Hi all, Here are the suggested changes for WCA Regulations 2010 that I collected from feedback of WCA members and reports by WCA delegates. I did not want to open 20 new subjects. If you want to react to a specific topic, then please create the new thread yourself and quote my text. I will include these subjects in the first draft of WCA regulations 2010. Thanks, Ron ============ 1) Beginning of solve: puzzles may not rest on timer part of Stackmat. 2) End of solve: puzzles may rest on timer part of Stackmat. Solved state of (Master) Magic is considered after sliding puzzle off the timer part. 3) No special rounds for people in categories, like: male/female, kids/older people. Prizes may be awarded for special categories. 4) Timer malfunctions: - if timer stops after >=0.06 seconds. DNF, no extra solve. (considered a competitor's mistake, unless proven otherwise) - if timer stops after <=0.05 seconds. Extra solve with different scramble. (considered an equipment failure, unless obviously forced by competitor) 5) Covering the display part of a Stackmat is not allowed. (help from extra object) 6) If competitor says he has the same scramble as an earlier attempt: check the scramble. 7) For blindfolded solving: Competitor may use his own blindfold. (hygiene) Must be checked by WCA delegate before use. Optional is the use of a blindfold provided by organisation team. 8 ) For blindfolded solving: Competitors may refuse to use a replacement object for the sheet of paper, if that object reduces the freedom of movement during the solving phase. (blindfolded solving box during Hungarian Open 2009) 9) Logos engraved in tiles are not considered logos, unless they have a distinctive colour. 10) For blindfolded solving: Competitors must not distinguish pieces by touching the inner parts of the puzzles or outer distinctions like engraved logos or damaged stickers. Penalty: DNF, plus reporting to WCA Board. 11) For (Master) Magic solving: at most 2 practice solves in between each attempt. Clear announcement to judge when the competitors starts a practice solve. 12) For (Master) Magic solving: elevation is measured from the bottom of the elevated tile. 13) Earplugs or similar may be used. 14) For blindfolded solving (and all other events): the orientation of the puzzle at the beginning of the solve is undefined. Organisation team must not use a standard orientation or use an orientation as requested by competitor. 15) For blind and visually challenged competitors: - in blindfolded events: memorisation with braille puzzle, solving with regular puzzle - in other events: inspection and solving with braille puzzle, but object obstructs view of puzzle 16) What should happen if a WCA delegate cannot attend a competition? Or leaves early because of sickness. 17) Scrambling programs for other puzzles? Master Pyramorphix: Cube Explorer with random centers. Pyraminx Crystal: Megaminx Skewb? 18) WCA Board may use video/photo evidence to support decisions. 19) For colour blind competitors (only with doctor's attest): use of stickers/tiles with non elevated markings. 20) For Fewest Moves solving: maximum length of solution 80 moves. (to prevent people from making fun of the event by posting 500 move solutions)

2) Would this be a +2 penalty? 7) I would prefer if all competitors supplied their own and it was checked. 9) Is this trying to fix the "At most one logo" rule? Just wondering if there's a better fix. 10) Trying to enforce a competitor from not touching a logo on the outside seems difficult. There's no way to prove they touched it with intent to learn information. 11) I would prefer if the regulations just stated that Magic solves must all be done at the same time in a row. No switching of competitors, no practice solves (after the start). I don't want regulations where a competitor is entitled to a bunch of practice solves. That could slow down the event. 17) I have a Skewb scrambler. It's not random state, but I'm sure someone could make one. But we only need scrambling programs for official events, so I'm guessing these are the potential new events? I think Skewb is the best choice. It's going to be a quick solve. Pyraminx Crystal will take forever. 19) Medical records are a private matter. I don't think the WCA really needs to require it. For this, just have the approved sticker pattern (http://www.cubesmith.com/clrblndwht.JPG) so we don't have to write all the rules about what is/isn't allowed. Even if someone with perfect vision uses these, it's not going to give them an advantage. 20) Agreed. Should we also establish maximum times for other events? Would be become heartbroken if 3x3 had a required cutoff of 10 minutes? Or Magic at 1 minute? Basically eliminate A1b for some events. Since we're guaranteed to keep those on the Stackmat, the times will be more accurate.

Hi Bryan, Thanks for your feedback. [quote:fsaqrj7q]2) Would this be a +2 penalty?[/quote:fsaqrj7q] No penalty. Solved state is considered after sliding off. [quote:fsaqrj7q]7) I would prefer if all competitors supplied their own and it was checked.[/quote:fsaqrj7q] Not everyone has one, so better to at least bring some. [quote:fsaqrj7q]9) Is this trying to fix the "At most one logo" rule? Just wondering if there's a better fix.[/quote:fsaqrj7q] Yes, there are some puzzles out there with more logos. Open to other suggestions. [quote:fsaqrj7q]10) Trying to enforce a competitor from not touching a logo on the outside seems difficult. There's no way to prove they touched it with intent to learn information.[/quote:fsaqrj7q] Well, there are obvious cases. Normally a competitors does not do 1/8 moves and then feel the inside of the puzzle. Or the competitors starts to read his tiles/stickers as if they were braille signs. [quote:fsaqrj7q]11) I would prefer if the regulations just stated that Magic solves must all be done at the same time in a row. No switching of competitors, no practice solves (after the start). I don't want regulations where a competitor is entitled to a bunch of practice solves. That could slow down the event.[/quote:fsaqrj7q] A competitor has one minute to start the solve. In past competitions there were a lot of people practicing in between solves. I normally gave them a minute to be ready for each solve. I would not mind to disallow practice solves, or at least to use the timer for practice solves. [quote:fsaqrj7q]17) I have a Skewb scrambler.[/quote:fsaqrj7q] Yeah, I heard about 1 Skewb scrambler. We should at least define the rules for unofficial events. Like we are doing now for team blind. [quote:fsaqrj7q]19) Medical records are a private matter. I don't think the WCA really needs to require it. For this, just have the approved sticker pattern (http://www.cubesmith.com/clrblndwht.JPG) so we don't have to write all the rules about what is/isn't allowed.[/quote:fsaqrj7q] OK, that is fine. Any suggestions other than the Cubesmith one? [quote:fsaqrj7q]20) Agreed. Should we also establish maximum times for other events?[/quote:fsaqrj7q] There is a time limit for all events. Standard time limit is 10 minutes. So it sounds reasonable to also have a move limit for Fewest Moves. Have fun, Ron

[quote="BryanLogan":wl0lgjbc]19) Medical records are a private matter. I don't think the WCA really needs to require it. For this, just have the approved sticker pattern (http://www.cubesmith.com/clrblndwht.JPG) so we don't have to write all the rules about what is/isn't allowed. Even if someone with perfect vision uses these, it's not going to give them an advantage.[/quote:wl0lgjbc] Two things. 1. Regarding medical records, it's not a question of full medical disclosure. It's just like when you have asthma and wants to do sports you would need a doctors permit. If you want to keep that private then fine, then you can only compete on the same terms as the rest of us. 2. Is using these stickers ever going to be done by anyone that are colorblind? Perhaps we need to find out what could help colorblind people compete on even terms and not just decide for them?

[quote:duv3oz7d]Perhaps we need to find out what could help colorblind people compete on even terms and not just decide for them?[/quote:duv3oz7d] I actually got the suggestion with the signs from a colourblind WCA member. The other suggestion I got was to be allowed to use special stickers, where the center area of the stickers have a slightly different colour.

[quote="Ron":15xgzpbs] [quote:15xgzpbs]2) Would this be a +2 penalty?[/quote:15xgzpbs] No penalty. Solved state is considered after sliding off. [/quote:15xgzpbs] So the judge is moving the puzzle before evaluating it? Why not just make Magic a 45 degree move, and then it probably won't be a penalty if it's on the timer? [quote="Ron":15xgzpbs] [quote:15xgzpbs]7) I would prefer if all competitors supplied their own and it was checked.[/quote:15xgzpbs] Not everyone has one, so better to at least bring some. [/quote:15xgzpbs] I would consider this to be similar to 3a. Some competitors don't have 2x2's, but know how to solve them. But the organizers aren't responsible to provide them. [quote="Ron":15xgzpbs] [quote:15xgzpbs]10) Trying to enforce a competitor from not touching a logo on the outside seems difficult. There's no way to prove they touched it with intent to learn information.[/quote:15xgzpbs] Well, there are obvious cases. Normally a competitors does not do 1/8 moves and then feel the inside of the puzzle. Or the competitors starts to read his tiles/stickers as if they were braille signs. [/quote:15xgzpbs] I think the inside one is easy to catch. The outside one is difficult. There are blatant attempts to catch it, but the more ambiguous ones are difficult. [quote="Ron":15xgzpbs] [quote:15xgzpbs]20) Agreed. Should we also establish maximum times for other events?[/quote:15xgzpbs] There is a time limit for all events. Standard time limit is 10 minutes. So it sounds reasonable to also have a move limit for Fewest Moves. [/quote:15xgzpbs] Is this regulation going to be the FMC equivilent to A1a? We can either give the organizers the ability to increase/decrease the limit, or we can just establish a set limit. Those are two different choices. I'm talking about eliminating the second part of A1a, so that you can't have events with limits of 10 minutes (of course, some will need to have exceptions (5x5 BLD, etc)).

[quote="BryanLogan":3jupxqsr]Is this regulation going to be the FMC equivilent to A1a? We can either give the organizers the ability to increase/decrease the limit, or we can just establish a set limit. Those are two different choices. I'm talking about eliminating the second part of A1a, so that you can't have events with limits of 10 minutes (of course, some will need to have exceptions (5x5 BLD, etc)).[/quote:3jupxqsr] Why remove this? It's fine to have default limit that organizers can change to fit their competition?

[quote="MadsMohr":2o7gaulr][quote="BryanLogan":2o7gaulr]Is this regulation going to be the FMC equivilent to A1a? We can either give the organizers the ability to increase/decrease the limit, or we can just establish a set limit. Those are two different choices. I'm talking about eliminating the second part of A1a, so that you can't have events with limits of 10 minutes (of course, some will need to have exceptions (5x5 BLD, etc)).[/quote:2o7gaulr] Why remove this? It's fine to have default limit that organizers can change to fit their competition?[/quote:2o7gaulr] Isn't that why we changed Multi-BLD, because we didn't want certain competitions to have a longer limit than others? Besides, the limits I'm proposing here would be 10 minutes for most stuff. This ensures that we can keep it on the Stackmat for more accurate timing.

As for the magic regulations about doing consecutive solves: Sometimes a string will pop, or break, in which case the competitor needs time to fix the puzzle and make sure it still works the same way. It's up to the discretion of the judge/main judge/delegate to make sure that they're not interfering with the flow of the competition--rules like 2j " Disqualification of a competitor for an event may be enforced by the main judge of an event if a competitor fails to show up in time for a round of an event." enforce the fact that cubers can't take arbitrarily long. Maybe that could be modified to include specific solves in a round--if someone wanders off after doing three solves, their last two solves can be disqualified. I don't like setting a blanket rule about what a competitor may do between solves, since it seems to only be intended to improve the flow of competitions, when time wasted can be kept to a reasonable level by the main judge.

[quote="BryanLogan":3t3lxit2] [quote="Ron":3t3lxit2] [quote:3t3lxit2]7) I would prefer if all competitors supplied their own and it was checked.[/quote:3t3lxit2] Not everyone has one, so better to at least bring some. [/quote:3t3lxit2] I would consider this to be similar to 3a. Some competitors don't have 2x2's, but know how to solve them. But the organizers aren't responsible to provide them. [/quote:3t3lxit2] Not really. Blindfolded solving is pretty much solving the cube without looking at it. If everybody was trustable, we could have people simply close their eyes. The blindfolds are there to make it safer, and not everybody owns a blindfold. Do you use a blindfold on practice solves? I don't... ....... About the rest, no mention of +2 for clock and +2 for inner slices?

[quote="Pedro_S":3s784dkw]About the rest, no mention of +2 for clock and +2 for inner slices? [/quote:3s784dkw] These suggestions have their own thread. The random topics are just a set for suggestions that Ron already plans on adding to the regulations unless there is reason not to include them.

[quote="Ron":2h7ano4z] 11) For (Master) Magic solving: at most 2 practice solves in between each attempt. Clear announcement to judge when the competitors starts a practice solve. [/quote:2h7ano4z] What would you suggest as penalty? And what do you acually mean by "solve" in that context? If I solve the magic holding it in my hand without using the timer, is that a solve? If I use the timer and DNF accroding to the regulations, is that a solve? After all that first part of the rule seems rather confusing to me so I would suggest to better not add it to the regulations. Beside that I'm not too sure if there is a need for such a rule. Most of the (Master) Magic Competitors do reasonable pauses between their official attempts. IF a competitor makes an unreasonable amount of practise solves in between, the judge can still ask him to proceed with his official attempts. Still I think it is important to add the second part! I also agree with the other points, but I strongly recommend a setence to 10) saying that this rule should only be applicated in case of obvious evidence.

[quote="Ron":jcxydfxe] 13) Earplugs or similar may be used. [/quote:jcxydfxe] Aren't they allowed as of now?

[quote="Pedro_S":lr37iu4w] Not really. Blindfolded solving is pretty much solving the cube without looking at it. If everybody was trustable, we could have people simply close their eyes. The blindfolds are there to make it safer, and not everybody owns a blindfold. [/quote:lr37iu4w] Yup, and not everyone owns a 2x2. But they can practice just as well at home by using a 4x4 sitting around naked. But of course, we're still going to require them to have a 2x2 and be dressed at the competition. If you want to compete in an event, is it odd to require that you have the necessary equipment?

[quote="BryanLogan":2zfr2tff]If you want to compete in an event, is it odd to require that you have the necessary equipment?[/quote:2zfr2tff] With the same argument, you could ask competitors to bring a stackmat, a stopwatch, a pen, scoresheets, etc.

[quote="Clement Gallet":21uvpjay][quote="BryanLogan":21uvpjay]If you want to compete in an event, is it odd to require that you have the necessary equipment?[/quote:21uvpjay] With the same argument, you could ask competitors to bring a stackmat, a stopwatch, a pen, scoresheets, etc.[/quote:21uvpjay] Perfect.

[quote="Clement Gallet":65qjq0ee][quote="BryanLogan":65qjq0ee]If you want to compete in an event, is it odd to require that you have the necessary equipment?[/quote:65qjq0ee] With the same argument, you could ask competitors to bring a stackmat, a stopwatch, a pen, scoresheets, etc.[/quote:65qjq0ee] OK, I know I've only competed in competitions in the US. Do your competitions usually have competitors sweating all over the pens, scoresheets, etc? If so, I would encourage people to bring their own. Also, are you suggesting that the organizers provide all the puzzles to the competitors too?

[quote="Pedro_S":2uvyimyn][quote="Clement Gallet":2uvyimyn][quote="BryanLogan":2uvyimyn]If you want to compete in an event, is it odd to require that you have the necessary equipment?[/quote:2uvyimyn] With the same argument, you could ask competitors to bring a stackmat, a stopwatch, a pen, scoresheets, etc.[/quote:2uvyimyn] Perfect.[/quote:2uvyimyn] uhh... it seems to me that a blindfold is part of solving the cube, just like the cube itself. Aside from a stackmat, which is feasible not to ask competitors to bring, the rest of the items you listed are not part of the actual solving process. If a person wants to compete in a blindfold event, they should take it upon themselves to buy a blindfold or borrow one. We hold this standard for cubes, and a blindfold is part of the solve, just like the cube. If the organizer feels like they want to provide blindfolds, that obviously shouldn't be disallowed, but I don't think requiring organizers to provide blindfolds when cubers should have them anyway is necessary. Also, stopwatches, stackmats, pens, scoresheets transcend the individual event. Blindfolds do not, therefore making them solely for the event. [quote="Ron":2uvyimyn] 5) Covering the display part of a Stackmat is not allowed. (help from extra object) [/quote:2uvyimyn] why is this necessary. If extra objects aren't to be allowed, than I don't see why you should allow earplugs during solves. Both are there to help block out an outside distraction.

Blindfolds SHOULD be provided by competitor and checked before use in competition. [quote:3bgnnzpq]why is this necessary. If extra objects aren't to be allowed, than I don't see why you should allow earplugs during solves. Both are there to help block out an outside distraction.[/quote:3bgnnzpq] We have to draw a line somewhere. Earplugs may be used because of unexpected or intrusive distractions. Covering the timer display cannot be compared to that. Therefore earplugs are mentioned in the regulations and covers for the timer displays aren't.

[quote="Ron":2036uyo6]Blindfolds SHOULD be provided by competitor and checked before use in competition. [/quote:2036uyo6] Why "should" and not "must"? Anything in the regulation that has "should" in it means that's it's not strictly required. If it's not clarified what to do in the non-compliant situation. 3a says competitors must bring and use their own puzzles, and does give some leeway after that. Why not treat blindfolds the same way and say "must"?

OK

# Art. A6b1 added, times <= 0.05 are considered timer malfunctions. inspect > don't like the scramble > force the timer to show 0.03 > get new scramble

Indeed. I don't have my timer here, but I think I can get 0.05 intentionally. 0.02 or 0.03 are harder, but higher than that may be done easily.

[quote="Pedro_S":12jo0jnb]Indeed. I don't have my timer here, but I think I can get 0.05 intentionally. 0.02 or 0.03 are harder, but higher than that may be done easily.[/quote:12jo0jnb] Same here....with a few tests, I could easily get 0.05, but I couldn't get lower. Of course, anyone watching could see that I was intentionally trying to stop the timer quick.

But a judge who got distracted for a second could miss it...I'm going home and do some "tests". I think this is "fakeable".

[quote="BryanLogan":1oiasjj0]Same here....with a few tests, I could easily get 0.05, but I couldn't get lower. Of course, anyone watching could see that I was intentionally trying to stop the timer quick.[/quote:1oiasjj0] The rules don't deal with intent.

Actually, I got a few intentional 0.03, but I realize that they occur some times by timer malfunction. But 0.05 looks much more like competitor failure than equipment failure to me.

[quote="Thom":ucmpeyxk][quote="BryanLogan":ucmpeyxk]Same here....with a few tests, I could easily get 0.05, but I couldn't get lower. Of course, anyone watching could see that I was intentionally trying to stop the timer quick.[/quote:ucmpeyxk] The rules don't deal with intent.[/quote:ucmpeyxk] Maybe then the rule should be rewritten to say: A6b1) If the timer stops earlier than the end of the solve, and the timer shows 0.01 - 0.05 then the solve is replaced by additional solve, or disqualified if it the timer was stopped intentionally (courtesy of the main judge).

The rules don't deal with intent because you can't prove intent.

Getting 0.02 is indeed easy. Just put one hand on one side, and one finger on the other. Very slowly release the pressure from the finger. If I wanted I could get 0.02 every time. With practise I could make it look like this was a complete accident. I don't see how one could prove that someone did this intentionally though.

Oops, I wanted to add the stuff about unintentional. I know you cannot prove intent, but in some case it is easy to see that the competitor acts strangely. So the competitor should avoid the 0.02 in the first place... Maybe you can abuse the trick with 0.02, but would you take the risk that timer would stop after 0.06? I added some text in the February 27 version.

I'm very sure you can see if someone does it intentional, maybe not after one time but if someone gets several 'timer malfunctions' (which are in that case not a malfunction of the timer) it gets fishy pretty quick. In 4.5 years of official cubing I never had a 0.02 or 0.03 timer malfunction as far as I know by the way, and I experienced maybe one or 2 malfunctions per competition happening to others. Discussing if something is intentional or not is stupid cause after two times doing your little acting trick it already gets fishy and after the third time (or whenever it gets obvious) you'll be caught and banned, have fun acting I'd say...

[quote="Erik":n1mvz0qe]I'm very sure you can see if someone does it intentional, maybe not after one time but if someone gets several 'timer malfunctions' (which are in that case not a malfunction of the timer) it gets fishy pretty quick. In 4.5 years of official cubing I never had a 0.02 or 0.03 timer malfunction as far as I know by the way, and I experienced maybe one or 2 malfunctions per competition happening to others. Discussing if something is intentional or not is stupid cause after two times doing your little acting trick it already gets fishy and after the third time (or whenever it gets obvious) you'll be caught and banned, have fun acting I'd say...[/quote:n1mvz0qe] The tone of your post seems to imply that I'm trying to exploit the rules for personal gain. How can we stop cheating without contemplating how it can be done? It's entirely possible that you can get multiple timer malfunctions, and I don't think people should be penalised if it happens to them just because a judge thinks it's 'fishy'. Sure, it's very unlikely, but we're discussing filtering too short scrambles now, too - this is something that has likely not even appeared in an official competition yet and will likely not appear for a long time to come. Discussing if something is intentional or not is stupid because discretion is prone to fault. Not because people will be automatically banned if they are innocent or guilty as you seem to suggest.

It wasn't pointed to you personally at all but a hypothetical case for if someone would do the trick you described. If you say it's totally possible that several timer malfunctions of 0.02 or 0.03 can occur then please explain why I didn't have any in like.. a gazillion official solves and don't say it's luck since I don't believe in it in cases like this. If you want to make sure there is no room for discretion at all then we have to change a LOT to the rules since then you could also say friends can't judge each other or scramble for each other which is inevitable at competitions cause we simply don't have that many volunteers.

[quote="Erik":1okkm88p]It wasn't pointed to you personally at all but a hypothetical case for if someone would do the trick you described. [/quote:1okkm88p] I'll call off the hitman I ordered on you then. [quote="Erik":1okkm88p]If you say it's totally possible that several timer malfunctions of 0.02 or 0.03 can occur then please explain why I didn't have any in like.. a gazillion official solves and don't say it's luck since I don't believe in it in cases like this.[/quote:1okkm88p] Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't happen. Like I said before, we're talking about removing scrambles that can be solved optimally in <13 moves. It's more than likely that it hasn't happened, but we might be making rules just in case. Maybe a faulty timer could produce this behaviour. [quote="Erik":1okkm88p]If you want to make sure there is no room for discretion at all then we have to change a LOT to the rules since then you could also say friends can't judge each other or scramble for each other which is inevitable at competitions cause we simply don't have that many volunteers.[/quote:1okkm88p] I'd say that this would be harder to judge either way. How can you be sure that someone is acting? Personally, I'd think it'd be better to avoid having to make judgements like this at all if possible. However, I don't have an alternative solution.

I guess that's the problem, there is no better system. My point was just that cheating with the system we have would be quite hard to do since after 2 or 3 times it becomes obvious (even more so if everything above 0.05 is DNF).