In my experience, a demonstration speedsolve at the beginning of competitions has been a good idea, especially at competitions with large numbers of new competitors, who may have only briefly read regulations, or not read them at all. Although at larger competitions this may be harder to do - as (almost) everyone would need to be in the same spot - it does seem to help with competitors who are unsure/unfamiliar with regulations, and can prevent penalties/unintentional DNFs from starting too late, or prevent the judges from needing to explain regulations, as I have seen happen. So I'd like to suggest an optional regulation: Z4) The organization team may demonstrate the procedure of a speed solve, in order to assist competitors who have not competed before.

Well, first, it wouldn't be under Z, because that would mean demonstrations would have to be approved by the WCA Board. The other regulations in Z give the competition the ability to do stuff they may not otherwise be able to do. Those no need optional demonstration needs to be in the rules. Unless I'm required to give a demonstration, then it doesn't need to be in the rules. Besides, I gave a demo at the Wisconsin Open, the the first competitor immediately failed to follow instructions.

Ok, so 8g. It shouldn't be required, but I still think it is something that should be recommended by the regulations. At Cornell 08, there was no demo, and quite a few competitors failed to follow regulations (although the starting procedure had just changed significantly). At the Cincinnati Summer 08 (and all the competitions I have been to after that), we did a demo solve, and there weren't any problems like this, despite the majority of competitors being new.

I think these should become separate directions for competition organizers, not part of the WCA Regulations. We could standards for recommended behavior, to make competitions more easily well-run, and consistent. For example, I just realized something useful I'd been doing: judges should make sure to ask new competitors (on their first solve) if they know the regulations. (And even with that, today I judged a competitor who thought he knew the regs but didn't know that the judge doesn't cover the timer again.) I'm slowly getting more convinced that we just need a few guidesheets, for organizers, competitors, judges, etc.

We always do this, normally Anders = judge, Gunnar = competitor.

jbcm, Not only did competitors fail to follow rules, but some judges did too. I had a few judges cover my cube back up after I put it down. I don't think there's any reason to put this in the regulations. If an organizer wants to do it, so be it. Why would you need to put it in the regulations?

[quote="DanCohen":1is6g2ls]jbcm, Not only did competitors fail to follow rules, but some judges did too. I had a few judges cover my cube back up after I put it down. I don't think there's any reason to put this in the regulations. If an organizer wants to do it, so be it. Why would you need to put it in the regulations?[/quote:1is6g2ls] exactly

[quote="DanCohen":v7l2ac1b]I don't think there's any reason to put this in the regulations. If an organizer wants to do it, so be it. Why would you need to put it in the regulations?[/quote:v7l2ac1b] For the benefit of any new competitors. It seems like most people are against this, and I can agree that it is not absolutely necessary. However I still think it would be a good idea to officially recommend this - perhaps guidesheets as Lucas suggested may be sufficient.

just to clarify, I'm not against demonstration solves (we even did it the first competition here in Brazil) I just think there's no need to put it on the regulations.

I agree that sometimes a demonstration is valuable. I agree that this does not need to be added to the regulations. Ron