Feedback for WCA regulations 2007
Ron (2006-07-21 04:09:36 +0000)
Please feel free to give your feedback for the WCA regulations 2007.
This version is planned for December 2006 and will be official starting January 1, 2007.
Some ideas I personally have:
1) bring the inspection time down to 10 seconds (instead of 15 seconds), and then in 2008 down to 5 seconds
2) improve the procedure at the end of the solve, f.i. by having the competitor write a signature on the result sheet after each solve. Or by having the judge call OK, PENALTY, NO SOLVE after each solve.
3) only allowed to use generally available puzzles (so no home made puzzles, or like now still prototype 5x5x5 Olympicube)
Please comment on my ideas and tell us your ideas.
Ron (2006-07-21 04:13:25 +0000)
4) make sure all regulations (so also Articles A, B, C, ...) have regulation numbers, like 5b2
BryanLogan (2006-07-22 00:38:11 +0000)
Why do you want to bring the inspection time down? I personally don't think there should be any inspection time, but with the current WR being set by using a 15 second inspection time, I think you would need to continue to use it. If someone in 2007 was 1/10 of a second off the WR using a 10 second inspection time (that they used all of), you could argue that the extra 5 seconds would have given them the new WR.
Tyson (2006-07-26 09:26:49 +0000)
I would also be opposed to bringing the inspection time down. It's creating a different standard for the world record, as Bryan Logan stated. However, I disagree with shortening inspection time for a different reason.
First of all, if you're lowering inspection time from 10 seconds one year, and then to 5 seconds another year, is your goal to eliminate inspection time completely?
I think there might be too large of a difference between 10 seconds and 5 seconds. 15 seconds and 10 seconds are very similar for a cuber of my level, but 10 seconds and 5 seconds might be a different story, especially for cubers who currently seek X-Cross or other "deeper" inspection items.
5 seconds inspection also basically admits that 90 to 95% of cubers solve the cube using the Fridrich method, and need inspection time only to find the first four pieces of the cross. Again, I would discourage a rule that biases against one method of solving over another.
What is the real objective here of lowering the inspection time? Though inspection time might be seen as extraneous to some people, if it's a part of the solve, it's still an accurate measure of a person's aptitude at solving a Rubik's Cube. The argument that it doesn't measure the "true" time of solving the cube does not hold, simply as the 100 meter dash does not measure the "true" time that a runner can run 100 meters. In the 100 meter dash, reaction time to the sound of the gun is a major component of the overall time, and I think that it's something the Rubik's Cube community needs to accept.
OlivérNagy (2006-08-13 08:56:30 +0000)
I also desagree with lowering the inspection time limits, because I think beginner cubers will not close up to professional cubers as fast as they can do with 15 second preinspection time.
I think the OK, PENALTY and NO SOLVE writed next to the resault of solving is a good idea.
And having the competitor write a signature on the result sheet after each solve is a good idea too f.i.: At one of the competition where I was competing, one of the judges wrote a wrong time for me, and I wos lucky to notice it. And if we must write a signiture, it cannot happens.
What do you mean abaut generally available puzzles? Only brand Rubik's puzzles or just puzzles what you can buy anywhere?
BryanLogan (2006-08-13 22:31:07 +0000)
3) only allowed to use generally available puzzles (so no home made puzzles, or like now still prototype 5x5x5 Olympicube)
You might want to be careful about the wording of this. Would a Square-1 be considered generally available?
Tim (2006-08-14 21:28:42 +0000)
[quote:3r9sl92p]3) only allowed to use generally available puzzles (so no home made puzzles, or like now still prototype 5x5x5 Olympicube)
Would this rule out home-assembled Master Magics made from regular magic tiles + strings? If so, I object. That's really no different from taking a store-bought master magic, disassembling it, and reassembling it (which is fine).
I also disagree with a decreasing of the pre-inspection period, for reasons stated by Bryan and Tyson.
rowan (2006-08-17 20:51:02 +0000)
when you say generaly avalible someoen might not have the ability to buy things onine so it would be difficult to get an eastsheen cube or somthing else you can only get online.
+ i kind of disagree with this rule for a few reason first the master magic made out of a normal magic or course. But also a DIY cube it technicly home made
also the less inspection time i dont want i mean 10 seconds is enoghf for most but some people use the whole 15 seconds and it is unfair to take that away if they want it also you have stated no reason for lowering inspection time.
CraigBouchard (2006-08-19 21:15:09 +0000)
1) Keep the inspection time as is. As Tyson stated, some people seek deeper inspection. If you don't want to use the full 15, they don't. Don't take that opportunity away from others.
2) Very good idea, because I have seen people (not to mention any names) have a +2 and the judge say its not.
3) No, because some people have better access to certain puzzles than other people, including financial troubles.
5) When Bob was over at my house we were discussing having a +2 penalty on a magic. To define the +2 it would be 1 flip away from being solved meaning one "flip" (anyone who understands magic will know what this means) will be considered +2. This will prevent a lot of DNFs in competitions.
anders (2006-08-20 10:49:51 +0000)
I have a few comments regarding the current regulations…
My support for the no-inspection event is well-known; I have no further to add. I surrender to the great wisdom of the WCA board…
I support the idea of bringing down the pre-inspection time according to Ron's suggestion. The argument that the standards for WR are changed did not stop the WCA board to move from "mean of three" to "average of five" for the 4x4x4 and 5x5x5.
In Article 1, I think that it should be stated that it must be clearly announced who is the main judge of the competition/event.
In some earlier version/draft of the regulation, it was stated that there must be at least two competitors in each event. Why was this removed?
I think that rule 2d) is violated regularly, since the information is not used only for the competition since it is also displayed at speedcubing.com.
I think that rule 8a9 is unnecessary (and a bit silly) because 8a6 and 8a8 are enough.
In Article A/Inspection, the judge should also ask the competitor if (s)he is ready for inspection, thus giving the competitor a chance for getting focused.
Article A/Administration. Only a comment: At most of the competitions arranged by SveKub, we have had combined secretariat with scrambling and score-taking. Thus, at the end of the event, the list of results is already available.
CraigBouchard (2006-08-20 19:56:33 +0000)
About the Inspection point, there have been many times the Judge is like Ready for Inspection? And then lifts the cap without you saying yes. And then you are panicing because your time is going bye bye...We need real judges :'(
CraigBouchard (2006-08-23 16:41:17 +0000)
I was just wondering, could I get a possible response to the Magic +2 idea? I know all magicers out there would like it...
StefanPochmann (2006-09-08 12:42:49 +0000)
I'm against changing the inspection time except if we get rid of it completely.
There's one natural choice: allow inspection or don't. If you allow it, then any choice of a particular time is arbitrary. I don't see any reason for making it 10, 5 or 20 seconds. There was no reason for introducing 15 seconds, either, that was just as artificial.
But now that it has become the standard, this itself is a reason speaking for 15. Right now you have another natural choice: keep it or change it. If you change it, you're back to the original choice, i.e. allow it or don't, and putting it to anything but 0 seconds would be arbitrary again.
[quote="Tyson":1609k8ss]5 seconds inspection also basically admits that 90 to 95% of cubers solve the cube using the Fridrich method, and need inspection time only to find the first four pieces of the cross. Again, I would discourage a rule that biases against one method of solving over another.[/quote:1609k8ss]
I heard that David Allen normally needed more than 15 seconds inspection for his method to get top speed. So the current rule [b:1609k8ss]already is biased[/b:1609k8ss] and if you're consistent, you must [b:1609k8ss]discourage the current rule[/b:1609k8ss].
StefanPochmann (2006-09-09 12:48:37 +0000)
Hmm, my previous message was written under the assumption that there are just as many reasons for the inspection time reduction as provided in Ron's initial message: zero. Ron, if you do have a reason for it, particularly if you can explain why 5 is better than 10 is better than 15, then please let us know.
Ron (2006-09-10 17:20:24 +0000)
My idea was that in 5 years we either have 5 seconds inspection (good enough to place the cube the way you want to start) or no inspection at all. I think 15 seconds is 'ridiculously' long. We are currently in a phase where the best inspect longer than they actually solve!
Although I like traditions (so why change?), I also feel that part of our community thinks inspection is 'unnatural'.
Well at least now we know that that is not the part of the community that visits this forum.
I vote for 5 seconds inspection for the long term!
StefanPochmann (2006-09-11 06:29:34 +0000)
[quote="Ron":5h5jw6nl]My idea was that in 5 years we either have 5 seconds inspection (good enough to place the cube the way you want to start) or no inspection at all.[/quote:5h5jw6nl]
If placing the cube the way you want to start is what you're after, why not let the judge cover it with a small towel so the cuber can easily place the cube without seeing it?
[quote:5h5jw6nl]Although I like traditions (so why change?), I also feel that part of our community thinks inspection is 'unnatural'.
Well at least now we know that that is not the part of the community that visits this forum.
Well look above. There's Bryan, there's Anders, there's me, there somewhat is you.
Btw, the rules don't limit the time for the cuber to say he's ready. So I could look at the cube for a very short moment, memorize the cross pieces, put the cube in a probably good position, and think about how to exactly solve the cross while the cube is covered.
StefanPochmann (2006-09-11 06:37:40 +0000)
Forgot... I do accept your explanation of 5 seconds having a different meaning than 15 seconds because one is shorter than people can physically solve and the other isn't (and I purposely say "physically" because I believe during inspection you're already solving (in your head), just not yet physically twisting). So it's not a fully arbitrary decision. However, I'm sure you achieve the same thing with 4 or 6 seconds, so why not choose those?
Ron (2006-09-12 15:36:15 +0000)
I already gave up on this subject. Noone agrees with me.
[quote:2w92gynt]However, I'm sure you achieve the same thing with 4 or 6 seconds, so why not choose those?[/quote:2w92gynt]
Oh? So you do agree with me?
1-4 is too short, that would only make people panic.
5 is a nice number, I could live with 6.
From 7 seconds we are talking about serious inspection.
StefanPochmann (2006-09-14 20:02:06 +0000)
[quote="Ron":2qgxqdnq]Oh? So you do agree with me?
Um, depends. I'm not saying 5 is better than 15. Not saying 15 is better, either. But I somewhat agree that they're different. Nobody can solve in 5 seconds but some people can solve in 15. Though I'm saying "somewhat" now because how meaningful is it to compare inspection time and twisting one-to-one, or at all?
evan.gates (2006-09-14 22:10:27 +0000)
My views on the matter...
1) I don't have any good reason, but I think we should stay with 15 seconds. I don't see any good reason to change either though. Reading the arguments of it's long, we can solve faster than that etc. Well, yeah, and? I don't see how that supports the argument that it should be changed. Then again I don't have anything to support the argument that it shouldn't, that's just what I think.
2) Formality is always good. It reduces errors, makes everything more respectable, etc.
3) I think that if a puzzle has the same functionality it should be allowed. As long as it is obviously the same puzzle and meets the requirements for that puzzle, I don't see a problem with it.
Just my thoughts,
Gilles (2006-09-17 16:50:07 +0000)
[u:39nzlks9][b:39nzlks9][i:39nzlks9]Inspection [/i:39nzlks9]vs [i:39nzlks9]No-inspection[/i:39nzlks9]:[/b:39nzlks9][/u:39nzlks9]
We decided te remove no-inspection from the list of official events, because we wanted to keep only records from very significantly different categories, and the format with inspection is the most standard.
My personal opinion has always been that starting the timer seconds after a competitor has started to solve the puzzle in his head is an heresy. But the problem with [i:39nzlks9]no-inspection[/i:39nzlks9] for now, with the devices we have, is the way the competitor has to trigger the timer then savagely remove the cover.
[u:39nzlks9][b:39nzlks9]Reducing the inspection time:[/b:39nzlks9][/u:39nzlks9]
First of all, [b:39nzlks9]why?[/b:39nzlks9]
I can think of a few answers:
- It's just a step toward the [i:39nzlks9]no-inspection[/i:39nzlks9] format. I can't agree. If [i:39nzlks9]no-inspection[/i:39nzlks9] is black and [i:39nzlks9]15s[/i:39nzlks9] is white, I would see [i:39nzlks9]5s[/i:39nzlks9] as 90% white.
- 15 seconds look too long for most cubers, because you don't need that long to figure out how to solve a cross. Of course it's not a valid reason, but that's what some people think.
- Spending 15s studying the configuration when you can then solve it in 13s makes you feel uneasy. Of course I understand why Ron says it's 'ridiculously' long, since that's the reason why I think there should not be any inspection at all (see above). Inspecting a 2x2x2 for 15s before solving it in 4s is even worse.
Let me say something that has curiously never really been discussed. And it's a [b:39nzlks9]very important[/b:39nzlks9] point if you think about bringing the inspection time down.
When you read the regulations, you realize the 15 seconds can sometimes become longer than expected.
- [i:39nzlks9]As soon as the 15 second inspection period has expired, the competitor has 2 seconds (timed mentally by the judge) to place the puzzle down.[/i:39nzlks9]
---> 2 'mental' seconds mean 3 seconds.
- The judge covers the puzzle. The he uncovers it again.
---> How long does it take?
- [i:39nzlks9]The competitor must begin his solve within 3 seconds after the puzzle is uncovered.[/i:39nzlks9]
---> Mental seconds again, let's say 4 seconds.
You see the inspection time can be [b:39nzlks9]longer than 22 seconds[/b:39nzlks9]. With a theoretical inspection time of 5s, you get 12s, you can't afford such an heavy protocole.
Oh, I forgot to say that when the puzzle is covered, the competitor has more time to think about the moves he can do.
Having a more strict and clean inspection phase would be, in my opinion, a good thing.
I think that covering the puzzle is unaesthetical, mostly useless, it makes the procedure awkward and disturbing.
That's why in the past, I proposed the WCA (at least three times, rejected without good reasons) to change the inspection procedure and think of something more simple:
- [i:39nzlks9][b:39nzlks9]The competitor has X seconds to inspect the puzzle and start the solve[/b:39nzlks9].[/i:39nzlks9] Just like what people do at home when they follow a cube timer that starts after a certain time, the difference is the competitor starts when he wants to, and the pads trigger the timer.
- Minimum synchronization: When the competitor is ready (timer ready to start), he says "Ready", the judge says "Go".
- [b:39nzlks9]Only when[/b:39nzlks9] there's a problem (like hands not well posistioned on pads), i.e. the solve cannot begin X seconds after the start, the judge covers the puzzle. Problems with timers should be rare if they're correctly reset and checked before the inspection starts (the judge's responsability), and since the competitor is responsible for stopping correctly, he must start it correctly too.
Such a change in the regulations would not be a big problem, because it's [b:39nzlks9]not difficult[/b:39nzlks9], and it would be [b:39nzlks9]more natural [/b:39nzlks9]for competitors.
StefanPochmann (2006-09-17 21:33:47 +0000)
The extended inspection/planning has maybe not been "discussed" before, but I "mentioned" it in this thread last Monday already
Very good you mentioned the 2x2 to point out the insanity better. Also, some people can even memorize the whole 2x2 in 15 seconds and could then plan a solution while the cube is covered and the judge is waiting for an ok.
StefanPochmann (2006-09-17 21:42:43 +0000)
Oh and if we keep inspection, I very much like your procedure suggestion, i.e. X seconds to inspect the puzzle and start the solve. Eliminates a lot of bad overhead, including the interaction-interruption of the cuber by the judge.
Ron (2006-09-19 17:49:13 +0000)
This weekend one judge covered the cube again, when I was waiting for 2 seconds to pick up the cube.
When I tried to pick it up, I couldn't. The timer was running...
I like Gilles' proposal about the change of procedure.
Ron (2006-09-25 17:18:56 +0000)
Some issues we have to deal with for next version:
1) what happens if you have a pop in solving with feet event?
This happened to Gunnar Krig at Euro 2006.
Current regulations do not describe this explicitly, so assembling with feet would be the regular way to solve this.
My proposal: you are allowed to assemble the puzzle with your hands.
2) what happens if a piece breaks?
This happened to Lars Vandenbergh in Euro 2006 5x5x5 final.
Current regulations say that you cannot use pieces from other puzzles. No extra attempt. Just a 'regular' puzzle defect.
My proposal: you are allowed to use spare pieces from other puzzles. No extra attempt.
Btw. I mistakenly got a DNF instead of a penalty in 3x3 semi final of Euro 2006.
Should have waited until judge had written down the result. Almost cost me a place in the final. My own fault. But I think no reason to make it necessary that both judge and competitor sign after each solve. It is optional and cannot be argued about afterwards if you do not check.
StefanPochmann (2006-10-01 19:29:26 +0000)
[quote="Ron":3vfh35ni]Btw. I mistakenly got a DNF instead of a penalty in 3x3 semi final of Euro 2006.[/quote:3vfh35ni]
Whoa, that's even worse than my two times the judges wanted to incorrectly give me penalty. What did your cube look like??
Ron (2006-10-01 19:39:04 +0000)
I was a U move away from solved.
I said "penalty" to the judge and then walked away.
He wrote down DNF.
The judges had one hour of pure training but it was already the second day of the competition. I suppose there are too many regulations that they need to learn.
Ton Dennenbroek proposed to make a quick start guide for new judges.
Anyone interested in making it?
So you had a situation twice where U layer was slightly misaligned and they wanted to give you a penalty? At least you waited for the judge to write down your result!
Gilles (2006-10-01 23:10:00 +0000)
Yes, the judges had been trained to detect penalties, for the 3x3x3.
Since it was a bit different for the 2x2x2, I briefed them again just before the event.
On sunday, it seems that two of them had forgotten everything about it
After the solve, nobody should be allowed to touch the cube on the table, until the judge has written the result (dispute settled with the main juge), and we should ask for the competitors' signature on the sheet.
Waiting for a signature is easy. And this way, the competitor can't complain afterwards, and the judge won't make more mistakes.
StefanPochmann (2006-10-02 13:20:17 +0000)
[quote="Ron":1iphma8y]So you had a situation twice where U layer was slightly misaligned and they wanted to give you a penalty? At least you waited for the judge to write down your result![/quote:1iphma8y]
Yes, both times it was close but still about 3 millimeters on the "good" side. Judges thought it was on the bad side. I know judges often don't have much experience so if it's not clearly solved I make sure we get the result right. I also waited a few times to check the time was written down correctly, but I must admit I don't yet do it always. I'll try again next competition.
StefanPochmann (2006-10-02 13:23:12 +0000)
I also had one occasion where the judge covered the cube after the inspection, I placed my hands on the timer, then the judge said "Ready? Go!" without waiting for my ok. And some other irregularities but they were minor enough for me to forget them already.
StefanPochmann (2006-10-06 21:23:27 +0000)
A very simple rule suggestion: When the judge writes anything but the time from the timer, he must make the competitor sign it or at least leave some check mark. In other words, the signature idea reduced to the cases where it really matters. Ok?
Ron (2006-10-07 06:59:09 +0000)
[quote:2faj03fx]A very simple rule suggestion: When the judge writes anything but the time from the timer, he must make the competitor sign it or at least leave some check mark. In other words, the signature idea reduced to the cases where it really matters.[/quote:2faj03fx]
I think that is a good idea. It has my vote. Although I can imagine that some people want a stricter version.
Now what would happen if you later find out that the judge did write something else? We are not going to do video analysis or whatever. So according to current regulations you should have an extra attempt.
Now what would happen if I would have a DNF, but sneakily I did not write my signature and the judge forgets to ask. Later I would come to main judge and say: "where is my signature?". I would also have another attempt.
StefanPochmann (2006-10-07 14:19:45 +0000)
I have enough faith in cubers (particularly the fast ones) to not attempt to cheat. Furthermore, the rule is designed to be very simple for the judge. It's designed to take the decision away from him, he either trusts the timer or the competitor so he can be sure he didn't treat the competitor wrong.
[b:1e4lfuje]If you write something other than the timer time, you [u:1e4lfuje]must[/u:1e4lfuje] make the competitor sign it[/b:1e4lfuje]. I think if we emphasize that enough as being very important, they will not forget it. And imagine you're a judge and give someone a penalty or even DNF. I think your awareness will increase and you'll be alerted enough to remind the rule.
StefanPochmann (2006-10-07 18:13:32 +0000)
Psychologically speaking, the rule asks the judge to get permission from the competitor to punish him. I believe people have a natural aversion to punishing people so getting permission from the victim should be a relief and thus a natural desire. Following the rule complies with their instincts, making adherence more likely.
StefanPochmann (2006-10-17 17:57:03 +0000)
I request we implement Gilles' suggested starting procedure (inspect and start solve in X seconds without judge interruption) as soon as possible. At Dutch Open 2006 I saw both sides (competitor and judge) and the current procedure is so bad.
As competitor, I came across these situations:
- Judge pulls cover and cube away from me after inspection.
- Judge takes cover off for inspection without any signal from me.
- Judge covers cube after inspection and immediately lifts the cover without even asking me whether I'm ready.
As judge: Many competitors don't give clear signs. I myself say loud and clear "yes" or "ok" but many just slightly nod and don't want to wait for me to ask "ready?". I don't feel comfortable as judge because I don't want to screw up by misinterpreting a signal as nonsignal or vice versa (i.e. both false positive or false negative).
All this would be eliminated if we just eliminate the interaction with the judge as soon as the cover is lifted for inspection. And before inspection time doesn't matter and there's no cross (or whatever) to forget, so it's alright to request a clear spoken "ok" instead of just a nod.
Btw, I'm quite proud I waited and checked the results the judges wrote for all of my solves on Sunday only except one blindfold DNF.
gillesvdp (2006-10-28 09:35:18 +0000)
Here are my ideas :
- I also think that pre-inspection is not natural (think about what non-cubers say when you say you are inspecting the cube, they say you cheat (not all of them, but some do), but I think it's important to allow the competitor to place the cube as he(she) likes it.
- Concerning the signature, I do not think it is necessary. If you want to make competitions smoother, you have to remove as much red tape as possible.
Since I started competing, I have ALWAYS checked that the judge wrote the right time and this ensured that I never had to complain afterwards (I might have disagreed with the judge, but then the main judge cleared the situation.).
I remember Erik having several extra attempts at Euro 2006 because he immediately ran away after his solves and got extra solves because the judge wrote DNF instead of the time with a penalty. (This could be a strategy : run away when you have a +2 and hope that the judge doesn't know the rule and write DNF, then complain when you see that you have DNF instead of +2 and get an extra attempt. - I'm not saying that anybody did this so far, but I think it ought to be prevented. -)
- Extra/crazy events of different puzzles : I like Ron's ideas.
I think that's it.
Have fun !
PS: if nobody has applied yet for the "Judge Guide", I would like to do it.
gillesvdp (2006-10-28 09:40:23 +0000)
I forgot to talk about using spare pieces.
At Polish Open, I broke 2 center-corners in my first 5x5 solves. Not having any spare pieces at the competition and having forgotten to ask someone else's cube, I had to give up on competing in 5x5.
However, I do not think that allowing people to use spare-parts is a good thing.
Think about Formula1 for example, drivers are not allowed to change car when they break it. They just get a "DNF" for the race.
However, small repairs are possible (changing wheels for example), this is the equivalent of a POP.
You also have to think practical : do you think it reasonable to have people coming with suitcases of spare-parts on the table for every solve ?
If they are concious, they would even prepare them on the table, and of course with different type of stickers.
This is not realistic.
So : breaking the puzzle = DNF for me.
Gilles (2006-11-01 20:49:51 +0000)
[b:25pfvflb][u:25pfvflb]Topic: Signature or no signature[/u:25pfvflb][/b:25pfvflb]
We have such a problem because communication is not clear enough between judges and competitors. Judges sometimes are unexperienced, and they may speak a different language.
(It would be clearer with red/yellow/green cards, for DNF/+2/solved cases)
Another point. The decision should not be changed after the cube has been manipulated. Oops, sorry, after it has been [b:25pfvflb]touched[/b:25pfvflb] (excluding accidental touching while finishing the solve).
For example, when the judge says a side goes too far and you think "right, +2s" and you pick up your cube, you may have the unpleasant surprise of getting a DNF, because the judge is a noobie, and you can't proove anything.
That's why [i:25pfvflb]Ending the solve[/i:25pfvflb] and [i:25pfvflb]Administration[/i:25pfvflb] should be merged.
When requesting the competitor's signature (or a check mark), you can be sure everybody agrees on the result written. It's simple and efficient. No further dispute is possible.
I like it, but I if you consider it's overhead when you just want to trust the judge and prepare for the next solve, I agree that we can just keep: [i:25pfvflb]The competitor is responsible for checking the result on the sheet, immediately after the judge has written it down[/i:25pfvflb]. But let's add a line that says the judge must clearly announce the result. Official terms: "[b:25pfvflb]OK[/b:25pfvflb]", "[b:25pfvflb]Penalty[/b:25pfvflb]" or "[b:25pfvflb]DNF[/b:25pfvflb]".
Other things that could be added, but 10000 rules won't make life of our unexperienced judges easier:
- The judge is not allowed to touch the puzzle. (I think there's no need for him to, plus he can call the main judge)
- If the competitor touches the puzzle, he looses his right to dispute, regarding penalties.
StefanPochmann (2006-11-02 15:35:12 +0000)
For some puzzles the judge *must* touch the puzzle, at least Clock and the Magic if solved "upside down".
I still think signature reduced to exception cases (i.e. non-OK) is a good idea. Most of the solves are OK so this is not a dramatic overhead.
That story of Erik (if I understand it correctly) getting extra attempts at EC2006 for wrong DNFs is pretty bad and anything but professional if you ask me. If you don't check (like the rules require) then you should have to live with it, not get extra attempts.
Lucas (2006-12-14 23:46:50 +0000)
I don't think this has been mentioned so far:
15 seconds was probably chosen because it was the allotted inspection time at the 1982 World Championships.
That makes it a 24-year traditional standard...
StefanPochmann (2006-12-16 21:59:39 +0000)
[quote="Ron":2tcwziwy]4) make sure all regulations (so also Articles A, B, C, ...) have regulation numbers, like 5b2[/quote:2tcwziwy]
Please also make all of them linkable, i.e., like this:
<td><a name='9b' href='#9b'>9b)</a></td>
Then when I want to point someone to a specific place in the rules, I can just grab the URL and he doesn't have to search.
Also please add a 'Contents' section at the start of the page listing the articles.
CraigBouchard (2006-12-31 03:17:01 +0000)
Well I'm not sure if this has been discussed, so I apologize in advance if it has.
In the starting the timer part of the regulations it discusses that the timer must be starting with the fingers, but in the ending the solve part it only says you must end palms down, not with fingers. This mainly effects magic, because it adds that slight bit more of time. I've always interpreted that the way you MUST start is the same as finishing, but it does not clearly state it in the regulations, so that can be manipulated...
StefanPochmann (2006-12-31 14:13:23 +0000)
CraigBouchard (2007-01-03 04:36:02 +0000)
Ok, well personally I think it should have to be stopped with the fingers...only beacause of the fact that when you don't, you can still manipulate the puzzle...
Tim (2007-01-06 18:54:57 +0000)
[quote:1lxxlqog]Ok, well personally I think it should have to be stopped with the fingers...only beacause of the fact that when you don't, you can still manipulate the puzzle...[/quote:1lxxlqog]
But if they're not manipulating the puzzle, why should it matter?
That's my main problem with regulations such as this or the proposed "you must put the cube down x cm away from your hands so you can't manipulate it". What I don't like about that is that I use my fingers to stop the timer, which prevents me from manipulating it anyway. If I'm not violating a specific necessary rule anyway, such as don't manipulate the puzzle while the timer isn't running, why should I have to obey a rule designed to prevent me from violating that rule?
Other question: Are the 2007 regulations going to come out anytime soon? Or are we just sticking with the '06 ones? Not to be pushy or anything, but there is a contest tomorrow, which will probably have to go by the 2006 regulations.
JohannesLaire (2007-01-07 13:39:40 +0000)
[quote="CraigBouchard":vsed3plv]Ok, well personally I think it should have to be stopped with the fingers...only beacause of the fact that when you don't, you can still manipulate the puzzle...[/quote:vsed3plv]
I agree, look at the fastest magic videos on strangepuzzle.com...