WCA Regulations 2008 draft open for public feedback

Ron (2008-03-18 21:20:47 +0000)
Fellow cubers, The WCA regulations 2008 draft version are open for public feedback. Goal is to have a final version on April 9, so make sure you give your feedback soon. The draft version can be found here: http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/reg ... draft.html The history of changes can be found here: http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/reg ... y2008.html All changes are shown in orange in the draft file, although some removed text is not visible anymore. You can send your feedback on the WCA forum in the folder viewforum.php?f=4 Please make a new topic for each article. Be aware that sometimes it is not possible to make everyone happy, because people have different opinions. Thanks, Ron
BryanLogan (2008-03-18 23:41:50 +0000)
2e1a- I'm not sure having a link to Wikipedia is wise, since someone could change it at anytime. Perhaps countries recognized by the IOC? 8a7 - I'm not sure what this accomplishes. Are there still places out there with Gen 1? I know when I rented from SpeedStacks, they provided Gen1. 9e - I think delaying titles for 1 year would be good. Otherwise, the world champion will simply be decided by the first competition held. Also, could we vote for this year? :) 9f16 - "0 or lower"? 9s1 - Can time be chosen rather that position? 10d - What about non-important parts falling off? Like a single center cap. Z3 - Why is this based on certain competitions? I would think if you qualify in any WCA competition, you should be allowed. Or, at least any competition held within the last calendar year. Also in Z, would certain combinations be restricted? So if someone is doing 5x5x5 BLD, they can't do Pyraminx and Square-1 (held at the same time). But if they want to sign up for everything else, fine. Also, remove the word "large" from Article Z. Some of those things could be useful in small competitions, and the definition of "large" can very.
JChoi (2008-03-19 00:50:59 +0000)
In addition to what Bryan already has pointed out: 10f - On big cubes, it seems silly to DNF a u away from solved and give a U away from solved a two second penalty, as both can be solved with one turn (as in, one physical motion). 10g - Isn't it near impossible for only one tile to be elevated too high? From my experience, two tiles elevated too high is, by far, much more common than one. A3d2 - "...judge calls out 'GO'." - shouldn't this be "STOP" as in "stop inspection"? I don't understand why to A4b1 - "competitor must not have any physical contact with the puzzle before he starts the solve" - I think everyone here would understand what that means, but a less familiar person may point out that this is a contradiction in the regulations. Perhaps this could be change to "...with the puzzle between finishing inspection and starting the solve"? B2a - "The judge resets the timer and stopwatch." - why isn't there one of these for Article A (normal speedsolving)? :P Otherwise, I like the clarifications.
Pedro_S (2008-03-19 01:39:54 +0000)
B2d1) The competitor must remove the cover from the puzzle, after starting the timer.. will the cover be standardized? I think removing a scoresheet or a paper is easier than removing those "black boxes" 4f - can the optimal algorithm be used? it's not clearly stated... about notation will it be incorporated to 4x4 and 5x5 scramblers? right now it's not (r still means double layer turn) I'll post more after :)
Pedro_S (2008-03-19 01:41:21 +0000)
[quote="JChoi":2xc5ob8z] A3d2 - "...judge calls out 'GO'." - shouldn't this be "STOP" as in "stop inspection"? I don't understand why to [/quote:2xc5ob8z] agreed :D
BryanLogan (2008-03-19 03:09:36 +0000)
1h1 - Can't people judge/scramble after they've competed in their group? 4f - You may want to specify the minimum version of Cube Explorer. 9e - Wouldn't it be better to take the poll in November and December, so that the decision can be made before January, so that the event is available (or unavailable) for all events of that year. 9f16 - OK, I see my previous error..... Between 9r and 9s, they should do like they are doing for the US Open, where they will take a minimum of some competitors from the qualification round, or all competitors who meet the criteria. A4d2 - I think this might generate a lot of DNF's for new competitors who are not familiar with Stackmat timers. A7 - Instead of signing, can we just initial instead? It saves space on the scoresheet. B4a - "While donning the puzzles" What does this mean?
cmhardw (2008-03-19 03:57:19 +0000)
May we have a rigorous definition of why a bigger cube that is off by an inner slice quarter turn is off by 2 misalignments? I am referring to 10f) the cube in the last row on the left hand side. What is the point of reference to be used visually on the cube that considers this 2 misalignments? Or is this a notational issue, where in order to apply that position the moves necessary to be applied are (in the standard notation) are Uw' U thus resulting in 2 moves or 2 misalignments? I assume it relates to this line: 10e1) For each two parts (defined by a cut plane, for example two parallel adjacent slices of a cube) of the puzzle that are misaligned more than the limit described in Article 10f, these two parts are considered to need one move to be solved. I find this unclear. "For each two parts (defined by a cut plane, for example two parallel adjacent slices of a cube) of the puzzle that are misaligned..." Are we saying that the upper half of the inner u layer (the part adjacent to the U layer) is a separate part from the lower half of the inner u layer (the part adjacent to the inner d layer)? This would result in 2 parts being misaligned by 90 degrees, or 2 misalignments. It seems weird to me to consider each inner layer as composed of two half layers in order to achieve this. I am not bashing this rule, I am simply asking it to be clarified, as I don't fully understand how it is being applied. Chris
StefanPochmann (2008-03-19 09:56:23 +0000)
Here's a useful tool for comparing webpages: http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/diff/?old=h ... draft.html (btw, the link to the 2007 version doesn't work)
StefanPochmann (2008-03-19 10:05:52 +0000)
Using the tool I just saw that 1b2) was changed completely, yet it's not marked orange by you. The tool however apparently doesn't highlight additions, only changes, and sometimes gets confused (for example 1g3). So neither is perfect, but the combination can help to find and evaluate all changes, I think. I'd also suggest to create a subfolder for the feedback, this way it won't be mixed with other threads. If you do so, please move my article 9 thread into it.
Gilles (2008-03-19 14:13:54 +0000)
[quote="cmhardw":1mt3ja6m]May we have a rigorous definition of why a bigger cube that is off by an inner slice quarter turn is off by 2 misalignments? I am referring to 10f) the cube in the last row on the left hand side. What is the point of reference to be used visually on the cube that considers this 2 misalignments? Or is this a notational issue, where in order to apply that position the moves necessary to be applied are (in the standard notation) are Uw' U thus resulting in 2 moves or 2 misalignments? ...[/quote:1mt3ja6m] Hi Chris, There are 9 cut planes that make moves possible on a 4x4x4. I let you count how many for the Megaminx, Pyraminx and others. Let's consider horizontal planes. On the image you're refering to, there are 2 misalignments when you consider the cube around the plane between U and u slices, and between u and d. Just think "HTM". The rule is here to make decisions homogeneous and easy for all puzzles. And this way, it is fewest moves compliant. It is not slice friendly of course. But judging slices, even if they have some meaning in cube solving, will always be controversial an uneasy with big cubes, under some configurations of alignments.
cada (2008-03-19 14:27:07 +0000)
1g3 - Wording sounds a little unnatural. I'd suggest "only made [b:htm9umoy]with[/b:htm9umoy] consent…". 2e1a - Wikipedia I don't find reasonable. You previously mentioned this: [url:htm9umoy]http://cloford.com/resources/codes/index.htm[/url:htm9umoy] 4f - Procedure for using Cube Explorer to generate random scrambles is not defined. Also, it is not available to run on my computer. I would like to see a platform independent scramble generator. 7g - As some teachers would say, they certainly can, but may they? 9e2, 9e3 - This should be done at the end of the previous year, so puzzles can be introduced/eliminated for the entirety of the next year. 9f16 - I don't feel less than 100% success should be accepted. While Ryosuke's solves are very impressive, in the end he didn't accomplish what he told the organizers his goal was, solving 18 cubes. I see this the same as solving a 5x5 cube blindfolded. I don't (nor do I know of anyone who does) count a solve off by only one cycle of centers as success. The basic goal wasn't fulfilled. 10d - Regarding RFC 2119 and the word must, 10d and 5b5 are in conflict. 10f - This also applies to square1 when turned along the slice? 12a - Will the scramblers be updated to reflect this notation? 12c - Does this mean there will be no more scrabmles starting with a slice turn? 12d - U turns are undefined. 12d1 - This is untrue, as the three pieces don't stay in place during U turns. 12e1 - Front face facing to the front? I suggest "front face parallel to the scrambler". A - The judge should first make sure the competitor is aware of how to operate the stackmat. I've seen plenty of people competing who've never seen a stackmat before, it's too easy for them to screw something up and get a penalty. A7b - Initials? B2d1 - There's an extra period at the end of this sentence. Also, I agree with Pedro about the covers. B4a1 - In big cube BLD or multiBLD will the judge have to hold the paper during the whole solve? C1e - I think this should move to C1b1, as it changes how that rule works. H1b - Eight minutes seems too short. Are you ready to invalidate over two thirds of current successful results? -Chris Krueger
PatrickJameson (2008-03-19 16:32:03 +0000)
12a9-12) When people see, for example, "r", most will do, what you have as, "Rw", since that is the notation just about everywhere that I've seen. A3d2) I don't think "GO" is the correct thing to say when you have to "STOP" inspecting and put the cube down. I think you should just say something like"Your inspection time is over" "For one-handed solving it is now allowed to use both hands during inspection. Two handed inspect on does not influence the result. [fairness]" I don't think this would be right since it is a "One Handed" solve. You should use only one hand the whole time. H1b) 8 minutes per cube is not enough time. Only 2 people in the top ten make that requirement(one by only 2 minutes), so making that official would make a lot of the multibld invalid. Patrick
siraj a. (2008-03-19 18:51:08 +0000)
I don NOT agree with any of Article Z. Z1 - People still might need, and usually every one wants to, practice a little before acutal competing. Z2 - I really don't find this fair. Z3 - This limits the amount they can actually compete in one competition, I guess. Article Z = :x
Pedro_S (2008-03-19 19:00:33 +0000)
[quote="cada":3ub9kt7a] 12d - U turns are undefined. 12d1 - This is untrue, as the three pieces don't stay in place during U turns. [/quote:3ub9kt7a] U is not really a "turn", but a cube rotation...but yes, it's undefined [quote:3ub9kt7a] B4a1 - In big cube BLD or multiBLD will the judge have to hold the paper during the whole solve? [/quote:3ub9kt7a] good point...will we have to hold the object there for...what? 10 minutes? 15? 20? also, what does "...unless the puzzle is in a position where peeking at the puzzle is not possible." exactly mean? how can the judge make sure it is not possible at a certain position?
Lucas (2008-03-19 19:41:18 +0000)
Most of my remarks have been covered by now. However, notation: Somehow, I don't like notation as part of the competition regulations. However, I don't have a better suggestion, as everything is already an appendix in a sense, and an independent guide may be troublesome to reconcile (but "Universal Twistypuzzle Notation and Metric Standards" could be useful). So: Is " 2' " legal to use? I use it all the time, as for cubes I find it more important that the twist is double, since direction is effectively irrelevant (and other puzzles where direction matters are not covered - minx has a separate article, and we're not going to have minx FMC any time soon). Can you specifically allow it? In 12, I suggest "Half Turn Metric [u:3l41frog](HTM)[/u:3l41frog] is defined as:" Now, I don't like w for double-layer turns. I've never used them, and I think it contradicts the current implicit regulation convention. It may seem undesirable, but I think we shoould code specific notations with titles and allow FMC competitors to note theirs. Importantly, the 4x4x4 notation now contradicts scrambling definitions. 6b1) Is it actually necessary to regulate the awards? What if a large multi-day comp ends with 3x3x3 speed finals in the morning and awards are given in late afternoon? Alignments: Is Ryan Heise taking over the WCA? I'm pretty sure that we're giving leniency in setting down the puzzle, but why allow a little less than half an R off, but not the same for M or a 4x4x4/5x5x5 slice?
Pedro_S (2008-03-19 20:53:15 +0000)
about the 8 mins/cube rule: I just went to the results page, and here are the 28 first ranked (the ones who got all cubes correct) Name - number of cubes - under 8 min/cube? Dennis - 10 - NO Istvan - 7 - NO Rafal - 6 - YES (2 seconds) Oliver - 6 - NO Clement - 5 - NO Constantin - 5 - NO Stefan - 5 - NO Rowe - YES Milan - NO Bastien - NO Kai - 3 - YES Bernett - 3 - NO Kare - 3 - NO Eric - 3 - NO Andy - 2 - YES Edouard - 2 - YES Leyan - 2 - YES Sinpei - 2 - YES Daniel - 2 - NO Piotr - 2 - NO 8 more - 2 - NO so, just 7 out of 28, which is just 25%... I think 8 minutes is too short...10 would be good
Pedro_S (2008-03-19 22:12:59 +0000)
Ron, is the 19 march version up? I tried reloading the page, but nothing changed
Phillip Espinoza (2008-03-19 23:07:50 +0000)
9f1) All timed results under 10 minutes, and corresponding averages are measured in hundredths of a second, with averages rounded to the nearest hundredth of a second (.004 becomes .00, .005 becomes .01). Say that during the final round of a 3x3 speedsolve event, when averaging the 5 solves, one competitor gets 13.92 seconds avg flat, while the other competitor gets 13.9166 avg. Would it be a tie for first place even though the latter competitor technically has the faster average, or would it result in a tie? Thanks for your time, -Phillip
Pedro_S (2008-03-19 23:31:47 +0000)
I think it would be a tie on average, decided by fastest single time... but I think 13.9166 should win... the excel sheets automatically round the averages to 2 decimals if there's a tie, just look at the next decimal...seems fairer to me
cada (2008-03-20 00:44:46 +0000)
Pedro: Megaminx scrambler says "U is the regular move of the U face, according to standard cube notation." I was originally under the impression that it was a whole puzzle rotation, but this confused me. As for multiBLD, select 100 results instead of 100 persons. Out of all successful multiBLD solves in competition, 25 out of 36 don't meet the new regulation. -Chris Krueger
cada (2008-03-20 01:11:57 +0000)
So I was reading your post wrong Pedro, and still no edit post option. But yeah, eight minutes is pushing it. Perhaps compare results with respect to date of competition. Are people getting better? Are recent results more often withing eight minutes? -Chris Krueger
cmhardw (2008-03-20 02:20:50 +0000)
Quoting the 2008 draft regulations: " 9e) New official events may be added each calendar year, and existing official events may be removed. 9e1) The decision to add or remove an event is made by the WCA board. 9e2) The proposal to add an event is based on a poll about the popularity of new events. The poll is held each calendar year in January and February, on the forum of the WCA website. 9e3) The proposal to remove an event is done by selecting the event with a low number of competitors in the previous calendar year. The proposal is made each calendar year in February, on the forum of the WCA website. " I'm sure I'm not the only BLD cuber who is very nervous by this change. I do have to ask, what exactly constitutes the removal of an event? Are the previous results achieved in this event still recognized as having been achieved, or are they too deleted? Should an event be removed, is it possible for it to be added as a new event the following year assuming it meets the requirements set by 9e3 ? What exactly are the polling requirements for the adding of an event? As a compromise can deleted or banned events still allow WCA sanctioned world record attempts in these events at a World Competition, or are they to be completely removed in every way? Chris
cmhardw (2008-03-20 02:25:18 +0000)
[quote="Gilles":15byftip]There are 9 cut planes that make moves possible on a 4x4x4. I let you count how many for the Megaminx, Pyraminx and others. Let's consider horizontal planes. On the image you're refering to, there are 2 misalignments when you consider the cube around the plane between U and u slices, and between u and d. Just think "HTM". The rule is here to make decisions homogeneous and easy for all puzzles. And this way, it is fewest moves compliant. It is not slice friendly of course. But judging slices, even if they have some meaning in cube solving, will always be controversial an uneasy with big cubes, under some configurations of alignments.[/quote:15byftip] Hi Gilles, Thanks for the answer. I completely understand that some definitions of +2 turns favor slices and some don't. My issue was with the wording of the draft regulations, as I found them unclear on this aspect. Could this section include a more detailed definition of a what a "cut plane" is, similar to how you have defined it in this post? I think that would make it clearer. Again this might just be my opinion, but the wording was such that I found it somewhat confusing. Thanks for the response, Chris
Kenneth Gustavsson (2008-03-20 06:56:38 +0000)
[color=#4000BF:3v3edw73]9o1) Events with up to 8 competitors must have at most one round.[/color:3v3edw73] Don't like it, if there are only two ppl who knows how to scramble the puzzle for the event and both likes to compeate?
Pedro_S (2008-03-20 09:57:47 +0000)
[quote="cada":140out8q]Pedro: Megaminx scrambler says "U is the regular move of the U face, according to standard cube notation." I was originally under the impression that it was a whole puzzle rotation, but this confused me. As for multiBLD, select 100 results instead of 100 persons. Out of all successful multiBLD solves in competition, 25 out of 36 don't meet the new regulation. -Chris Krueger[/quote:140out8q] oh, I didn't see that...just read the megaminx part on article 12... well, I assumed is puzzle rotation, because of how Stefan did it originally...but now I'm confused... :?: :? also, he had 2/5 turns for puzzle rotation too, but the Us are just 1/5...
StefanPochmann (2008-03-20 12:10:15 +0000)
Megaminx notation: U indeed only means the top layer, and its a 1/5 turn on purpose, to break the CEC triple on the top left immediately with the following R turn.
Pedro_S (2008-03-20 16:51:12 +0000)
[quote="StefanPochmann":1c17bo5i]Megaminx notation: U indeed only means the top layer, and its a 1/5 turn on purpose, to break the CEC triple on the top left immediately with the following R turn.[/quote:1c17bo5i] oh, right...I got it now... I think the explanation should be above the scrambles, not below them...I didn't notice it until Chris pointed it out about the U moves...
perfredlund (2008-03-20 18:55:11 +0000)
Hi :-) My guess about u being a DNF while U away from solved is a +2sec penalty is related to how the official scrambler works. A u (innerslice) is seen as a U' + u (double outer turn). This would then be 2 turns away from solved 8) And more than 1 tuen away is a DNF. But YES i do find this weird. With cage i might be a u or r or another innner slice turn away from solved if im not careful. This is less likely to happen with a reduction method. Hence this is VERY unfair!! My 2 eyro cents !! I will look closely at the proposed regulations shortly :) - Per
Ron (2008-03-21 15:13:57 +0000)
[quote:2zyy6kqw]2e1a- I'm not sure having a link to Wikipedia is wise, since someone could change it at anytime. Perhaps countries recognized by the IOC?[/quote:2zyy6kqw] Yes, in general Wikipedia is not reliable. But for this page it definitely is. This is the one and only webpage I found on internet that is not politically correct, but can be relied on. IOC has a very political list of countries. ******************** This is just an example, but there are many countries with similar problems. On Wikipedia we have the real list of countries. [quote:2zyy6kqw]8a7 - I'm not sure what this accomplishes. Are there still places out there with Gen 1?[/quote:2zyy6kqw] I have seen people still using Generation I timers. We should standardise on Generation 2, not only because it simplifies the regulations. [quote:2zyy6kqw]9e - I think delaying titles for 1 year would be good. Otherwise, the world champion will simply be decided by the first competition held.[/quote:2zyy6kqw] That would be true if world championship would be first competition that year. It goes for the world records though. But yeah, there is always a first world record. [quote:2zyy6kqw]Also, could we vote for this year?[/quote:2zyy6kqw] Yes, I am thinking having the first vote after accepting the 2008 regulations. In this case it would be acceptable to vote in April/May. [quote:2zyy6kqw]9f16 - "0 or lower"? [/quote:2zyy6kqw] Tried 3 solved 1, result -1. [quote:2zyy6kqw]9s1 - Can time be chosen rather that position?[/quote:2zyy6kqw] Yes, that was a very good point in your other message. [quote:2zyy6kqw]10d - What about non-important parts falling off? Like a single center cap.[/quote:2zyy6kqw] Yes, that is already in Article 5. 10d refers to Article 5. [quote:2zyy6kqw]Z3 - Why is this based on certain competitions? I would think if you qualify in any WCA competition, you should be allowed.[/quote:2zyy6kqw] One case would be when you would have a ranking of national competitions, and you want to have best of the ranking in a national final. Because of other feedback on article Z I already added that applying optional regulations must be approved by WCA Board. [quote:2zyy6kqw]10f - On big cubes, it seems silly to DNF a u away from solved and give a U away from solved a two second penalty, as both can be solved with one turn (as in, one physical motion).[/quote:2zyy6kqw] Yes, this is a change to 2007. I have never seen this happen though. [quote:2zyy6kqw]A3d2 - "...judge calls out 'GO'." - shouldn't this be "STOP" as in "stop inspection"?[/quote:2zyy6kqw] OK. I also changed 10 to 8 seconds and 13 to 12 seconds. [quote:2zyy6kqw]A4b1 - "competitor must not have any physical contact with the puzzle before he starts the solve" - I think everyone here would understand[/quote:2zyy6kqw] The article is called 'Starting the Solve'. The previous article is called 'Inspection'. [quote:2zyy6kqw]B2a - "The judge resets the timer and stopwatch." - why isn't there one of these for Article A (normal speedsolving)? [/quote:2zyy6kqw] See A3b. Because there is a different starting procedure, the resetting must be done at the start of inspection. [quote:2zyy6kqw]B2d1) The competitor must remove the cover from the puzzle, after starting the timer.. will the cover be standardized? I think removing a scoresheet or a paper is easier than removing those "black boxes"[/quote:2zyy6kqw] Not yet. Maybe in the future we will find a universal puzzle cover. Anyone? [quote:2zyy6kqw]4f - can the optimal algorithm be used? it's not clearly stated...[/quote:2zyy6kqw] An optimal algorithm is only used for Rubik's Clock. For other puzzles a scramble sequence is used. For Rubik's Cube the scramble sequences will be closest to optimal, in general. [quote:2zyy6kqw]will it be incorporated to 4x4 and 5x5 scramblers? right now it's not (r still means double layer turn)[/quote:2zyy6kqw] Yes, updated. [quote:2zyy6kqw]1h1 - Can't people judge/scramble after they've competed in their group?[/quote:2zyy6kqw] No, that would make the regulations too complex. Of course you can make a separate group for such competitors. Groups do not need to have the same size. [quote:2zyy6kqw]4f - You may want to specify the minimum version of Cube Explorer.[/quote:2zyy6kqw] OK [quote:2zyy6kqw]9e - Wouldn't it be better to take the poll in November and December, so that the decision can be made before January, so that the event is available (or unavailable) for all events of that year.[/quote:2zyy6kqw] No, because we need regulations for new events. Those regulations will come in the regulations of the next year. Often in March or April. [quote:2zyy6kqw]A4d2 - I think this might generate a lot of DNF's for new competitors who are not familiar with Stackmat timers.[/quote:2zyy6kqw] We will see, and react if necessary. [quote:2zyy6kqw]A7 - Instead of signing, can we just initial instead? It saves space on the scoresheet.[/quote:2zyy6kqw] Signatures are not standardised. You could even write a cross. As long as you are aware that something special happened. [quote:2zyy6kqw]B4a - "While donning the puzzles" What does this mean?[/quote:2zyy6kqw] Oops, that was the remainder of sentence that was supposed to say that you can hold the cube while donning. [quote:2zyy6kqw]10e1) For each two parts (defined by a cut plane, for example two parallel adjacent slices of a cube) of the puzzle that are misaligned more than the limit described in Article 10f, these two parts are considered to need one move to be solved. I find this unclear. [/quote:2zyy6kqw] Feel free to come with a better text proposal. [quote:2zyy6kqw]1g3 - Wording sounds a little unnatural. I'd suggest "only made with consent…".[/quote:2zyy6kqw] [quote:2zyy6kqw]10f - This also applies to square1 when turned along the slice?[/quote:2zyy6kqw] Yes [quote:2zyy6kqw]12a - Will the scramblers be updated to reflect this notation?[/quote:2zyy6kqw] Done [quote:2zyy6kqw]12c - Does this mean there will be no more scrabmles starting with a slice turn?[/quote:2zyy6kqw] Only for puzzles 6x6, 7x7 and so on. Hopefully next year! [quote:2zyy6kqw]12e1 - Front face facing to the front? I suggest "front face parallel to the scrambler".[/quote:2zyy6kqw] Changed to 'person who holds the Pyraminx. It is not necessarily a scrambler. [quote:2zyy6kqw]B2d1 - There's an extra period at the end of this sentence. Also, I agree with Pedro about the covers.[/quote:2zyy6kqw] Thanks. [quote:2zyy6kqw]C1e - I think this should move to C1b1, as it changes how that rule works.[/quote:2zyy6kqw] OK [quote:2zyy6kqw]12d - U turns are undefined.[/quote:2zyy6kqw] OK [quote:2zyy6kqw]B4a1 - In big cube BLD or multiBLD will the judge have to hold the paper during the whole solve?[/quote:2zyy6kqw] Yes, the whole solve. [quote:2zyy6kqw]also, what does "...unless the puzzle is in a position where peeking at the puzzle is not possible." exactly mean? how can the judge make sure it is not possible at a certain position?[/quote:2zyy6kqw] Could be under a table, or behind a small screen. In general I prefer if competitors have their face down during solving phase. In that case cheating by peeking is not possible, so holding the paper would not be necessary. [quote:2zyy6kqw]6b1) Is it actually necessary to regulate the awards? What if a large multi-day comp ends with 3x3x3 speed finals in the morning and awards are given in late afternoon?[/quote:2zyy6kqw] It says 'should'. There were some incidents in previous competitions, that is why we added this. [quote:2zyy6kqw] about the 8 mins/cube rule: I just went to the results page, and here are the 28 first ranked (the ones who got all cubes correct) so, just 7 out of 28, which is just 25%... I think 8 minutes is too short...10 would be good [/quote:2zyy6kqw] I think that is a bad comparison, because these competitors just used the time they were given. Are you saying they could not have done it faster if they would have known it? Anyway, it looks like there is majority for 10 minutes, so that was already updated. [quote:2zyy6kqw]9f1) All timed results under 10 minutes, and corresponding averages are measured in hundredths of a second, with averages rounded to the nearest hundredth of a second (.004 becomes .00, .005 becomes .01). Say that during the final round of a 3x3 speedsolve event, when averaging the 5 solves, one competitor gets 13.92 seconds avg flat, while the other competitor gets 13.9166 avg. Would it be a tie for first place even though the latter competitor technically has the faster average, or would it result in a tie?[/quote:2zyy6kqw] If they would both have the same best time too: yes. Do not overestimate the accuracy of Stackmat timers. [quote:2zyy6kqw]9o1) Events with up to 8 competitors must have at most one round. Don't like it, if there are only two ppl who knows how to scramble the puzzle for the event and both likes to compeate?[/quote:2zyy6kqw] Then make 2 groups of 1 competitor. Thank you all for your feedback! Great stuff. All changes are in version draft 4a, March 21, 2008. If you want to reply, then please another topic with the title of the article. This topic is too large and includes too many articles. Thanks, Ron