# Should +2's be switched to DNF's officially?



## cubeshepherd (Aug 14, 2019)

I am not certain how to start this thread (as in what I should say) but lets see if I can find a start.

As I was watching the US Nationals 2019 live stream a few weeks back I heard someone say that there has been talk among people (Kit Clement and according to Kit it probably was Dene Beardsley) that came up with the idea that +2's in competitions should be changed to DNF's as the puzzle is not perfectly solved (My phrase "just as you need all the pieces of a 100 piece puzzle to say that it is perfectly complete and not 99 out of 100").

After hearing about that idea I began to think about it more and thought that it would be a pretty good idea to think about implementing in the WCA regulations, especially since it would avoid (and stop) a lot of people purposely +2'ing there solves (especially in feet, at least among slow'ish people and other events if that happens as much). This would of course be a little harder to accept into BLD event's (especially MBLD) and it would change a lot of the old results (IF the old results were touched, but if they were left alone then forget that), but even then it would be hard to think of what to do.

I on the other hand like the +2's as they are since there are times that you stop the timer and forget to turn a side or something akin, so I do have sympathy for that, but out of the two options I think the +2's becoming DNF's would again prevent a lot of solves purposely not being completely solved and stop people not caring to much about +2's versus if they knew that there cube was going to be a DNF (that would change the mindset).

With that all being said, I am sure there are some things that I am forgetting to add, but I will be adding them later in the thread if I remember.

Lastly, I am very interested in seeing everyone's thoughts, ideas, suggestions etc. but please only do so in a civil and kind fashion and PLEASE keep this thread on topic. I do not mind if you bring in other regulations or whatever but only if it is prevalent to this thread and is helpful. Additionally, if you do or do not agree with the idea and say so then PLEASE provide a valid reason (rather then just "I do not agree that is should be changed because") which is not helpful.


----------



## Iwannaganx (Aug 14, 2019)

What if the judge for that solve got to judge if it was deliberate and could make it a DNF for that solve? Would that fix the deliberate +2s? Personally I think one turn off completely screwing your solve is a bit harsh. +2s are good for this reason and can still be a huge punishment for people with a chance of winning (sub7ish).


----------



## cuber314159 (Aug 14, 2019)

I think it should be left the way it is, especially for events where MO3 format is used as one turn can not only wreck the whole solve but the average as well. I also think that people will continue to do things like your feet example. Like when I saw Daniel Sheppard (I think it was him) stopping the timer after OLL on his last solve (PLL skip) and I asked him if he knew he would get one because he did it so fast and he said that he thought it would be and it would be the worst solve of the average anyway so it would not matter. 

Note that Daniel Sheppard is a WCA delegate.


----------



## Parke187 (Aug 14, 2019)

No


----------



## bubbagrub (Aug 14, 2019)

Without video evidence, there'd be no way to retrospectively change old +2s to DNFs since +2 is not recorded in the database. So if a change were to be made, it would have to exclude all results before the change.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 14, 2019)

I really don’t think this would be good. Roux/ M move EPLL users are already at a disadvantage since M moves don’t count as one move and are easier to mess up. Although I do understand the logic, I still think something that drastic shouldn’t be implemented as a +2 is a pretty good penalty for one move off.


----------



## cubeshepherd (Aug 14, 2019)

Parke187 said:


> No


Me thinks you did not read what I posted above haha
"Additionally, if you do or do not agree with the idea and say so then PLEASE provide a valid reason (rather then just "I do not agree that is should be changed because") which is not helpful. "


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Aug 14, 2019)

I don’t think so because that would be horrible like what if you got your first successful blind solve but missed the last move by a R or something. It would be devastating.


----------



## pglewis (Aug 14, 2019)

It would be worth discussion if we were talking about setting the rules today but we have nearly 2 decades of data with the +2 rule already. Slow feet solvers is the only example I can think of where it might possibly be an actual advantage vs. a nasty penalty and feet is slated to die.


----------



## Grr Parity (Aug 14, 2019)

Iwannaganx said:


> What if the judge for that solve got to judge if it was deliberate and could make it a DNF for that solve? Would that fix the deliberate +2s? Personally I think one turn off completely screwing your solve is a bit harsh. +2s are good for this reason and can still be a huge punishment for people with a chance of winning (sub7ish).



That sounds a lot better


----------



## cubeshepherd (Aug 14, 2019)

cuber314159 said:


> I think it should be left the way it is, especially for events where MO3 format is used as one turn can not only wreck the whole solve but the average as well. I also think that people will continue to do things like your feet example. Like when I saw Daniel Sheppard (I think it was him) stopping the timer after OLL on his last solve (PLL skip) and I asked him if he knew he would get one because he did it so fast and he said that he thought it would be and it would be the worst solve of the average anyway so it would not matter.
> 
> Note that Daniel Sheppard is a WCA delegate.





OreKehStrah said:


> I really don’t think this would be good. Roux/ M move EPLL users are already at a disadvantage since M moves don’t count as one move and are easier to mess up. Although I do understand the logic, I still think something that drastic shouldn’t be implemented as a +2 is a pretty good penalty for one move off.


Both of those are great points and that I did not think about, so thank you for bringing them up.

In regards to your point @cuber314159 I do not mind to much with people doing that for 1 solve (especially if it is worst solve), but on the other hand I am not a positive on how I feel about people purposely doing on all 5 solve since they say/think that it is better (or might be less time) then it would take to complete the last turn. 

Is not there a section on the regulations page that says something a kin to "everyone should attempt to solve the cube to the best they can" or "to keep the spirit of the WCA by doing the whole solve"? The WCA page is down at the moment, but I want to say that I thought I remember reading something a kin to that not to long ago. If that is not the case then never mind.



bubbagrub said:


> Without video evidence, there'd be no way to retrospectively change old +2s to DNFs since +2 is not recorded in the database. So if a change were to be made, it would have to exclude all results before the change.


That is a valid point, and I am not certain how that would be addressed, but maybe they would just leave it as it is and start a new...although I am not sure if that would work either.



pglewis said:


> It would be worth discussion if we were talking about setting the rules today but we have nearly 2 decades of data with the +2 rule already. Slow feet solvers is the only example I can think of where it might possibly be an actual advantage vs. a nasty penalty and feet is slated to die.


I completely agree with you on that and see the point of what you are saying. That point though could be argued to the fact that new rules and regulations still come into affect (and old rules get changed/modified, like the whole headphone regulation and logos on cubes for BLD) several years after they were instituted, so that could apply to most any regulation...kind of

Also, For everyone: I am not completely for or against my original post asking the questions, but rather since I thought it was a interesting point I wanted to see what others thought of it as well. Thank you all so far for your input and thoughts.


----------



## pglewis (Aug 14, 2019)

cubeshepherd said:


> That point though could be argued to the fact that new rules and regulations still come into affect (and old rules get changed/modified, like the whole headphone regulation and logos on cubes for BLD) several years after they were instituted, so that could apply to most any regulation...kind of



Agreed, but changing established rules should be limited to dealing with a problem and I just don't see a real problem with +2 penalties as they hurt bad... even for someone slow like me averaging over :20.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 14, 2019)

I don't think this could be changed because the people who would intentionally get a +2 in feet, etc. aren't anywhere near good enough to get WR's or high rankings anyway, and for intermediate/expert solvers it's nice to know that if we make that little mistake then it won't destroy the solve and be a detriment to the average.


----------



## BMcD308 (Aug 14, 2019)

<< he said that he thought it would be and it would be the worst solve of the average anyway so it would not matter >>

Is there something wrong with this? That sounds more like the kind of risk people take because they are in a competition rather than doing something against the spirit of the competition. 

I bet even guys like Feliks will admit that sometimes they turn faster than they think is reliable because they are "going for it" on a solve. Even when practicing at home I have "gone for it" on a solve and wound up stopping the timer with an unsolved cube because I did the wrong PLL and was going too fast to realize that I had not correctly solved the cube. Sure, that's a DNF, not a plus 2, but if it had been my fifth solve in a competition would you think I had done something unethical or unsportsmanlike by going so fast and stopping the timer so fast that I didn't even realize I was triumphantly slamming down an unsolved cube?

And hey - I will take no offense if you do think I did / would be doing something unethical or unsportsmanlike. The reason I'm here is to learn, and part of what I need to learn is the unwritten rules of the game.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 14, 2019)

Just wanted to agree with Aerma that anyone who takes a +2 intentionally with feet is not very good at the event and probably won't make a lot of the cutoffs anyway. Even when I averaged well over 2 minutes, I never took a +2 intentionally; it's not that hard to make even the most inconvenient turn with feet in less than 2 seconds. The only time it's worth it is if the cube accidentally slides away from your feet when you're only 1 turn from solved, which is an extremely rare occurrence in the middle of a PLL. So a +2 is plenty enough penalty to discourage leaving it unturned in all events, including feet.

That being said, I do like the purity of requiring the puzzle to be completely solved. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think I would prefer a world where the cube is either solved or unsolved, without a penalty. And I think if we went to that rule, the only reasonable way forward is to allow current results to stand and count, with +2s before the rule change simply being allowed to stand as if they didn't happen, since we never recorded them in the database anyway. It's not like that will have any effect on world records - world records will continue to improve at essentially the same pace even without the +2 rule.


----------



## cubeshepherd (Aug 14, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> Just wanted to agree with Aerma that anyone who takes a +2 intentionally with feet is not very good at the event and probably won't make a lot of the cutoffs anyway. Even when I averaged well over 2 minutes, I never took a +2 intentionally; it's not that hard to make even the most inconvenient turn with feet in less than 2 seconds. The only time it's worth it is if the cube accidentally slides away from your feet when you're only 1 turn from solved, which is an extremely rare occurrence in the middle of a PLL. So a +2 is plenty enough penalty to discourage leaving it unturned in all events, including feet.





Aerma said:


> I don't think this could be changed because the people who would intentionally get a +2 in feet, etc. aren't anywhere near good enough to get WR's or high rankings anyway, and for intermediate/expert solvers it's nice to know that if we make that little mistake then it won't destroy the solve and be a detriment to the average.



I agree with that as well and that is why I am not completely for or against it, but the bigger issue that I see from this all is from the stand point of right-wrong, what is sportsmanship vs. not, and the people that intentionally exploit that to there advantage, because by doing so they tend to keep trying different ways of that, which can lead to other issues, (especially having personally seen people do that with feet).

Now that does not all mean that the change is needed to fix that (especially since the regs have been around for so long already, but I also (as you said @Mike Hughey ) would like to see the puzzle completely solved and not have people (especially slower people) take advantage of the regs and try to bend the rules to get a slight advantage (although in anything in life there is always some of that and people trying to do it...not that, that is right).

In the end I am fine (and always have been fine) with the +2's as they are (especially with regards to Mo3's, and BLD events) but I also like the idea of making sure that people do not try to bend the rules to there advantage.


----------



## Iwannaganx (Aug 14, 2019)

Yeah and even people who won't win in 3x3 can still have a hard time with plus two. Sub 20 and you get a plus two and that's one solve out-of-the-window. DNF is a a strict punishment, but it's fair. I think people who complain that it's 'not solved' are right but its one turn and a plus 2 sucks for anyone.


----------



## efattah (Aug 15, 2019)

I think the opposite is true. I think M-slice out by 50 degrees should not be DNF but should be a +2. As I have said before, the rule that M-slice counts as 2 is ridiculous, because it implies that a Roux solver doing E/M/E/M or E2/M2/E2 is getting 30+ TPS which is impossible. To count M or M2 as 1 move when calculating TPS, but then to count it as 2 moves for FMC and +2 is inconsistent.


----------



## Iwannaganx (Aug 15, 2019)

efattah said:


> I think the opposite is true. I think M-slice out by 50 degrees should not be DNF but should be a +2. As I have said before, the rule that M-slice counts as 2 is ridiculous, because it implies that a Roux solver doing E/M/E/M or E2/M2/E2 is getting 30+ TPS which is impossible. To count M or M2 as 1 move when calculating TPS, but then to count it as 2 moves for FMC and +2 is inconsistent.


this is a good point but slice turns do have 2 turns in them. really if you think about it, it cant be counted as one move otherwise, yes tps would be insane but in +2 it has to be 2 turns. although you can do it in one flick its like turning two layers on a 4x4. that would be a dnf because even though you turn both at once its two turns.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 15, 2019)

Iwannaganx said:


> this is a good point but slice turns do have 2 turns in them. really if you think about it, it cant be counted as one move otherwise, yes tps would be insane but in +2 it has to be 2 turns. although you can do it in one flick its like turning two layers on a 4x4. that would be a dnf because even though you turn both at once its two turns.


In HTM and QTM it's multiple turns, but in STM it's only one because you can think of it as one layer being twisted.


----------



## Iwannaganx (Aug 15, 2019)

Aerma said:


> In HTM and QTM it's multiple turns, but in STM it's only one because you can think of it as one layer being twisted.


im soz im a noob wtf is HTM, QTM, and STM?


----------



## Hazel (Aug 15, 2019)

Iwannaganx said:


> im soz im a noob wtf is HTM, QTM, and STM?


https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Metric

"HTM; Half Turn Metric (or Face Turn Metric): Any face turn of any angle counts as 1 turn."
"QTM; Quarter Turn Metric: Only quarter (90-degree) face turns count as 1 turn."
"STM; Slice Turn Metric: Any turn of any layer, by any angle, counts as 1 turn."


----------



## Iwannaganx (Aug 15, 2019)

what does the WCA use? QTM?


----------



## Kit Clement (Aug 15, 2019)

bubbagrub said:


> Without video evidence, there'd be no way to retrospectively change old +2s to DNFs since +2 is not recorded in the database. So if a change were to be made, it would have to exclude all results before the change.



The regulations have changed significantly in the past 10 years. Should we invalidate solves from years ago because penalties have changed? Should we retroactively +2 Dan Knights for terrible timer stops like this?



OreKehStrah said:


> I really don’t think this would be good. Roux/ M move EPLL users are already at a disadvantage since M moves don’t count as one move and are easier to mess up. Although I do understand the logic, I still think something that drastic shouldn’t be implemented as a +2 is a pretty good penalty for one move off.



This is actually a great argument for removing misalignment +2s. The penalty as it stands is currently not method neutral, and this would put CFOP/Roux on an even playing field.



Cubinwitdapizza said:


> I don’t think so because that would be horrible like what if you got your first successful blind solve but missed the last move by a R or something. It would be devastating.



People miss BLD solves by 1 move all the time, they might just execute one move wrong in the middle of the solve. Why should a 1 move error in the middle of the solve be any different than a 1 move error at the end of the solve?



efattah said:


> I think the opposite is true. I think M-slice out by 50 degrees should not be DNF but should be a +2. As I have said before, the rule that M-slice counts as 2 is ridiculous, because it implies that a Roux solver doing E/M/E/M or E2/M2/E2 is getting 30+ TPS which is impossible. To count M or M2 as 1 move when calculating TPS, but then to count it as 2 moves for FMC and +2 is inconsistent.



If you think we should have this rule, I'm going to bring back a point I made in a thread over three years ago. Take a look at this cube, and tell me what the penalty should be in a world where we can be off by slice moves:



https://imgur.com/v6ax7m1


----------



## AbsoRuud (Aug 15, 2019)

Kit Clement said:


> The regulations have changed significantly in the past 10 years. Should we invalidate solves from years ago because penalties have changed? Should we retroactively +2 Dan Knights for terrible timer stops like this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That cube requires 2 turns to solve. DNF.


----------



## Kit Clement (Aug 15, 2019)

AbsoRuud said:


> That cube requires 2 turns to solve. DNF.



False. It requires one slice move of 90 degrees to bring it to a solved position (as well as other adjustments <45 degrees not shown below). Only +2.



https://imgur.com/EWj1ssB


Did this exact same question in 2016, and another person fell for the trap. Judging these misalignments would become incredibly painful, and there's no good way to come up with easily understood and easily applied rules for allowing slice misalignments. Our rules work well because they use the next innermost slice as a guideline for whether it is misaligned or not. Slices on a 3x3x3 have no other place to look to, and you get weird crap like this.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2019)

Kit Clement said:


> False. It requires one slice move of 90 degrees to bring it to a solved position (as well as other adjustments <45 degrees not shown below). Only +2.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If we were to change slice moves my proposal for judging would be to have a cube with a slice turned 45 degrees and the compare how close the edge is to being on the solved or unsolved side maybe? I know that isn’t a perfect way but I could be a start for when the slice is nearing 45 degrees. 
Also it’s kind of silly in hindsight, but m moves being DNF actually was a factor in keeping me from switching to roux many years ago


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Aug 15, 2019)

Kit Clement said:


> False. It requires one slice move of 90 degrees to bring it to a solved position (as well as other adjustments <45 degrees not shown below). Only +2.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 One thing you could do is remove slices from the wca. That would destroy roux yes and fast u perms but I feel like it would be worth it that it would be much less difficult for judges.


----------



## MHCubes (Aug 15, 2019)

I understand what you are saying, but I think most +2's are unintentional. Maybe we could add a regulation that prohibits intentional +2's?


----------



## KingCanyon (Aug 15, 2019)

There wouldn't be a way to know if it is intentional or not.


----------



## efattah (Aug 15, 2019)

It is often said that the rules for DNF's are actually catered to the non-cubing audience. It was once brought up that a non-cuber can see a cube with one slice turned and see that is basically solved.

The question about whether or not M-slice counts as 1 or 2 moves could then be easily put to a vote by non-cubers. I can find 100 non-cubers and show them a cube with the M-slice off by 90 degrees and ask them how many moves does it take to solve it. I guarantee that more than 50% of non-cubers would say the cube is off by 1-move, but we can actually do the poll if you don't believe me.

Regarding 'weird' states of the cube at the end of the solve a clear and immediately obvious set of rules comes to mind but there is no point in me even bringing it up if people are so opposed to M moves.


----------



## CarterK (Aug 15, 2019)

efattah said:


> It is often said that the rules for DNF's are actually catered to the non-cubing audience. It was once brought up that a non-cuber can see a cube with one slice turned and see that is basically solved.
> 
> The question about whether or not M-slice counts as 1 or 2 moves could then be easily put to a vote by non-cubers. I can find 100 non-cubers and show them a cube with the M-slice off by 90 degrees and ask them how many moves does it take to solve it. I guarantee that more than 50% of non-cubers would say the cube is off by 1-move, but we can actually do the poll if you don't believe me.
> 
> Regarding 'weird' states of the cube at the end of the solve a clear and immediately obvious set of rules comes to mind but there is no point in me even bringing it up if people are so opposed to M moves.


I don't understand this argument. Why do how noncubers view things affect cubers' rules? It's already established that it gets messy.

as for the "puts Roux and CFOP on an even playing field argument", why are the ways we solve the cube even relevant? The technical reason for a plus 2 is that if the cube turns while hitting the table. I'd like to see you do this with a slice.


----------



## xyzzy (Aug 15, 2019)

efattah said:


> Regarding 'weird' states of the cube at the end of the solve a clear and immediately obvious set of rules comes to mind but there is no point in me even bringing it up if people are so opposed to M moves.


This is a bit hard to believe. State those rules and change my mind.

(I'm opposed to counting slice moves as +2, but mainly because we don't have a clean description of what "should" count as a +2 and what "shouldn't" when slice moves are thrown into the mix. I'd probably switch my opinion to "don't care" if you do have something good. I don't have a strong opinion on whether one move OBTM off should count as +2 or DNF.)



Spoiler



For bonus points: how would your rules apply to big cubes, pyraminx, megaminx, or square-1 (this one is already a gigantic mess with current WCA regs)? Special-casing 3×3×3 is easy mode; rules that apply generically would be more interesting.


----------



## BMcD308 (Aug 15, 2019)

In the imgur pic above, it appears that if the U and D faces are held still, I could move the M slice less than 45 degrees to match up the M and U layers. But then I would need to move the D face more than 45 degrees to match the now repositioned M slice, which would be aligned with the U face. So if I go the other way, I can hold the U and D faces still, and I can move the M slice less than 45 degrees to match up the M and D faces. Then it appears to me that I would need to move the U face more than 45 degrees to match the repositioned M slice. So wouldn't that still be a DNF? Or is the argument that I would do a 2-layer move of less than 45 degrees to line them up?

If the spirit of the rule is that I get a total of up to 45 degrees of turning of a single face at the end to have the cube perfectly aligned, I guess I don't understand why 45 degrees of M is any different. But if 45 degrees of M leaves me out of alignment, isn't that a DNF anyway?

[genuine, naive question here, sincerely not baiting you]


Looking at the WCA regs again, I think I see what you mean. I get as many "outer block turns" as it takes, and only the "resting" state of the puzzle is considered. So in your image, in the resting state when the timer was stopped, the U layer is within 45 degrees of the M slice, and the D layer is within 45 degrees of the M slice, so that would count as a solve. Am I thinking about this correctly?


----------



## Kit Clement (Aug 15, 2019)

BMcD308 said:


> In the imgur pic above, it appears that if the U and D faces are held still, I could move the M slice less than 45 degrees to match up the M and U layers. But then I would need to move the D face more than 45 degrees to match the now repositioned M slice, which would be aligned with the U face. So if I go the other way, I can hold the U and D faces still, and I can move the M slice less than 45 degrees to match up the M and D faces. Then it appears to me that I would need to move the U face more than 45 degrees to match the repositioned M slice. So wouldn't that still be a DNF? Or is the argument that I would do a 2-layer move of less than 45 degrees to line them up?
> 
> If the spirit of the rule is that I get a total of up to 45 degrees of turning of a single face at the end to have the cube perfectly aligned, I guess I don't understand why 45 degrees of M is any different. But if 45 degrees of M leaves me out of alignment, isn't that a DNF anyway?
> 
> ...



As the regs stand now, turns of up to 45 degrees are free, where you can get one turn of more than 45 degrees and it would still be a +2. I'm not sure if you're looking at the original image or the second image that shows a 90 degree turn of the slice from the first image, but the idea of the two images is that they are separated by a 90 degree turn, and the second image is in a "solved" state as all misalignments of outer layers are less than 45 degrees.



efattah said:


> It is often said that the rules for DNF's are actually catered to the non-cubing audience.



I've never heard anyone say this. More often than not, non-cubers say "that's not solved" when there are any misalignments - see the comments of MBLD WR videos with penalty cubes in them.



efattah said:


> Regarding 'weird' states of the cube at the end of the solve a clear and immediately obvious set of rules comes to mind but there is no point in me even bringing it up if people are so opposed to M moves.



Why even bring this up then? You don't convince people by claiming you have a great idea but it's not worth sharing because it will get shot down. As @xyzzy said, I'm skeptical that this idea would work well.


----------



## NathanaelCubes (Aug 15, 2019)

As a Roux user, I think that counting M moves as +2s would not be beneficial overall for those types of situations. As Kit said, there wouldn't always be a way to judge how many degrees it is off by. 

As far as changing +2s to DNFs, I think it is impossible to do so for the past results, but in the future, I think a DNF punishment is too strict. Especially for events like Multibld, where cubes get shuffled around a lot, DNFing cubes that are off by 46 degrees would be a huge disincentive for competitors, and also a disincentive to use non-magnetic cubes. It levels the playing field in MBLD to keep things the way they are. 

As far as taking non-cubers opinions into consideration, I don't think that is a good judge of how we should treat +2s. For the records, I could easily see non-cubers not realizing a skewb off by one turn is only a +2, but it would be easy for them to see a megaminx is almost solved. 

Also, changing +2s to DNFs would also put a lot more pressure on the judge or the delegate who makes the call on the solve if it is really close. I personally had an attempt where two delegates couldn't agree if it was a +2 or not at my last competition.


----------



## Kit Clement (Aug 15, 2019)

NathanaelCubes said:


> As far as changing +2s to DNFs, I think it is impossible to do so for the past results, but in the future, I think a DNF punishment is too strict. Especially for events like Multibld, where cubes get shuffled around a lot, DNFing cubes that are off by 46 degrees would be a huge disincentive for competitors, and also a disincentive to use non-magnetic cubes. It levels the playing field in MBLD to keep things the way they are.



This is to me the best argument against removing misalignment +2 penalties. On one hand, you could say that MBLDers just need to be more careful when the place their cubes down, but at the same time, that will significantly eat into their time and fundamentally change the event at the highly competitive levels.



NathanaelCubes said:


> Also, changing +2s to DNFs would also put a lot more pressure on the judge or the delegate who makes the call on the solve if it is really close. I personally had an attempt where two delegates couldn't agree if it was a +2 or not at my last competition.



Solved vs. +2 on misalignments is already a huge difference and can put a lot of pressure on the judge. At high levels of fast events, getting a +2 is already the difference between a good/bad average, winning/losing, podium/no podium, etc. It may create more of these situations if there is no +2 for misaligment, but it doesn't create a new problem.


----------



## 2018AMSB02 (Aug 16, 2019)

I am also against this change, especially in blind events. I have had some attempts in which I am really excited about finishing the solve when I think my execution went well, and I will completely forget about undoing my last setup move, and I will get a plus 2. If that was a DNF, that would be really disappointing. there are also events like Skewb where it is very easy to undershoot a turn as you stop the timer, and I don't think that that should ruin your average, and a +2 is still a big deal in skewb. I have also had pyraminx times with a +2 because I could not see the tip in the back, and the solve was still a generally bad solve because of the plus two, but If I was having a decent average, a DNF could really mess it up.


----------



## Kit Clement (Aug 16, 2019)

PingPongCuber said:


> I am also against this change, especially in blind events. I have had some attempts in which I am really excited about finishing the solve when I think my execution went well, and I will completely forget about undoing my last setup move, and I will get a plus 2. If that was a DNF, that would be really disappointing.



It would be a shame to forget a setup move anywhere in the solve. Luckily in this specific instance you get a success, somewhat unjustifiably. If this were a rule, be sure to actually solve the cube. 



PingPongCuber said:


> there are also events like Skewb where it is very easy to undershoot a turn as you stop the timer, and I don't think that that should ruin your average, and a +2 is still a big deal in skewb. I have also had pyraminx times with a +2 because I could not see the tip in the back, and the solve was still a generally bad solve because of the plus two, but If I was having a decent average, a DNF could really mess it up.



Seems like in either case +2 or DNF has the same effect. 

The main tl;dr I get from your post is that you like the rules to be forgiving to make up for your shortcomings. Maybe you should just not mess up.


----------



## cubeshepherd (Aug 16, 2019)

Kit Clement said:


> The main tl;dr I get from your post is that you like the rules to be forgiving to make up for your shortcomings. Maybe you should just not mess up.


I agree, and that is why I am a little more for the change, since it requires everyone to try there best and complete the solve in whole and not try to get "almost perfect"...although the +2 is at least something nice to have for that.


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Aug 16, 2019)

Lots of super good points for both sides in this thread. 

At the highest level of cubing, the difference between a +2 and a DNF are minimal. If you get a +2, its almost guaranteed to be your worst solve, and thus be taken out. (If you have examples of times where a record was set with a +2 not being the slowest solve, show me, I'm curious to see). Personally I feel keeping the highest end cubers happy is the most important, and looking through their eyes (which is hard for a slow person like me :0 ) I don't see them minding a change that much.

As for middle "class" cubers, most of them would prefer it stay the way it is, simply because DNF averages really suck. As well as the fact that getting a +2 doesn't ruin their averages most often. 

For slower cubers, I really don't think they would care too much.


As for the running of comps, making it a DNF would make comps easier to run (slightly). Its easier to explain to first time cubers that anything over 45 degrees is a DNF. Also, for parents that judge, figuring out how to properly write a +2 can be tricky, besides the fact that often you have to write tiny to fit all the info in, making it harder for the people to input times.

As for purposely +2ing for feet, I'm with Aerma, the people who do this aren't fast enough to set a significant record, and so I don't really see a problem with it. In fact, there are regs saying that it is illegal to slow down your solve on purpose, so if a +2 is faster than making that turn. it would _technically _against the regs not to get the +2. Weird point, but not an awful one to make.

For blind, personally getting a +2 in blind would make me feel like I cheated, as I feel like I didn't really solve it blindfolded.

From the non cuber perspective, a solved cube or a not solved cube is easier to understand, and as/if cubing becomes more of a spectator sport, having this distinction could be important. However, really, we should be focused on whats best for our community.

A follow up question comes after this. Should anything after 15 seconds of inspection become a DNF then? 

Would love some feedback on my points!


----------



## NathanaelCubes (Aug 16, 2019)

Duncan Bannon said:


> Lots of super good points for both sides in this thread.
> 
> At the highest level of cubing, the difference between a +2 and a DNF are minimal. If you get a +2, its almost guaranteed to be your worst solve, and thus be taken out. (If you have examples of times where a record was set with a +2 not being the slowest solve, show me, I'm curious to see). Personally I feel keeping the highest end cubers happy is the most important, and looking through their eyes (which is hard for a slow person like me :0 ) I don't see them minding a change that much.
> 
> ...



I absolutely agree with these points, except the difference between a +2 and a DNF can matter a lot at the highest level of cubing with certain events. If you +2 a 1:59 7x7 solve, it's going to hurt, but not as much as a DNF for that solve. Same goes for Megaminx. The previous WR average by Yu Da Hyun had a counting 31.90 +2, and it was still the WR average. Wouldn't have been as good if that was DNFed. 




Duncan Bannon said:


> For blind, personally getting a +2 in blind would make me feel like I cheated, as I feel like I didn't really solve it blindfolded.



I agree in a perfect world, but there are many instances where the +2 is caused not by the cuber not knowing which move to make, but by the table. Many blindsolvers have gotten good solves +2ed because the cube hit the table in the wrong way.

For BigBLD, I would feel the same way, that I cheated because it wasn't really solved, but I think the instances where this would happen are both minimal and negligible. 



Duncan Bannon said:


> A follow up question comes after this. Should anything after 15 seconds of inspection become a DNF then?



I think the instances where one is +2ed because of 16/17 secs of inspection are once again, very rare, and whatever answer is given to the question is not going to have that great of an impact. I think most cubers try to shy away from the 15 second mark anyway to avoid being given a penalty before they even start the solve, so DNFing those overinspected solves would not change a whole lot of how people perform.


----------



## mark49152 (Aug 16, 2019)

Kit Clement said:


> The main tl;dr I get from your post is that you like the rules to be forgiving to make up for your shortcomings. Maybe you should just not mess up.


Agreed. Scanning the thread, most objections to +2 seem to be the "but it's not completely solved" variety. IMHO that misses the point. The penalty exists to provide leniency in the case where the cube gets accidentally misaligned when it hits the table, so as to not discourage fast timer stops. We give the benefit of doubt and assume the cube was completely solved when it left the cuber's hand. 

Unfortunately, we can't practically and objectively tell the difference between accidental misalignment and a minor or deliberate mistake or omission in the final move - but that is OK, because +2 is still a penalty, and there is very rarely any advantage in exploiting it.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 22, 2019)

I think that as things stand, +2 is a pretty good compromise between being kind and punishing. It punishes those people who make the mistake in the last turn while it is kind to those who drop the cube and it accidentally misaligns. The whole "roux is at a disadvantage by HTM instead of STM" is a very bad argument. IMO, HTM is "more pure" as the 3x3 is a face turning puzzle, and when you're turning a slice you're actually turning 2 faces. It's all about perspective (the same with wide turns). Also, Rouxers have the choice to not use Roux if M misalignment was an actual disadvantage, plus the cube doesn't have preferred ways to be solved just as the WCA doesn't have bias against methods. In fact, allowing table for OH gives Roux a massive advantage. So no, Roux isn't disadvantaged by the regs. 
(One thing from me being a bit of a grammar nazi, so ignore at your will, but please don't use apostrophes for plurals.)


----------



## Kit Clement (Aug 22, 2019)

Wow, this argument is all over the place. 



PapaSmurf said:


> The whole "roux is at a disadvantage by HTM instead of STM" is a very bad argument. IMO, HTM is "more pure" as the 3x3 is a face turning puzzle, and when you're turning a slice you're actually turning 2 faces. It's all about perspective (the same with wide turns).



"More pure" is an incredibly subjective opinion, and doesn't make it a bad argument. I agree that 15 years ago that M moves weren't even really a feasible idea for speed, but today they're the cornerstone of Roux and 3style edge execution. To ignore that is naive. Conveniently, 15 years ago is also around the time that misalignment +2 penalties were encoded, so it's easy to imagine that methods of the time influenced this somewhat arbitrary penalty.



PapaSmurf said:


> Also, Rouxers have the choice to not use Roux if M misalignment was an actual disadvantage, plus the cube doesn't have preferred ways to be solved just as the WCA doesn't have bias against methods.



When your argument is to stop using Roux if the regulations are disadvantaging you, you're not making a good argument for misalignment +2s being method neutral.

The cube's lack of "preferences" for how it wants to be solved has nothing to do with how regulations are written.



PapaSmurf said:


> In fact, allowing table for OH gives Roux a massive advantage. So no, Roux isn't disadvantaged by the regs.



Citing a single regulation that applies to one event =/=> one method is not disadvantaged. That aside, table abuse can be used regardless of method, and whether it helps certain methods or others is a moot point. In a world where table abuse were not allowed, you could make the argument that Roux is disadvantaged because you can't use the table -- but it's not a matter of advantage or disadvantage, it's a characteristic of the event.

Misalignment penalties, on the other hand, clearly give an advantage to methods whose final move is (more commonly) an outer layer turn rather than a slice turn. This isn't a characteristic of the event (or all events), but an arbitrary penalty that was created to apply to all events.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 22, 2019)

Kit Clement said:


> "More pure" is an incredibly subjective opinion, and doesn't make it a bad argument. I agree that 15 years ago that M moves weren't even really a feasible idea for speed, but today they're the cornerstone of Roux and 3style edge execution. To ignore that is naive. Conveniently, 15 years ago is also around the time that misalignment +2 penalties were encoded, so it's easy to imagine that methods of the time influenced this somewhat arbitrary penalty.


I don't think it is subjective as reasons cited above as by definition the 3x3 is a face turning puzzle and a slice turn===2 face turns which is how the cube functions.



Kit Clement said:


> When your argument is to stop using Roux if the regulations are disadvantaging you, you're not making a good argument for misalignment +2s being method neutral.
> 
> The cube's lack of "preferences" for how it wants to be solved has nothing to do with how regulations are written.


I see where you're coming from, as the cube itself isn't against Rouxers, but the regs are. Yet they're not. It also brings up a whole load of complications if you say "10e4) If more than one move is required, the puzzle is considered unsolved (DNF). Exception: Roux users or people who finished with a slice move are allowed to count this in STM instead of HTM and see 10e3 instead." That's a lot more subjective, and as I think that a) misalignment penalties work b) it would cause a lot of disruption to change how they function or remove them and make them a DNF, it would be a lot simpler to keep them how they are and let people who think that the only good reason to not use Roux is because of the regs think that. I still don't think that the regs are against Roux at all.



Kit Clement said:


> Citing a single regulation that applies to one event =/=> one method is not disadvantaged. That aside, table abuse can be used regardless of method, and whether it helps certain methods or others is a moot point. In a world where table abuse were not allowed, you could make the argument that Roux is disadvantaged because you can't use the table -- but it's not a matter of advantage or disadvantage, it's a characteristic of the event.
> 
> Misalignment penalties, on the other hand, clearly give an advantage to methods whose final move is (more commonly) an outer layer turn rather than a slice turn. This isn't a characteristic of the event (or all events), but an arbitrary penalty that was created to apply to all events.


I'm only giving a counter example. I, for one, wouldn't mind if table abuse was disallowed as it would remake ZZ the best OH method and Rouxers wouldn't mind if the WCA used STM instead, similarly for FMCers. And I agree, it is characeristic to the event. But the +2 penalty is characteristic to WCA competition, so if you wanted a comp without these rules, you're going to have to look somewhere else but those who come know the (minimal) risk and because misalignment penalties are so effective, the good solvers will avoid them just as much as a DNF. So yeah, it's arbitrary, but it's effective and, as I said in my first message, is a good compromise. I just don't see the point of changing something that works well.


----------



## Competition Cuber (Aug 23, 2019)

This thread, and the "what cubes should get removed from the WCA" thread are both getting pretty intense lol.


----------



## White KB (Aug 30, 2019)

Parke187 said:


> No


Agreed. +2s are a vital part of cubing and help make it interesting. If you have 99 out of 100 pieces in a real puzzle, it may be a manufacturing defect so that example is not really relevant, and +2s make it better for things like BLD and 6x6, 7x7, FMC, etc. because it would just add 2 seconds to your solve instead of ruining your whole average.


----------



## Kit Clement (Aug 30, 2019)

White KB said:


> +2s are a vital part of cubing and help make it interesting.



lolwat



White KB said:


> +2s make it better for things like... FMC, because it would just add 2 seconds to your solve instead of ruining your whole average.



lolwat


----------



## cubeshepherd (Aug 30, 2019)

White KB said:


> Agreed. +2s are a vital part of cubing and help make it interesting. If you have 99 out of 100 pieces in a real puzzle, it may be a manufacturing defect so that example is not really relevant, and +2s make it better for things like BLD and 6x6, 7x7, FMC, etc. because it would just add 2 seconds to your solve instead of ruining your whole average.


Uhhh, not sure where to start or what to say...such a random post to say the least, and not even quite on what was said.

My analogy of the complete puzzle is not referring to buying it new and missing a piece, but rather if you have all the pieces and do not place the last one, then you can not say that it is fully "solved" or complete, just like in 3x3 (or any event) if you are off by a move then it is not fully complete (which I hope makes sense to you).

The only reason for the +2's is for errors when the competitor drops the cube to stop the timer and something happens in between that moment (because the judge/delegate or whoever) is giving the competitor the benefit of the doubt that the cube was fully solved when he/she went to stop the timer. Not that the competitor says to itself that "I am turning to fast and if it not fully solved in the end it is just a +2". That in my mind is something that is not the best sportsmanship or right way to go about solving a cube, but since there is the +2's I feel like some people take advantage of that and try to read between the lines in that (which morally speaking is not right) let alone a whole host of other reasons.



White KB said:


> +2s are a vital part of cubing and help make it interesting.


Please explain what you mean by that? How is it a vital part of cubing of people are not trying there best? And how does it make it "interesting"? Again +2's are not vital in anyway (I think) and again the only reason they are there is for the benifit of the doubt, and not for people to take advantage of.

If you had really fast TPS and a really easy scramble that you could possibly get a record on (WR, CR, etc) would you just turn fast and hope that it is fully solved in the end? No, you would not, you would make sure that you apply the correct moves and that it is solved, otherwise you would get a penalty and the record would not count. This in no way forgoes the fact that we are all but human and make mistakes at times (even world class cubers have made mistakes that have cost records), but my point is that if people knew that there solve would not count if it were not fully solved, it would give them a completely different view on cubing and would make them try even harder to complete the solve (like if +2's were to be changed to DNF's, your whole practice sequence would be different, because you would make sure to always solve the cube and not have a error in the end). Please tell me if I am wrong in that.

The only valid reasons I see so far are for 6x6-7x7, and BLD. FMC does not have +2's so your mention of that is irrelevant and nonsensical, and if you know anything about FMC, you would recognize that it is the only event that requires everything to be solved or it is a DNF. 

In the end I am fine either way what happens, and I would be just as happy if by just talking about this it gets people to start to pay more attention to fully completing there solve, and caring a bit more about +2's/DNF's.


----------



## xyzzy (Aug 30, 2019)

cubeshepherd said:


> if you know anything about FMC, you would recognize that it is the only event that requires everything to be solved or it is a DNF.


Clock too, actually.



cubeshepherd said:


> That in my mind is something that is not the best sportsmanship or right way to go about solving a cube, but since there is the +2's I feel like some people take advantage of that and try to read between the lines in that (which morally speaking is not right) let alone a whole host of other reasons.


Reminds me of this: Introducing… the Scrub.

What's _sportsmanship_? If the rules allow you to do something and that something gives you an advantage (this is very rarely the case for +2s, actually), arguably, not doing it constitutes poor sportsmanship. You're not getting the best results you can under the given rules. We're not even talking about strange edge cases within the regulations, but something that has been a standard component of competitive speedcubing pretty much forever. (I guess another example in the same vein would be table abuse for OH: I personally think it's disgusting/cheating/blahblahblah and won't do it (… although I recently timed my Z perms and found MU table abuse to be slightly faster), but I also don't really begrudge people who table-abuse all the way because the regs allow it. This is a thing you're allowed to do. Do it if it gives you better times.)


----------



## White KB (Aug 31, 2019)

cubeshepherd said:


> Uhhh, not sure where to start or what to say...such a random post to say the least, and not even quite on what was said.
> 
> My analogy of the complete puzzle is not referring to buying it new and missing a piece, but rather if you have all the pieces and do not place the last one, then you can not say that it is fully "solved" or complete, just like in 3x3 (or any event) if you are off by a move then it is not fully complete (which I hope makes sense to you).
> 
> ...





cubeshepherd said:


> Uhhh, not sure where to start or what to say...such a random post to say the least, and not even quite on what was said.
> 
> My analogy of the complete puzzle is not referring to buying it new and missing a piece, but rather if you have all the pieces and do not place the last one, then you can not say that it is fully "solved" or complete, just like in 3x3 (or any event) if you are off by a move then it is not fully complete (which I hope makes sense to you).
> 
> ...


You do have a valid point in saying that FMC doesn't apply, but I was thinking of events with mo3s and got a bit off topic there.
Also, for your original point, you said that a lot of people were "taking advantage of" +2s when this really isn't the case. To show you one example, I was going to make a YouTube series called "Useless Tips in Cubing" because it's things that are kind of funny and don't usually help. Actually, the biggest episode I was going to make was "When +2s can be good for You" because it might be good in a solve if your TPS is less than 0.5. However, I found, this usually isn't the case: Most people, even ones who average over 90 seconds in 3x3, _don't have a TPS that low._ I ended up calling off the series because of lack of videos, and because there wasn't enough basis for the one video. Also, if you think people with higher TPS are either far and few between or have some advantage from +2s, you may need to back it up. Also if someone fast, like, say, Feliks Zemdegs (sorry for picking on ya, 2009ZEMD01) were to intentionally get a +2, that's their problem and is not going to help their average.
In any case, I think we should keep +2s because the people who get +2s intentionally are a minority at best, so there's no real problem.
It would make sense to have it raised slightly though. (e.g. +2.5, +3, etc.)


----------



## Micah Morrison (Aug 31, 2019)

the main problem with +2's being DNF's is that sometimes the cube hitting the table in a certain way can influence whether it's one turn off or not. Say in a 7x7 solve you're in a rush to stop the timer and on the last move you slightly underturn the side but still it's less than 45 degrees from being solved. Let's say that in your rush to stop the timer you slam down the cube a bit too hard, causing the last face that you turned to be more than 45 degrees from being solved. Guess what, if that's a DNF, then a cube slamming on the table just ruined your ENTIRE average. And the WCA is DEFINITELY not going to make 6x6 and 7x7 an average of 5 event.


----------



## tx789 (Aug 31, 2019)

It is such a big change causing DNF rates to go up. The issue of deciding if it is a +2 will still exist if +2 a DNFs but the judge will feel added pressure. I get a some what frequent amount of +2s which would be horrible if they were DNFs especially if you got 2. This change isn't really that unfair apart from in MBLD it could be very unfair if a cube had a misalignment of say 23 degrees and end up a DNF since the layer turns to be one move off during the attempt. Missing a record because the cube turns when placed or when cubes are place on it isn't something the competitor sees and wasn't the cube turning as you stop the timer the reason for the addition of +2s in the first place obivisioly hard ware is better. Also magnets don't help to avoid +2s that much. And asking non-cubers is a bad idea since that would say 10 degrees is unsolved.


----------



## Iwannaganx (Aug 31, 2019)

Omg this thread exploded since I was last here


----------



## DerpBoiMoon (Jan 27, 2020)

no, what happens if you touch it after you solved it +2 or DNF? and you used 15 second inspect but less then 17?

And people who say a +2 is not solved, well what is solved? If a cube is say a degree misaligned, is that solved? I honestly don't see why peope want +2's gone


----------



## ProStar (Jan 27, 2020)

DerpBoiMoon said:


> no, what happens if you touch it after you solved it +2 or DNF? and you used 15 second inspect but less then 17?
> 
> And people who say a +2 is not solved, well what is solved? If a cube is say a degree misaligned, is that solved? I honestly don't see why peope want +2's gone



Crap I was finally beginning to think this thread was dead


For my opinion, I think +2 is good. Also WCA should switch to STM, even for FMC


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jan 27, 2020)

DerpBoiMoon said:


> And people who say a +2 is not solved, well what is solved? If a cube is say a degree misaligned, is that solved? I honestly don't see why peope want +2's gone


You need to have a non-cuber delegate at every competition. If they can solve the cube in its final state, then the cube is solved.

lol that is so stupid


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 28, 2020)

Oh boy, more bumps to this thread from people who didn't actually read the thread


----------



## Ronxu (Jan 28, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Crap I was finally beginning to think this thread was dead
> 
> 
> For my opinion, I think +2 is good. Also WCA should switch to STM, even for FMC


Turn U 30 degrees one way and E 30 degrees the other way. Congratulations, you now have a position that is literally impossible to judge the penalty on assuming we use STM.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 28, 2020)

Ronxu said:


> Turn U 30 degrees one way and E 30 degrees the other way. Congratulations, you now have a position that is literally impossible to judge the penalty on assuming we use STM.



? That's just ~1/2 an E turn away.


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 28, 2020)

ProStar said:


> ? That's just ~1/2 an E turn away.


Half an E turn away from a state that isn't fully solved either. That might not have been the best example, anyhow—what about Kit's example from page 2 of this thread?

The problem isn't just about coming up with a rule; the problem is coming up with a _simple_ rule (a complicated rule is likely to be misapplied/misunderstood) that captures what we intuitively think of being one turn off in STM _when partial layer turns are allowed_. In an ideal world where everything is an exact multiple of 90 degrees, it's very straightforward to change the rules to use STM for penalties. (*) In reality, there are weird in-between cases (like the linked example) where different people could have different intuitive expectations of whether it should be no-penalty versus +2 versus DNF.

(*) … but is it _actually_ that straightforward? have a think about this.


----------



## Ronxu (Jan 28, 2020)

xyzzy said:


> Half an E turn away from a state that isn't fully solved either. That might not have been the best example, anyhow—what about Kit's example from page 2 of this thread?
> 
> The problem isn't just about coming up with a rule; the problem is coming up with a _simple_ rule (a complicated rule is likely to be misapplied/misunderstood) that captures what we intuitively think of being one turn off in STM _when partial layer turns are allowed_. In an ideal world where everything is an exact multiple of 90 degrees, it's very straightforward to change the rules to use STM for penalties. (*) In reality, there are weird in-between cases (like the linked example) where different people could have different intuitive expectations of whether it should be no-penalty versus +2 versus DNF.
> 
> (*) … but is it _actually_ that straightforward? have a think about this.


It's a great example. It perfectly captures the mindset of anyone suggesting STM. Literally too lazy to pick up a cube to try and figure out what's wrong.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 29, 2020)

Ronxu said:


> It's a great example. It perfectly captures the mindset of anyone suggesting STM. Literally too lazy to pick up a cube to try and figure out what's wrong.



Agreed - the middle slice is now 30 degrees from the outside layer that we did not adjust, but 60 degrees from the other. What do we use as a reference point in this case to determine how far the slice is misaligned? One says solved, the other says +2.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 8, 2020)

Kit Clement said:


> False. It requires one slice move of 90 degrees to bring it to a solved position (as well as other adjustments <45 degrees not shown below). Only +2.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know this is old but can you stop posting that? The 45 degree rule is only for how the cube was dropped. For the judging, you think of the cube as if it where perfectly cube. Your the one giving us weird crap.


----------



## weatherman223 (Feb 8, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I know this is old but can you stop posting that? The 45 degree rule is only for how the cube was dropped. For the judging, you think of the cube as if it where perfectly cube. Your the one giving us weird crap.


Mate, what are you smoking? I can’t even understand a single word of your sentence

(P.S:Oh also Kit is a senior delegate so he probably knows what he’s talking about)


----------



## brododragon (Feb 8, 2020)

weatherman223 said:


> Mate, what are you smoking? I can’t even understand a single word of your sentence
> 
> (P.S:Oh also Kit is a senior delegate so he probably knows what he’s talking about)


I have no idea what I was saying. Sometimes, my brain just doesn’t work (Also I have ADHD which can make words hard to form and string together).


----------



## weatherman223 (Feb 8, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I have no idea what I was saying. Sometimes, my brain just doesn’t work (Also I have ADHD which can make words hard to form and string together).



I completely understand your perspective, but there’s something really cool called proofreading, please try to use it in the future.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 8, 2020)

weatherman223 said:


> I completely understand your perspective, but there’s something really cool called proofreading, please try to use it in the future.


Ya I often times act without thinking. I think I was just trying to say that the 45 degree thing (in my opinion) only applies to determining the cube state.


----------



## Kit Clement (Feb 8, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Ya I often times act without thinking. I think I was just trying to say that the 45 degree thing (in my opinion) only applies to determining the cube state.



Are we not trying to determine the state of the cube?


----------



## brododragon (Feb 8, 2020)

Kit Clement said:


> Are we not trying to determine the state of the cube?


We’re trying to determine how many moves away the current state is from solved.


----------



## DerpBoiMoon (Feb 8, 2020)

Kit Clement said:


> Are we not trying to determine the state of the cube?


Well instead of just laughing at us behind a screen what would say?


----------



## cubeshepherd (Feb 8, 2020)

brododragon said:


> We’re trying to determine how many moves away the current state is from solved.


In all fairness there is no "amount of moves" that should be allowed for it to be in a solved state. Either it is solved (where each color it where is should be) or it is not.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 8, 2020)

cubeshepherd said:


> In all fairness there is no "amount of moves" that should be allowed for it to be in a solved state. Either it is solved (where each color is where is should be) or it is not.


Your forgetting about +2’s, where it matters what how many moves it is away.


----------



## Kit Clement (Feb 8, 2020)

DerpBoiMoon said:


> Well instead of just laughing at us behind a screen what would say?



Your supersonic hearing must be faulty, I don't find any of this humorous.



brododragon said:


> We’re trying to determine how many moves away the current state is from solved.



Sure, but in order to determine that, we need to define what a move is, and what an acceptable misalignment is. In the image of mine that you quoted, you have to perform 1 slice move and two acceptable misalignments in order to bring the puzzle to solved. So in a world where we accept slice moves as recognized by WCA for determining the solved state, you would call this a +2, but in my experience, this is not how one would intuitively interpret the state of that puzzle.

These complications are why you'll never see the WCA accept slice moves as +2, and why I'd honestly prefer removing all misalignment +2s entirely if we want to have a level playing field regardless of method used. I'm okay with the current rules to allow for cases where the puzzle is misaligned once dropped due to impact, especially for events like MBLD where cubes often turn due to the way they pile up in large attempts.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 9, 2020)

Kit Clement said:


> Sure, but in order to determine that, we need to define what a move is, and what an acceptable misalignment is. In the image of mine that you quoted, you have to perform 1 slice move and two acceptable misalignments in order to bring the puzzle to solved. So in a world where we accept slice moves as recognized by WCA for determining the solved state, you would call this a +2, but in my experience, this is not how one would intuitively interpret the state of that puzzle.
> 
> These complications are why you'll never see the WCA accept slice moves as +2, and why I'd honestly prefer removing all misalignment +2s entirely if we want to have a level playing field regardless of method used. I'm okay with the current rules to allow for cases where the puzzle is misaligned once dropped due to impact, especially for events like MBLD where cubes often turn due to the way they pile up in large attempts.


I think a with a bit of brain work it could be made simple.

Your example could quite easily be broken if the WCA defined “1 move away” as “One *90 degree* move”.


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 10, 2020)

brododragon said:


> the WCA defined “1 move away” as “One *90 degree* move”.


Avoid using quotation marks if you're not making a direct quote, especially considering the regulations _don't_ define this.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 10, 2020)

xyzzy said:


> Avoid using quotation marks if you're not making a direct quote, especially considering the regulations _don't_ define this.


I meant ‘if’, not is. Dumb auto correct.


----------



## Ronxu (Feb 10, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I think a with a bit of brain work it could be made simple.
> 
> Your example could quite easily be broken if the WCA defined “1 move away” as “One *90 degree* move”.


Sounds arbitary, but ok. Still doesn't solve my example. Go ahead and define which layer should be used as the point of reference for misalignments.


----------



## carcass (Mar 9, 2020)

Hey!
This has been a thought nagging at my mind recently. The +2 is a little biased toward non roux users. I, myself don't use roux, but when a cfop solver is one move short, it is a +2, but for a roux solver, it would usually be a DNF. I think the way to fix this is to say that as long as +2's are on the same axis(x, y, or z) then it will be a +3 or something like that. What do you all think?


----------



## cringeycuber101 (Mar 9, 2020)

yeah I agree. Ijust think it should be a plus 4.


----------



## carcass (Mar 9, 2020)

That would work as well.


----------



## cringeycuber101 (Mar 9, 2020)

my friend was gonna get a sub 12 in comp . H perm . DNF


----------



## carcass (Mar 9, 2020)

That is also a good idea. Just DNF's can make your average of 5 in last place, and that shouldn't happen.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Mar 9, 2020)

Do you mean that because Roux users use M moves at the end they are more likely to DNF?


----------



## carcass (Mar 9, 2020)

Yes, I know from watching Kian Mansour's competition solves that they are far more likely to DNF.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Mar 9, 2020)

I use CFOP and I use M moves for H, Z, and both U perms.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Mar 9, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> I use CFOP and I use M moves for H, Z, and both U perms.


That’s only when you get EPLL. Roux users use M moves every solve


----------



## carcass (Mar 9, 2020)

Me too, I just see that h perms are as rare as a pll skip, z perms are 1/42, but yeah, u perms may be the only exception.



OreKehStrah said:


> That’s only when you get EPLL. Roux users use M moves every solve


I agree with that.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Mar 9, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> That’s only when you get EPLL. Roux users use M moves every solve


I don't know any G-perms, so I do a T-perm then a U-perm, so for me personally, the chances are a lot greater.


----------



## carcass (Mar 9, 2020)

Oh... Well then that adds more reason to change the rule in my opinion. BTW, BrodytheCuber has a video on recognizing G perms that might help.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 9, 2020)

This is the same argument about turning the WCA to STM, only with a slightly different punishment. The same problems still apply


----------



## carcass (Mar 9, 2020)

Even if this has already been discussed... do you think the +2 rule should be changed for Roux users?


----------



## tx789 (Mar 9, 2020)

+2 should not change allowings slice moves to count as one move affect FMC too and leads to potential +2s that are hard to judge.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Mar 9, 2020)

5/7 of my solves finish with M moves, I think we just need to be a bit more careful, I’ve only ever DNFed when I either get a bad solve and rage, or got too excited with a solve and missed out on doing a move. I think this rule is just a con of a method/last layer system, and there isn’t really any point getting the WCA to change their regulations to fit a certain method/system.


----------



## Kit Clement (Mar 9, 2020)

If we want to be "method neutral" for penalties, I've advocated for eliminating misalignment +2s entirely for a long time. I don't feel particularly strongly about this as I used to, as people have convinced me that there are a couple good reasons for allowing them:

Dropping the cube is part of stopping the timer, which involves some risk but the time saved by doing this is worth the risk. We shouldn't drastically change how people stop the timer by making this even riskier.
Somewhat related, in MBLD, it is very common to place cubes as solved, then have them stack on top of each other and potentially fall, causing misalignments. It seems really harsh to DNF cubes for this reason.
Any misalignment rules for slice moves are very difficult to rule, for reasons I don't feel like reposting a fourth time. A new, higher time penalty for two moves along the same axis is actually easy to adjudicate while still using OBTM and not STM. However, from what I understand, the primary motivation for misalignments is not to help people who did not solve the cube, but to give leniency to the cases I've mentioned above. It has a side effect of helping people who struggle to AUF in CFOP, but personally, this is an unfortunate consequence of the way the penalty works. This is why I've advocated for getting rid of these arbitrary penalties, but I know it will never happen. I don't think it's a good thing to introduce even more arbitrary penalties than we already have.


----------



## Cody_Caston (Mar 9, 2020)

Tbh i recon +2s should be dnfs so it forces us to make sure the cube is solved completely. (My opinion stands out)


----------



## carcass (Mar 9, 2020)

Cody_Caston said:


> Tbh i recon +2s should be dnfs so it forces us to make sure the cube is solved completely. (My opinion stands out)


I see where you are coming from. I just thought it might be a good idea, and Kit Clement also has a very good point. So another thought is that time penalties can be different for some events, maybe +1 on 2x2, +2 on 3x3, and so on. Another thing about time penalties is that any mistake on clock is a DNF, and that could be changed, but it would be hard to judge.


----------

