WCA Regulations 2010: request for input and feedback

Ron (2010-01-20 06:55:55 +0000)
Fellow cubers, Today we start with the creation of WCA Regulations 2010. 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: "[2010 Ideas]". Thanks for the feedback already posted earlier than today. I will post a list of possible changes that I gathered since WCA Regulations 2009. The planning is to finalise WCA Regulations 2010 end of February 2010. So the first draft should be published 1st or 2nd week of February. Thanks, Ron
Ron (2010-02-24 23:22:51 +0000)
First draft of WCA Regulations 2010: http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/reg ... 10new.html History of changes: http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/reg ... y2010.html No exciting stuff, mainly small maintenance. Feedback welcome in the separate threads.
Pedro_S (2010-02-25 11:49:34 +0000)
[quote="Ron":mw0b8er6]First draft of WCA Regulations 2010: http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/reg ... y2010.html History of changes: http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/reg ... 10new.html No exciting stuff, mainly small maintenance. Feedback welcome in the separate threads.[/quote:mw0b8er6] The links are swapped :)
Pedro_S (2010-03-11 15:44:22 +0000)
When will the regulations be final? I'm hosting a competition next week and I'd love to have average of 5 for megaminx :)
Ashroof (2010-03-11 23:41:53 +0000)
[quote="Pedro_S":tyt5vv8n]When will the regulations be final? I'm hosting a competition next week and I'd love to have average of 5 for megaminx :)[/quote:tyt5vv8n] haha..... finally average of 5 for megaminx
DanCohen (2010-03-11 23:56:12 +0000)
how about for next year, we look at the regulations much earlier, so that the regulations can go into effect at the start of the year. I don't see why the 2010 regulations shouldn't go into effect for 2010, especially when the reasoning for it is solely because we start the discussion too late.
MadsMohr (2010-03-12 13:57:56 +0000)
I agree with Dan. We have already had 40+ competitions in the first 3 months of this year that was conducted under 2009 regulations.
Erik (2010-03-20 09:18:48 +0000)
[quote="DanCohen":2o1wjgau]how about for next year, we look at the regulations much earlier, so that the regulations can go into effect at the start of the year. I don't see why the 2010 regulations shouldn't go into effect for 2010, especially when the reasoning for it is solely because we start the discussion too late.[/quote:2o1wjgau] 2nd that! Would also make things more clear about when new regulations are used next year...
qqwref (2010-03-24 08:21:41 +0000)
I'm not in the "scramblers kindly provided by..." list. Was I too mean? :lol:
Pedro_S (2010-03-24 13:32:46 +0000)
Maybe because that list will go away and your name appears right next to your programs? Square-1 images don't work, btw...
Ron (2010-04-11 19:25:53 +0000)
@Michael: corrected in the final version for 2010
Ron (2010-04-11 20:53:42 +0000)
Fellow members of our community, WCA Regulations 2010 are now available at: [url:3l9rjfa9]http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/regulations2010new.html[/url:3l9rjfa9] The list of changes is now available at: [url:3l9rjfa9]http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/regulations_history2010.html[/url:3l9rjfa9] Could you please do a final check? Then we can officially publish on April 12 or April 13. WCA Regulations 2010 must be used for all official WCA competitions starting April 14. Thanks, Ron
Pedro_S (2010-04-12 00:10:13 +0000)
I think I suggested this last year, but... A darker green would be nice...that one is too bright, at least on my screen. Other than that, I didn't find anything. Already working on the portuguese translation. (Actually already updated the file...just waiting for a few more eyes to look at it and make sure everything is good)
DanCohen (2010-04-12 03:08:47 +0000)
I found an issue with the square-1 scrambler. Some showed a (0,0) at the end of the scramble, but the image didn't have that last slice shown. It seems like a frequent issue as 4/5 scrambles in the first page I loaded had images that were wrong. 3 of them had (0,0) at the end when there image didn't have that, and a scramble with a (0,0) needed a slice at the end to match the picture. --EDIT-- nevermind. Apparently I just didn't understand what was going on in the scrambler. The way the scrambler is shown is totally counterintuitive in my opinion. Having a (0,0) at the end of a scramble meaning that you don't add a slice just seems silly. Perhaps scrambles should default to not putting a / at the end of a scramble, and adding a (0,0) if you need to do it. Turning (3,3)/ into (3,3)(0,0). This seems way more intuitive in my opinion, as I really had no clue what was going on the way it is.
qqwref (2010-04-12 05:13:45 +0000)
I don't see any issue at all. Just do a / after every (x,y) move like the regulations say; if there is no (0,0) the scramble will end in a /, but if there is a (0,0) it just cancels out. This makes a lot more sense than always not doing a / after the scramble, which goes against what the regulations say anyway. If you're in doubt, anyway, you can just make it line up with the image. The other solution would be to add the / back in, which would then completely remove the need for (0,0) moves and remove all of the confusion, although you'd have to be careful to check if a scramble has a / at the end or not.
Pedro_S (2010-04-14 13:52:05 +0000)
G1a) Competitor must not use the timer for practice solves in between official solves. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. I'm not sure I understand how this works. Will you DNF the last solve? The next one?
Olivér Perge (2010-04-14 14:17:36 +0000)
[quote="Pedro_S":2nunnj50]G1a) Competitor must not use the timer for practice solves in between official solves. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. I'm not sure I understand how this works. Will you DNF the last solve? The next one?[/quote:2nunnj50] In my opinion the last solve, the "practice solve" should be DNF.
Ron (2010-04-14 14:41:55 +0000)
[quote:1xvm1f2x]I'm not sure I understand how this works. Will you DNF the last solve? The next one?[/quote:1xvm1f2x] The question is how to decide it is a practice solve or not. Either the competitor says it is a practice solve, in which case that specific solve will be DNF. Or the competitor says it is not a practice solve, in which case the judge evaluates the solve as if it were an official solve.
Pedro_S (2010-04-14 16:55:08 +0000)
Ok, let me see if I get it. Competitor does 2 solves. Then he tells me: I'm gonna do a practice solve. So his 3rd solve will be DNF? Then he does the final 2? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me... Competitor won't say it is a practice solve when he knows he'll automatically get a DNF. Or maybe that's what's intended...hmm...
Ron (2010-04-14 17:01:51 +0000)
[quote:2ybq6ng0]Competitor does 2 solves. Then he tells me: I'm gonna do a practice solve. So his 3rd solve will be DNF? Then he does the final 2?[/quote:2ybq6ng0] A competitor is allowed to do practice solves, but NOT on the timer, so only WITHOUT using the timer. If he uses the timer then by definition it is an official solve, so judge should evaluate whether regulations were followed.
Pedro_S (2010-04-14 17:34:06 +0000)
Right, I got it. So if competitor tells me it was a practice solve, too bad, but he's getting a DNF.
Lucas (2010-04-15 05:00:51 +0000)
I don't want to dispute this change, but I find it a bit odd to mandate for every competition. It seems counter to the philosophy of allowing 2H inspection for OH, since we're now obligated to disqualify competitors for harmless practice. I have a feeling that enforcement of this at CA competitions will be lax. I think this may be better off as an "optional" regulation in the future, since it seems like a non-critical logistic issue. I'll participate in the discussion next year if I still care about this topic.
qqwref (2010-04-15 05:47:03 +0000)
So maybe we should rewrite the regulation to be more clear - we obviously don't want to have a situation where saying a solve is official gives the competitor a valid time, but saying it was practice gives the competitor a DNF. That is simply unfair to people who are not extremely familiar with the regulations. As it is now: - G1a) Competitor must not use the timer for practice solves in between official solves. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. What it (perhaps) should be: - G1a) Competitor must not use the timer for practice solves in between official solves. That is, after the first official solve, the next four solves are also official.
Ron (2010-04-15 06:07:56 +0000)
[quote:tzffc9kp]I don't want to dispute this change, but I find it a bit odd to mandate for every competition.[/quote:tzffc9kp] I do not see why this regulation should be different between competitions. The fact is that a judge and a WCA delegate have very much trouble keeping track of which solves were official and which weren't. In Europe we see many competitors who do a zillion of solves and then suddenly one result is written down as an official result. We do not want that. You can practice, but not on the timer, or bring your own timer. [quote:tzffc9kp]G1a) Competitor must not use the timer for practice solves in between official solves. That is, after the first official solve, the next four solves are also official.[/quote:tzffc9kp] I agree that 'disqualification of the solve' makes it less clear. The problem already starts with the 'first official solve'. How to determine when the first official solve starts? The text proposal is not correct. Magic event might as well be a 'best of 2' event.
qqwref (2010-04-15 10:42:25 +0000)
[quote="Ron":1p1jxevc][quote:1p1jxevc]G1a) Competitor must not use the timer for practice solves in between official solves. That is, after the first official solve, the next four solves are also official.[/quote:1p1jxevc] I agree that 'disqualification of the solve' makes it less clear. The problem already starts with the 'first official solve'. How to determine when the first official solve starts? The text proposal is not correct. Magic event might as well be a 'best of 2' event.[/quote:1p1jxevc] The current regulation says you can't do practice solves *between* official solves, so we determine when the first official solve starts in the same way we always have. At least in my area, usually a competitor and judge will agree on when to start counting the solves, with the judge pressuring the competitor to start soon if they are taking too much time. I suppose you could do best of 2 magic, but it would be silly, wouldn't it? It takes under a minute to finish the average, unless the competitor is one of the worst in the world. Personally I would rather just forbid any format but Average of 5 for Magic events, to decrease complexity. Anyway, we could change it to something like "That is, all solves for a competitor in a given round are consecutive, starting from the first official solve".
Ron (2010-04-15 11:11:44 +0000)
[quote:sl7xcg2b]I suppose you could do best of 2 magic, but it would be silly, wouldn't it?[/quote:sl7xcg2b] We had some competitions where they did not do 'average of 5'. Really. [quote:sl7xcg2b]Anyway, we could change it to something like "That is, all solves for a competitor in a given round are consecutive, starting from the first official solve".[/quote:sl7xcg2b] That would disallow practice solves without using the timer. Maybe something like this: "Competitor must not use the competition timer for practice solves. All solves on the competition timer are considered as an official attempt for the round."
Pedro_S (2010-04-15 11:16:03 +0000)
Indeed, I agree with Michael on this one. The way it is written is kinda confusing (and that's why I brought it up here...a friend who was helping me with the translation asked about it). We determine the first solve when competitors says he will do the first solve. From that point, every solve using the timer is considered official.
BryanLogan (2010-04-15 13:03:47 +0000)
What about: The competitor (at the discretion of the judge), may do practice solves on the timer. The judge will inform the competitor when the official solves will begin. At that point, all solves will be treated as official solves. Usually I'll have one person judging Magic and people are "on deck" on a different timer warming up. Every once in a while, you get someone who wants to do warm-ups constantly on the official station, and does a solve or two, and then says they need to practice more, etc. That's what I'm hoping to avoid in the future. It also avoids confusion when a competitor mumbles something, solves, and says, "Hey, that was official."
Pedro_S (2010-04-15 14:28:14 +0000)
I prefer having the competitor clearly telling when to start, rather than the judge deciding that (based on what?)
BryanLogan (2010-04-15 16:33:02 +0000)
[quote="Pedro_S":d4vjr2d0]I prefer having the competitor clearly telling when to start, rather than the judge deciding that (based on what?)[/quote:d4vjr2d0] I should've said, "Both judge and competitor agree to start". You want to avoid a competitor doing a bunch of practice solves, and then saying, "OK, this is official", solve, and have the judge record the time (the judge may not have even been watching the practice).
Pedro_S (2010-04-15 16:42:42 +0000)
Yes. Competitor has to tell BEFORE the attempt.
Ron (2010-04-15 18:48:12 +0000)
I changed it to (textual version April 15) G1a) The competitor may do practice solves on the competition timer. When the judge and competitor mutually agree, the official solves will begin. At that point, all solves will be treated as official solves.
qqwref (2010-04-15 21:49:58 +0000)
That's a good clear wording, and still allows for practice solves before the official events. Thanks, Ron :)
Sebastien (2010-04-16 21:48:52 +0000)
[quote="Ron":2xhqo4pj] G1a) The competitor may do practice solves on the competition timer. When the judge and competitor mutually agree, the official solves will begin. At that point, all [b:2xhqo4pj]timed[/b:2xhqo4pj] solves will be treated as official solves.[/quote:2xhqo4pj] I would add that word. Or do you want to disallow untimed practise solves?
DanCohen (2010-04-19 14:41:25 +0000)
we ran into an interesting situation at Baltimore Spring 2010 this weekend. In the new regulations, its stated that a competitor must put the puzzle on the stackmat, not the timer after inspection. The problem is that the regulations do not explain a penalty for complying to this. Would it be a +2 or a DNF? To me, it seems like a starting infraction, such as the flat palms regulation or the physical contact regulation. I think it just needs to be clarified.
BryanLogan (2010-04-19 14:52:18 +0000)
[quote="DanCohen":2veum29g]we ran into an interesting situation at Baltimore Spring 2010 this weekend. In the new regulations, its stated that a competitor must put the puzzle on the stackmat, not the timer after inspection. The problem is that the regulations do not explain a penalty for complying to this. Would it be a +2 or a DNF? To me, it seems like a starting infraction, such as the flat palms regulation or the physical contact regulation. I think it just needs to be clarified.[/quote:2veum29g] On a related note: 10g) For Magic (and similar puzzles) the puzzle must be flat on the surface. So if it's laying across the timer, but not bent enough to have a +2, then it's OK?
Pedro_S (2010-04-20 17:14:25 +0000)
[quote="SebastienAuroux":2u2a26k2][quote="Ron":2u2a26k2] G1a) The competitor may do practice solves on the competition timer. When the judge and competitor mutually agree, the official solves will begin. At that point, all [b:2u2a26k2]timed[/b:2u2a26k2] solves will be treated as official solves.[/quote:2u2a26k2] I would add that word. Or do you want to disallow untimed practise solves?[/quote:2u2a26k2] This still needs clarifying...can the competitor do practice solves between official ones? Like in the air or whatever?
Stefan Łapicki (2010-04-23 12:04:05 +0000)
In version with colors: "If scrambled position differs from executed scramble WCA delegate decides whether rescramble is necessary." was red in 6x6 and 7x7 but it is removed only in 6x6 is it correct? If new regulation is added: "•B1b1) Competitors must bring their own blindfold." shouldn't "(provided by judge)" be removed from: "•B4a) After memorisation the competitor dons the blindfold (provided by judge)."?
Ron (2010-05-09 11:34:41 +0000)
@Stefan You are right. I corrected these 2 mistakes in the May 9 version. Thanks