# M slice +2 Poll



## yjyulong (Jan 3, 2016)

Some people wanted to make this poll so here it is.

Should an M move be counted as a +DNF?

Vote in the poll and explain down below


----------



## mjm (Jan 3, 2016)

I'm curious as to what those who voted No's reasoning is. I feel like I know why those who voted Yes did so, that's why I'm not as interested.


----------



## penguinz7 (Jan 3, 2016)

mjm said:


> I'm curious as to what those who voted No's reasoning is. I feel like I know why those who voted Yes did so, that's why I'm not as interested.



https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?56684-WCA-2016-Regulation-Change-Ideas/page3


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 3, 2016)

I voted no.

I'm in the group of people who wants to remove the misalignment penalty altogether.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 3, 2016)

Ranzha said:


> I'm in the group of people who wants to remove the misalignment penalty altogether.



As am I.

I think extending the penalty to slice moves is a bad idea. It just complicates what counts as (almost) solved, which is going to lead to more confusion and misjudgment in practice.

It's also not as natural to define. Does R L2 count? What if it's R L2 but *almost* R2 L2? I don't think we should go back to allowing a penalty for arbitrary slice misalignments on a single axis, so this is still going to result in rulings that some people will find disappointing or awkward.

Not relevant to the exact question at hand, but:
Although adding a definition of slice moves for speedsolve misalignments is not extremely hard, I worry that it would be used to push for allowing slice moves in FMC. FMC has been using OBTM for a long time, and starting to allow slice moves would make new results unfairly incomparable to past results. I think we should avoid trying to deal with slice moves in the WCA at all.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 3, 2016)

Under "slices are +2s" rules, someone tell me what the penalty is for this, and explain why.

http://i.imgur.com/v6ax7m1.jpg


----------



## Genius4Jesus (Jan 3, 2016)

^This sort of issue is exactly why we should not make slice moves +2.

I am in agreement that we should just get rid of misalignment +2s. Is the cube solved or not? Simple.

EDIT: If the Roux solvers (and other people) want to make things more "fair" by making slice moves +2, having no misalignment penalties would make it "fair" across the board.


----------



## Dene (Jan 3, 2016)

Ranzha said:


> I'm in the group of people who wants to remove the misalignment penalty altogether.



Indeed, and it looks like this idea is getting more support than it did in the past too. Just need Chris Krueger to join the discussion to lend a supporting voice


----------



## penguinz7 (Jan 3, 2016)

I made a poll on facebook (Cyoubx' friends). It's been an hour and 21 people have voted against +2's and 2 people have voted for them.


----------



## OLLiver (Jan 3, 2016)

I consider M moves 'one' move as everyone can do them with one finger flick. I found the whole DNF thing for M moves really weird when I started cubing


----------



## Cale S (Jan 3, 2016)

I also voted 'no'

Is there a reason for wanting to change it other than "I'll get less DNF's?"


----------



## adimare (Jan 3, 2016)

Voted no, but I wish there were no +2s at all.

I had an idea awhile ago to replace this, but it's unrealistic since it'd require changes in the way stackmats work: it'd be cool if the timer kept running internally for a couple of seconds after you place your hands on it. If you keep them on the timer for 2 seconds the time you got when you placed your hands on it is locked in, but if you release the timer the clock starts running again picking up at the time you'd have if you'd never placed your hands on the timer at all.

So let's say you solve your cube and place your hands to stop the timer at 10.00 sec, the timer displays 10.00 but it's still running internally. It takes you 0.7 seconds to notice you're actually an M2 away from solving the cube. You release the timer to grab the cube. The timer starts running again, starting at 10.7 seconds. It takes you 0.8 more seconds to solve the cube and place your hands on the timer again. The clock stops at 11.5 sec, you maintain your hands on the timer to lock in that time and your final time for the solve is 11.5 seconds. If you lock in a time and the cube is not fully solved, you get a DNF.


----------



## muchacho (Jan 3, 2016)

adimare said:


> I had an idea


Cool unrealistic idea.



Cale S said:


> Is there a reason for wanting to change it other than "I'll get less DNF's?"


At least for me it feels no that different of a U move. I voted yes, but I'd prefer more DNFs, it would make more sense that +2 misalignment penalties were DNFs instead.



Kit Clement said:


> Under "slices are +2s" rules, someone tell me what the penalty is for this, and explain why.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/v6ax7m1.jpg


It would be a DNF. You evaluate if after a 90 degrees M/M' move (or simply a 90 degrees move of any layer) the cube would be in a position that would warrant no more penalties.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 3, 2016)

muchacho said:


> It would be a DNF. You evaluate if after a 90 degrees M/M' move the cube would be in a position that would warrant no more penalties.



Thanks for making my point, as by your reasoning, that should actually be a +2, as it is possible to bring this cube to a solved position by applying a move to the slice. Trying to come up with rules that are easy to understand and will be applied the same across the world for the slice is incredibly difficult.


----------



## muchacho (Jan 3, 2016)

Kit Clement said:


> Thanks for making my point, as by your reasoning, that should actually be a +2, as it is possible to bring this cube to a solved position by applying a move to the slice. Trying to come up with rules that are easy to understand and will be applied the same across the world for the slice is incredibly difficult.



A *90* degrees move to *one* layer puts that cube in a solved position?


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 3, 2016)

muchacho said:


> A *90* degrees move to *one* layer puts that cube in a solved position?



The same cube after applying a 90 degree turn to a slice, which is now in a solved state: http://i.imgur.com/EWj1ssB.jpg


----------



## Dene (Jan 3, 2016)

Cale S said:


> Is there a reason for wanting to change it other than "I'll get less DNF's?"



Nope. This is the exact same thing I noticed when I was pushing to get +2 for misalignment removed. All of the arguments were "but but but but I want +2". Not a single real reason for keeping +2 was given.


----------



## muchacho (Jan 3, 2016)

Ah ok, I was assuming more than 45 degrees between one layer and any of the others meant a non solved state (that would be difficult to judge?), sorry about that. +2 then.


----------



## gyroninja (Jan 3, 2016)

A M off should be a DNF. The +2 for an obtm off is also kind of silly. We give out official times when people don't even finish solving the cube.


----------



## Sajwo (Jan 3, 2016)

Dene said:


> Nope. This is the exact same thing I noticed when I was pushing to get +2 for misalignment removed. All of the arguments were "but but but but I want +2". Not a single real reason for keeping +2 was given.



Are there any arguments besides "it's not solved, so it should be a DNF"? Do you even imagine how bad it would ruin people's results? Do you even know how easy it is to get a cube 46 degrees off the solved state? It's an accident, not competitor's fault. And you want to punish them because they had a bad luck. I would be surprised if a ton of people would quit after these pointless regulations about removing feet and +2 rule.

To be honest, you sound like a noob, who doesn't even know what the reality on competition is (even if you are an organiser..)


----------



## adimare (Jan 3, 2016)

Sajwo said:


> Are there any arguments besides "it's not solved, so it should be a DNF"?



You gotta admit that's a pretty good argument tho. DNF stands for "did not finish", and a cube that's even one move away from being solved seems to fit that description perfectly.


----------



## Reinier Schippers (Jan 3, 2016)

What about the S And E moves  jk 

M slices shouldn't be +2d since you make a double mistake in my opinion. Also I don't like the fact that M U perm are faster which I can't execute  So keep it at the dnf


----------



## TheNewbCuber (Jan 3, 2016)

I'm all for M slice getting a +2(fair for Roux users)simply because I'm against changing +2 to DNF(Retroactive effects) 
+2 replacement with DNF would require either 
a) change of past results (important ones like the current multiBLD WR) and 
b) invalidation of all past solves with +2.
If +2 changes to DNF and you don't enact the two things I mentioned above, it's unfair to other competitors. If you do enact them, it's unfair to the solver/record holder. 
If you hate +2, you're probably in the league where +2 affects an average, and in that case, it puts you at an advantage if another competitor gets a +2 anyway.

EDIT: I just realized that M slices could create confusion as to what a single move consists of, someone will have to work that out. What else is the WCA there for?


----------



## ZeshaaK (Jan 3, 2016)

This is my current opinion on the +2 penalty we have now.

I do not think the +2 penalty should exist to help competitors that either, (a) forgot to do the last move or (b) if they failed at doing their last move properly.

I think the +2 penalty should exist because as you drop the cube there is a small chance of a layer to be misaligned as a result of just bad luck (I believe at Worlds 2015 Feliks had a +2 solve which, if you look at in slow motion, you can see that the cube is solved in the air). 

That being said, the chance of dropping a solved cube and having the layers misalign to be an M slice off is extremely low. So in conclusion, there should be no reason for a cube to be considered solved if its off by an M slice. However I do believe that the current +2 penalty should remain.


EDIT: Ok so I just realised that the current +2 penalty gives CFOP users an advantage over ROUX in terms of being able to fail their last move. But M slice moves still should not be considered solved with penalty because of what I mentioned earlier. However due to this advantage I would be open to the possibility of removing penalties altogether.


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Jan 3, 2016)

I voted no because,

if I get a +2 it would most likely be my worst solve anyway, changing it to a DNF doesn't matter than.
Also how can you transfer this rule to big cubes, having M, r or r' for example (or am I just stupid? )
For me a m or m2 just isn't solved an it'll never be


----------



## ryanj92 (Jan 3, 2016)

gonna copy my post from an earlier thread here -

people who think that a slice move away should be +2: do you think inner slices (a single slice, or multiple adjacent slices) on 4-7 should be +2 also? and also for OH and feet, where a slice move no longer 'feels' like a single move? i'm curious 

(also, imagine the implications of a cube off by an M2 now being valid for BLD )


----------



## Goosly (Jan 3, 2016)

Sajwo said:


> It's an accident, not competitor's fault.



It is the competitor's fault. The competitor is supposed to solve the cube, not solve it with one layer 46 degrees (or more) off.

I've never had a +2 because of bad luck, all of them was just me doing the wrong AUF.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 3, 2016)

TheCoolMinxer said:


> I voted no because,
> 
> if I get a +2 it would most likely be my worst solve anyway, changing it to a DNF doesn't matter than.
> Also how can you transfer this rule to big cubes, having M, r or r' for example (or am I just stupid? )
> For me a m or m2 just isn't solved an it'll never be



my thoughts exactly! also, I'm cool with getting rid of misalignment penalties.


----------



## mark49152 (Jan 3, 2016)

AFAIK +2s are not on record with WCA so any retroactive changes to DNFs would be impossible, as well as contentious. Yes the +2 rule is questionable but it's no less arbitrary than allowing 15 seconds of inspection. At least the penalty is harsh enough to wreck a result at top levels. I vote to leave it unchanged but not make it worse by extending to slices.


----------



## sqAree (Jan 3, 2016)

I DNFed my first OH solve ever in a comp.
I dropped the cube and the U layer got misaligned cause of collision with the table (D layer was still misaligned at that point).
So yep, it's possible to be an accident.


----------



## Goosly (Jan 3, 2016)

sqAree said:


> I dropped the cube (...)
> So yep, it's possible to be an accident.



That's not an accident. Dropping your cube is your fault. Do not drop your cube.

A few competitions ago, my cube fell of the table after I did a very bad timer stop, 2 center caps fell off, which is a DNF. That too was totally my fault, not an accident.


----------



## newtonbase (Jan 3, 2016)

+2 for M slice could get messy. When I started cubing I was surprised to find out about the penalty for an unsolved cube. I'd make all misalignments DNFs.


----------



## AlexMaass (Jan 3, 2016)

I would like to make slice moves +2, but as Kit Clement pointed out, "Trying to come up with rules that are easy to understand and will be applied the same across the world for the slice is incredibly difficult." (as pointed out with this image: http://i.imgur.com/v6ax7m1.jpg)

I'm strongly against just getting rid of misalignments all together, people would be more nervous in comps, because if they just drop the cube wrong or make 1 small error at the end of the solve, it would ruin their average. That goes against the mission of WCA for people to have "more fun".


----------



## penguinz7 (Jan 3, 2016)

penguinz7 said:


> I made a poll on facebook (Cyoubx' friends). It's been an hour and 21 people have voted against +2's and 2 people have voted for them.



This is now at 53/8


----------



## Skullush (Jan 3, 2016)

I didn't read every post in this thread super carefully, but these are my thoughts:

M, M', and M2 are theoretical moves, according to the half-turn metric that the WCA uses. It would be inconsistent to have the fewest moves challenge go by half-turn metric, and have +2 misalignment penalties go by slice-turn metric. If you're going to change the metric for one thing, it should be consistent throughout the WCA. But I don't think that's worth the trouble. Also, I realize there's a method neutrality argument for M slice +2s (CFOP and Roux), but really, having this new penalty is no more method neutral than not having this penalty. If you're a CFOP solver and you didn't use an H-perm at the end or anything of that sort, and your cube is off by an R and an L', then you made two moves. With this new rule, you would get a +2 penalty for that, which I don't think is a good thing.

Then there's the opposite side of the spectrum; I realize some people think that there shouldn't be a +2 penalty at all. I mean I guess that's worth discussing but... It's just a little harsh. +2 misalignment penalties aren't exactly a terrible rule; obviously it takes less than 2 seconds to make one move so it is a penalty, and it gives a little leniency that might be necessary when solvers can't afford to double check the puzzle before stopping the timer. I'd be more on board with removing +2s entirely if there weren't mean of 3 events like 6x6, 7x7, and feet, where a DNF would ruin the entire average. But then there's people who want to remove all three of those events anyway. I don't know. I'm not really prepared to take a firm stance on whether to remove +2s. But I do think it's a better idea than the M slice +2 proposal.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jan 3, 2016)

TheNewbCuber said:


> EDIT: I just realized that M slices could create confusion as to what a single move consists of, someone will have to work that out. What else is the WCA there for?



The WCA Regulations Committee could easily come up with a nice complete set of rules which covers each and every difficult case. That's the easy part. The _really, really_ hard part is to get every single inexperienced judge at every competition to be familiar enough with those rules to apply them exactly the same way as the next inexperienced judge. The example that Kit posted is just one case that many judges would likely get wrong, were a rule added to allow M slice misalignments.


----------



## Sajwo (Jan 3, 2016)

Skullush said:


> I'd be more on board with removing +2s entirely if there weren't mean of 3 events like 6x6, 7x7, and feet, where a DNF would ruin the entire average.



That is a point. If they want to remove +2 rule, I think it would be compulsory to change the format of WF, 6x6 and 7x7 into avg5. DNFing the whole average just because somebody had a bad luck with the layer missaligned by a 46 degrees is too harsh



Spoiler



+2 rule is already too harsh


----------



## AlexMaass (Jan 3, 2016)

Sajwo said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> +2 rule is already too harsh


 How so?


----------



## Sajwo (Jan 3, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> How so?



2 seconds is very much


----------



## AlexMaass (Jan 3, 2016)

Sajwo said:


> 2 seconds is very much



It is not that much imo, it is reasonable. You want +1? people would get +1 all the time in feet lol.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Jan 4, 2016)

I wouldn't mind having them count as +2's, though whatever is easier for the people that write the regs is fine by me. Im against removing misalignment +2's, It would just make people very frustrated if they get 46º off. And I think +2 for being one move off is a fair penalty.


----------



## JamesDanko (Jan 4, 2016)

I voted no.

What about pyraminx? What if the "middle slice" (between the tip and base of the puzzle) was off? Would it be a DNF or +2?

Same with megaminx. What if the top and bottom layers are both one away in the same direction? is it a DNF or +2?


----------



## TMOY (Jan 4, 2016)

+2 for both, but I have yet to see it happening during a megaminx solve.

Of course I voted yes, but what I would really like is consistent rules. I can live with either every single move counting +2 or none at all, but only part of them is just weird.


----------



## biscuit (Jan 4, 2016)

Kit Clement said:


> Under "slices are +2s" rules, someone tell me what the penalty is for this, and explain why.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/v6ax7m1.jpg



DNF. The yellow face is off by a move, and the M slice is off by a move. That being said, after seeing the arguments against M +2's, I am starting to agree. I also am starting to agree with the no +2 thing as a whole...


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 4, 2016)

biscuit said:


> DNF. The yellow face is off by a move, and the M slice is off by a move. That being said, after seeing the arguments against M +2's, I am starting to agree. I also am starting to agree with the no +2 thing as a whole...



When you say "off by a move", what are you using as your reference point to measure how far off the faces are?


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Jan 4, 2016)

Better yet, why not have each slice measure off the center slice, so if one is 46 off its +2, if both are 46 or more off its +4


----------



## biscuit (Jan 4, 2016)

Kit Clement said:


> When you say "off by a move", what are you using as your reference point to measure how far off the faces are?



Hmm... Okay. That's true.


----------



## Goosly (Jan 4, 2016)

CubeWizard23 said:


> Better yet, why not have each slice measure off the center slice, so if one is 46 off its +2, if both are 46 or more off its +4



So M2 away from solved is +4? Maybe I didn't understand you correctly.


----------



## cubernya (Jan 4, 2016)

CubeWizard23 said:


> Better yet, why not have each slice measure off the center slice, so if one is 46 off its +2, if both are 46 or more off its +4



Don't touch the cube. Find the optimal solution with a computer. +34 for a 17 move solution. 

Where do you draw the line? Would the two moves have to be on the same axis?


----------



## Ranzha (Feb 24, 2016)

theZcuber said:


> Don't touch the cube. Find the optimal solution with a computer. +34 for a 17 move solution.
> 
> Where do you draw the line? Would the two moves have to be on the same axis?



Axial turn metric is a very real and very irregulable thing.

Dene's "Solved or not" idea has grown on me over the years. Competitors have always had a choice in how safely they stop turning and release the puzzle before stopping the timer. The fact that people "drop/throw" their puzzles and make a bee-line for the timer is simply an aspect speedsolving's culture. That does not necessarily mean it should be catered to in the Regulations.


----------

