3j) Puzzles must be clean and must not have any textures, markings, elevated pieces, damages, or other differences that distinguish one piece from a similar piece. Does this mean that you can't have hollow corner cubbies? Some one could actually use this in something like blindfolded solving if they forgot the orientation of the corners. They cold feel them to see what the orientation is. Also while im posting: In 3c it says: "Competitors must use any colour scheme for cube puzzles" It seems more proper to use may instead of must. I know that words like may, must, should, ect. are used very strictly. Must expresses necessity (You HAVE to do something) May expresses permission. In this case it just seems more logical to use may. Just something i noticed It's no big deal NOTE: I got the quotes from the old regulations, not the new ones that are still pending.

[quote="Roboguy777":2ana1qpx]3j) Puzzles must be clean and must not have any textures, markings, elevated pieces, damages, or other differences that distinguish one piece from a similar piece. Does this mean that you can't have hollow corner cubbies? Some one could actually use this in something like blindfolded solving if they forgot the orientation of the corners. They cold feel them to see what the orientation is.[/quote:2ana1qpx] This regulation does not address that. If there is a problem, if one piece has the hollow corner, then they must all have the hollow corner. In my cube, you can't distinguish one corner from another, though, because they should all have that hollow part (though I would know the proper orientation if taken apart). [quote="Roboguy777":2ana1qpx]Also while im posting: In 3c it says: "Competitors must use any colour scheme for cube puzzles" It seems more proper to use may instead of must. I know that words like may, must, should, ect. are used very strictly. Must expresses necessity (You HAVE to do something) May expresses permission. In this case it just seems more logical to use may. Just something i noticed It's no big deal.[/quote:2ana1qpx] I agree with you.

[quote="Bob":3eo6swl7][quote="Roboguy777":3eo6swl7]3j) Puzzles must be clean and must not have any textures, markings, elevated pieces, damages, or other differences that distinguish one piece from a similar piece. Does this mean that you can't have hollow corner cubbies? Some one could actually use this in something like blindfolded solving if they forgot the orientation of the corners. They cold feel them to see what the orientation is.[/quote:3eo6swl7] This regulation does not address that. If there is a problem, if one piece has the hollow corner, then they must all have the hollow corner. In my cube, you can't distinguish one corner from another, though, because they should all have that hollow part (though I would know the proper orientation if taken apart).[/quote:3eo6swl7] I think your getting mixed up a little. i'm talking about orientation not permutation. If you get a diy set that have the little plastic pieces to insert into the hollow spot on the corner cubie and you choose not to insert it and when you put it togetter you made sure all of the hollow spaces were facing each other on the top/ bottom layers before you stickered it you could figure out what the orientation of each piece is by turning each layer 45 degrees to feel the hollow spots. I doubt anyone would take the time to do this but you never know.

[quote="Roboguy777":2s9e5z61]I think your getting mixed up a little. i'm talking about orientation not permutation. If you get a diy set that have the little plastic pieces to insert into the hollow spot on the corner cubie and you choose not to insert it and when you put it togetter you made sure all of the hollow spaces were facing each other on the top/ bottom layers before you stickered it you could figure out what the orientation of each piece is by turning each layer 45 degrees to feel the hollow spots. I doubt anyone would take the time to do this but you never know.[/quote:2s9e5z61] No, I understood. The regulations say that you should not be able to distinguish one piece from another (permutation). It does not mention that you should not be able to determine one side of a piece from another side of the same piece (my interpretation of the regulations). So what you are proposing seems to be allowed by the regulations.

Yeah, looks like the rule allows it. Flawed rule, then. On the other hand, this and similar "markings" are hard to avoid and hard to detect by the judge. Flawed reality, then.

No, I understood. The regulations say that you should not be able to distinguish one piece from another (permutation). It does not mention that you should not be able to determine one side of a piece from another side of the same piece (my interpretation of the regulations). So what you are proposing seems to be allowed by the regulations.[/quote] Yeah, I'm sorry, I read it wrong. It kinda seems like there should be a rule against it though.