Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Add clarification on judges forgetting to put a sight blocker #1052

Merged
merged 7 commits into from Dec 2, 2022
Merged

Add clarification on judges forgetting to put a sight blocker #1052

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
d45ebe4
Add clarification on sight blockers
Nevseros Oct 10, 2022
4923c14
Add an exception
Nevseros Oct 20, 2022
05e88c8
Wording changes
Rouxles Nov 13, 2022
341cee0
Fix capitalization
Nevseros Nov 13, 2022
12eab85
Slight change of wording/meaning
Rouxles Nov 24, 2022
9e373f6
Clarify wording
Rouxles Dec 1, 2022
47bb859
Merge branch 'draft' into clarification-on-sight-blockers
Rouxles Dec 1, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions wca-guidelines.md
View file
Open in desktop
Expand Up @@ -180,6 +180,7 @@ To be more informative, each Guideline is classified using one of the following
- B1+) [REMINDER] The competitor must use a puzzle without textures, markings, or other features that distinguish similar pieces (see [Regulation 3k](regulations:regulation:3k)). This should be given special attention for Blindfolded Solving.
- B1b+) [RECOMMENDATION] Blindfolds should be checked by the WCA Delegate before use in the competition.
- B2d+) [ADDITION] By default, the competitor starts the solve the first time that they start the timer after the judge has indicated that they are ready (see [Regulation B2a](regulations:regulation:B2a)). If they want to check that the timer is in working order, they must (ask and) receive confirmation from the judge each time before starting/resetting the timer during this phase. Penalty for starting and resetting a timer without confirmation from the judge: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).
- B4c+) [ADDITION] An attempt should not be disqualified solely due to the judge not putting a sight blocker. However, the WCA Delegate may replace the attempt with an extra attempt if they have a reason to suspect that the competitor gained an unfair advantage.
Copy link
Member

@lgarron lgarron Oct 18, 2022 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this needs to make explicit that this does not apply if https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#B4c3 is in effect (in which case the judge was not expected to use a sight blocker, and the competitor is responsible).

Copy link
Member Author

@Nevseros Nevseros Oct 18, 2022 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I actually thought about it, but I can't figure out how to clarify it correctly. Maybe an exception is needed here, like:

... the competitor gained an unfair advantage. Exception: if the competitor had to put a sight blocker themselves (see [Regulation B4c3](regulations:regulation:B4c3)), the attempt should be disqualified, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.

And I still don't like this wording.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thus making it look to have the same level of importance.

What would be the problem with that?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What would be the problem with that?

A competition with all scramblers signatures missing won't probably cause a debate on whether the results should stay or not, but I don't think it would be fine to have the same for the sight blockers.

Copy link
Member

@Nanush7 Nanush7 Oct 24, 2022 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Understood. What about changing "should not be disqualified" to "May remain valid" (or something like that)? With that wording, it would be a possibility, instead of a recommendation.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It would sound a way better. But maybe it should even be reworded to make it an exception? To clearly define that it's not a normal case and should be trated seriously.



## <article-C><one-handed><onehandedsolving> Article C: One-Handed Solving
Expand Down