Add clarification on judges forgetting to put a sight blocker

[Nevseros]

Adds Guideline B4c+ based on the recent rulings.

Completely unsure about the wording and don't like the fact it looks almost the same as the guideline about scramble signatures thus making it look to have the same level of importance.

[Randomno]

Is the purpose of this guideline to say that a missing sight blocker should not result in a DNF, or just that it should not result in an extra unless there is a suspected advantage?

[Nevseros]

Missing sight blocker should not result in an extra unless an advantage was gained. I'm not sure we should we have to emphasize the 1st point you mentioned.

[Nevseros]

It does not fit the rulings. I feel it's needed to be discussed internally, not here.

[Samuel-Baird]

The current use of "put" and the specific language of the judge forgetting is a bit strange. Also, the current language uses "should always" and needs to be changed to "should" or "must" for clarity.

It would also be great to expand this to include when sight blockers are used but in a way that they do not properly block the competitor's view of the puzzle. How is something like the following:

If a sight blocker is not properly placed between the competitor's face and the puzzle by the judge (such that the competitor's view of the puzzle would still clearly be blocked if the blindfold was not properly worn) an extra attempt should be granted by the WCA Delegate.