Definition of move

[Nanush7]

Added definition in 12i.
Modified regulations A3c1, B3c, B4b, A6e and A6b. (Note that A3c1, B3c and B4b are different to A6e and A6b)

[Randomno]

Exception: If no moves, including any kind of alignment

I don't think this makes sense, since it suggests alignments are included in moves, when not all of them are.

As a whole, "alignment" is generally taken to mean arranging in a straight line. So these "any intentional alignment" regs seem more like they should say "intentional misalignment" or perhaps "change in alignment".

Also, A3c2 somewhat contradicts A3c1 now, so an exception could be clarified.

[Nanush7]

it suggests alignments are included in moves, when not all of them are

Could you please elaborate a bit further? The definition of move is given in 12i, where moves are only considered to be "whole face turns" and misalignments beyond the limits of 10f. In this case, we don't want the competitor to even apply a single 1° of turn. However, I agree "change in alignment" may be better.

[Nanush7]

@Randomno Please review again

[Randomno]

Looks good, thank you. One point, I think this way of adding an exception is different to anywhere else in the regs. Normally it would either be like "Exception: see regulation A3c2", or A3c2 would become A3c1a.

To try to clarify, as I understand it, the phrase "x, including y" indicates that y is a subset of x. The only reason the add the "including" clause is for clarity. In the case of A6c, alignments are not a subset of moves, as you can have changes in alignment that do not constitute a move.

All I really have in mind is something like If no moves, nor any change in alignment, or If no changes in alignment, including moves. But that's my thought process behind it, if it makes sense.

[xsrvmy]

I have two concerns:

1. Adding alignments to A6c and A6e makes it much more likely that one of these will result in a DNF. If the purpose of the reg is to preserve state then alignment shouldn't matter. If there is a borderline +2 then that would be a move anyways.
2. BLD blindfold donning and very small misalignments could lead to frame by frame analysis of videos.

[Nanush7]

@xsrvmy Thank you for your comments.

1. I will think about it.
2. The WRC has the internal policy to not to review videos frame by frame, so you shouldn't worry about it.

[lgarron]

I think these changes are fairly well worded, apart from a few nits.

[Nanush7]

Fixed merge conflicts. Please, review again.

[Rouxles]

LGTM other than the change above

[xsrvmy]

Possible bug: under the current wording it seems like the competitor is not allowed to fix accidental misalignments.