[quote:21rhqcav]3e) Twisty puzzles must either have coloured stickers or coloured tiles.[/quote:21rhqcav] Some puzzles have their colors printed on, but are otherwise indistinguishable from other, comparable, puzzles with stickers/tiles (I’m specifically thinking about the small white Diansheng’s that some use for OH). Could this be changed to allow those puzzles for use? I think that 3c, 3d, 3j, and 3k together prevent people from interpreting a lack of 3e as “I can use my painted cube now!”. [quote:21rhqcav]3l) Cube puzzles must have at most one logo. For Rubik's Cube or bigger cube puzzles the logo must be placed on one of the centre pieces.[/quote:21rhqcav] I know the Mefferts’ 4x4’s(?) have logos on multiple faces, but are somehow still allowed; yet, I couldn’t actually find a provision that specifically excluded them from 3l. I think there should be some clarification on this. [quote:21rhqcav]11f) The main judge and WCA delegate must not support their decisions with video or photograph analysis.[/quote:21rhqcav] This confuses me. What situations was this regulation meant to cover? A3d) At the end of the inspection, the competitor must place the puzzle back onto the Stackmat, in the orientation and position he wishes. Is the timer considered part of the Stackmat? If so, can the puzzle be placed on the timer itself, between the hands? I don’t know if adding team BLD is an option at all, but here is a set of possible regulations I came up with (because I was just that bored...). If there is support, this could be applied in a 1 year test run of unofficial events at competitions to determine feasibility. Feel free to shoot me down. I'm guessing in the official database you would record rankings by team, (maybe) with caller/executor labelled (so you could have two entries of each team, possibly), and each team member's WCA profile page would indicate all teams they were a member of, as well as roles. Format suggested: No idea, I'd start it out as Mean of 3, with possible combined round cutoffs at 2 solves? TEAM BLD: Competitors shall register in sets of 2, with one being designated the “caller” and the other the “executor”. -edit- [b:21rhqcav]Thanks to Jeremy and BryanLogan so far for remarks. As they have pointed out, this is basically the same thing as blindfold, except the person holding the cube is allowed to communicate with one person other than the judge (the caller), who is not allowed to touch the cube at any point. The reason I wrote it all out is because it was either that or saying "follow all speedsolving and blindfold regulations, except change the word competitor to competing team except in these regulations where you should change it to executor and these regulations where it should be caller, and etc etc.[/b:21rhqcav] 1. (Identical to A1) Attempts for events categorized under Speed Solving must abide to the following procedure. a. (Identical to A1a) The time limit is 10 minutes, or less/higher if announced before the event. b. (Identical to A1b) A stopwatch is used for time measurement, in addtino to a Stackmat, if the time limit is higher than 10 minutes. If the puzzle solving time is under 10 minutes, the Stackmat time is the result, otherwise the stopwatch time is the result. 2. Scrambling a. The competing team hands over the puzzle to the scrambler and waits in the competitors area until they is called to compete. b. (Identical to A2b) A scrambler scrambles the puzzle according to the regulations in Article 4. c. The competing team must not see the puzzle between the time when the puzzle is scrambled and the start of the inspection phase. d. (Identical to A2d) When taking the puzzle from the scrambler, the judge does a quick general inspection of thorough scrambling of the puzzle. In case of doubt the judge contacts the scrambler for a detailed check. e. (Identical to A2e) The judge places the puzzle onto the Stackmat and covers it completely with an object. 3. Inspection a. Before starting the solve, the competing team may inspect the puzzle. i. The competing team has a maximum of 15 seconds for inspecting the puzzle and starting the solve. b. Before the judge uncovers the puzzle, the executor must don the blindfold (provided by judge). c. The judge resets the timer and stopwatch. i. When the judge and competing team mutually agree within one minute that the competing team is ready to begin the inspection, the judge says ‘READY?’. ii. When the competing team confirms, the judge uncovers the puzzle after 1 second. At the same time the judge starts the stopwatch. d. At no point during inspection is the caller allowed to touch the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. e. During inspection the executor is allowed to pick up the puzzle. i. The competing team must not apply moves. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. ii. If the pieces of the puzzle are not fully aligned, then the executor may fix it, only to align the faces (for cubes the alignment must not exceed 45 degrees). iii. The executor may reset the timer before the competing team starts the solve. f. The competing team is not allowed to make notes during inspection. g. At the end of the inspection, the executor must place the puzzle back onto the Stackmat, in the orientation and position he wishes. i. When the inspection time reaches 8 seconds, the judge calls ‘8 seconds’. ii. When the inspection time reaches 12 seconds, the judge calls ‘GO’. 4. Starting the solve a. The executor must place his hands flat on the elevated sensor area of the Stackmat, with his fingers touching the sensors and with palms down. Penalty: 2 seconds. i. Neither caller nor executor can have any physical contact with the puzzle before the solve is started. Penalty: 2 seconds. b. The competing team starts the solve by confirming that the timer light is green, then removing the executor’s hands from the timer, thus starting the timer. i. The competing team must start the solve within 15 seconds after the start of the inspection. Penalty: 2 seconds. ii. The competing team must start the solve within 17 seconds after the start of the inspection. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. c. Time penalties for Starting the Solve are not cumulative. There is a maximum of 1 time penalty for Starting the Solve. 5. During the solve a. While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the caller and executor are allowed to communicate with each other. b. While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competing team must not have any communication with anyone other than the judge. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. c. While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competing team must not have any assistance from anyone or any object (other than the surface). Penalty: disqualification of the solve. d. At no point during the solve is the caller allowed to touch the puzzle. f. The executor must not look at the puzzle state any time during the solve. Penalty: Disqualification of the solve. 6. Ending the solve a. When using a Stackmat, the executor ends the solve by releasing the puzzle and then stopping the timer. i. It is the executor’s responsibility that the timer is stopped correctly. ii. (Identical to A6c) The timer must be stopped using both hands, with both hands flat and palms down. Penalty: 2 seconds. iii. The executor must fully release the puzzle before stopping the timer. Penalty: 2 seconds. b. When using a stopwatch, the executor ends the solve by placing the puzzle back onto the surface and notifying the judge that the solve has ended. At that moment the judge stops the timer. c. The executor may remove the blindfold before stopping the timer, but after removing the blindfold no moves must be applied to the puzzle anymore. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. d. The competing team must not touch or move the puzzle until the judge has inspected the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. e. The competing team must not reset the timer until the judge has written down the result on the competition sheet. Penalty: disqualification of the solve (courtesy of judge). f. (identical to A6g) The judge must inspect the puzzle without making moves or aligning faces and must determine whether the puzzle has been completely solved. g. (identical to A6h) In case of a dispute no moves or alignments must be applied to the puzzle until the dispute has been settled, involving the main judge if needed. Penalty: disqualification of the solve (courtesy of judge). h. (identical to A6i) Time penalties for Ending the Solve are not cumulative. There is a maximum of 1 time penalty for Ending the Solve. 7. Administration a. (identical to A7a) If the judge decides the solve was correct, the judge calls ‘OK’. b. (identical to A7b) The judge writes down the result of the solve on a competition sheet, and signs the sheet with name or signature. c. (identical to A7c) The competing team is responsible for checking the result on the sheet, immediately after the judge has written it down. d. If the judge gives a penalty, then judge calls 'PENALTY'. The competing team must sign the score sheet. e. If the result is DNF, then the judge calls ‘NO FINISH’. The competing team must sign the score sheet. f. At the end of the competing team’s round the judge delivers the competition sheet to the score taker.

[quote="Vincents":2sljwjiy] e. During the full solve the judge must keep a sheet of paper or a similar object between the executor’s face and the puzzle, unless the puzzle is in a position where peeking at the puzzle is not possible. [/quote:2sljwjiy] And this blocks the caller from seeing. Also, you notice how Article B starts with "B1) Standard procedure is followed as described in Article A (Speed Solving). Additional/special regulations for Blindfolded Solving are described below." Write your team BLD proposal in the same way. Just note the ways that it's different from article B.

Ah yes, that was an error on my part. I've removed that section. See edited post for why I wrote it this way, though I can probably come up with something in the standard convention as well.

Holding a piece of paper between the executor and the cube isn't feasible. Preventing cheating feabily is the biggest problem with regulating this event. Regular blindfolds are designed for sleep (not cubing) although I do feel that if we require the executor to hold the cube out in front of them, there's no way they'll be able to peek around the sides of the blindfold. If that doesn't sound good enough, I propose something really effective, like a towel. With one wrapped around your head, there's no way you could see the cube. The competitors would have to provide one for hygenic purposes, of course. I also find this format really difficult to read clearly. I've already talked to Vincent about this, and he feels that the Team BLD regulations should be standalone, and very explicit. I feel that they should be really simple. Something like: [list:2r6c30o6] -Definition of "caller" and "executor" with executor bld regulations -Team BLD follows the exact same regulations as speedsolve, except during the entire process, the caller may not touch the cube, and the executor may not see the cube (ie: obeying the executor bld regulations). [/list:u:2r6c30o6] Inspection should be clearly defined in these regulations, and easy to understand if you already know the speedsolve regulations. Thanks for getting the ball rolling here Vincent!

Although I don't have much to contribute to the wording, I would highly support referencing regulations whenever possible. It's like decomposition in programming: It's shorter, less redundant, and easier to maintain. Anyhow, although I do prefer speed BLD, team BLD sounds like the most interesting and popular event worth implementing. It's unconventional in some sense, but we shouldn't limit ourselves by precedence.

I support Team BLD a lot. This is due to the fact that it would add a fun and [u:2urh6tk5]social[/u:2urh6tk5] event in speedcubing. Speed BLD would just be another event where not many people would want to compete in and is hard to master. The same goes for teamsolving, I don't really care which of the events (Team BLD or teamsolving) would be made official, but I'd like to see either one of them to be 'officialized'. Judging shouldn't be too hard either and scrambling and solving wouldn't take that much time.

What do you mean by team solving? If it's the "Pass it back and forth each turn", I think that would be very hard to enforce. A judge missing a finger trick and you've saved a pass or two. As for speed BLD, how long do you think someone will need to come up with a fast algorithm and memorize it? Another long-running event isn't needed just yet I don't think.

Yes it's hard to judge teamsolving, that's why I think Team BLD is the better choice of the 2. Also the 'non communication' would be quite hard to enforce. Body language can say a LOT too. Team BLD is original and fun and brings people together, is easy to judge and organize and doesn't take that much time (also because you just have at least half amount of 'competitors' than you have at the other events). I hope the WCA board will think about this open minded and enthusiastic.

It is a very fun event but there are some problems to sort out first. * How would you cover the puzzle with a sheet of paper for the executor while allowing a clear view for the instructor? * How would results be saved in the current WCA results database? To the thread starter: If you want your "Minor Thoughts" discussed i think you should create a seperate thread for that.

For the sheet-problem. The sheet shout either not be there, or there has to be some form of official blindfolds/devices. If you blacken a pair of swim goggles you have an almost flawless blindfold and doesn't cost much at all, it only goes over the eyes so there aren't any hygienic problems either. As for the database: on the rankings I imagine you get something like: Solver | Caller (or w/e you want to name it) | Time | Event, etc. For the personal pages it would just show something like: Team BLD Together with | Time | Event Shouldn't be that hard to implement right?

i am in favour of the idea too another idea is to blindfold the solver without inspection. otherwise the solver could solve a part of the cube without the caller saying anything.

[quote="robin":2szl7dif] another idea is to blindfold the solver without inspection. otherwise the solver could solve a part of the cube without the caller saying anything.[/quote:2szl7dif] What exactly do you mean by this? As it is proposed right now, there is an inspection period, but the solver is blindfolded during it, and the solve. Are you saying there should be no inspection at all?

The goggles suggestion is an excellent one; competition organizers could either provide, or require competitors to bring their own, and make them available for inspection. I could see such a rule being instituted for normal BLD solving in the near future. Are there any WCA board members reading this thread, and if so, could we get your input on whether this is even feasible to discuss? We're planning on holding unofficial (well, of course...) team BLD at Berkeley Winter 2010 at the end of January, and we could test a working set of regulations.

[quote="Vincents":1pr68em1]The goggles suggestion is an excellent one; competition organizers could either provide, or require competitors to bring their own, and make them available for inspection. I could see such a rule being instituted for normal BLD solving in the near future. Are there any WCA board members reading this thread, and if so, could we get your input on whether this is even feasible to discuss? We're planning on holding unofficial (well, of course...) team BLD at Berkeley Winter 2010 at the end of January, and we could test a working set of regulations.[/quote:1pr68em1] I'd really hate to have to make the organizers provide more stuff. Plus, competitors will complain if the goggles are too tight, too gross, etc.

I don't see any difference with the blindfolds people provide now. I think a textile thing like the blindfolds we use now can be waaay more unhygienic than swimming goggles. Also goggles are really really easy to adjust the tightness off.

[quote="Erik":w2orp8tt]I don't see any difference with the blindfolds people provide now. I think a textile thing like the blindfolds we use now can be waaay more unhygienic than swimming goggles. Also goggles are really really easy to adjust the tightness off.[/quote:w2orp8tt] you aren't actually supposed to be wearing goggles unless you are swimming / have a wet face. I would definitely be quite opposed to being forced to wear goggles suctioned to my face for a long period of time. perhaps something more like ski goggles or work goggles would be more appropriate, as they are much more comfortable than swimming goggles.

Maybe we can discuss the blindfolds matters in the 'blindfolds' thread and keep this to Team BLD? And ya, ski goggles would also be fine.

[quote="Erik":u1njkkq6]Maybe we can discuss the blindfolds matters in the 'blindfolds' thread and keep this to Team BLD? And ya, ski goggles would also be fine.[/quote:u1njkkq6] But blindfolds are as I see it the central point to discuss. This is because of B4c and how would we conduct a teamsolve with a sheet of paper in front of the solver? I guess that better blindfolds could remove the need for this rule?

We ran Team BLD at Berkeley Winter 2010 today. Unofficial Results: http://caltech.cubingusa.com/berkeleywi ... esults/#11

Could someone please combine all these ideas into one clean procedure description? Then I will publish it somewhere on the WCA website. This event will not be part of WCA Regulations 2010. If we follow the new procedure in 2010, then we can reevaluate in 2011. Thanks, Ron