2 seconds (maximum of 1 time penalty for Ending the Solve). This is really hard to judge. If you write into A6c that the timer must be stopped with the fingers, then there is no way the competitor can still be touching the puzzle (unless he turns his hands around so his palms are touching it). For me to tell if someone is still touching the puzzle for 0.5 seconds (or maybe less) after they stop the timer is really hard. I have never been a judge, but just from watching some people I find this difficult... Thank you, Craig Bouchard
gillesvdp (2007-01-12 13:00:39 +0000)
Hi, About Multiple-Blindfolded : Could it be possible to clarify how the score is calculated ? If you solve 5 cubes out of 6 : do you receive 5 or DNF ? In case of tie : 2 competitors finish first with 5 cubes for example, should the total time be a way of deciding who won (for example, Competitor A solves 5 cubes in 1 hour and competitor B solves 5 cubes in 40 minutes ==> Competitor B wins) or do they both win ? I just taught that this part of the regulation should be clarified. Thanks, Gilles
Ron (2007-01-12 14:19:57 +0000)
@Craig: [quote:1joc72gu]If you write into A6c that the timer must be stopped with the fingers, then there is no way the competitor can still be touching the puzzle.[/quote:1joc72gu] Do you remember the video of the former WR Magic? Fingers were touching the sensors, fingers were also touching the Magic, experienced judge still did not notice it. We had this discussion before. The problem is that: 1) it is very hard to judge whether a competitor touches the pad with fingers 2) in those cases it is harsh to give a penalty, even though the rest of the solve was correct. Stopping with flat hands without touching the puzzle should be enough. @GillesvdP: This is the current text: [quote:1joc72gu]9f10) For the 3x3x3 Cube: Multiple Blindfolded event the order in the results is based on: Highest in the ranking are the competitors who solved all puzzles, among these competitors a larger number means better. For equal results the lower total time means better. Next in the ranking are the competitors who solved at least one of the puzzles, among these competitors a larger number of solved puzzles means better, and after this a lower number of attempted puzzles means better. For equal results the lower total time means better. Next in the ranking are the competitors who did not solve at least one puzzle, these competitors all finish at the worst position.[/quote:1joc72gu] What should be changed? I think it answers all your questions. Thanks for the feedback. Ron
CraigBouchard (2007-01-12 14:45:41 +0000)
Which former WR are you talking about? Quinn's Or Stefan's or Bob's? (1.14, 1.23, and 1.28 respectively) If you mean Quinn's then I remember you almost disqualifying the solve at World's in 2005. I just think that if the puzzle must be on the table, and the fingers must be the ones touching the pads, the chance that the puzzle is still being touched is very little. And if the puzzle (in the case you gave magic) is still being touched, that means it is probably resting on the sensors, and thus it is more than 2 tiles high... Craig Bouchard
Ron (2007-01-12 14:57:42 +0000)
Here is the video: [url=http://www.strangepuzzle.com/videos/magic%20StefanPochmann%201.36.wmv:2bt0zjbe]former WR magic[/url:2bt0zjbe]
gillesvdp (2007-01-12 17:02:01 +0000)
[quote="Ron":2nck78dt]@GillesvdP: This is the current text: [quote:2nck78dt]9f10) For the 3x3x3 Cube: Multiple Blindfolded event the order in the results is based on: Highest in the ranking are the competitors who solved all puzzles, among these competitors a larger number means better. For equal results the lower total time means better. Next in the ranking are the competitors who solved at least one of the puzzles, among these competitors a larger number of solved puzzles means better, and after this a lower number of attempted puzzles means better. For equal results the lower total time means better. Next in the ranking are the competitors who did not solve at least one puzzle, these competitors all finish at the worst position.[/quote:2nck78dt] What should be changed? I think it answers all your questions.[/quote:2nck78dt] Indeed. The problem I see now is that if you solve 2 cubes out of 2, you will be ranked above someone who solved 5 cubes out of 6. And I don't think this is fair. If should be, according to me of course, 1. Rank regarding the number of solved cube 2. Rank regarding the number of attempted cubes (the lower the better) 3. Rank regarding the time (the lower the better) What do you think ? Gilles
StefanPochmann (2007-01-12 17:44:45 +0000)
A general suggestion: move the WCA rules to the WCA website. Also, maybe a stripped-down version containing only the information the competitors need to know (i.e. without all the organizational stuff) would encourage more competitors to actually read the rules?
Ron (2007-01-12 22:24:22 +0000)
@Gilles: [quote:22q7cx9f]The problem I see now is that if you solve 2 cubes out of 2, you will be ranked above someone who solved 5 cubes out of 6. And I don't think this is fair. [/quote:22q7cx9f] I will give you another example: You solve 2 out of 2. I "memorise" 100 cubes, "memorise" in the sense that I pick out the 4 easiest ones, and solve 3 of them. You have 2/2, I have 3/100. Now who is the best? We have discussed this before. @Stefan: Yes, WCA rules will go to WCA site. We are still working on the new site. Yes, two stripped versions (1 for judges, 1 for competitors) would be a good idea. GillesVdp already made a draft version for judges. We still need to work on it a bit. Gilles, any chance for you to do it? Thanks for your feedback.
CraigBouchard (2007-01-12 23:09:19 +0000)
In regards to the WR video, will that be different now because we use generation 2 mats and not Gen 1s anymore? Craig
BryanLogan (2007-01-13 04:51:11 +0000)
1c6 - Is there potential for a conflict of interest here? 1e - "one or more" Does this include the main judge? 1e2 1f2 - Perhaps a "should" would be more appropriate. Can a single person be a main judge, scrambler, and score taker with no other people? 1g - What does the score taker really do? Should "calculating averages" be here? 1i - When? At the beginning of the competition? When the competition is announced? 3c - Any marketed or previously marketed? So once the puzzle was sold, it would always be considered legal (think Square-1) 4d - Remove the "or blue" and just have "or darkest face". Since a standard cube does have green and blue, this would kind of disambiguate. 4e1 - Maybe protocol on scrambling security should be included. Either generate on the fly or sealed envelopes for each round kept with the judges. 5b2 - "courtesy" seems to be the wrong word. 9f5 - how is the mean of a DNF calculated? 9p - This seems kind of low. If I have 100 competiors, 99 could advance to round 2? Or maybe just 2 could advance to round 2. What about "For each successive round at most half the competitors may proceed and at minimum one forth must proceed?" 11 - Should incidents be reported to the WCA board as part of the report? A2e - The judge must have a huge hand to cover it completely with their hand. Also, we're requiring a Stackmat, not just the timer, right? A3b - The resets should occur before inspection, so a technical problem would arise before the inspection, not during. A4d - Judge should also start the stopwatch A7b - The judge signs each time? C1d - Should the "may" be a "must"?
Ron (2007-01-13 08:47:52 +0000)
Ron (2007-01-13 08:51:11 +0000)
@Craig: [quote:2uc21eab]In regards to the WR video, will that be different now because we use generation 2 mats and not Gen 1s anymore?[/quote:2uc21eab] No. With long fingers you can still touch the puzzle.
CraigBouchard (2007-01-13 13:35:13 +0000)
Ok, fair enough. Also, one question about stackmats. Are we standardizing that only Generation 2s are being used in competitions? Or are Generation 1s still allowed?
CraigBouchard (2007-01-13 13:38:35 +0000)
I just thought that I should let you know the reason I am pushing this so much. I have seen videos of magic (more than a few) where the person is still touching the puzle as they stop the timer. Then I go and ask someone else to watch the video, and they say they did not see that, so this goes to show, and inexperienced judge will let it slide every time, making an almost impossible to beat WR, unless you "cheat" (only word I could think to use here) Craig
BryanLogan (2007-01-13 13:44:08 +0000)
Ron, a few clarifications A3b - I read this wrong....A3a confused the order of events for me. The phrase "courtesy of judge" didn't have to be eliminated. I probably would have changed it to "judge's discretion". Courtesy just has a "generous" connotation to it. The reason for changing the judge/scrambler to "may" would be to prevent someone from trying to disqualify another competitor. If for some reason I know that John can't scramble, I could try to point out that he's not following the regulations because he isn't prepared to scramble. If a judge had to follow the rules to the T, then he would be forced to disqualify that person. Not that any reasonable judge would do so. A6b - I stopped my timer last night, and my palms aren't down flat when I do it. They're at quite a high angle because of the height of the desk I was at. My fingertips were still stopping the timer. I would suggest just saying that the puzzle should not be manipulated after the solve. How I put my hands down has no bearing on my cube solving skills. If you try to regulate it, you'll always find someone who will try getting around it. You may want to consider adding a rule about violating the spirit of the law.
Ron (2007-01-13 16:47:57 +0000)
@Craig: [quote:10eug99c]Are we standardizing that only Generation 2s are being used in competitions?[/quote:10eug99c] No, not now. In some countries they still have the Gen 1 timers. @BryanLogan: [quote:10eug99c]I would suggest just saying that the puzzle should not be manipulated after the solve. How I put my hands down has no bearing on my cube solving skills.[/quote:10eug99c] Indeed the most important part is that the competitor is not touching the puzzle when the timer is stopped. Just imagine that you could stop with your elbows or with your hands rotated with thumbs up. In that case it would be almost impossible to judge. That is why we need to make it easier to judge. We think that stopping with fingers is a bit too strict. We think that stopping with flat hands is a good middle. An important consideration is that the regulations are there to be followed. In the past I first gave a warning to competitors who were not touching the sensors with their fingers. But in fact they were doing solves that were against the regulations. Now we have less strict guidelines that we apply strictly.
magicmania (2007-01-15 21:16:14 +0000)
There aren't any clarifications if it's possible to use hands when a POP occurs in a solving with feet event. The competitors are allowed to use their hands only when fixing POPs, right?
Ron (2007-01-15 21:57:31 +0000)
Hi Ilkyoo, [quote:br1y8zs1]D1b) During the inspection and solve the competitor must only use his feet (with or without socks) and the surface.[/quote:br1y8zs1] This also goes in case of a puzzle defect. So you have to fix a pop with your feet only. Thanks and have fun, Ron
StefanPochmann (2007-01-19 20:54:44 +0000)
Another general one: There's a lot of "must" and "must not" but it's not specified what happens to violations. Penalty? Disqualification? Scolding? For example, what if someone does touch the cube with both hands during inspection (or solve) in the one-handed event?
gillesvdp (2007-01-20 08:36:01 +0000)
[quote="Ron":3j25deil]@Gilles: [quote:3j25deil]The problem I see now is that if you solve 2 cubes out of 2, you will be ranked above someone who solved 5 cubes out of 6. And I don't think this is fair. [/quote:3j25deil] I will give you another example: You solve 2 out of 2. I "memorise" 100 cubes, "memorise" in the sense that I pick out the 4 easiest ones, and solve 3 of them. You have 2/2, I have 3/100. Now who is the best? We have discussed this before.[/quote:3j25deil] Ok now I see one advantage of your system : It forces people to keep the number of cubes they want at a low level, thus preventing such cases (100 cubes) and makes competitions easier to organize. This is good anough for me.
Ron (2007-01-20 09:26:44 +0000)
@Stefan: [quote:3nmd4htz]Another general one: There's a lot of "must" and "must not" but it's not specified what happens to violations. Penalty? Disqualification? Scolding? For example, what if someone does touch the cube with both hands during inspection (or solve) in the one-handed event?[/quote:3nmd4htz] The general idea is the following: - violated 'must' or 'must not' that apply to the organisation of the competition could lead to the competition or an event not being official anymore. Example: article 4b) [quote:3nmd4htz] Puzzles must be scrambled using a computer-generated random scrambling algorithm, that must be kept secret for all but the scramblers.[/quote:3nmd4htz] - if the 'must' or 'must not' should lead to a clear decision, then the penalty is given. This means that main judge cannot decide differently. Example: article A3e) [quote:3nmd4htz]The competitor must have put down puzzle before 16 seconds. Penalty: 2 seconds. [/quote:3nmd4htz] - if the 'must' or 'must not' could be disputable or could not lead to a real advantage for the competitor, then the main judge should decide on the 'incident'. See article 11b) Example: article A7e) [quote:3nmd4htz]If the result is DNF, then judge calls "NO FINISH". The competitor must sign the score sheet. [/quote:3nmd4htz] Suppose a judge forgets to call "NO FINISH". In that case it would be an incident. But would the competitor, by definition, get an extra attempt? Any text suggestions to improve the current text? Have fun, Ron
Ron (2007-01-20 12:43:30 +0000)
@Stefan: I uploaded a new version 2007 Draft 2c where I added some penalties where undoubtedly penalties should be given. 1e2) 1f2) A3c1) A5a) A5b) B3a) B3b) B4c) B5c) C1b) this is the one-handed one C1c) C1d) C1e) D1b) same for feet solving D1c) E2e)
StefanPochmann (2007-01-20 15:23:48 +0000)
[quote="Ron":4t7pz1to]C1b) this is the one-handed one C1c)[/quote:4t7pz1to] C1b is for the solve, C1a is for the inspection and states a 'must' but no penalty is specified. Dan Dzoan was extremely close to violating C1a in his world record, stopped his second hand only a few centimeters away from the cube after picking it up for inspection. One could argue that C1c applies to inspection as well, but one could also argue that it doesn't or at least is unclear.
Ron (2007-01-20 15:59:34 +0000)
@Stefan I added: 5b1) 5b4) B2a) C1a)
Ron (2007-01-20 16:03:06 +0000)
@Stefan: [quote:1dxf0zpc]Dan Dzoan was extremely close to violating C1a in his world record, stopped his second hand only a few centimeters away from the cube after picking it up for inspection.[/quote:1dxf0zpc] That is exactly my problem. Suppose he would have touched it a tenth of a second. Would you consider his solve illegal? I think we have to be strict. So if the regulations say: don't touch with two hands during inspection, then that would have been a violation and therefore a DNF. My question would be: knowing this, should we allow inspection with two hands?
StefanPochmann (2007-01-21 03:38:35 +0000)
[quote="Ron":2m8qg0wg]My question would be: knowing this, should we allow inspection with two hands?[/quote:2m8qg0wg] I'm still against it, for the same old reason. If you say "I can do it onehanded" then you should just use one hand, period.
BryanLogan (2007-01-21 04:11:34 +0000)
When the pre-qualifying occurs over a large period of time, should scrambles "expire"? So someone can find the first scramble on Friday night by observation and work at it and have it be the scramble for Saturday morning. The "must"/"must not" that apply to the officials should probably be stated: "A penalty decided by the WCA, which may include the event losing offical WCA status." That gives the board flexibility to decide on any range of penalty. For example, if it turns out one judge was helping a competitor, you wouldn't want to declare the whole tournament void. However, if the officials made many errors, you would.
qqwref (2007-01-21 06:52:24 +0000)
I have found some possible ambiguities that may require correction: 1f: Scramblers are not allowed to compete in the event they scramble for, correct? 3a: If competitors must use their own puzzles, how can they borrow someone else's puzzle? 3c: Do logos violate the 1-colour-per-face rule? 3e: Does white count as "colored"? Do Magic, Snake, Clock require colored stickers or tiles, or just polyhedral twisty puzzles? 3f: If the generally available thickness of tiles on a puzzle decreases (for example, if Mefferts decides to sell Megaminxes with thinner tiles), does that make puzzles with the thicker tiles invalid? 4e: What does "the same scrambles per round" mean? 4d: Is this a requirement or a suggestion? 7a: Perhaps "on special stages or normal floors" should be removed, because it seems like the competition must be on one of those two. 7f: It would be better to say "The timer must be placed directly (no objects underneath it) on a table, desk or console that suits solving while standing, except in Solving With Feet events, in which the timer must be placed directly on the floor." 9a: This implies that puzzles such as the Rubik's UFO, Rubik's World, Rubik's Domino, Rubik's Snake/Twist, Rubik's Tangle, Rainbow Cube, Alexander Star, and various puzzle modifications can be in official WCA competitions and must be governed by WCA rules, when in fact they are not allowed to be official events. What, exactly, do you mean by this rule in relation to unofficial puzzles? 9j: How does this apply to puzzles with multiple rounds, or puzzles where an entire round cannot be completed in one day due to the large number of applicants (say 3x3x3 cube at World's)? 9l: How do you define "time frame"? Isn't this rule the same as rule 9j)? 9q: By "final" you mean "last round", and by "semifinal" you mean "second-to-last round", correct? Does a B final count as a round? What are the rules for when a B final must be held? 10e and 10f: If a slice is misaligned by a full quarter turn, or almost a quarter turn, is this a 2-second penalty or a disqualification? 11c: I don't think this needs to be stated. 11e: The end should probably be "that replaces the incident with an attempt". 11f: Why not? I can't see any reason to specifically disallow the use of video or photographic evidence. If they do in fact use such evidence, what would be the result? A1a: Why is the maximum 10 minutes? It would make sense for the contest organizers to be able to choose a maximum time. For larger cubes, if they are ever used, this constraint would be problematic. A2a: Where is this area designated? A2c: It would be better to say, "between the time when the puzzle is scrambled and the start of the competitor's inspection phase". A3e and A3e1: 16 and 18 seconds after what? I know that it is the start of inspection, but this should be clarified. A4b1, A4b2, and A4b3: If there is a maximum of one time penalty for section A4, this should be listed in one place, not a few places. A5b: The competitor is allowed to have assistance from the Stackmat during Magic-type solves, correct? A7d: When does the judge call "penalty"? What does the judge call if there are multiple 2-second penalties? A7e: Why "no finish"? This does not make sense if the competitor is disqualified for other reasons (like A6f). B3b: What is the exact meaning of "make notes"? You can take a note on paper, but you can also make a mental note of a specific technique you will do during the solve. It would be better to say that the competitor cannot write anything down during the solve. B4a: Can the competitor use his own blindfold? Is the competitor allowed to have the blindfold on (but not over the eyes) before the solving phase? B4d and B5c: These rules should probably be combined in some way. D1a: Why are there two "or"s? It would be grammatically better to use a list. B, C, D, F, G, H: The rules that are overrided or changed should be listed, so that it is not necessary for a judge to interpret the regulations more than necessary. 8e and possibly other places: It would be best to never use abbreviations, even relatively common abbreviations, because they can be misinterpreted. 3c, 3f, 3l, 4d, 10e: What, exactly, is a "cube puzzle"? Is 3x3x3 one-handed a cube puzzle? Are blindfold events cube puzzles? Is the Square-1 a cube puzzle? Also, in general, I don't see why the titles of the regulations are made with numbers and letters. It may be clearer to use only numbers (so instead of regulation B4d you might have regulation 13.4.4) for consistency. Personally, I'd like to make the rules as clear and logical as possible, while still keeping the spirit of the law intact. Thank you for considering my changes.
Ron (2007-01-21 11:11:06 +0000)
Ron (2007-01-21 11:27:07 +0000)
@Bryan Logan: [quote:2xkle44e]When the pre-qualifying occurs over a large period of time, should scrambles "expire"? So someone can find the first scramble on Friday night by observation and work at it and have it be the scramble for Saturday morning.[/quote:2xkle44e] See Art 4e1) for the answer to your question. Yes, scrambles can 'expire'. Your example is not valid though: rounds should be held in the same time frame. See Art. 9l) [quote:2xkle44e]The "must"/"must not" that apply to the officials should probably be stated: "A penalty decided by the WCA, which may include the event losing offical WCA status." That gives the board flexibility to decide on any range of penalty. For example, if it turns out one judge was helping a competitor, you wouldn't want to declare the whole tournament void. However, if the officials made many errors, you would.[/quote:2xkle44e] I added 8f): If the WCA regulations are not followed correctly during a competition, then the WCA board may declare the competition or specific events unofficial. Thanks for the feedback, Ron
BryanLogan (2007-01-21 12:24:06 +0000)
OK, so does 4e1 mean that the scrambles can be selected at random on an individual basis? I think 8f should be more open-ended, so that the board has complete flexibility. I'm trying to think of scenarios, but you may want to have the first round not be counted as official or accept solves from a group of competitors depending on the incident that happened. If judges/scramblers are recruited from the pool of competitors (1e2, 1f2), it's hard to 100% guarantee integrity. Hypothetical situation: Competitor A is chosen as a scrambler. Competitor B breaks Competitor A's record in an event, or perhaps a friend of A has the record. Since A is a scrambler, they could not follow the rules and have that event dismissed, thereby saving the old record, even though no rules where broken when B broke the record. I don't think that would ever happen, I'm just trying to think of scenario where the board would like to make their own decision and not have to have 3 choices (nothing, disqualify event, disqualify competition).
Ron (2007-01-21 12:51:30 +0000)
@Bryan Logan: [quote:rdykdaap]I think 8f should be more open-ended[/quote:rdykdaap] I agree. I changed it to: "the competition, specific events or specific solves". [quote:rdykdaap]OK, so does 4e1 mean that the scrambles can be selected at random on an individual basis?[/quote:rdykdaap] What I normally do is have different sheets with scrambles ready, then on a random moment I swap sheets. But for finals the scrambles must be the same. Thanks again for the feedback. Ron
qqwref (2007-01-21 20:41:33 +0000)
Ron (2007-01-21 22:04:52 +0000)
Problem with 1h. I have on several occasions scrambled, judged and competed in one round of an event. Standard procedure at Caltech tournaments is for us to run through a few of the Tech people first so they can then help out judging and scrambling. I don't see anything wrong with this, as long as the judge/scrambler has finished competing before they do anything else. The rule should say something like "If an official is also competing in an event, they must complete all their solves for the round before acting in any other role." -Chris Krueger
magicmania (2007-01-22 05:25:27 +0000)
Hello - In the last competition in Korea, two disabled people with hearing problems participated in the competition. For those people, I think saying 'OK' to them is not a valid regulation such as in A4c and A4d. There should be additional regulations for special cases. Also, I suggest the "OK" should differ in each situation. Why write the "OK" in stone? I would rather rewrite is as 'a confirmation in a language expression'. Shouldn’t it be allowed to use the country's language instead of saying "OK" when the country is not an English using country? These aspects should be improved in all cases in order to make every individual feel comfortable in when participating in an event.
Ron (2007-01-22 19:32:21 +0000)
@Chris Krueger: [quote:302s7gzz]Problem with 1h. I have on several occasions scrambled, judged and competed in one round of an event. Standard procedure at Caltech tournaments is for us to run through a few of the Tech people first so they can then help out judging and scrambling. I don't see anything wrong with this, as long as the judge/scrambler has finished competing before they do anything else.[/quote:302s7gzz] Yes, that is the way we also do this in European competitions. It is still possible this way. It is even easier than before, because now you do not need to go first, you could also go last. That is described in 1h1 and 1h2. So the only change is that the competitors are divided in groups (of equal or unequal size), where each group could judge/scramble for the other. In your case you would be in the first group. But some other people could be in the second. We made it easier after a request by the Japanese Cube Association. They also have very big competitions, that they have to do in one day.
Ron (2007-01-22 19:42:59 +0000)
@Choi, Ilkyoo [quote:2dcktc3u]In the last competition in Korea, two disabled people with hearing problems participated in the competition. For those people, I think saying 'OK' to them is not a valid regulation such as in A4c and A4d. There should be additional regulations for special cases.[/quote:2dcktc3u] Yes indeed. We have to make sure that disable people can compete. In USA we had one competitor who could only use one hand. For him it was impossible to start and stop the Stackmat timer. I added the following regulations in the January 22 version: [quote:2dcktc3u]Art. 2s) For competitors with hearing disabilities, judges may replace the vocal instructions with hand signals. Art. 2t) For competitors with physical disabilities, judges may give help with starting and stopping the timer.[/quote:2dcktc3u] Is that OK?
gillesvdp (2007-01-23 21:48:44 +0000)
About Multiple Blindfolded : I agree with the time limits per cube that are imposed. But what about adding another time constraint : Could there be a possibility for an organizer of a competition to strictly limit the total time ? I ask this because the problem with these regulations, the total time it will take is not predictable. Therefore it will discourage future organizers to hold this event that has more and more success (even though it is still marginal in terms of number of competitors). I know I have only one argument but if anyone has other ideas about this... Gilles
Ron (2007-01-23 22:15:03 +0000)
Hi Gilles, [quote:33qhm0lr]Could there be a possibility for an organizer of a competition to strictly limit the total time ?[/quote:33qhm0lr] The competition organiser decides how much time will be available in the time schedule. So a time slot could be 90 minutes. Have fun, Ron
BryanLogan (2007-01-24 03:49:38 +0000)
[quote="Ron":2y5oexib]@Chris Krueger: [quote:2y5oexib]Problem with 1h. I have on several occasions scrambled, judged and competed in one round of an event. Standard procedure at Caltech tournaments is for us to run through a few of the Tech people first so they can then help out judging and scrambling. I don't see anything wrong with this, as long as the judge/scrambler has finished competing before they do anything else.[/quote:2y5oexib] Yes, that is the way we also do this in European competitions. It is still possible this way. It is even easier than before, because now you do not need to go first, you could also go last. That is described in 1h1 and 1h2. So the only change is that the competitors are divided in groups (of equal or unequal size), where each group could judge/scramble for the other. In your case you would be in the first group. But some other people could be in the second. [/quote:2y5oexib] But according to 4e2, those groups must have different scrambles. So the way they've been doing it would be illegal. I could still see why they would want to follow they procedure though. Imagine if you had 10 Caltech volunteers. You could either divide them up into 2 groups of 5 volunteers and half of them end up just be spectators most of the time, or you could allow them to do what they have been doing, and have 10 volunteers running the round. However, you probably wouldn't want to give the judges one set of scambles and regular competitors another set so someone doesn't claim they got an easy scramble.
Ron (2007-01-24 20:14:21 +0000)
@BryanLogan: [quote:jryos8xz]Imagine if you had 10 Caltech volunteers. You could either divide them up into 2 groups of 5 volunteers and half of them end up just be spectators most of the time, or you could allow them to do what they have been doing, and have 10 volunteers running the round.[/quote:jryos8xz] Please explain more about what you exactly mean. Are these 10 volunteers competing? If they are NOT competiting, then what is the problem? In that case you have enough judges, so you do not need to make two groups. If they ARE competing, then who are going to judge them? You would need other judges/scramblers for that. In the new situation you could find any competitor that would be able to judge them. The only thing is that the 10 volunteers get a different scramble than all other competitors. The goal of the new version of this part of the regulations is that there can never be too few judges/scramblers. All competitors MUST be available for judging and scrambling, and by dividing the competitors into groups one group can judge the other. Please explain a bit more. Thanks for the feedback. Ron
An example: I quickly scramble and judge Tyson. Tyson and I scramble and judge Leyan and Dan Lo. Continue like this until all of the Caltech people are done with their solves. We all judge the rest of the competitors. I'm not competing, so there's no problem with me juding the first solves. The rest of the judges have all finished their solves for the round before they begin judging. I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this, as opposed to dividing the competition ("why do the Caltech people get different scrambles? that's not fair" complaints). It's also easier to coordinate than a split group. All it requires is one person who's not competing in a particular event, which we've always had. Is this reasonable? Chris Krueger
BryanLogan (2007-01-25 02:36:38 +0000)
[quote="cada":28swrlwg]An example: I quickly scramble and judge Tyson. Tyson and I scramble and judge Leyan and Dan Lo. Continue like this until all of the Caltech people are done with their solves. We all judge the rest of the competitors. I'm not competing, so there's no problem with me juding the first solves. The rest of the judges have all finished their solves for the round before they begin judging. I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this, as opposed to dividing the competition ("why do the Caltech people get different scrambles? that's not fair" complaints). It's also easier to coordinate than a split group. All it requires is one person who's not competing in a particular event, which we've always had. Is this reasonable? Chris Krueger[/quote:28swrlwg] Yup, this is kind of what I was referring to. With the new rules, you could be part of the 2nd group. But at the Caltech tournaments, I think it would be easier from an orginization standpoint to be able to rely on your own experienced judges rather than having to take random competitors and explain judging rules to them.
Ron (2007-01-26 12:14:44 +0000)
Hi guys, Biggest change is that the second group gets different scrambles. [quote:1qcc9wn6]I quickly scramble and judge Tyson. Tyson and I scramble and judge Leyan and Dan Lo. Continue like this until all of the Caltech people are done with their solves. We all judge the rest of the competitors. [/quote:1qcc9wn6] This is actually pretty inefficient. This will take at least 10 minutes to get things going. Suppose you take two or more judges from the competitors. And of course there are many who can do this without training. You and the other two/three judges could scramble/judge for the whole crew of 10. This will go much faster in the beginning. Anyone can scramble/judge any other, as long as they do not have the same scramble. What do you think? Have fun, Ron
BryanLogan (2007-01-27 02:00:31 +0000)
True, it may take 10 minutes to get things rolling, but if you have quite a large competition, that 10 minutes can probably be regained by experienced judges. So doing it this way might help in some situations, but not others. For example, if you had a large pool of experienced judges and you don't need all of them at one time. I would say just allow both options.
Tyson (2007-01-28 07:06:20 +0000)
Ron, It can be inefficient, but it can work fine if it's done correctly. The wording should be conditional. In other words, I don't think it's necessary to force the competition to run one way or another. Some times, our methods works well if you only have one scramble, but several judges to start off with.
Ron (2007-01-28 10:38:01 +0000)
Hi Tyson, Bryan, Chris, Thanks for helping to come to a conclusion. I uploaded a new draft version 2g dated January 28. Both options are now possible. [quote:3a2bsn7s]1h) Scramblers and judges for a round of an event may compete in the round. If scramblers and judges for a round are competing in the round then there are two options: 1h1) Option 1: The competiting judges/scramblers must compete before all other competitors, with the scrambling/judging done by non competiting judges/scramblers. 1h2) Option 2: Competitors are divided into two groups, with different scrambles per group. Non competing judges/scramblers may judge/scramble in both groups. Competiting judges/scramblers must not judge/scramble in their own group.[/quote:3a2bsn7s] Thanks for all feedback. The new WCA regulations will be final on February 1, 2007. More feedback is still welcome. Ron