Questions regarding WSC round 5 - Arrows, Lines and Circles

[Fred76]

Hi,

I noticed while looking at the IB that you used a palindrome sudoku which I've created. It is not a WPF sudoku. You'll find it on my blog with reference to the competition in which it appears initially.
Can you add my name in the credit section in the next version of IB?

Thanks,
Fred

We took this example from the Instruction Booklet of the Dutch Grand Prix Round in 2016 (and maybe it's used more often, I don't know; we started with our own rounds), so we believed it is a WPF-puzzle.

Yes, I know there is an ambiguity regarding how the WPF uses some puzzles in past GP rounds IB (they don't even follow recommandations of WPF on this subject...).
I just wanted to clarify this ambiguity. It is not a WPF sudoku, it is a Fred Stalder sudoku.

[Feadoor]

To shed some light on this interesting history...

The puzzle first appeared in a GP Instruction Booklet here: https://gp.worldpuzzle.org/content/instr...-booklet-5 - this is a round authored by Fred, and he credits himself in the instructions.

The next GP round to feature a Palindrome Sudoku is this one: https://gp.worldpuzzle.org/content/instr...booklet-14 - this IB uses the same palindrome example. The IB contains the following sentence: "Examples in this instruction booklet are mostly from prior Sudoku Grand Prix Instruction booklets. We thank the original authors for these examples."

At that point, the credit to Fred is lost, and, I presume, the puzzle assumed fair game for future IBs. The next Palindrome Sudoku appears in 2016 Round 1, and indeed the same example is used.

[Fred76]

To shed some light on this interesting history...

The puzzle first appeared in a GP Instruction Booklet here: https://gp.worldpuzzle.org/content/instr...-booklet-5 - this is a round authored by Fred, and he credits himself in the instructions.

The next GP round to feature a Palindrome Sudoku is this one: https://gp.worldpuzzle.org/content/instr...booklet-14 - this IB uses the same palindrome example. The IB contains the following sentence: "Examples in this instruction booklet are mostly from prior Sudoku Grand Prix Instruction booklets. We thank the original authors for these examples."

At that point, the credit to Fred is lost, and, I presume, the puzzle assumed fair game for future IBs. The next Palindrome Sudoku appears in 2016 Round 1, and indeed the same example is used.

I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong.

If you want to know the story of this puzzle: I created it for a czech competition in 2012.
In 2014, I authored a GP round and was asked to provide samples for the IB. I mainly provided sudoku I created in the past and asked 2 other authors for authorization to use their puzzles on the IB (and asked organizers to clearly credit them in the IB) - one of them is here too.

The truth is that WPF didn't buy copyright of 2014 GP. They started to buy copyright* of GP puzzles in 2015 (competition puzzles).
Then they used some of these puzzles in further GP rounds, without asking my authorization, and I finally asked them to stop using my puzzles, what they did.

The fact that this puzzle was used  in IB of several competitions doesn't occult the fact that I'm the only owner of its copyright and only I can decide if I give authorization for its publication. I know the fact it appears now in a WSC IB will be worst in the future (WPF rules will make think it's a WPF puzzle), but it will not change that fact. Unless someone make a copyright assignment agreement with me, I'm the owner of the puzzle's copyright. Point.

So, I repeat I'm ok for its appearance in this IB (and I know organizers didn't know it was my puzzle), but please credit me.

Fred

*In regards to copyright laws, you must have a signed copyright assignment agreement to pretend to be the owner of copyright of someone else work. I'm pretty sure WPF never did properly these copyright assignment agreement, thus in regards to laws, WPF puzzles just don't exist... I'm personnaly ok to say about the few puzzles I created for GP 2015 that copryright are owned by WPF... but not the one of GP2014.

[Feadoor]

I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong.

If you want to know the story of this puzzle: I created it for a czech competition in 2012.
In 2014, I authored a GP round and was asked to provide samples for the IB. I mainly provided sudoku I created in the past and asked 2 other authors for authorization to use their puzzles on the IB (and asked organizers to clearly credit them in the IB) - one of them is here too.

I think you have misunderstood me. I didn't mean to imply that the 2014 IB was the first time the puzzle ever appeared - I meant to say that it was the first time it had appeared *in a GP instruction booklet* - which is true, yes?

The other point I was making by pointing out that the puzzle later appeared in the Round 7 IB of the same year was simply that the authors of that round failed to credit you appropriately, and should take some responsibility for the subsequent events.

[Richard]

I'll take care of the copyright issue in the next version of the IB.

[Feadoor]

5.3 Between Sudoku

May digits repeat on lines?

[Richard]

5.3 Between Sudoku

May digits repeat on lines?

Sure.
In general: if instructions don't forbid something, it is allowed.

[Feadoor]

In general: if instructions don't forbid something, it is allowed.

I understand. But the instructions for 5.2 and 5.4 on the same page contain the sentences "Digits may repeat on arrows" and "Digits may repeat on strands" so the omission in 5.3 is striking.

While your general point is well-meant, I hope it doesn't discourage people from asking similar questions because it can be difficult to tell the difference between something that was left out of the IB because you didn't deem it important and something that was left out by error.

[Richard]

In general: if instructions don't forbid something, it is allowed.

I understand. But the instructions for 5.2 and 5.4 on the same page contain the sentences "Digits may repeat on arrows" and "Digits may repeat on strands" so the omission in 5.3 is striking.

While your general point is well-meant, I hope it doesn't discourage people from asking similar questions because it can be difficult to tell the difference between something that was left out of the IB because you didn't deem it important and something that was left out by error.

You are completely right. Most of the instructions are copied from some place and only adjusted in case of Obvious improvements. It leads to inconsistent instructions throughout an IB. It is a pity that there is not a coordinated database with standard instructions available somewhere. That should be helpful for all future organisers of competitions and championships.

I also hope I didn't discourage people from asking questions; the point was indeed well-meant.

[detuned]

Hi Richard, and apologies to everyone for another non Q&A interjection,

I spent some time thinking about consistency of instructions leading up to 2014 - editing the instructions to daily league puzzles on the Facebook group really helped this, so that when a new variant come up I would always try and cross reference to an existing set of instructions.

It was by no means perfect, but I think it was the closest thing to consistency that has cropped up so far. If I recall correctly some of these instructions were carried over in 2015 and 2016, but obviously any new variants may not have been constructed in the same way.

I’m not sure what happened in 2017 and 2018, but it does feel to me like we took a step backwards. Similarly, I used the same set of instructions for the UKSC, and also for the GP. I don’t think Nikola has continued to use these however.

Appreciate this is not really helpful for 2019, but I did want to say that people have thought about this.