Fellow cubers, Today we start with the WCA Regulations 2009. We kindly ask you for input and feedback. To keep a good overview of the discussions, please create a new topic for each subject, with the title: "2009: subject". The planning is to finalise WCA Regulations 2009 in January 2009. Thanks, Ron

[quote="Ron":3han82l1]The planning is to finalise WCA Regulations 2009 in January 2009.[/quote:3han82l1] Is this still the goal? Are decisions currently being made about the 2009 regulations that have been in discussion?

I have been very busy recently, but soon I will reply to all topics and start working on version 2009. Ron

I've noticed.

For the future versions or sub-versions of the document, could you use a revision system, diff tool, ..., that clearly shows what has changed? It's a real pain for translators to track subtle changes, and that's a reason why I now use Open Office instead of plain HTML for the french version. Gilles.

Hi Gilles, All additions will be in green, changes in orange, deletions in red. Ron

Perfect. Thank you.

Hi all, Thank you all for your feedback! The first draft of the WCA Regulations 2009 is now available at [url:36kkv70l]http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/regulations2009.html[/url:36kkv70l]. The list of changes is now available at [url:36kkv70l]http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/regulations_history2009.html[/url:36kkv70l]. Please send your feedback until January 18. I prefer if you would add it to the existing topics on this forum or add new topics with subject "2009: xxxx". We may publish new drafts until end of January. Unless we get a lot of additional discussion the goal is to start the new regulations on February 1, 2009. Thanks, Ron

Since the rules of the 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 are pretty clear (just the scramble length and the format), I would propose that those be allowed to be held at any competition in January as official events. Release 2009 regulations version 1 with just those events, and release version 2 in February with all the other changes. Also, February 1st is a bad day, since the two competitions occuring that weekend are 2-day comps on Jan 31st and Feb 1st.

Since the new regulations won't start until February or Later does this mean that there is going to still be a official new events poll? (See 9e) If so when will it be?

Ron, as I mentioned on IRC, I would like a better scrambling notation for 6x6, as the subscript notation only works via HTML. Here is the notation I am proposing: 2U' D2 2D2 2F' B 2R B2 2D' D' 3R F2 2D L2 3L2 F2 2U U' 2L' 2D2 3R' R' 3F' 3L2 L 2F R2 D2 L2 3L2 F2 2D' 3R 2D' U L2 2F2 U' 2F F2 3F2 2B2 2D' 2F2 2U' U2 3U2 B 3F 2L2 2R2 3L2 B' R 3L2 F 3R 2F' D' 3R' 2F' F' L' 2F2 L' 2B2 F2 B2 2L2 R' F2 2L2 2B2 2L 3U2 B' It's basically a prefix notation. The prefix before the slice is the depth of the turn (i.e. 2 means to turn the 2 outermost slices ...) and then it is followed with the standard Slice-Amount notation. Attached is a modified version of the scramble_cube.htm file with this notation updated.

why is feedback possible until January 18th and the new regulations will start only at February 1st? of course I would like to have square-1 as avg of 5 for our competition (jan 17th and 18th), but I can understand that we need some time to give feedback... so, the question is: are 13 days necessary to "collect" all the feedback and make the final draft? (sorry if I sounded mean, wasn't my intention...just wondering why the big gap)

[quote="Ron":2trd36mu]Unless we get a lot of additional discussion the goal is to start the new regulations on February 1, 2009.[/quote:2trd36mu] How about Jan. 31 or Feb. 2 instead? There are two competitions that are two days beginning on Jan. 31 and would be using two different sets of regulations if Feb. 1 is the first day of the new regulations.

oh, just something that may seem silly, but could you change lightgreen to green to improve readability? edit: I did it (didn't take longer than 2 minutes) here it is: http://www.cubomagico.110mb.com/regulations2009.html

[quote="Pedro_S":2ietad3p]oh, just something that may seem silly, but could you change lightgreen to green to improve readability? edit: I did it (didn't take longer than 2 minutes) here it is: http://www.cubomagico.110mb.com/regulations2009.html[/quote:2ietad3p] Now that looks a bit too much like black, I think. What about green/orange/red highlight?

I recommend using CSS, much cleaner and safer. So <font color="lightgreen">(courtesy of WCA Board)</font> becomes <span class='added'>(courtesy of WCA Board)</span> and for style I recommend using a border instead of changing the text color: .added { border: 2px solid #6F6; padding: 2px; }

I don't really like the black text with red highlight, but... http://www.cubomagico.110mb.com/regulations2009a.html maybe this one would be better: http://www.cubomagico.110mb.com/regulations2009b.html (replaced red with lightcoral, a more pinkysh color)

[quote="Pedro_S":mw0t6d7c]I don't really like the black text with red highlight, but... http://www.cubomagico.110mb.com/regulations2009a.html maybe this one would be better: http://www.cubomagico.110mb.com/regulations2009b.html (replaced red with lightcoral, a more pinkysh color)[/quote:mw0t6d7c] Thank you, yes, this is much easier to see changes.

[quote="StefanPochmann":1eg8en9p]I recommend using CSS, much cleaner and safer. So <font color="lightgreen">(courtesy of WCA Board)</font> becomes <span class='added'>(courtesy of WCA Board)</span> and for style I recommend using a border instead of changing the text color: .added { border: 2px solid #6F6; padding: 2px; }[/quote:1eg8en9p] Good idea, since font tags are deprecated anyways.

Can we stop talking about the color/highlighting of the words and start talking about the actual regulations?

[quote="Roboguy777":3vczq46p]Can we stop talking about the color/highlighting of the words and start talking about the actual regulations?[/quote:3vczq46p] Why? That will help other countries/languages distinguish changes so the regulations will be exactly the same for each competition. Anyway, what do you propose?

[quote="Roboguy777":30l3c56l]Can we stop talking about the color/highlighting of the words and start talking about the actual regulations?[/quote:30l3c56l] Why do you care if I want to see changes more easily? There has been discussion of these regulations in the respective topics for the changes made.

well, we should do that at the other topics what we are discussing here is also important for us who translate the regulations [quote="Ron":bgnqopw9] I prefer if you would add it to the existing topics on this forum or add new topics with subject "2009: xxxx". [/quote:bgnqopw9]

[quote="Roboguy777":3rtpdf8h]Can we stop talking about the color/highlighting of the words and start talking about the actual regulations?[/quote:3rtpdf8h] When we're done discussing it. The other threads are about the regulations; this thread is a perfectly fine place to discuss how we manage and review regulation changes. While I'm posting: I would like to see a key explicating the colors used in the document, somewhere at the top. For a while, I wasn't sure if red indicated deletions. Also, I would like more anchors in the document at every numbering, so I can link to, say, [url:3rtpdf8h]http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#2c[/url:3rtpdf8h]

[quote="Ron":3qz7yx3e]The first draft of the WCA Regulations 2009 is now available at [url:3qz7yx3e]http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/regulations2009.html[/url:3qz7yx3e].[/quote:3qz7yx3e] Is there also a "clean" version without the change markers (particularly without the deleted parts)? Then we could use diff tools like these, which [u:3qz7yx3e]also show what the changed parts were before the change[/u:3qz7yx3e]: http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff => http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1 ... s2009.html http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/diff/ => http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/diff/?old=h ... s2009.html

Some remarks: 1. Overall improvement of the regulations. Weird/unclear: # 9e2) The proposal to add an event is based on feedback by the community. 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. These articles are now removes. [i:pu2tc9w8]Please correct me if I'm wrong[/i:pu2tc9w8], but isn't this making rules in reverse? Explanation: it seemed to me like the new events (6 and 7) were chosen in this way: We have system A of choosing new events (the old regulations) We choose according to system B Then cange the regulations to say system B is the way to choose new events? To be clear, this is not an attempt of changing back the chosen events nor do I say the systems of electing are crap (they aren't), but wondering why things went the way they went. 2. I personally think a mean of 3 for 6x6 and 7x7 is not really handy, it's not really helping on time management and it'll barely add anything to the reliability of the record(s). (3) (not a remark just a thought) The standing WR's for clock and sq-1 for the mean of 3 will remain standing untill an avg of 5 was done faster than those records? 4. I like the change in A7b1 since it was always very unclear to people how to write this down. 5. I personally don't mind the time limit for multi of one hour (I know others do a lot, but sadly they are not on this forum), but is the current WR standing for ever then? I don't see someone beating 24 cubes in only one hour.

[quote="Erik":1ardqpby]I don't see someone beating 24 cubes in only one hour.[/quote:1ardqpby] Why not? ([url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2589#p2589:1ardqpby]my analysis why 24 cubes might be possible in well under one hour[/url:1ardqpby])

[quote="Erik":39lh6ico]2. I personally think a mean of 3 for 6x6 and 7x7 is not really handy, it's not really helping on time management and it'll barely add anything to the reliability of the record(s).[/quote:39lh6ico] I agree with this. I was waiting to hear this from somebody good at the puzzle. I think best of x (x<3) should be the only format. [quote="Erik":39lh6ico]The standing WR's for clock and sq-1 for the mean of 3 will remain standing untill an avg of 5 was done faster than those records?[/quote:39lh6ico] I assume yes: 9i3) If the regulations for an event are changed, then the old regional records stand until they are broken under the new regulations. [quote="Erik":39lh6ico]4. I like the change in A7b1 since it was always very unclear to people how to write this down.[/quote:39lh6ico] And problematic because different judges did different things. This is one of the happiest changes I saw for the 2009 regulations. [quote="Erik":39lh6ico]5. I personally don't mind the time limit for multi of one hour (I know others do a lot, but sadly they are not on this forum), but is the current WR standing for ever then?[/quote:39lh6ico] Not according to Ron: [quote="Ron":39lh6ico]we start with a clean sheet. Old results will stay visible in the old year rankings, but not in the new and personal rankings. [/quote:39lh6ico]

[quote="Bob":1brqmhe0] [quote="Erik":1brqmhe0]The standing WR's for clock and sq-1 for the mean of 3 will remain standing untill an avg of 5 was done faster than those records?[/quote:1brqmhe0] I assume yes: 9i3) If the regulations for an event are changed, then the old regional records stand until they are broken under the new regulations. [/quote:1brqmhe0] yes, this is already the case with OH, 4x4 and 5x5 averages

[quote="Erik":zz2sfovr]4. I like the change in A7b1 since it was always very unclear to people how to write this down.[/quote:zz2sfovr] I agree, I am VERY happy for this change. We have been having problems with this for ever... [quote="Bob":zz2sfovr][quote="Erik":zz2sfovr]2. I personally think a mean of 3 for 6x6 and 7x7 is not really handy, it's not really helping on time management and it'll barely add anything to the reliability of the record(s).[/quote:zz2sfovr] I agree with this. I was waiting to hear this from somebody good at the puzzle. I think best of x (x<3) should be the only format.[/quote:zz2sfovr] You could've asked me Bob D: I think I've said this before, but I agree that mean of 3 is a problematic format. On the other hand, it is still better to allow mean of 3 than to have just a single solve record. It isn't common to be lucky on those puzzles (although it IS relatively common to have a horribly destructive pop), so mean of 3 is actually still a decent representation of skill. Even a single solve is a good representation of skill, since you have so many pieces to solve!

[quote="qqwref":1vfeunko][quote="Erik":1vfeunko]4. I like the change in A7b1 since it was always very unclear to people how to write this down.[/quote:1vfeunko] I agree, I am VERY happy for this change. We have been having problems with this for ever... [quote="Bob":1vfeunko][quote="Erik":1vfeunko]2. I personally think a mean of 3 for 6x6 and 7x7 is not really handy, it's not really helping on time management and it'll barely add anything to the reliability of the record(s).[/quote:1vfeunko] I agree with this. I was waiting to hear this from somebody good at the puzzle. I think best of x (x<3) should be the only format.[/quote:1vfeunko] You could've asked me Bob D:[/quote:1vfeunko] I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend. [quote="qqwref":1vfeunko]I think I've said this before, but I agree that mean of 3 is a problematic format. On the other hand, it is still better to allow mean of 3 than to have just a single solve record. It isn't common to be lucky on those puzzles (although it IS relatively common to have a horribly destructive pop), so mean of 3 is actually still a decent representation of skill. Even a single solve is a good representation of skill, since you have so many pieces to solve![/quote:1vfeunko] I agree, but I fear for the organizational nightmare that this event entails.

[quote="Bob":h3qofjtm][quote="qqwref":h3qofjtm][quote="qqwref":h3qofjtm]I think I've said this before, but I agree that mean of 3 is a problematic format. [/quote:h3qofjtm] I agree, but I fear for the organizational nightmare that this event entails.[/quote:h3qofjtm][/quote:h3qofjtm] But by having that mean there, you put a lot of pressure on the organizer to let at least a few people do three solves. I would like to see "Best of", like blindfold is. Most people won't argue with a "Best of 2" for bld if there's a time crunch. I suppose the alternative is a combined final, where people with a time under 1:00 can continue. But it would be nice if "Best of" was considered a "preferred" format for the final round.

[quote="qqwref":18miimec][quote="Erik":18miimec]4. I like the change in A7b1 since it was always very unclear to people how to write this down.[/quote:18miimec] I agree, I am VERY happy for this change. We have been having problems with this for ever...[/quote:18miimec] The clarification is good, but I think it's the incorrect way to do it. The competitor (whether signing or checking) should agree to the time that will go into the results database. +2 or +4 could be appended as a note for the record, perhaps in a separate column. The current change would also be make it easy to manipulate a result by writing in "+2" at the end, instead of having to modify the written time.

[quote="Lucas":cl26ttxm]The clarification is good, but I think it's the incorrect way to do it. The competitor (whether signing or checking) should agree to the time that will go into the results database. +2 or +4 could be appended as a note for the record, perhaps in a separate column. The current change would also be make it easy to manipulate a result by writing in "+2" at the end, instead of having to modify the written time.[/quote:cl26ttxm] You could also put "1:" in front of a time under a minute. Is manipulation of results an issue? Who has access to these scores but will append the result with a penalty the competitor did not deserve? (I believe this is what you are implying.)

Yeah, Lucas, if you are worried about people falsifying the time by putting a +2 after it, you should also be worried about all other possible falsifications. So maybe we should write trailing zeroes (5.48 becomes 00:05.48) and work out a special font so that all digits are sufficiently complex that one can't be turned into another. As for penalties, if you want to prevent a malicious person from adding them, you'll have to come up with a symbol for "no penalty" which cannot be changed into a +[number] or DNF.

Thanks for clearing up those points Bob

[quote="BryanLogan":1x8olkrv][quote="Bob":1x8olkrv][quote="qqwref":1x8olkrv]I think I've said this before, but I agree that mean of 3 is a problematic format. [/quote:1x8olkrv] I agree, but I fear for the organizational nightmare that this event entails.[/quote:1x8olkrv] But by having that mean there, you put a lot of pressure on the organizer to let at least a few people do three solves. I would like to see "Best of", like blindfold is. Most people won't argue with a "Best of 2" for bld if there's a time crunch. I suppose the alternative is a combined final, where people with a time under 1:00 can continue. But it would be nice if "Best of" was considered a "preferred" format for the final round.[/quote:1x8olkrv] I think that there needs to be an average recognized by the WCA. Just because there is a possibility of an average, doesn't mean that you have to hold 3 solves during the event. You can still make the final round format "Best of". This has been done with feet solving in 2 korean competitions([url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=KCAKoreaOpen2008&allResults=1#333ft:1x8olkrv]KCA Open 2008[/url:1x8olkrv], and [url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=Cheonan2008&allResults=1#333ft:1x8olkrv]Cheonan CC 2008[/url:1x8olkrv]) Hopefully, competitions can fit 3 solves into a competition, but if not, I think you are still allowed to have a "Best of" final round.

[quote="DanCohen":hjl5xv15] I think that there needs to be an average recognized by the WCA. Just because there is a possibility of an average, doesn't mean that you have to hold 3 solves during the event. You can still make the final round format "Best of". This has been done with feet solving in 2 korean competitions([url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=KCAKoreaOpen2008&allResults=1#333ft:hjl5xv15]KCA Open 2008[/url:hjl5xv15], and [url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=Cheonan2008&allResults=1#333ft:hjl5xv15]Cheonan CC 2008[/url:hjl5xv15]) Hopefully, competitions can fit 3 solves into a competition, but if not, I think you are still allowed to have a "Best of" final round.[/quote:hjl5xv15] "Best of" is actually the preferred format for feet in the final round. We don't have a mean for 3x3 BLD. And just because it's still possible to have a "Best of" round, having the "Mean of 3" there will make competitors argue more to have 3 solves. I know you're not old enough to have kids, but it's like the book, "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie...."

[quote="BryanLogan":2rsl0uez]"Best of" is actually the preferred format for feet in the final round. We don't have a mean for 3x3 BLD. And just because it's still possible to have a "Best of" round, having the "Mean of 3" there will make competitors argue more to have 3 solves. I know you're not old enough to have kids, but it's like the book, "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie...."[/quote:2rsl0uez] Yes, I do somewhat agree that people will want a mean, if there is one. The thing is, times on 6x6 and 7x7 can vary immensely. My 7x7 single PB is 4:09, while my best average of 5 is only even in the 4:30s. If I were to get a crazy good solve in competition, that doesn't prove my abilities are better than another person who averages in the 4:20s. I think an average representation needs to be put in place, and mean of 3 seems to satisfy that need for everyone while keeping organizational issues smaller.

[quote="Erik":sj2oi3n1] 2. I personally think a mean of 3 for 6x6 and 7x7 is not really handy, it's not really helping on time management and it'll barely add anything to the reliability of the record(s).[/quote:sj2oi3n1] I agree with Erik and Bob on this point. A single WR is enough (no mean). [quote="Erik":sj2oi3n1] (3) (not a remark just a thought) The standing WR's for clock and sq-1 for the mean of 3 will remain standing untill an avg of 5 was done faster than those records? [/quote:sj2oi3n1] Why not ? It may be easier to have a best mean than average. Anyway, we did it for 5x5, and we can not actually see a problem with it. [quote="Erik":sj2oi3n1] 5. I personally don't mind the time limit for multi of one hour (I know others do a lot, but sadly they are not on this forum), but is the current WR standing for ever then? I don't see someone beating 24 cubes in only one hour.[/quote:sj2oi3n1] I also think we should start a new ranking. Is really 24/24 in 2:15 better than 23/23 in 59mins ?? I think that with these regulations, that's like a new event starting : Doing as many cubes as possible in 1 hour. != Doing as many cubes as possible.

I think having an average for bld is not done because 95% of averages will be DNF. With 6x6 and 7x7 we won't have that problem... EDIT: 95% is just a random guess, and I'm too lazy to work out the actual percent.

[quote="Dene":2dp7oerd]I think having an average for bld is not done because 95% of averages will be DNF. With 6x6 and 7x7 we won't have that problem... EDIT: 95% is just a random guess, and I'm too lazy to work out the actual percent.[/quote:2dp7oerd] But it most organizers are going to have a combined final with a strict cut-off time or just go with "Best of X", then most 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 solvers won't have a mean either. And there are some 3x3x3 bld people that could have an average. I was just trying to point out that we don't need two metrics for every event.

For 3x3 BLD I think we've seen enough means that it would not be completely unreasonable to add it in. (At the very least, I'd like to be able to get a ranking of the best BLD means ever achieved, without having to ask Stefan to run a search on the database.) If you never get a mean it won't even be on your WCA profile so it won't matter for you. If you do get a mean, few people get it, so you have a good rank If there is a mean in 3x3 BLD though, I still think competition rounds should be ranked as "best of X", simply because it is so rare and difficult to actually get a successful mean.

Any decision?! Will the new regulations be applied at Swiss Open & Galanta Open or the old ones

Hi All, I didn't know this forum has been being really hot. [quote:xl59go51]Any decision?! Will the new regulations be applied at Swiss Open & Galanta Open or the old ones [/quote:xl59go51] I personally think new regulation should be applied two months after decision. May be, we can adapt minor changes in a week. I doubt all organizers and competitors can follow all the changes properly. And about new event, if we have at least two or three months, everyone have chance to set new WR. I know it is possible that some slow solver can set new WR under new regulation. (Which is discussed in other thread. ) If the new event is recognized from the competitions in January, it seems unfair to me at least. We should give such chance (setting WR) to everyone. Another solution is to add "9e4) New event added as official can be held two (or three) months after addition. Within two (or three) months, the record will not be recognized as official ". Masayuki Akimoto

Hi all, I am actually glad the number of changes for 2009 is low. Some bigger changes (adding 6x6 and 7x7, time limit for multiple blindfolded, average of 5 for Clock and Square-1) but most changes are clarification changes. So I think we can easily implement Regulations 2009 on January 31, unless we find a very difficult discussion this week. Thanks, Ron

[quote:2hjh7z9c]So I think we can easily implement Regulations 2009 on January 31, unless we find a very difficult discussion this week.[/quote:2hjh7z9c] As I wrote, the chance of competing for new events should be equal for everyone. 6x6 and 7x7 should be added two or three month later. multi-BLD may be OK if the ranking is clear. But competitors may need to change their strategy to adapt one hour limit. Average of 5 for Clock and Square-1 should be no problem. Masayuki

I think, organizers for these two competitions have worked out their time schedule. They cannot get the final decision in the last minute (at Friday evening as an extreme example ). And a competitor (me ) also should know if he should train for 10 cubes or only for 7.

Thanks to Dan for creating the new version of the scramble program, now supporting the 2R 3F notation for 6x6 and 7x7. It will be changed for draft 2. Ron

[quote="Masayuki":1i9x66sq]As I wrote, the chance of competing for new events should be equal for everyone. 6x6 and 7x7 should be added two or three month later.[/quote:1i9x66sq] This does not give an equal chance to everyone. In fact there is no way to give an equal chance for everyone. I support "let the winner of the first competition get the WR, as long as it is faster than the best time on speedcubing.com/results" because it works the same way as any other WR attempt. If several people can beat a WR, it will always go to the first person to beat it. You don't say "let's wait a year to give all the fast square-1 solvers a chance to go to a competition and get a good time", you just give it to the first person to beat the given time. This is the best way to do it because it is consistent.

Michael, don't take it as offensive, but I don't see why in the world you want so much that the WR is set just when someone breaks X time what's the big deal with someone getting a "slow" solve as WR? It will be a "fast" WR in a couple months, and really fast after a year or so Stefan already pointed out (or made you point out) what's an official world record...

So... there's NOT going to be polls for removing/adding events? Technically we are still under the '08 regulations so there should be the polls. Clarify if im wrong