WCA Regulations — Changes for 2020

[lgarron]

Here is a copy of an email I will be sending to WCA staff and organizers shortly.

---

Dear WCA Community,

The WCA Regulations Committee (WRC) has evaluated current WCA issues, and we are considering the following potential changes to the WCA Regulations, taking effect at the beginning of 2020. The WRC has discussed these and our consensus is in favor of each of these changes. We'd like your feedback on whether there are major concerns that we might not have considered yet.

If you know anyone in your local community who might be affected by these changes, please help us get feedback from them! If you can contribute feedback for each change in the associated GitHub issue link, this is very helpful for us. However, feedback over email is also welcome.

Simplifications

If you can think of other simplifications to the Regulations that do not fundamentally change the nature of our sport, please let us know!

• Clock pins are allowed to be distinguishable. #759
  • Pro: Many competitors have puzzles like this that they would like to use, and there are already various ways to tell a clock's orientation without pins.
• Clock pins are all pushed down at the end of the scramble. #382
  • Pro: This makes it easier to scramble correctly and transport the scrambled puzzle without affecting the state.
  • Pro: We already ignore pins for the solved state. This effectively simplifies the scramble state to be consistent.
  • Con: This will simplify the work that competitors need to do at the beginning of an attempt. This is not fair to past competitors.
  • Counterpoint: Most competitors will still start their solves by moving pins.
  • Counterpoint: 1/8 of scrambles already had all pins on the same side. If this is a significant advantage, it has already applied to many individual results.
• Solved state: All pieces must be attached and normally placed. #223
  • Pro: there are currently many states between clearly "solved" vs."unsolved" (e.g. 0 vs. 1 vs. 2 slice misalignments, 0 parts detached vs. 1 part with a single color vs. 1 part with multiple colors vs. 2 colored parts) — Regulation 5b5 alone has 5 parts! This significantly simplifies decisions about whether all parts are attached.
  • Con: Competitors would be penalized if this happens by accident at the end of the solve.
  • Counterpoint: The old policy was essentially designed to accommodate center caps that could pop off easily. This is uncommon with modern puzzles.
  • Counterpoint: The competitor has control over their choice of puzzle and their technique for finishing the attempt, which they can adapt to their risk tolerance. For all speedsolving events with results under 1 minute, the "Average of 5" format prevents a rare incident from having a significant impact on the average.
  • Con: For some puzzles (e.g. big cubes), it is sometimes possible to complete a solve with a missing piece. Competitors will have to repair this, which may take significant time.
  • Counterpoint: It is reasonable to expect the competitor to solve the entire puzzle, rather than intentionally leaving it broken until the end of the solve.
• Fewest Moves: Only the 18 basic moves are allowed in solutions (no rotations or wide moves). #757
  • Pro: This makes it very simple to explain to competitors and judges what counts as valid notation.
  • Pro: This makes it easier to count solutions, since every move counts as 1 move.
  • Con: this will make the event less friendly to beginners.
  • Counterpoint: FMC is generally considered a more advanced event, and it is reasonable to expect competitors to transform a solution to basic moves given that they have a whole hour.
  • Con: some competitors now have techniques (e.g. "slices shenanigans") that would require additional transformations to write as valid notation.
  • Counterpoint: Advanced competitors already work with "fixed orientation" most of the time. These competitors also use many other techniques (e.g. NISS, commutators, insertions) that require work to be converted into valid notation, but we consider it the competitor’s task to do so.
• Change the name "combined round" to "cutoff round". #543
  • Pro: A combined round is already defined as a round with a cutoff. Calling it a "cutoff round" is simpler to understand, and removes an unneeded synonym from the Regulations.
  • Con: The community is used to "combined round".
  • Counterpoint: There is no danger in clarifying that "combined round" is the old name for "cutoff round", while still making things simpler for the future.

Accountability

• Required: scramble signatures. Either the scrambler or a scramble checker must certify that the puzzle is scrambled correctly for each attempt. #686
  • Pro: This is the best known way to address mis-scrambles.
  • Con: This requires extra competition resources.
  • Counterpoint: Correct scrambles are important to the "fair and equal conditions" of the WCA Mission. The WCA must have confidence that every round is held to a high standard.
• A visual barrier is required between the Competitors Area and scramble table. #858
  • Pro: This prevents opportunistic cheating while dropping off puzzles or waiting.
  • Con: This is extra work for the organizers.
  • Counterpoint: The WRC has been collecting venue photos to understand how practical this is. Many organizers already do this, and have found affordable solutions that could be adopted elsewhere.
  • Con: This does not prevent the competitor from peeking at other competitors when they are on the stage for their attempt.
  • Counterpoint: In an ideal world, we would do more to prevent that. However, isolating the scramble table is the most practical and useful step we can take right now..
• A visual barrier is recommended between the Competitors Area and the solving stations. #858
  • This is similar to the visual barrier for the scramble table. Many major champions already do this.
• Strongly recommended: the Delegate should record a reason for each granted extra (e.g. on the back of the score sheet.)
  • This is already common in many places, and useful for tracking Delegate report incidents.
  • Pro: This helps verify that each extra was properly granted by a Delegate.
• Strongly recommended: attach O-rings (or equivalent) to all timer buttons to prevent accidental resets. #243
  • This is already a Guideline, but it would become a Regulation with the expectation that it would become required in the future.

Miscellaneous

• 3x3x3 with Feet will no longer be an official event.
  • We know this is an extremely controversial decision, which is why this decision was effectively pre-announced a year in advance. Please see https://github.com/thewca/wca-regulations/issues/652. However, we are still actively listening to feedback, and considering alternatives like moving 3x3x3 with Feet it into a new second tier of events with restrictions (e.g. not expected to be held at major championships, lower limit on the total number of rounds at a competition). #857
• Fewest Moves solutions are considered public. #125
  • Note: This means organizers will be allowed to publish solutions, but it will not be required.
  • Pro: This allows uploading photos or transcriptions of solutions to the web:
  • New tools and online cubers could be used to help judge solutions without special privacy considerations.
  • Helps with accountability and incident resolution after the attempt.
  • Allows keeping digital records instead of physical solutions.
  • Competitors could look up and learn from their past solutions without having to keep track themselves.
  • Con: some competitors may not want their solutions revealed.
  • Counterpoint: Advanced competitors already freely share their techniques, and frequently post their solutions. It is in the spirit of the WCA to support openness in the community.
  • Counterpoint: Past incidents have benefited from public analysis of solves to detect cheating.
• Competitors may submit extra "backup" cubes to be scrambled for Multi-Blind. #766
  • Pro: If there is a duplicate scramble in their attempt, it can be swapped out with an extra. This costs the competitor some time, but it often better than restarting the attempt, or forcing the competitor to effectively attempt one fewer cube than intended.
  • Con: This allows scramblers to be sloppy.
  • Counterpoint: We will continue to hold scramblers to a high standard, but not all competitions have been able to eliminate scramble issues so far. This is a practical solution that limits the impact to the competitor.
  • Con: Keeping track of the extra cubes may introduce its own logistical issues.
  • Counterpoint: It is worth asking the organizers to take this tradeoff for the benefit of competitors.
• Require the competitor to finish signing (not just for the judge to finish signing) before the competitor may reset the timer. #859
  • Pro: This makes is simpler to handle incidents between the end of the solve and the end of the attempt where the time is not available.
• Introduce a list of potential new events, with a plan to hold more "unofficial" events and evaluate them for official status. #861
  • Ideas include: adding them as normal events, adding a second tier of official events (not held at all championships), temporary official events (e.g. 2 years), making it easier to hold more unofficial events. #758, #636
• Systematic Leniency: certain penalties may be waived (or extra attempts awarded) for clearly unintentional accidents that did not provide a significant advantage. #798
  • Pro: This is a general way of handling incidents like accidentally touching a camera, where some of the community views existing decisions as too strict.
  • This idea needs a little more refinement, and is more of a WRC decision policy than a Regulations change. Please see the GitHub issue.

Under Evaluation

These do not have WRC consensus and are not planned changes at this point, but we would like input from the community about the ideas.

• Use a new event format (e.g. Average of 5, Median of 3) for 6x6x6, 7x7x7 #760, #813
• Use a new event format (e.g. Average of 5, Median of 3) for 3x3x3 Blindfolded. #858 #860
• Allow pre-arranged exceptions to the Regulations in order to try new changes to the sport (must be agreed by both the WRC and Board, and not provide an unfair advantage). #799
• Institute a "statute of limitations" for results — a maximum time after which old results are not modified unless there is new evidence of a very unfair advantage/cheating. #800
• Disallow Gen 2 Stackmat timers (which only have 60Hz precision). #619

Thank you,

»Lucas Garron, on behalf of the WRC

[SeanMoran27]

Just wanted to clarify one point on the new regulations:

Clock pins are all pushed down at the end of the scramble.

Does this mean we can start clock attempts face down or is it still necessary to have them upright at the start of the attempt?

[Ivan-Brigidano]

Just wanted to clarify one point on the new regulations:

Clock pins are all pushed down at the end of the scramble.

Does this mean we can start clock attempts face down or is it still necessary to have them upright at the start of the attempt?

@SeanMoran27 the idea behind this is exactly having the possibility of start the attempt with the clock facing down to avoid all the problems the upright position has.

[simonkellly]

Clock pins are all pushed down at the end of the scramble. Pro: This makes it easier to scramble correctly and transport the scrambled puzzle without affecting the state.

Would this allow competitors to place the puzzle face down at the end of their inspection period, with their choice of sides facing up? As if the rule was that the puzzle must be face down in any orientation, that would allow almost all precautions regarding not affecting the puzzle during transport

[xsrvmy]

Just to clarify, this

Solved state: All pieces must be attached and normally placed.

has nothing to do with +2s right? The example after mentions +2s which is why I had trouble understanding at first

[alexmaasswca]

Please don't make it so that a center cap falling off is illegal, that can be a big deal in 7x7 and 6x6 where pops are very common, and places people at a disadvantage compared to before. I can guarantee most experienced competitors who do many events have had solves that would have been DNFs under this regulation.

Also, lots of stickerless puzzles have the color on the center pieces, not just the center caps.

[casiku]

Push the pins up instead of down to safe time (they are already up after the last move "ALLx")

[chriscuber123]

As someone who takes FMC very seriously and is strongly against changing FMC notation, I want to address removing rotations and wide moves in FMC (sorry if I sound passive-aggressive): Pro: This makes it very simple to explain to competitors and judges what counts as valid notation. It was already pretty simple, all of the valid moves were listed on the FMC sheet. The simplicity that you gain from disallowing these moves is negligible.

Pro: This makes it easier to count solutions, since every move counts as 1 move. It takes literally 5 seconds to go through a solution to look for rotations and circle/mark them and subtract them from the total move count. If you want solution counting to be easier, requiring that solutions be submitted on the official sheet will accomplish much more than disallowing rotations and wide moves.

Con: this will make the event less friendly to beginners. Counterpoint: FMC is generally considered a more advanced event, and it is reasonable to expect competitors to transform a solution to basic moves given that they have a whole hour. Isn't the point of comps to encourage beginners to try new things? Just because FMC is "more advanced" doesn't mean you need to purposely make it less beginner-friendly.

Con: some competitors now have techniques (e.g. "slices shenanigans") that would require additional transformations to write as valid notation. Counterpoint: Advanced competitors already work with "fixed orientation" most of the time. These competitors also use many other techniques (e.g. NISS, commutators, insertions) that require work to be converted into valid notation, but we consider it the competitor’s task to do so. Yes, we work with fixed orientation most of the time. Keyword most. Slices and center insertions make this fixed orientation solving exponentially harder. Your examples of other advanced techniques aren't valid either, because NISS, insertions, etc don't change the orientation of the cube like slices do and doing moves in fixed orientation with these techniques is no different than doing a linear CFOP solve in fixed orientation. Being able to write R Rw' or R L' x' is much, much easier than translating every move after that to white top green front. Not to mention that as techniques get more developed, multiple slice insertions in solves will become more and more prevalent. Take this solve from Cale Schroon at US Nationals 2019, for example: R' U' F U2 R D2 L D2 R2 B2 R D R' U' B' F2 D' U L' B2 D2 F' R' U' F U' L' B' R D // EO L' R2 U2 B U2 B' F2 R' // Domino (B' L2 F' U2 B' U2 F D2 x2) // solve corners U' L' B' R D L' R2 U2 B U2 B' F2 R' x2 D2 F' @ U2 B U2 F L2 B @ = M2 U' L' B' R D L' R2 U2 B U2 B' F2 R' U2 B' ^ R2 L2 U2 B @ U2 F % L2 B & ^ = S' @ = S % = S & = S' While Cale did take the time to translate the moves to fixed orientation, I find this extra step to be very unnecessary.

[xsrvmy]

@chriscuber123 Not sure if I would discuss changes here. IMO though the most reasonable way simplify is to at least disallow bracket notation for rotations and maybe wide moves, but definitely not rotations in general.

[chriscuber123]

@xsrvmy The only change I would agree with is disallowing bracket notation because that's just stupid

[jamesquinn1]

Some of your changes that "do not fundamentally change the nature of our sport" are still massive changes that make past results easier or harder to achieve.

1. All pieces attached- One center piece falling out near the end of a big cube solve and flying across the floor could now add 15-20 seconds to a solve, which is a massive margin. Feet center caps and megaminx piece caps are two other examples of how this would fundamentally change events. This change seems to have come about because of the 0.91 Skewb DNF, and fundamentally changing many events because of one incident is absurd.
2. FMC wide moves and rotations- With center insertions and slicey shenanigans now being extremely common at a high level, not allowing wide moves or slices could make solutions take an extra 5 minutes to write, which is a lot of time at the top level of fmc. This also adds a large barrier of entry to the event, which I believe is wrong as FMC as always been an easy event to get started into and I believe it should stay that way.
3. Clock pins- Requiring clock pins to be all facing the same way and having the clock being facing down on that side is actually harder to manage than face up if you have clock covers (which are becoming more and more common, and cost ~$2 per cover). This makes new results also harder to obtain as the first move of a clock solve is (almost) never an ALL move, but rather a move that is influenced by the pin position.
4. Requiring the competitor to finish signing- This makes any missing signatures that get caught at data DNFs, which would make old results easier to achieve.

Some others notes/grievances I have with these changes:

1. Feet: I honestly don't understand why removing feet is still an option. The polls across Facebook Groups and especially speedsolving show a preference to save the event, and the very very few I've seen that have had a preference to remove the event have been just a few percent difference. The margin to remove an official event should never be 50.01%. I find this absolutely ridiculous and insulting. This margin should be at least 66.67%, but probably more like 75% or even 90% frankly. I am dumbfounded why this process is still going on. My leading theory is that a WRC member, likely @lgarron has a strong personal bias to remove the event and is continuing to push these efforts on. Lucas has done this for multiple other changes here, notably the FMC moves. @lgarron please watch out for this, especially on your idea of ephemeral events, which I have not seen much support for. There is zero precedent for removing events except in a dire situation that was compromising the results of an event. Feet is nowhere near that level, and removing an event just because people don't like it when events have only ever been removed in the past because they went against the WCA mission frankly disgusts me. I have never had any incidents running feet, and it has always been quick and easy to run even simultaneously to other events. I don't know what others are doing wrong about hosting this, but the event is quite easy to host, and in my opinion is the easiest to have.
2. Can the "visual barrier" be clarified or moved a strong recommendation? Making this a requirement implies harder that barriers must be perfect, and I don't know of too many incidents that have arose from competitors looking at the scrambling table.
3. Can "systematic leniency" be clarified, or examples given?
4. Clock pins: Can this be clarified further? What I'm currently getting is that the pins would all be facing one way in the scramble, and they must stay facing that way during transport and inspection, and the competitor could not move them during inspection, but the competitor could stand the clock up. Is this correct?

[priazz]

As someone who takes FMC very seriously and is strongly against changing FMC notation, I want to address removing rotations and wide moves in FMC (sorry if I sound passive-aggressive): Pro: This makes it very simple to explain to competitors and judges what counts as valid notation. It was already pretty simple, all of the valid moves were listed on the FMC sheet. The simplicity that you gain from disallowing these moves is negligible.

Pro: This makes it easier to count solutions, since every move counts as 1 move. It takes literally 5 seconds to go through a solution to look for rotations and circle/mark them and subtract them from the total move count. If you want solution counting to be easier, requiring that solutions be submitted on the official sheet will accomplish much more than disallowing rotations and wide moves.

Con: this will make the event less friendly to beginners. Counterpoint: FMC is generally considered a more advanced event, and it is reasonable to expect competitors to transform a solution to basic moves given that they have a whole hour. Isn't the point of comps to encourage beginners to try new things? Just because FMC is "more advanced" doesn't mean you need to purposely make it less beginner-friendly.

Con: some competitors now have techniques (e.g. "slices shenanigans") that would require additional transformations to write as valid notation. Counterpoint: Advanced competitors already work with "fixed orientation" most of the time. These competitors also use many other techniques (e.g. NISS, commutators, insertions) that require work to be converted into valid notation, but we consider it the competitor’s task to do so. Yes, we work with fixed orientation most of the time. Keyword most. Slices and center insertions make this fixed orientation solving exponentially harder. Your examples of other advanced techniques aren't valid either, because NISS, insertions, etc don't change the orientation of the cube like slices do and doing moves in fixed orientation with these techniques is no different than doing a linear CFOP solve in fixed orientation. Being able to write R Rw' or R L' x' is much, much easier than translating every move after that to white top green front. Not to mention that as techniques get more developed, multiple slice insertions in solves will become more and more prevalent. Take this solve from Cale Schroon at US Nationals 2019, for example: R' U' F U2 R D2 L D2 R2 B2 R D R' U' B' F2 D' U L' B2 D2 F' R' U' F U' L' B' R D // EO L' R2 U2 B U2 B' F2 R' // Domino (B' L2 F' U2 B' U2 F D2 x2) // solve corners U' L' B' R D L' R2 U2 B U2 B' F2 R' x2 D2 F' @ U2 B U2 F L2 B @ = M2 U' L' B' R D L' R2 U2 B U2 B' F2 R' U2 B' ^ R2 L2 U2 B @ U2 F % L2 B & ^ = S' @ = S % = S & = S' While Cale did take the time to translate the moves to fixed orientation, I find this extra step to be very unnecessary.

I agree with almost everything Chris stated. What I don't agree with is that without rotation it becomes exponentially harder: rewriting the skeleton in the new orientation can be done without a cube most of the times and won't waste much of your attempt. Despite this fact, the advantages you gain with this new set of rules are either insignificant or don't outweigh the disadvantages you have with the current one. I think you should not penalise the people that are good enough to use a more complex notation just because the majority are not able to. It's part of the event. I don't feel a change is needed but I would be ok with the new rules since they won't affect the way I approach the event.

[xsrvmy]

My personally feeling about rotations is that removing them these days is basically a decrease in the time limit by about 1-2 minutes, and that's definitely not preferred.

[Samuel-Baird]

For the clock bit you mention that it’s unfair to past competitors, as someone who does clock I can tell you that having all pins starting up is actually pretty bad. It’s like having to solve 1 tip on pyra vs 4 tips on Pyra. The place you have probably seen the “it’s unfair to old competitors” is on discussions where people are proposing that competitors may push in pins in inspection to whatever they would like, that does give new competitors and advantage over old competitors.

Don’t have time rn but I will drop by later to share my thoughts on some other things.

[chriscuber123]

@priazz With one or two slice insertions it isn't hard, but if you have more or are doing a 6 center insertion it becomes very confusing and takes away time that competitors should be able to use for actual solving and not adjusting their solutions for unnecessary reg changes. I like what @xsrvmy said, removing rotations and wide moves is basically decreasing the time limit except the amount that it decreases varies by competitor

[xsrvmy]

I think we should discuss this in the actual issue not here

[Samuel-Baird]

@priazz With one or two slice insertions it isn't hard, but if you have more or are doing a 6 center insertion it becomes very confusing and takes away time that competitors should be able to use for actual solving and not adjusting their solutions for unnecessary reg changes. I like what @xsrvmy said, removing rotations and wide moves is basically decreasing the time limit except the amount that it decreases varies by competitor

removing rotations causes even more problems imo. You can do slice insertions with rotations (more difficult than allowing slice moves and rotations but definitely easier than what’s getting proposed) and most people doing fmc for the first time rely heavily on rotations, removing them would make things take incredibly long for a first time competitor and may discourage them from doing the event at future competitions. Most events the barrier of entry is pretty minimal, you just have to know the basics and make the cutoffs. This is just making an event harder for competitors so that everyone knows legal moves and to make COUNTING easier on judges. Imagine removing inspection with the argument of “it’s difficult for judges to remember the time to call out and having to keep track of the time while making sure competitors aren’t applying moves in inspection.

[xsrvmy]

The only simplification I see necessary is removing 2Uw as a valid move, because R2Uw can be ambiguous if not written on an FMC sheet.

[Tehzeebkohli]

I seriously fail to understand the stand taken for 3x3 with feet especially after so many good arguments have been brought up in favour of keeping this event. @lgarron please can we have some clarification except it disgusting, unprofessional, yucky etc. Do you really think all the hard work that has gone in by the kids who practise feet is of so little value?

[xsrvmy]

I don't think the removal of feet is official yet. Recently there was a new issue created for moving feet to a lower tier without removing the event (so that championships do not have to hold the event)

[Samuel-Baird]

Simplifications If you can think of other simplifications to the Regulations that do not fundamentally change the nature of our sport, please let us know!

Several of these fundamentally change the nature of events.

• Clock pins are allowed to be distinguishable. #759 I feel like this is a good decision, it doesn’t really cause any problems to allow them to be distinguishable
• Clock pins are all pushed down at the end of the scramble. Disadvantages new competitors but makes things a lot nicer, an alternative could be to allow competitors to manipulate pins in inspection which would instead disadvantage old competitors.
• Solved state: All pieces must be attached and normally placed. #223 Despite mixed feelings about this I’m good with it and agree with the points
• Fewest Moves: Only the 18 basic moves are allowed in solutions (no rotations or wide moves). #757 Solution to this garbage, count rotations as moves to make the poor judges lives easier and list all legal moves on fmc sheets. This encourages competitors to not use rotations but they can still use them if short on time. It also removed the initial 80 move limit which is nice, it just causes confusion.
• Change the name "combined round" to "cutoff round". #543 This never was a problem but it’s nice to make things more clear. Accountability
• Required: scramble signatures. Either the scrambler or a scramble checker must certify that the puzzle is scrambled correctly for each attempt. #686 Going to cause a lot of competitors to DNF and slow down comps but also will hopefully stop some misscrambles.
• A visual barrier is required between the Competitors Area and scramble table. Good idea but hard for lots of areas to do. This makes it almost impossible for some venues to be used and now we will have to somehow make walls or blockers. Financially this might not be doable in some places.
• Strongly recommended: the Delegate should record a reason for each granted extra (e.g. on the back of the score sheet.) Good
• Strongly recommended: attach O-rings (or equivalent) to all timer buttons to prevent accidental resets. #243 Why not just make this required right now? This has caused so many issues and causes 0 problems to require in 2020. Miscellaneous
• 3x3x3 with Feet will no longer be an official event. I don’t really care for the event personally so I’m glad it’s being removed. Just an opinion tho.
• Fewest Moves solutions are considered public. #125 Definitely nice to have, only bad thing I see is that people using their own techniques that they may want to keep secret don’t have privacy about those techniques.
• Competitors may submit extra "backup" cubes to be scrambled for Multi-Blind. #766 Nice to have, there definitely needs to be a legal limit to how many cubes you can submit though.
• Require the competitor to finish signing (not just for the judge to finish signing) before the competitor may reset the timer. Good
• Introduce a list of potential new events, with a plan to hold more "unofficial" events and evaluate them for official status. I’m just gonna be honest here, the only person I have seen proposing and majorly pushing this is you. There is overall little interest with this and the wca already has a pretty good mix of events. Championships (especially large ones) would still feel pressure to try and hold all events and it just means lengthening the regs even more.
• Systematic Leniency: certain penalties may be waived (or extra attempts awarded) for clearly unintentional accidents that did not provide a significant advantage. #798 While it’s a good idea I think in practice it causes unfairness. Two competitors with very similar situations may have differing outcomes. The less “at the discretion of _____” we can get the better. Under Evaluation These do not have WRC consensus and are not planned changes at this point, but we would like input from the community about the ideas.
• Use a new event format (e.g. Average of 5, Median of 3) for 6x6x6, 7x7x7 #760, #813 I’m down
• Use a new event format (e.g. Average of 5, Median of 3) for 3x3x3 Blindfolded. I’m down
• Allow pre-arranged exceptions to the Regulations in order to try new changes to the sport (must be agreed by both the WRC and Board, and not provide an unfair advantage). #799 No. Several of your examples listed to create unequal conditions which could give advantages or disadvantages. If it’s actually going to be beneficial then just change the regs or guidelines
• Institute a "statute of limitations" for results — a maximum time after which old results are not modified unless there is new evidence of a very unfair advantage/cheating. #800 This is literally an idea you came up with because you allowed Sebastian to not get a +2 for something I have seen so many competitors get +2 for because you made a stupid ruling with the expectation of a reg change which you never followed up on which created an unfair situation. Instead of doing the right thing you just want to be able to sweep things under the rug. I’m extremely disappointed.
• Disallow Gen 2 Stackmat timers (which only have 60Hz precision). Good

[MadsPhilipsen]

As someone with Tenosynovitis, a type of repetitive strain injury i got because of speedcubing, i've picked up feet, since it's the only thing i can practise. I'm truely saddend by seeing feet getting removed, since it's more or less a kick in the face to people like me. Please follow through with the alternative of moving it into a second tier event. This would literraly solve all the complaints people have with feet, while still allowing handicapped people like me to be a part of the community. If you have any questions please ask them, i'd love to anwser.

[alexmaasswca]

I completely agree with James Quinn on this. Please don't make these major changes.

[Ivan-Brigidano]

Just a few clarification:

• The draft was writing by a consensus of the WRC. So is false that this proposals are defended exclusively by Lucas.
• As @xsrvmy pointed, removing WF is not official. The original plan is to remove it, however we are discussing other potential alternatives (such as #857).

[shivambansal42]

I couldn't find the github link for this so I'm replying here: Use a new event format (e.g. Average of 5, Median of 3) for 3x3x3 Blindfolded.

I think this is a great idea. Right now, a single mistake or bad scramble can ruin your average in a mean. Changing it to ao5 will solve this by allowing room for one error, and still requiring a solver to get 4 successes which is challenging in itself, so it doesn't make it too easy.

ao5 results can be merged into mo3 results like what happened with feet, and it won't be something we haven't tried before.

Now with top solvers getting increasingly faster and more accurate, this will provide a good boost to 3BLD and will encourage more people to practice it.

as for cutoffs, organisers can require two of the first three solves to be a success before allowing to solve the next 2 solves. and they can also require one of the first three solves to be below a cutoff before allowing to solve the next 2 solves too.

I am 100% in favor of this.

[alexmaasswca]

Just quickly asked the competitors at the competition I'm currently at if they think a center cap falling off should be a DNF, all of them pretty much all didn't think it was necessary. I challenge whoever somehow supports it to find plenty of people at a competition that support it.

[Clqw]

1. Clock pins Make it DNF to move pins before the attempt? Or just accept them moving in inspection?

   2. Doesn't the advanced event argument go against WCA's spirit...? Regardless, we could accept the alternative notations but not make any changes to the current instructions printed on FMC paper? So only people checking need to be aware of the notations

2. What's the penalty for an attempt without scrambler's signature? Is it a case of either DNF or "systematic leniency"?

3. How strict does the visual barrier have to be? Would small gaps in between blocking boards (let's assume whiteboards are used to block the view) be not allowed?

4. Rather than maing O-rings a requirement, shouldn't the responsibility to stop the timer correctly be on the competitor? Next thing you know, people will be requesting some contraption to prevent competitors from starting timer with their palms etc

5. So, would feet be removed or not? Alternative solutions such as another tier of events or rotating events only sound like logistical nightmares

6. What if some competitor claim a scramble to be duplicate to get an easier scramble? (Of course, I dont expect most people to do this, but hypothetically speaking) How would we differentiate between a genuine mistake and intentionally taking advantage of the regs?

7. Systematic leniency should not be a factor imo, especially when the regs are clearly written. Rules are there for a reason

8. Median of 3 sounds weird for a format. Maybe allow Ao5 for people who got a single within top 100 in world ranking within their first 3 solves (To not spend too much time on these events in comps) Either that, or allow for "brutal" cutoffs, which I am definitely more fond of.

Ao5 for 3x3 seems fine imo

10. Are gen 2 timers really that much of an issue? How about communities with only gen 2 timers for now? (In case any might be unable to cope with this cost to change timers)

[TheMagicCuber]

I’m just completely in shock that after all the hard work put in by the community to #savefeet, it still ends up being removed. I personally put so much time into defending it, and all that time is wasted.

[Tehzeebkohli]

@TheMagicCuber I’m shocked too that this is even being discussed as being potentially removed. The amount of #savefeet competition and rounds that have happened this year is absolutely mind blowing. No good work goes to waste. You have a big heart and supported an event which means a lot to you and the community. Every good deed comes back and yours will too. The world needs more people like you.

[sebastianotronto]

FMC: only 18 moves allowed

I support this, as I said here. Let me repeat and expand two of my main points:

1. I would argue that this actually helps beginners. Removing rotations altogether enforces the good practice of writing each move you make by looking at the center piece of the face you are turning. Many people don't bother learning this way of writing FMC solution, but it takes very little effort to learn, and has at least two advantages:

1. It helps avoiding mistakes such as R U R' y F U R...
2. It lets you turn the cube around in your hands as much as you like during the solve, without having to remember in which orientation you are at that point.

Really, it is much easier to write solutions this way.

2. As for slice insertions: I have used this technique in the past and I will likely use it more often in the future. So far I have always submitted a final solution using only the 18 basic moves.

I agree that there may be situations in which you may want to submit a solution with something like R Rw', so you have to do one little extra step. This extra step is as simple as going through your draft solution (written down with whatever notation you prefer) performing each move on a cube and writing down on the official sheet each move you make using the 18 basic moves. I believe this doesn't take more than 1 or 2 minutes.

Yes, it may make the event slightly harder at high level, but I think it is a very reasonable change.

I also like the idea of counting rotations as moves and removing wide turns. It seems to me that the advantages are similar, and if people are strongly against removing rotations it might be a valid alternative.

Scramble signatures

I kind of dislike this idea. The main problem is that I don't see how signing the scramble prevents misscrambling. Sure, now you can find out who is responsible for misscrambling. And then what? There is no way to punish this.

Can someone elaborate on why this would help solve the misscrambling problem?

FMC solutions considered public

I agree with this. There may be some competitors that don't like sharing their techniques (although I don't know any), but as explained in the OP this is not in the spirit of the WCA.

Temporary / second tier events

I like the idea of temporary events, but not that of "second tier" permanent events. I think a temporary event would be in practice considered "second tier" by most competitors.

Two years seems a good life time for temporary events

New format for 3BLD

I agree, the current format is not optimal. In #571 I suggested changing to a combined Bo3/Bo5 format. This has two main advantages: more attempts (= more fun :-) ) and changing as little as possible with respect to the current format (i.e. keeping the "best of" format and still requiring at least 1/3 accuracy).

However, I am not sure anymore that "changing as little as possible" is a good approach. Other people suggested interesting formats, such as "Mean of best 2 solves out of 5 attempts". I think we (3BLD solvers of all levels and the WRC) should take some time to think of possible formats and evaluate pros and cons, and eventually switch to what seems the best idea.

[tnorr]

There are some issues with scramble signatures, mainly:

• it kills the scrambling flow and slows the process down
• it has no effect on some people who sign before scrambling just because it has to be done
• people are often blind to their own mistakes and if they think they scrambled right they won't even check properly

Scramble checker would no doubt be the best way to prevent misscrambles. It allows for a faster scrambling process (scramblers don't need to check the scrambles and the checkers don't really need to sign) and there's time for a more thorough checking of every cube. Plus, it would get rid of scramblers who send out an easy scramble for a fast solver for the memes. Literally, the only con I can see is that 1 person more would be required. I'm surprised it hasn't been introduced yet, but I really think we should make separate scramble checkers at least recommended, if not mandatory.

Multi-blind duplicates are another issue I'd like to bring up. Allowing an extra cube is weird because the regulations don't even tell what to do if a duplicate comes up when there's no extra cube. However, just by requiring a scramble checker go over the cubes after scrambling would get rid of the issue completely so I see no point in allowing extra cubes, especially if the competitor can choose if they want an extra or not.

[xsrvmy]

Require the competitor to finish signing (not just for the judge to finish signing) before the competitor may reset the timer.

I see a serious problem here: what if an inexperienced judge resets the timer before the competitor signs or is celebrating (I frequently need to tell the judge to pass me the scresheet and pen) It's reasonable if only the competitor is not allowed to reset the timer.

[Samuel-Baird]

Require the competitor to finish signing (not just for the judge to finish signing) before the competitor may reset the timer.

I see a serious problem here: what if an inexperienced judge resets the timer before the competitor signs or is celebrating (I frequently need to tell the judge to pass me the scresheet and pen) It's reasonable if only the competitor is not allowed to reset the timer.

Extra

[Ivan-Brigidano]

Just to clarify, this

Solved state: All pieces must be attached and normally placed.

has nothing to do with +2s right? The example after mentions +2s which is why I had trouble understanding at first

@xsrvmy I guess here you are saying +2 for misalignment. If so, this won't be included in 2020 Regulations.

Can "systematic leniency" be clarified, or examples given?

@jamesquinn1 #798

Clock pins: Can this be clarified further? What I'm currently getting is that the pins would all be facing one way in the scramble, and they must stay facing that way during transport and inspection, and the competitor could not move them during inspection, but the competitor could stand the clock up. Is this correct?

@jamesquinn1 yes, this is correct. In addition yours insinuations about Lucas are false and insulting. This draft becomes from a consensus of the Committee.

I seriously fail to understand the stand taken for 3x3 with feet (...).

@Tehzeebkohli if you read the original post again you will notice that the WRC is studying other alternatives (such as #857).

Strongly recommended: attach O-rings (or equivalent) to all timer buttons to prevent accidental resets. #243

Why not just make this required right now? This has caused so many issues and causes 0 problems to require in 2020.

@UnderwaterCuber the ideal would be to include it right now. However we must have into account that not all organizations teams have the same equipment. So it's better to give some time to be sure that this is done able.

[xsrvmy]

Require the competitor to finish signing (not just for the judge to finish signing) before the competitor may reset the timer.

I see a serious problem here: what if an inexperienced judge resets the timer before the competitor signs or is celebrating (I frequently need to tell the judge to pass me the scresheet and pen) It's reasonable if only the competitor is not allowed to reset the timer.

Extra

So if I react to a NR, judge forgets about me and reset the timer, I lose my record because my judge can't judge? I especially see this being a problem since it is more likely the judge will reset the timer early if the competitor celebrates by leaving the table.

How does this simplify handling incidents anyway?

[Samuel-Baird]

Just to clarify, this

Solved state: All pieces must be attached and normally placed.

has nothing to do with +2s right? The example after mentions +2s which is why I had trouble understanding at first

@xsrvmy I guess here you are saying +2 for misalignment. If so, this won't be included in 2020 Regulations.

Can "systematic leniency" be clarified, or examples given?

@jamesquinn1 #798

Clock pins: Can this be clarified further? What I'm currently getting is that the pins would all be facing one way in the scramble, and they must stay facing that way during transport and inspection, and the competitor could not move them during inspection, but the competitor could stand the clock up. Is this correct?

@jamesquinn1 yes, this is correct. In addition yours insinuations about Lucas are false and insulting. This draft becomes from a consensus of the Committee.

I seriously fail to understand the stand taken for 3x3 with feet (...).

@Tehzeebkohli if you read the original post again you will notice that the WRC is studying other alternatives (such as #857).

Strongly recommended: attach O-rings (or equivalent) to all timer buttons to prevent accidental resets. #243

Why not just make this required right now? This has caused so many issues and causes 0 problems to require in 2020.

@UnderwaterCuber the ideal would be to include it right now. However we must have into account that not all organizations teams have the same equipment. So it's better to give some time to be sure that this is done able.

With the current proposal it requires using some sort of visual barrier to block the competitors view of the scrambling table, some organization teams may not have equipment for this so I find your explanation to be inconsistent with the proposal. Both visual isolation of the scrambling and using O-rings are currently recommendations in the guidelines so I feel it’s fair to treat them the same. In addition O-rings or equivalents are cheap or in some cases free so I don’t find it too much to ask to require them for 2020. If you have explanations as to why visual barriers should be required in 2020 but O-rings shouldn't I would love to hear it since I am not understanding the reasoning behind this.

[xsrvmy]

@UnderwaterCuber The strangest part is actually this: why does the scrambler need to be isolated from the competitors? The scrambled puzzles can be isolated using paper taped to the table, but isolating the scrambler requires actual equipment.

I think part of the problem with O-rings is it may be hard in certain areas to actually buy o-rings?

[Sixstringcal]

You can make your own o rings easily though. The coolest ones I've seen my friend Isaac Myers made and he got toy cars and cut the wheels in half or something like that. You could probably also tape silly string over it or pipe cleaners. There are many non-traditional ways of making them.

What I will say about o rings is with how frequently we get defective timers, you'd need to have replacements have them too. And what if you have to rely on timers competitors bring that don't have o rings?

[aneurinhunt]

Clock pins being distinguishable is a good thing. Inconsistent decisions from delegates are no longer an issue. Not sure about clock pins all being pushed down. Requiring all pieces to be fully attached does make it easier to decide if a cube is solved.

For FMC I don’t think it should be just the 18 basic moves. Counting rotations is a viable alternate to make grading easier or removing rotations all together and keeping wide moves. A support the latter.

Scramble signatures do affect the flow of scrambling rand what happens if they forget to sign. Having a person separate to the scramblers check and sign for it does avoid this issue. The is likely going to be a lot of incidents involving scramble signatures missing at the start of 2020 regulation period. What happens if the scramble signature is missing and the competitor starts their attempt?

Visual barrier being required seems obvious to me. In New Zealand we have had a specially made barrier for a few years now with holes in it marked scrambled and solved. Competitors should not be able to see the scramblers at all.

I kind of feel o-rings’ importance are overblown.

FMC solutions should be public. The system of how this works will need work starting out with photos of sheets is a start. Would you then be able to use software to get the solution in text?

6x6 and 7x7 should be average of 5 as for 3BLD it might be worth testing different formats which is a good use of: allow pre-arranged exceptions to the Regulations in order to try new changes to the sport (must be agreed by both the WRC and Board, and not provide an unfair advantage). #799. For 3BLD you could test multiple different formats.

One last quick note you can use timer display boxs as a blocker for scramblers not a good solution but one none the less.

[lgarron]

Looks like there's a lot of feedback in this thread; it's good to hear from everyone!

However, replies are getting hard to track. I've made sure that each of the topics at the top of this thread has its own issue now. I'm locking this thread in order to make sure we move the discussions there!

[lgarron]

I sent this update to WCA Staff earlier today:

Hello WCA Staff,

Thank everyone who provided constructive feedback since we sent out our planned changes for the 2020 Regulations. Based on feedback from the WCA Staff and the community, we have updated the changes as follows.

If you have feedback on these changes, or find any issues in the exact wording changes for them, we would like to invite you to send your feedback by the end of this week (Dec. 8). We would like to take your feedback into account to produce a final draft at that point.

---

Modifications since the initial planned changes

• Solved state: No change. Although this would simplify decisions for common incidents, it has a significant impact on 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 (which still use "Mean of 3").
• Fewest Moves: [r]-style rotations are not allowed anymore, but wide moves and <x, y, z> rotations still are. We'd like to thank Sebastiano Tronto for writing a document to summarize the community consensus on this.
• Visual isolation: the Regulations will not explicitly require a visual barrier between the Competitors Area and the scramble table/stage. The WQAC is working on a document to provide more guidance for this.
• Multi-Blind: instead of scrambling extra "backup" cubes ahead of the attempt, the organization team may re-scramble a puzzle that had a duplicate scramble.
• Clock pins in the scramble: instead of setting all the pins down in the scramble to address the issue of clocks falling over, the Regulations will specify that clock stands (which are already used by some Delegates) are allowed.
• Systematic Leniency: This idea is not refined enough for a direct Regulations change yet. In 2020, we will work on a formal way to allow Delegates not to penalize certain accidents when the competitor did not gain (or try to gain) an unfair advantage (e.g. touching the camera interaction during inspection, accidentally touching the cube after the solve).
• Unofficial events: There is a strong community desire for new events, and the removal of official status for 3x3x3 with Feet has emphasized the dramatic gap between unofficial and official event status. Although there are ideas to make unofficial events easier to hold and to have more official events without burdening championship organizers (e.g. tiered or temporary events), we are seeking more community input before making any official changes at this time.

---

Proposed 2020 Regulations Changes (Initial Draft)

Simplifications

• Clock pins are allowed to be distinguishable. #759
• Fewest Moves: Only the 18 basic moves, <x, y, z> rotations, wide moves are allowed in solutions (no bracket rotations). #757
• Change the name "combined round" to "cutoff round". #543

Accountability

• Strongly recommended: the Delegate should record a reason for each granted extra (e.g. on the back of the score sheet.)
• Required: scramble signatures. Either the scrambler or a scramble checker must certify that the puzzle is scrambled correctly for each attempt. Although competitions must make a full effort to use scramble signatures for all attempts, the Delegate may allow results with missing scramble signatures if this is discovered after the solve. #686
• Strongly recommended: attach O-rings (or equivalent) to all timer buttons to prevent accidental resets. #243

Miscellaneous

• 3x3x3 with Feet will no longer be an official event. Please see the announcement.
• Fewest Moves solutions are considered public. #125
• Multi-Blind: If a duplicate cube is found and during an attempt, the cube may be re-scrambled using an extra scramble.
• Require the competitor to finish signing (not just for the judge to finish signing) before the competitor may reset the timer.
• Clock stands may be used to place the Clock vertically at the solving station at the beginning of the attempt.

See here for the reasons for these changes, which have not significantly changed since the first announcement (other than specified above).

You can view the exact draft at https://github.com/thewca/wca-regulations/compare/diff-base-2019...draft

Thank you,

»Lucas

[lgarron]

Summary of Changes for the 2020 Regulations

Here are the proposed set of changes for the WCA Board, per Motion 14.2019.1.

The full set of wording changes can be seen at diff-base-2019...release-candidate-2019-12-14

Simplifications

• Clock Pins are allowed to be distinguishable. (commit | discussion)
• Fewest Moves: Only the 18 basic moves, <x, y, z> rotations, and wide moves are allowed in solutions (no bracket rotations). (commit | discussion)
• The name for "combined round" has changed to "cutoff round". (commit, discussion)

Accountability

• Required: scramble signatures. Either the scrambler or a scramble checker must certify that the puzzle is scrambled correctly for each attempt. Although competitions must make a full effort to use scramble signatures for all attempts, the Delegate may allow results with missing scramble signatures if this is discovered after the solve. (commit | commit | discussion)
• Strongly recommended: the Delegate should record a reason for each granted extra (e.g. on the back of the score sheet.) (commit)
• Strongly recommended: Organizers should attach O-rings (or equivalent) to all timer buttons to prevent accidental resets. (commit | discussion)

Miscellaneous

• 3x3x3 with Feet will no longer be an official event. (announcement | commit | discussion)
• Fewest Moves solutions are considered public. #125 (commit | discussion)
• Multi-Blind: If a duplicate cube is found and during an attempt, the cube may be re-scrambled using an extra scramble. (commit | discussion)
• Clock stands may be used to place the Clock vertically at the solving station at the beginning of the attempt. (commit | discussion)

---

The most significant modifications since the initial draft are:

• We've updated the Guidelines for missing scramble signatures to be more clear, and to specify that the competitor must not disqualify an attempt solely for a missing signature. #936
• The original draft was accidentally missing an implementation of the intended change to require the competitor to finish signing before they may reset the timer. We've decided not to include this changes in the 2020 Regulations. #916