2006 Regulation Revisions

Tyson (2005-12-24 08:12:00 +0000)
Hi Everyone, For all competitions in 2006, we will be making the following changes in the regulations: 1. No POPs will be allowed. The competitor will not be awarded an extra solve if there is a puzzle defect during the solve. 2. Record standards for 3x3x3 OH, 4x4x4, and 5x5x5 will be Average of 5. The current world records set in the format of Mean of 3 will stand for six months to allow time for the current world record holders to retake their world records under the new format. Note: In blindfold cubing, +2 penalties are awarded. Thank you! Please let us know if there are any major objections. -Tyson
insanity_cubed (2005-12-27 17:42:19 +0000)
If it's not too late, I'd like to suggest a change in magic DNFs. Because some magics are different thicknesses, instead of measuring with two tiles, we could say the tiles can only be a specific distance off the mat (like 1/4th in.) Thanks. -Bill
frankmorris (2006-07-18 15:47:10 +0000)
2. Record standards for 3x3x3 OH, 4x4x4, and 5x5x5 will be Average of 5. The current world records set in the format of Mean of 3 will stand for six months to allow time for the current world record holders to retake their world records under the new format. not trying to be cheesy, but I noticed this. I believe that 6 months are up right?[/i]
cmhardw (2006-07-18 15:59:35 +0000)
Hey, I just wanted to back up Frank here on this one. Yeah if the six months period are up we should update the world records to reflect the new changes in format to those events. This way the new records become the standard for everyone to strive for rather than the older format. Chris
Ron (2006-07-18 20:02:29 +0000)
Hi guys, I read Tyson's quote differently. What it says IMHO is that, if the OLD world record would have been broken under the NEW regulations, the OLD record would still stand for half a year. To give the old world record holder the chance to also break the world record under the new regulations. There is only one case where this was the case. But in that case it was Ryan who broke his own one-handed WR. Have fun, Ron
Gilles (2006-07-18 20:45:25 +0000)
The new regulations came with new formats, and we now have new, [b:1lakkeed]different[/b:1lakkeed], records. The 6 month delay was a transition time, records set with the old formats were still considered as equivalent during this time instead of having an empty list of records. My interpretation, Gilles.
Ron (2006-07-18 20:59:22 +0000)
Hi Gilles, Yes, that is another interpretation. I have some reasons why I think the old unbroken records should still stand: 1) the old format is harder (matter of opinion) because a bad time would kill the average. 2) although the regulations/format have changed a little, I see no reason to immediately kill the old records. They are still valuable and well deserved. 3) if this would go for old world records, it should also go for old national and continental records. For some continents/countries this would give a completely different ranking. I think that is unnecessary. Soon the current world records will be broken under the new regulations. So why bother about this temporary situation? Have fun, Ron
StefanPochmann (2006-07-20 23:32:16 +0000)
[quote="Ron":1kpcwsw1]3) if this would go for old world records, it should also go for old national and continental records. For some continents/countries this would give a completely different ranking. I think that is unnecessary.[/quote:1kpcwsw1] Bah, better remove national/continental records. Just wastes time updating and they're not good for anything anyway. You're either the best (world record) or not. In the latter case you can still say you're #X in the world. Like I'd say I was #18 at RWC, not that I was #2 German at RWC. National record means I'm the best if I leave out almost everybody for an artificial reason. Sounds like cheating to me. Like what marketing people would say.
Ron (2006-07-21 04:10:36 +0000)
Hi Stefan, I think you underestimate the personal value of having a national or continental record. Thanks, Ron
Tyson (2006-07-26 09:29:59 +0000)
There is significant personal value to many people for holding a national record. Being able to say that you're the fastest cuber from Bootyland might not mean anything to you, but that's because you're good enough to compete with everyone on the planet Earth. Not everyone is as good as you :-P. You're just that good. I know Warren was given a scare in the blindfold category... he retains his national record by about .8 seconds I believe. I think his Taiwan national records really mean something.
StefanPochmann (2006-07-27 22:48:39 +0000)
Ok. I think I'm the fastest 3x3 cuber with initials "SP". Can the WCA please acknowledge this officially, too? It's exactly as meaningful as being the fastest cuber born in one country.
JohannesLaire (2006-08-04 17:52:27 +0000)
Stefan, I agree with you. Having national/continential records is logically meaningless. But there are many illogical things in this world (I could write books about them...), I don't think you are going to gain anything by complaining about them. Really few people care about pondering things like the meaning of NR's seriously, so I don't think you will ever get them removed. [quote="StefanPochmann":2pv74nxc]Ok. I think I'm the fastest 3x3 cuber with initials "SP". Can the WCA please acknowledge this officially, too?[/quote:2pv74nxc] Huh? So you want to create even more stupid categories?
StefanPochmann (2006-08-05 17:26:21 +0000)
Yeah I know we won't get rid of national stuff, I don't take it real serious, just mocking a bit. And no, I didn't really want that "initials" thing. Bah, I just saw my "Country" value for Dutch Open was changed from "none" to "Germany". Well, at least it doesn't say I represent that country, it could also mean that I live there which at least is true.