Altering Clock Regulations #1076
Conversation
wca-regulations.md
Outdated
| @@ -515,6 +519,7 @@ Note: Because Article and Regulation numbers are not reassigned when Regulations | |||
| - F2) The judge places the scrambled puzzle onto the mat in a standing position. | |||
| - F2a) The organization team may enforce using a stand for the puzzle to prevent it from falling before the start of the attempt. If such stands are used, the organization team should make an announcement before the round starts. | |||
| - F2a1) The judge must remove the stand from the mat immediately after the competitor removes the puzzle from it. | |||
| - F2b) If, during the transportation phase or while placing the puzzle cover on the table, one or more of the pins have their state affected, the competitor may proceed with the attempt and, after finishing the solve, alongside with the judge, explain the situation to the WCA Delegate. If the WCA Delegate beleives that the competitor did not gain an unfair advantage, they may allow the result to stand under their discretion. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it would be beneficial for Delegates and competitors to see the Clarification F1a1+++ in this regulation (That an extra should be given if the competitor sees the puzzle). The way the regulation is currently worded, it may cause some confusion and judges / competitors may allow the attempt to continue and proceed even if the competitor saw the physical puzzle.
It would also be beneficial to define the case where the puzzle falls over during inspection (ie after the cover is lifted) as some may try to apply this regulation to that case, which would not be correct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This last sentence of this regulation seems to vary a bit from other regulations that involve delegate discretion. Perhaps something like the following would fit better?
‘The result may stand if the competitor did not gain an unfair advantage, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.’
wca-regulations.md
Outdated
| - 3h4) For Clock, custom "inserts" (the same shape and size as the traditional paper inserts) are permitted, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate. The inserts must have a clear indication of 12 o'clock that matches the original inserts. | ||
| - 3h4) For Clock, the following modifications are permitted: | ||
| - 3h4a) Customs "inserts" (the same shape and size as the traditional paper inserts) are permitted, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate. The inserts must have a clear indication of 12 o'clock that matches the original inserts. | ||
| - 3h4b) Puzzle design customizations that do not give an unfair advantage may be permitted, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate (e.g. checkerboard pattern clocks, faces with a custom design). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are modifications that give advantages similar to these in nature. What comes to mind is putting tape on the sides of the puzzle to hold it together + make the clock stand up straight instead of tilting, similar to how the Angstrom will stand up straight due to straight edges. Would this regulation disallow these being used?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wouldn't consider that unfair advantage, but I recognize it can be ambiguous
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe a clarification telling that this is not prohibited would be fine, do you agree?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
another example would be a top row of dials having a different plastic color than the other dials. There are a few different ways that similar things can be done so I believe that wording the guideline in a way that states that any modifications allowing competitors to more easily recognize puzzle orientation should not be considered an unfair advantage, a second guideline giving an specific example like the tape example that Jacob gave or the dial example that I gave could also be a helpful addition.
|
Is F2b going to be implemented if this passes? The other regs are quite non-controversial but this seems to conflict with other Clock proposals. |
Co-authored-by: Lucas Garron <lgarron@worldcubeassociation.org>
wca-guidelines.md
Outdated
| @@ -207,6 +204,10 @@ To be more informative, each Guideline is classified using one of the following | |||
| - E3d+) [CLARIFICATION] Any stopwatch or watch used by a competitor must not have any functions that would help the competitor find a solution. | |||
| - E3d++) [CLARIFICATION] Competitors should not consider a personal stopwatch or watch as the official time, and must submit their solution when the judge calls "STOP". | |||
|
|
|||
| ## <article-F><clock><clocksolving> Article F: Clock Solving | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i don't think any of these lines are needed because #1070
|
Is there any reason that delegate discretion has now been added? It seems somewhat unnecessary since either outcome allows the puzzle to be used (regardless of whether the pins are deemed distinguishable or not, the puzzle gets approved).
It seems a bit strange to move this from a guideline commenting on a regulation about puzzle wear to a regulation regarding puzzle modifications, especially since it kept the original wording of |
Altering the clock regulations I proposed on the Drive document I sent you guys in october, mainly so we can discuss most of these changes. **Nothing is definitive here!!!!** Co-authored-by: Antonio Kam <19kamh3@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Lucas Garron <lgarron@worldcubeassociation.org>
Altering the clock regulations I proposed on the Drive document I sent you guys in october, mainly so we can discuss most of these changes. Nothing is definitive here!!!!