There are fewer problems than there used to be, but we still have a lot of ambiguities that need to be explicitly written out. Lately I have seen people confused about puzzle color schemes, combinations of +2 penalties, and checking scramble correctness. So I volunteer myself to rewrite the WCA regulations. I am a native English speaker and I'm good at formal writing. I think I could be a lot clearer than the current regulations are. I would expect someone to check and make sure that my revision has the same meaning as the original; I would be completely open to any changes that need to take place to make sure this happens. My intent is not to change the meaning of the regulations at all, just to make them more clear.

Hi Michael, Thanks for your offer. Please go ahead and I promise your work will not be in vain. Some remarks: - maybe we should split up some stuff into different documents - please take a look at how IAAF and similar organisations have done it - please look into how we can make the regulations more practical to read (for example: as a judge, as a journalist or as a competitor) - please use British English - please tell us what we are still missing Have fun, Ron

Can we start on discussing the new regulations then? So that he can incorporate changes instead of shoving them in at the last minute.

Hi Bryan, Of course we can discuss WCA Regulations every day of the year. But we should not make decisions too long before the new version becomes active. Ron

I have long been in favor of separating the official regulations from something like "delegate guidebook." There are a lot of details and policies that should be codified, but which just clog up the regulations, like: - Details of what puzzles are allowed. - Technical definitions of "solved" for each puzzle. - What additional limits/rules may be implemented by the organizers (time limits, FMC move limits) - How scrambles may actually be generated/used. Notation would probably be better off as a separate standard, as would the list of "currently approved" scramblers. Maybe it's not the best idea, but I'm thinking of the WCA Regulations like the US Constitution, which is short and relatively clear. The regulations are turning into something more like the California constitution, which is huge because it has been amended with lots of little changes that don't really help it govern.

[quote="Ron":1x0tac96]- maybe we should split up some stuff into different documents[/quote:1x0tac96] I wouldn't say different documents, but it would be nice to have things split up into sections based on whether they are definitions, things that matter to competitors, things that only matter to officials/organizers, and so on. So an organizer or official should know all of the regulations, but a competitor could ignore the other sections. I will color code my copy; once you confirm that it says the same thing as the original, you or I could split the regulations into sections by following the colors. [quote="Ron":1x0tac96]- please take a look at how IAAF and similar organisations have done it[/quote:1x0tac96] Do you know of any regulations that are specifically very well done? I don't think we should automatically assume that organizations with more people and a longer history have made a better document. [quote="Ron":1x0tac96]- please look into how we can make the regulations more practical to read (for example: as a judge, as a journalist or as a competitor)[/quote:1x0tac96] Separating the regulations into types would accomplish this, I think. Competitors and judges should probably know the same things. [quote="Ron":1x0tac96]- please use British English[/quote:1x0tac96] I will be happy to do this, but what's the reason? For instance, is American English more difficult for some people to understand? Or perhaps more people from the UK than from the USA will read the regulations?

[quote:6urbpe68]I wouldn't say different documents, but it would be nice to have things split up into sections[/quote:6urbpe68] OK [quote:6urbpe68]Do you know of any regulations that are specifically very well done?[/quote:6urbpe68] I was referring to the different kinds of sections in IAAF regulations. Not the regulations specifically, but more what our regulations should be including, in different sections. [quote:6urbpe68]please use British English[/quote:6urbpe68] We have to have a standard, and most international organisations use British English as the standard. I have nothing against US English, but I think British English is more accepted internationally than US English. Seeing US English could give the impression of an American organisation, when we definitely want to be an international organisation.

Hi Michael, Any progress on this subject? I would like to open discussion on WCA Regulations 2011. Sorry for being late... Ron