# [WCA Regulations 2012] Remove +2 penalty for misaligned sides



## anders (Dec 13, 2011)

I suggest that we remove the +2 penalty for misaligned sides and replace it by dnf.

This has been discussed earlier: http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=922

/Anders


----------



## emolover (Dec 13, 2011)

I disagree.

I(and many others) would DNF way too often.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 13, 2011)

I think that this would become quite harsh, but wouldn't mind too much if it was changed.


----------



## ben1996123 (Dec 13, 2011)

no.

Too many of these threads. Also, if it has been discussed before, and never removed, it's not going to be removed.


----------



## Muesli (Dec 13, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I think that this would become quite harsh, but wouldn't mind too much if it was changed.


 
Roux user = Moar slices = Moar DNF for misaligns. Probably wouldn't affect you all that much.


----------



## cubeflip (Dec 13, 2011)

NO

Replace DNF (2 moves away) with +4 ???? (just kidding) (maybe just for BLD)

penalties are fine the way they are. Although my only BLD DNF in comp was 2 moves away (sob sob).


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 13, 2011)

I lol'd;



> <+aronpm> Removing +2 means that 1 move scrambles are allowed :<


----------



## masterofthebass (Dec 13, 2011)

clock already doesn't have +2. if it works there, albeit frustrating when you DNF, why couldn't it work for all puzzles?


----------



## The Bloody Talon (Dec 13, 2011)

will it also change the past records?


----------



## Cheese11 (Dec 13, 2011)

Mmm, no thank you. I would get really mad. 

What if they made one M slice turn a +2?



The Bloody Talon said:


> will it also change the past records?


 
Good point. Would someone have to go through all the past solves that had +2's and change them?


----------



## Bob (Dec 13, 2011)

Cheese11 said:


> Mmm, no thank you. I would get really mad.
> 
> What if they made one M slice turn a +2?
> 
> ...


 No. That's not even possible.


----------



## Specs112 (Dec 13, 2011)

Bob said:


> No. That's not even possible.


 
Then isn't that a reason to keep it as is?


----------



## qqwref (Dec 13, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> clock already doesn't have +2. if it works there, albeit frustrating when you DNF, why couldn't it work for all puzzles?


I read that as "We already do this and it's frustrating, so why not do it for everything?" I know that's not what you meant, but that's what I think: not allowing +2 is frustrating and just makes it all that much easier to mess up. I feel like a DNF is a huge penalty because two of them in an average means you get pushed to the bottom of the ranking, kicking you out of any future rounds and preventing you from placing anywhere near the top. It is not always possible to prevent misalignments, except by waiting after the solve and putting the cube down carefully, and that isn't something the fastest people should have to do. So basically if you get an early DNF then it's just luck whether you can get an average or not. I don't like that.


Also, there's the intuitive fairness argument. If you get a misalignment that isn't your fault, and are given a +2, that's acceptable: the judge says "you take a 2 second penalty because the cube is misaligned" and you go "eh, alright, I'll be more careful next time." So that's a fair penalty, because luck (or being super careful about putting the cube down) can affect a solve by more than 2 seconds by itself. But if you get a DNF, then it's more like this: the judge says "looks like it's above 45 degrees off, so the cube isn't solved, DNF" and you go "seriously? it wasn't my fault!" and then the judge replies "sorry, those are the rules." It ends up feeling way more unfair and frustrating.


EDIT: My approach in different terms: Suppose you have an unruly child and they break a $30 item while you aren't watching them. The +2 penalty is like the shopkeeper asking you to pay them $50 to compensate for the item and to make you be more careful in the future; that is a relatively reasonable request. The DNF penalty is like the shopkeeper breaking your leg.


----------



## Dene (Dec 13, 2011)

Uh, how is it not your fault that there was a +2? Take the extra time to place the puzzle down carefully or face the consequences.


----------



## Kian (Dec 13, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> clock already doesn't have +2. if it works there, albeit frustrating when you DNF, why couldn't it work for all puzzles?


 
I think the opposite is the solution, though. I believe clock should have a +2. I think the current penalty is severe enough to be useful but not so severe as to be ridiculous and capricious.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 13, 2011)

ben1996123 said:


> no.
> 
> Too many of these threads. Also, if it has been discussed before, and never removed, it's not going to be removed.


 
Really? The more the merrier. Our regulations are getting improved. So the community is more involved in the decisions than usual. Why are you against that?
And women weren't allowed to vote. If you had been around at the time would you have said "Also, if it has been discussed before, and never removed, it's not going to be removed." ?


----------



## Bob (Dec 13, 2011)

Kian said:


> I think the opposite is the solution, though. I believe clock should have a +2. I think the current penalty is severe enough to be useful but not so severe as to be ridiculous and capricious.


 
But then what constitutes a +2 on clock? To keep within the spirit of other puzzles, a +2 would probably be just 1 move away from solved. But, if all clocks are at 12 except one at 11 (or the time of your choice), that's more than 1 move from solved. If all clocks are at 6, that's more than 1 move from solved. Honestly, if we implemented a +2 on clock, most of the DNFs would still be DNFs unless the +2 was stupidly generous.


----------



## Kian (Dec 13, 2011)

Bob said:


> But then what constitutes a +2 on clock? To keep within the spirit of other puzzles, a +2 would probably be just 1 move away from solved. But, if all clocks are at 12 except one at 11 (or the time of your choice), that's more than 1 move from solved. If all clocks are at 6, that's more than 1 move from solved. Honestly, if we implemented a +2 on clock, most of the DNFs would still be DNFs unless the +2 was stupidly generous.


 
I was thinking like if all the clocks were at 11 or 1. Not if one clock was wrong.


----------



## Bob (Dec 13, 2011)

Kian said:


> I was thinking like if all the clocks were at 11 or 1. Not if one clock was wrong.


 
I think most DNFs are a result of an err on the back of the puzzle. I agree it might help a little, but I'm not sure how much.


----------



## liljthedude (Dec 13, 2011)

Your puzzle is either solved, or not solved. Black or white, there is no grey area. Remove the +2 penalty altogether.


----------



## Kian (Dec 13, 2011)

liljthedude said:


> Your puzzle is either solved, or not solved. Black or white, there is no grey area. Remove the +2 penalty altogether.


 
There is still gray area. Are you against the 45 degree rule?


----------



## liljthedude (Dec 13, 2011)

Kian said:


> There is still gray area. Are you against the 45 degree rule?


No. If the side is less than 45 degrees from the solve state then yes it is solved. But anything large than 45 is not solved.


----------



## Kian (Dec 13, 2011)

liljthedude said:


> No. If the side is less than 45 degrees from the solve state then yes it is solved. But anything large than 45 is not solved.


 
Well that's just an arbitrary number, just like the 1 move rule. I'm trying to point out how it's not any different.


----------



## The Bloody Talon (Dec 13, 2011)

Cheese11 said:


> Good point. Would someone have to go through all the past solves that had +2's and change them?



and history of world records will be changed.
and I don't think it is good idea to make the past records not affected by this possible changes.

but other than this issues, I agree with removing the penalties.


----------



## TimMc (Dec 13, 2011)

I'm in favour for replacing it. I've always walked away feeling guilty that I've received a +2 penalty when I know in my heart that it's not truly solved.

I don't think there'd be any advantages in terms of saving time during judging. A competitor would be more likely to get into a heated dispute over a DNF than a +2 penalty.

Is +2 seconds enough incentive to get competitors to complete the solver properly?

Would including +2 penalties in the database for everyone to see, discouraging competitors from being lazy/hasty with finishing their solve? Is this how people view DNF's against their name?

Tim.


----------



## Laura O (Dec 13, 2011)

Bob said:


> I think most DNFs are a result of an err on the back of the puzzle.


 
That's true for slower clock solvers I assume. Approximately 95% of my DNFs are those cases where I hurried to do the last move and the clocks are at 11 or 1.

Nevertheless when doing the Pochmann method or variations the last step solves all the clocks on the current side and the corner clocks on the back side. So the +2-rule would not be "all clocks are at 11 or 1" but "all clocks on one side and all corner clocks on the other side are on 11 or 1". This would make it quite hard to judge for a lot of people and would lead to further discoussions.


----------



## Erik (Dec 13, 2011)

Like all years I'm strongly against it.

I hope next year people will give up on pushing this through...


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 13, 2011)

Muesli said:


> Roux user = Moar slices = Moar DNF for misaligns. Probably wouldn't affect you all that much.


 
I get more +2 than DNF.


----------



## mrCage (Dec 13, 2011)

Erik said:


> Like all years I'm strongly against it.
> 
> I hope next year people will give up on pushing this through...



I second that. Especially because it is also impossible to change the old results currently in the WCA database.

On a second note let us start to record all those +2 into the database, together with the original result.

We should always record raw data and what we have done to it

Per


----------



## Zane_C (Dec 13, 2011)

I don't see this as being anything major, but with the current +2 penalty there is the possibility of someone deliberately using it to their advantage. 
For instance, if someone is a really slow turner or has a terrible cube, the +2 penalty could be less than the time to make that final turn. 

To be realistic though, feet is the only event where I can see this regulation being abused often. (On a side note; I remember talking to someone at worlds who said if he participated in feet, he would +2 every solve. ) However, if someone is slow enough to deliberately +2 to gain an advantage, I don't see why many people will care.

Even though the above argument supports the abolishment of the +2 penalty. I am in favour of the +2 penalty remaining. 
Anyone who can manage to get a puzzle 1 move away from being solved clearly knows what they're doing. A slight finger slip shouldn't prevent someone from getting recognition of their attempt.


----------



## Dene (Dec 13, 2011)

I didn't actually do it, although one time I did a feet solve I should have as it took me at least 10 seconds to do the last turn. But yes, the problem definitely can occur in feet solving. Nowadays it might not be as valuable to take the +2 instead of doing the last turn for the fastest people, but I'm not too sure.


----------



## Escher (Dec 13, 2011)

The fact that I have had many occasions over my past few competitions where new judges have assigned +2s without properly (actually) assessing the puzzle makes me feel that they would do exactly the same for DNFs. 

I like qqwref's intuitive fairness argument. I also think that removing it would change the meta negatively, for the sake of what gain exactly? That puzzles are unambiguously solved as opposed to solvable by a shrimp? 

Edit: That shrimp actually does two moves so maybe we should consider changing the rule to be even more flexible.


----------



## liljthedude (Dec 13, 2011)

Kian said:


> Well that's just an arbitrary number, just like the 1 move rule. I'm trying to point out how it's not any different.


 But it is different, being less than 45 degrees still allows it to be solved. It's not an arbitrary number. Because it's a square, 90 degrees is a quarter turn, 45 is half of that. The puzzle being define as solved with less than 45 degrees of misalignment is perfectly reasonable. 
We all have a cushion of 44 degrees each way to align the layer for it to be counted as solved.


----------



## keyan (Dec 13, 2011)

Over the years, every argument I've seen for keeping this silly tradition boil down to "I'm afraid". 

The suggestion of 'bad luck' is absurd. I don't think I've ever seen a cube solved, that ended unsolved after being dropped onto the stackmat. I would like to know if anyone can find a competition video showing a cube doing this. If we're trying to eliminate such 'bad luck', what about a cube that pops when it's dropped? Should that be considered solved? What if I drop my cube half way through solving? Same bad luck, right? 

What about the example given by Zane, I believe, where in a blind solve, a missed setup during the solve left him one turn off when finished? By chance, at the point where he was in the solve a missed turn left him just unlucky enough to get a +2 'buffer', but any other random point in the solve would have him off by three pieces, too unlucky. Chance is determining how much bad luck is the right amount that we want to coddle? 

Those worried about removing the +2, I think your fear is biasing your recollection. I'm curious to know how many +2s you and others actually have. Given that currently, by your reasoning, competitors aren't in such a grave danger of DNFing out of averages, and aren't 'forced' to slow down, while if we were to change +2 to DNF there would suddenly be so many people not getting averages, there should be a large amount of +2s happening currently. I don't think there actually are that many. Here we keep track of the type of penalty on our scorecards, solve start solve finish or solved state. Of the hundreds of solves we had last weekend, I wonder how many were because of this 'bad luck'. I'll check when I have time. Not nearly as many as some people here are suggesting should be the case, I bet. 

One turn that I fail to do at the end of the solve? Bad luck, we'll cover you for it. One turn that I fail to do in the middle of the solve? Why is that different? Why is a lazy last turn more acceptable than a lazy first turn? Why can't I call a mulligan for a screwed up cross? 

The +2 also causes too many weird situations. Already mentioned was clock. What about a FMC solve off by one last turn? Or a missing prime on the final turn? And in multiBLD, how is it that 20 cubes solved, each off by one turn, is better than 21 cubes with 20 solved and one off by two moves? Or the weird ruling of 3/3 in 29:59 with a +2 becoming 2/3. 

And for all that I find feetsolving disgusting, when non-cubers watch us, the two primary comments are "why does he get to look at it before he starts" and "hey that one wasn't finished". While eliminating inspection would actually significantly change the way we do things, removing this silly relic won't, and allows us to be more professional. The cube is either solved or it isn't. No "solved", "not solved" and "almost, whatever, close enough is good enough". 

And finally, I hope someone can think of a better analogy for this situation, (or perhaps we just stop with the dumb comparisons and actually discuss what's at hand), as some people are using some pretty ridiculous ones. Me not completing my solve because I was sloppy is nothing at all like me breaking someone else's property. 

</sleep deprived stream of conciousness>


----------



## aronpm (Dec 13, 2011)

liljthedude said:


> But it is different, being less than 45 degrees still allows it to be solved. It's not an arbitrary number. Because it's a square, 90 degrees is a quarter turn, 45 is half of that. The puzzle being define as solved with less than 45 degrees of misalignment is perfectly reasonable.
> We all have a cushion of 44 degrees each way to align the layer for it to be counted as solved.


 
Isn't 1/2 an arbitrary number? What about 1/3 - 30 degrees?


----------



## keyan (Dec 13, 2011)

aronpm said:


> Isn't 1/2 an arbitrary number? What about 1/3 - 30 degrees?


 
An arbitrary number separating two classes, solved and not solved. Rather than an arbitrary number separating solved, not solved, and "I didn't actually do what I was expected to do, but I feel entitled anyway". 

And 45 degrees is very reasonable. Take a cube misaligned by 44 degrees and press it against a flat surface. it ends up solved. Do the same with a cube misaligned 46 degrees, and it'll end up obviously unsolved. A very reasonable choice for what is obviously an arbitrary number.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 13, 2011)

keyan said:


> Those worried about removing the +2, I think your fear is biasing your recollection. I'm curious to know how many +2s you and others actually have.


 
It happens a lot more in 2x2x2 where AUF is usually recognised before CLL is executed. There is no AUF recog, which leads to more +2. (I know this happens for me at least)


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 13, 2011)

keyan said:


> The suggestion of 'bad luck' is absurd. I don't think I've ever seen a cube solved, that ended unsolved after being dropped onto the stackmat. I would like to know if anyone can find a competition video showing a cube doing this.


 
From Nationals 2008: http://archive.garron.us/vid/2008/4_02_plus.mov
If you scrobble around, you can see that I drop the cube perfectly aligned, and end up with a very clear +2.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Dec 13, 2011)

I think this should be enforced for BLD...but otherwise no.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 13, 2011)

Escher said:


> The fact that I have had many occasions over my past few competitions where new judges have assigned +2s without properly (actually) assessing the puzzle makes me feel that they would do exactly the same for DNFs.



Right, especially when it's very close to 45 degrees it's hard to decide. Might even look different from different angles, as not all layers are perfectly square and not all stickers are perfectly centered. Last competition I got a +2 for such a case where I disagreed, but I accepted it without much arguing. Essentially I found it reasonable to get a little penalty for being so far off that it's difficult to decide, even though I thought it was solved. I wouldn't find it reasonable to get a DNF for what I think is solved.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 13, 2011)

keyan said:


> The suggestion of 'bad luck' is absurd. I don't think I've ever seen a cube solved, that ended unsolved after being dropped onto the stackmat. I would like to know if anyone can find a competition video showing a cube doing this. If we're trying to eliminate such 'bad luck', what about a cube that pops when it's dropped?


 
Two videos come to mind: Rowe Hessler 2x2 solve where when he drops the cube and stops the timer, his 2x2 misaligned (he had an eastsheen I believe). It's been awhile since I've seen this video, I'll go looking for it, but I'm requesting the help from other cubers. I really hope that I'm remembering this clearly, and not that since it was an eastsheen he just overturned or something.

Sarah Strong drops the cube (I believe this was an official solve) and one edge piece in the U layer pops out, causing a DNF.


----------



## teller (Dec 13, 2011)

+2 is murder and can ruin an average. This does not need to be even more draconian by kicking the cuber when he or she is down with a DNF to the stomach.

If it takes you longer than +2 to turn a side, as in feet, I don't think you'll be breaking any records today and I won't lose any sleep over the fact that you might have gamed the system.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 13, 2011)

keyan said:


> The suggestion of 'bad luck' is absurd. I don't think I've ever seen a cube solved, that ended unsolved after being dropped onto the stackmat.


I don't think I've ever seen someone have a heart attack. The suggestion that this happens is absurd.



keyan said:


> If we're trying to eliminate such 'bad luck',


Ridiculous. Nobody's trying to "eliminate" bad luck. People are just saying that, since bad luck does happen, we should avoid penalizing it harshly if possible. Properly analyzing cases such as "cube is solved, but pops when it hits the table" or "cube is solved, but falls off table and many caps come off" is not possible with the current style of judging, but if it was, I'd suggest they get lenient penalties too.



aronpm said:


> Isn't 1/2 an arbitrary number? What about 1/3 - 30 degrees?


Actually, I don't see it as "take 1/2 of 90 degrees", but rather as "round the current cube position to the nearest unmisaligned position". If the rounded position is solved then there are no penalties. Looking at it this way removes the number entirely, and the only arbitrary thing is what we do at exactly 45 degrees.



fatboyxpc said:


> Two videos come to mind: Rowe Hessler 2x2 solve where when he drops the cube and stops the timer, his 2x2 misaligned (he had an eastsheen I believe).


This has happened several times to me, too, before better cubes were available. I think at one Nationals round it happened three times (unfortunately, I couldn't find a better cube in time to replace the one I was using). To anyone who still thinks DNFing a misalignment is reasonable: the fact that the cube even drops and hits the mat is an artifact of the way we have chosen to time things; the best possible solution IMO would be that the cube's state *when the timer is stopped* is the only state that matters, but since we can't do this right now, we have to have the +2 rule to prevent against unfair DNF situations like this.


----------



## Micael (Dec 13, 2011)

As pointed out by Stefan, the boundary between solved and unsolved is not cristal clear. I think that judging would be less fun if DNF is to be enforced. In a not very clear situation, competitor may argue more if he/she faces a DNF instead of a +2.

For feet, maybe the penalty can be higher?


----------



## liljthedude (Dec 14, 2011)

Oh and I correct myself, in the regulations in Article 10, 10f, it says =<45 counts as a solved state. So my statement about it having to be 44 degrees would actually be having to be 45 degrees according to the regulations. 


aronpm said:


> Isn't 1/2 an arbitrary number? What about 1/3 - 30 degrees?


1/2 is not an arbitrary number. 45 degrees is already the standard that's used to determine +2s. A fair one at that. Furthermore, when dividing a square into four parts (how many positions a layer can turn) the central angle is 90 therefore 30 degrees is disregarded. Take this picture for example.





Here we see 2 dots, a green dot and a red dot. Now if I were to ask you what quadrant the green dot is in you would say the 2nd quadrant. If I were to ask you what quadrant the red dot is in it'd be more difficult, as the red dot is exactly on the dividing line. Would you say it's in both quadrant 1 and 4? Would you say it's not in any of the quadrants? Translate this over to misalignments on the cube, (the dot representing the center of the UF edge) the red dot would be counted as solved. By eliminating the +2 penalty and replacing it with a DNF, the already established rule of defining a +2 would still stand. 
One cannot truly know in the picture which quadrant the dot is suppose to be in, but after a solve on a cube it is clear. Giving the cuber the benefit of the doubt that the 45 degree misalignment is solved is ridiculous. Anything below 45 degrees should be counted as solved. Which would be =<44 degrees.


keyan said:


> And 45 degrees is very reasonable. Take a cube misaligned by 44 degrees and press it against a flat surface. it ends up solved. Do the same with a cube misaligned 46 degrees, and it'll end up obviously unsolved. A very reasonable choice for what is obviously an arbitrary number.


Perfect example of the rule. In a perfect world, if the cube was pushed up against a table and it was misaligned by 45 degrees the layer would not turn either way. =<44 would be the fairest rule.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 14, 2011)

45 degrees good for a cube because it's the boundary at which a cube is closer to solved than to an unsolved position. If we want to allow exactly 45 degrees, we could phrase this guideline as "the puzzle must not be closer to an unsolved state than to a solved state". This helps justify the angles for most other twisty puzzles.


----------



## Dene (Dec 14, 2011)

To everyone that is saying "a layer turned when my cube hit the stackmat, which is just bad luck", I respond: It's your own fault for using a cube that is loose enough to turn by itself! I would never be a victim of such bad luck because I don't use obscenely loose cubes (except for my square-1, for which I accept the risk of my layers turning accidentally). It's your own fault, not the fault of the stackmat or the judge or just plain bad luck. Accept the fact that you are in the wrong and take the DNF like a man.



Stefan said:


> Right, especially when it's very close to 45 degrees it's hard to decide. Might even look different from different angles, as not all layers are perfectly square and not all stickers are perfectly centered. Last competition I got a +2 for such a case where I disagreed, but I accepted it without much arguing. Essentially I found it reasonable to get a little penalty for being so far off that it's difficult to decide, even though I thought it was solved. I wouldn't find it reasonable to get a DNF for what I think is solved.


 
The main judge or delegate should be called over and their ruling should be final. If you do not wish to properly align the cube before stopping the timer it's the risk you run. If the delegate decides it is a DNF then it is once again your own fault.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 14, 2011)

Dene said:


> It's your own fault, not the fault of the stackmat or the judge or just plain bad luck.



It's partly the fault of the flawed *procedure* that forces me to put down the puzzle in the first place.



Dene said:


> If the delegate decides it is a DNF then it is once again your own fault.


 
A delegate can be wrong.


----------



## Dene (Dec 14, 2011)

Stefan said:


> It's partly the fault of the flawed *procedure* that forces me to put down the puzzle in the first place.



Ok but we have limits. Everyone knows that putting down the cube before stopping the timer is part of speedcubing, it's your choice if you wish to just drop it and skip the placing procedure, therefore you run the risks involved. The WCA should not have to account for your risk-taking.



Stefan said:


> A delegate can be wrong.


 
So bring a protractor. It's still your fault for running the risk. Again, the WCA should not have to account for your risk-taking.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 14, 2011)

liljthedude said:


> 1/2 is not an arbitrary number. 45 degrees is already the standard that's used to determine +2s.


Just because something has always been the standard doesn't mean it isn't arbitrary or is correct.


> A fair one at that.


If you consider it fair, then why are you advocating that the +2 rule be removed? Are you maliciously trying to impart an unfair change onto the speedcubing community?


> Furthermore, when dividing a square into four parts (how many positions a layer can turn) the central angle is 90 therefore 30 degrees is disregarded.


That doesn't even make sense. On what regard is 30 degrees being disregarded? If you mean 45 because it's half of 90, then you're relying on your first assumption, and then 30 degrees is cool because it's a third of 90. 

Look, I can make a quick diagram too:





Also I think that you think that I am advocating +2 be changes to 30 degrees. I am not. I support the current +2 regulations and I do not think that it should be removed or changed.


----------



## liljthedude (Dec 14, 2011)

aronpm said:


> If you consider it fair, then why are you advocating that the +2 rule be removed? Are you maliciously trying to impart an unfair change onto the speedcubing community?


I was using the way +2s are defined in the sense that they use the 45 degree rule being fair.


> That doesn't even make sense. On what regard is 30 degrees being disregarded? If you mean 45 because it's half of 90, then you're relying on your first assumption, and then 30 degrees is cool because it's a third of 90.


I never understood why you suggested a 30 degree rule. I realize now it 90 degrees divided by how many pieces in the row. I think that 30 is still too low. 



> Are you maliciously trying to impart an unfair change onto the speedcubing community?


No I'm just giving my opinion on the topic at hand. You act as if I have the power to change it. I think it's fair. Especially in a competition setting.


> Also I think that you think that I am advocating +2 be changes to 30 degrees. I am not. I support the current +2 regulations and I do not think that it should be removed or changed.


I understand this. I thought you were just throwing out an arbitrary number.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 14, 2011)

Dene said:


> Everyone knows that putting down the cube before stopping the timer is part of speedcubing,


Nope, that isn't a part of speedcubing at all. When I solve in practice I don't drop the cube every solve, or even put it down; I know my time is accurate because I make sure to finish my turns before I stop the timer (and if I don't, I apply a +2 or DNF). And even if I did drop the cube, it wouldn't be onto a stackmat, since I cube on my computer. So it would not be unreasonable for me to come to a competition with no idea that my cube had this issue. As I've said before, a DNF is far too harsh for such a trivial problem.



Dene said:


> It's your own fault for using a cube that is loose enough to turn by itself! I would never be a victim of such bad luck because I don't use obscenely loose cubes


It seems less and less likely that you are campaigning for a ruling that you think is reasonable, as opposed to a ruling that you think is in your personal best interest. The whole point of discussions like this is to determine what is best for the community, and if you honestly don't care about that, I recommend not continuing to post. Anyway, to illustrate why this is flawed to everyone else reading this: many people with loose cubes do not have another, less loose cube that they can get decent times on. It's easy to say "pah, I would never use such a loose cube!" when you have the choice not to. But this is not the kind of regulation where we can use a one-size-fits-all approach.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 14, 2011)

Dene said:


> So bring a protractor.



Wouldn't eliminate the problem.



Dene said:


> the WCA should not have to account for your risk-taking.


 
It accounts for ambiguities inherent in the cube and error on part of the judge/delegate.


----------



## Dene (Dec 14, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Nope, that isn't a part of speedcubing at all. When I solve in practice I don't drop the cube every solve, or even put it down; I know my time is accurate because I make sure to finish my turns before I stop the timer (and if I don't, I apply a +2 or DNF). And even if I did drop the cube, it wouldn't be onto a stackmat, since I cube on my computer. So it would not be unreasonable for me to come to a competition with no idea that my cube had this issue. As I've said before, a DNF is far too harsh for such a trivial problem.



Sorry, I meant official speedcubing at WCA competitions (how was this not clear?). If you are not aware of the official procedures that is your own problem - ignorance is not an excuse.



qqwref said:


> It seems less and less likely that you are campaigning for a ruling that you think is reasonable, as opposed to a ruling that you think is in your personal best interest. The whole point of discussions like this is to determine what is best for the community, and if you honestly don't care about that, I recommend not continuing to post. Anyway, to illustrate why this is flawed to everyone else reading this: many people with loose cubes do not have another, less loose cube that they can get decent times on. It's easy to say "pah, I would never use such a loose cube!" when you have the choice not to. But this is not the kind of regulation where we can use a one-size-fits-all approach.


 
No, I am campaigning for what I, as a delegate and co-organiser, think is the best solution to all the problems I have to deal with in my experience at competitions. So many people say "oh I should get a resolve" or "it wasn't my fault" etc. etc. and my defense of the regulations that I enforce is always "it's your responsibility, and your own fault". This has nothing to do with benefiting myself in terms of my times, which are clearly slow and never going to be worth worrying about.

As for the cube, again that is the competitors responsibility. If their cube is crappy and loose and there is nothing they can do to fix it they should purchase a new cube or else face the consequences that they have to place the cube down more carefully before stopping the timer. 



Stefan said:


> It accounts for ambiguities inherent in the cube and error on part of the judge/delegate.


 
Yup, by having a standard, not by giving you a cushion of error for your own risk-taking / puzzle limitations.



To Stefan and qqwref and anyone else defending the +2: give me one good reason why it shouldn't be the responsibility of the competitor. It is very easy to properly align all of the faces of the cube and place it down before stopping the timer in a still reasonable speed. There is no excuse, and the WCA should not have to account for it.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 14, 2011)

Dene: From the mindset where +2 is available (as it currently is and has been in my recent incidence I mentioned), I'd find DNF unreasonable for a case where I think the puzzle is solved. However, truly imagining a mindset where I know in advance that there's no +2 waiting but only a DNF, I guess I'd apply the same reasoning as for the +2 before - that it's reasonable to get punished for being so far off that it's difficult to decide.

You should have read my mind and pointed out this mindset-thing earlier, so I could have agreed sooner than now.


----------



## Dene (Dec 14, 2011)

To be honest I think you've only confused me now >.< 

What exactly are you saying? XD


----------



## Specs112 (Dec 14, 2011)

Dene said:


> To be honest I think you've only confused me now >.<
> 
> What exactly are you saying? XD


 
He's saying that if it were the case that +2 didn't exist, then we'd probably agree that DNFing is reasonable for a borderline case, just because that would be the cubing mindset ingrained in us from the rules.

I interpret that as "both are valid ways to do it, but people don't like to change things."


----------



## keyan (Dec 14, 2011)

Lucas Garron said:


> From Nationals 2008: http://archive.garron.us/vid/2008/4_02_plus.mov
> If you scrobble around, you can see that I drop the cube perfectly aligned, and end up with a very clear +2.



Cool, there's one. Is this the only time in your personal cubing history? So would you say it's a rare event? Or, as some are describing, a terrible menace that will ruin averages left and right if this were ruled unsolved? 



Stefan said:


> Right, especially when it's very close to 45 degrees it's hard to decide. Might even look different from different angles, as not all layers are perfectly square and not all stickers are perfectly centered. Last competition I got a +2 for such a case where I disagreed, but I accepted it without much arguing. Essentially I found it reasonable to get a little penalty for being so far off that it's difficult to decide, even though I thought it was solved. I wouldn't find it reasonable to get a DNF for what I think is solved.



My ruling is always, if it's unclear, defer to solved. 



fatboyxpc said:


> Two videos come to mind: Rowe Hessler 2x2 solve where when he drops the cube and stops the timer, his 2x2 misaligned (he had an eastsheen I believe). It's been awhile since I've seen this video, I'll go looking for it, but I'm requesting the help from other cubers. I really hope that I'm remembering this clearly, and not that since it was an eastsheen he just overturned or something.
> 
> Sarah Strong drops the cube (I believe this was an official solve) and one edge piece in the U layer pops out, causing a DNF.



Cool, two more. So, that makes three. Out of the hundreds of thousands of solves in competitions. Doesn't seem to be nearly as common as people are suggesting. 



teller said:


> +2 is murder and can ruin an average. This does not need to be even more draconian by kicking the cuber when he or she is down with a DNF to the stomach.



So again it's an emotional argument? "A +2 and a DNF would both influence the average, but a DNF hurts my feelings." 



qqwref said:


> I don't think I've ever seen someone have a heart attack. The suggestion that this happens is absurd.
> 
> Ridiculous. Nobody's trying to "eliminate" bad luck. People are just saying that, since bad luck does happen, we should avoid penalizing it harshly if possible. Properly analyzing cases such as "cube is solved, but pops when it hits the table" or "cube is solved, but falls off table and many caps come off" is not possible with the current style of judging, but if it was, I'd suggest they get lenient penalties too.
> 
> This has happened several times to me, too, before better cubes were available. I think at one Nationals round it happened three times (unfortunately, I couldn't find a better cube in time to replace the one I was using). To anyone who still thinks DNFing a misalignment is reasonable: the fact that the cube even drops and hits the mat is an artifact of the way we have chosen to time things; the best possible solution IMO would be that the cube's state *when the timer is stopped* is the only state that matters, but since we can't do this right now, we have to have the +2 rule to prevent against unfair DNF situations like this.


 
Never claimed that heart attacks don't happen. Rather that, since I don't see people dropping dead in the street every day, the people here saying they're a constant threat are being pretty dishonest. 

I actually am unsure about how to deal with bad luck. Honest bad luck, like in Lucas's case. However, the majority of cases have nothing to do with luck. A competitor who chooses to not do the final turn of a solve can't blame luck. You didn't finish your solve, why should you get pampered? 

The cube dropping is not caused by competitions, it's caused by your solving style. It's very easy to simply release the puzzle closer to the table. A competitor who smashes the stackmat hard enough to knock the battery loose, or who hits the reset button when stopping, are similarly the fault of a competitor who in a rush chose to be sloppy. 

And this multi-quote thing is weird, was supposed to have Thom up at the top there. In response to his post about 2x2 CLL: One might say that that is a risk you're choosing to take, knowing you might not actually solve the puzzle. Or one might say that I have less experience with high level 2x2 solving, and was only thinking of 3x3 when I posted.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 14, 2011)

Specs112 said:


> He's saying that if it were the case that +2 didn't exist, then we'd probably agree that DNFing is reasonable for a borderline case, just because that would be the cubing mindset ingrained in us from the rules.



Pretty much that, yes. It just took me a while (and Dene repeating his point a few times) to realize I wasn't actually imagining that mindset.

Now I'm undecided, ok with both having and not having +2. Though I feel in favor of not changing it (because I favor neither by itself, and then rule consistency wins).



keyan said:


> My ruling is always, if it's unclear, defer to solved.


 
What if you think it's clear enough to rule DNF but the competitor disagrees?


----------



## Dene (Dec 14, 2011)

Ok but I have provided several reasons, mainly the fact that the competitor should be responsible for their actions, to change it to a DNF.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 14, 2011)

keyan said:


> Cool, two more. So, that makes three. Out of the hundreds of thousands of solves in competitions. Doesn't seem to be nearly as common as people are suggesting.


 
You missed the 3 that qqwref just mentioned in a Nationals competition. These are 6 that have been mentioned just since you said something about it. How many could have possibly happened that haven't been mentioned on the forums? This forum have a small percentage of active posters compared to registered competitors in the WCA database. You can't possibly account for all +2's, much less know if a +2 was a result of "bad luck" or not.

That also doesn't account for your minimizing of the situation. First you have "never seen it happen" but now that we point out 6 (not just 3) of these instances all of a sudden it's "so rare it's insignificant." The fact is: it happens (and more often than you think).

Can you honestly tell me you've never once overshot an AUF? Maybe not in competition, but if you told me never, I'm not sure I'd believe you.




Dene said:


> Ok but I have provided several reasons, mainly the fact that the competitor should be responsible for their actions, to change it to a DNF.


 
As right as you are on this, I suppose I'd just like to think we all can have a little bit of accountability for error. Just like I asked keyan, I'm sure you've overshot an AUF at least once. I understand that you might show more responsibility in these situations, but I honestly think that completely DNFing such results might impede such WR's like Feliks 5.66. I think if we forced a change in cubing style that it might cause a small bit of hesitance to all solves just to ensure you don't DNF your average.


----------



## gogozerg (Dec 14, 2011)

When I heard about rules at Toronto World Championship, I remember I was disappointed with 3 bad ones (in my opinion), especially because I was thinking that kind of rules are hard to change when people have become accustomed:

- Extra solve for a POP.
- Curious angles for judging misalignments.
- +2 penalty for a clear (HTM) misalignment. The most difficult to kill.


Some points:
- A cube is solved, or it is not.
- It's not a question a luck. Cubers can learn and perform optimally hundreds of move sequences. We can ask them to do their last move correctly! (You take a risk during the solve and pop a piece, you loose 5 seconds...)
- Competitors are responsible for what happens to their puzzle when they drop it too fast. Starting/stopping the timer, grabbing/dropping the cube is part of the procedure, part of the measured time. But I agree it would be nice to have a timer embedded in the cube, triggered by the first move, stopping when the solved state is reached, just like when you cross the finish line.
- Easier to judge.
- No more people asking for +2 for a misaligned inner slice.
- Problems especially obvious for BLD last moves.
- And more...

I know this rule is not going to change.
I personnally don't care much. It's just that it's weird and I like the beauty of simple rules.


----------



## keyan (Dec 14, 2011)

Stefan said:


> What if you think it's clear enough to rule DNF but the competitor disagrees?



Recently one where I'm looking at one side and call a +2. Competitor is looking at another side and says it shouldn't be. Look at all four sides, checking that we agree on the angle. Two over two under, give the competitor the benefit of the doubt. Had it somehow been, for example, three over one under, I would explain to the competitor what I'm seeing on each side, and ask where they disagree. Ought to be able to clear it up. If someone is so desperate that they're going to start arguing over something clear enough to call, well, maybe they need to grow up. 



fatboyxpc said:


> You missed the 3 that qqwref just mentioned in a Nationals competition. These are 6 that have been mentioned just since you said something about it. How many could have possibly happened that haven't been mentioned on the forums? This forum have a small percentage of active posters compared to registered competitors in the WCA database. You can't possibly account for all +2's, much less know if a +2 was a result of "bad luck" or not.
> 
> That also doesn't account for your minimizing of the situation. First you have "never seen it happen" but now that we point out 6 (not just 3) of these instances all of a sudden it's "so rare it's insignificant." The fact is: it happens (and more often than you think).
> 
> ...



I said that in all my competition experience, I've never seen a 'bad luck' +2, suggesting they're very rare. You're suggesting that I claimed it's never happened. Please don't do that. 

And I'll give you four. The other two, if you know the cube is going to do that, can you really call it bad luck? More like can't be bothered to find a better cube. 

I have mis-turned on many occasions, of course. And, regardless of whether it was in the middle of a solve or at the end, unless I fixed it, it means I didn't solve the cube correctly. 

Given what you said about him, I'm curious if anyone can tell me how many +2s Feliks has in competition. Because with the rules as they currently are, he's not worried about "bad luck" and gets lots +2s because he isn't afraid of getting "punished". Or something like that? 



gogozerg said:


> I know this rule is not going to change.


 
Well, certainly not with that attitude! Sure wish you hadn't withdrawn from the board. 

To review: 
Overall, +2s are uncommon, and when they do happen, the competitor is at fault. The vast majority of +2s are the fault of the competitor choosing to haphazardly end their solve. This shouldn't be pampered. A small minority of +2s are a result of 'bad luck' where the cube turns after being dropped. This is the fault of a cubing style that allows this to happen, and is easy to fix. Eliminating this rule would eliminate several weird problems that it causes. It also is cleaner, in that we only have "solved" and "not solved", without a silly "not solved but a gold star sticker for effort" in between, which simplifies judging.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 14, 2011)

keyan said:


> I said that in all my competition experience, I've never seen a 'bad luck' +2, suggesting they're very rare. You're suggesting that I claimed it's never happened. Please don't do that.
> 
> And I'll give you four. The other two, if you know the cube is going to do that, can you really call it bad luck? More like can't be bothered to find a better cube.
> 
> ...


 
My point is that you were minimizing the amount it has happened. You also don't even know for sure this hasn't happened at any of your competitions, especially the larger ones. Thus your statement about never seeing it might be true, but that does not mean it doesn't happen. That's the point I was making. 

I don't know how many +2 penalties he has received, however, how many solves do you think he'd slow down on and make sure it's solved properly if he knew he'd get a DNF instead of +2? Keeping that in mind, do you think we would see WR's such as 5.66?


----------



## keyan (Dec 14, 2011)

I wasn't minimizing anything. I said I don't recall having seen it happen and that I thus think it's a rare event. Assuming your definition of rare isn't particularly unique, I don't think you can disagree. 

I am fully confident that if there hadn't been this rule to begin with, cubing would have progressed just as it has now. I'm confident that if this rule is removed, cubing will progress just as well in the future. 

Reading back my earlier post, I see my phrasing was pretty poor. My fault for sleep deprived posting. If I may clarify: 
The suggestion (that this is caused by) 'bad luck' is absurd. (end of point 1) (beginning of point 2) I don't think I've ever seen a cube solved, that ended unsolved after being dropped onto the stackmat (and thus suppose that this is a very rare situation).
Does that do it for you? 

Again reading back, one of the "bad luck" solves you mentioned was actually a pop. Are you saying that a cube that is solved, dropped and popped should be considered solved? Or rather "almost solved so why not, we'll just say it was"?


----------



## tim (Dec 14, 2011)

keyan said:


> To review:
> Overall, +2s are uncommon, and when they do happen, the competitor is at fault. The vast majority of +2s are the fault of the competitor choosing to haphazardly end their solve. This shouldn't be pampered. A small minority of +2s are a result of 'bad luck' where the cube turns after being dropped.



I second that.



keyan said:


> This is the fault of a cubing style that allows this to happen, and is easy to fix.



For example by putting the cube down instead of dropping it, but you lose about 0.1 to 0.2 seconds doing that as Lars has shown in his (scientific) video a while ago:





So if we remove the +2 penalty this might've an impact on people's times.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 14, 2011)

keyan said:


> I wasn't minimizing anything. I said I don't recall having seen it happen and that I thus think it's a rare event. Assuming your definition of rare isn't particularly unique, I don't think you can disagree.
> 
> I am fully confident that if there hadn't been this rule to begin with, cubing would have progressed just as it has now. I'm confident that if this rule is removed, cubing will progress just as well in the future.
> 
> ...


 
I wouldn't really say it does that for me either Just because you (one person) haven't seen it doesn't mean it's "rare." I haven't seen any 3x3 WR's but I wouldn't call them rare as of recent, either. All I was trying to do by pointing these out is suggest that you might not have seen it and it very well might have happened at a competition you've been to. From my own observations, it seems that the larger the competition gets, the less everybody knows every detail about it. This obviously will be skewed towards the "popular" cubers (Such as Anthony Brooks recently making it KOII comps, he got a fair bit of attention, just like Big Green). However, what if it's some average cuber with say super30 times that not many people watch happens to have such luck?

In regards to bad luck as in popping: I honestly don't think that cube should be DNF'd if it was a single edge piece that popped out at the end of a solve, and you can verify all other edges and corners are flipped in place correctly, and there was not a single pop during the solve. This just brings back to Dene's point though, it's the cuber's fault since they used a cube that was loose enough to do this.


----------



## Dene (Dec 14, 2011)

fatboyxpc said:


> I don't know how many +2 penalties he has received, however, how many solves do you think he'd slow down on and make sure it's solved properly if he knew he'd get a DNF instead of +2? Keeping that in mind, do you think we would see WR's such as 5.66?


 
You cannot seriously be saying that you think people would be more hesitant if the penalty was a DNF rather than a +2 if they were about to get a WR solve. Someone would have to get a solve <3.66 to not have any concern about getting a +2 on top of their solve time if they were going for the WR.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 14, 2011)

Dene said:


> You cannot seriously be saying that you think people would be more hesitant if the penalty was a DNF rather than a +2 if they were about to get a WR solve. Someone would have to get a solve <3.66 to not have any concern about getting a +2 on top of their solve time if they were going for the WR.


 
I'm saying they're going to be more hesitant with every solve in general, which I think could make the difference between the 7.08 and 7.03 WR; the 5.66 depending on the hesitation might not have been sub6 in this case (though doubtful, since it was Feliks. Not even trying to be a fanboy here).


----------



## Escher (Dec 14, 2011)

James makes a perfectly good point. Changing +2 penalty to a DNF negatively affects the meta, for what gain exactly?

In my opinion the rule should not have been enforced in the first place, but right now I don't believe there's any 'need' to change it.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 14, 2011)

Well, I had a feeling it would happen, and I guess it did. I think we've said as much as can be said, and at this point I don't really see anything new being brought up that isn't of the form "how could you possibly believe X, it is obviously ~X". To me, it's just a flamewar between people who think we should be sympathetic when possible towards people who get unlucky, and people who think we should not be, which is obviously not something that has an objective answer, since it depends on your personality.

I think we've seen that the community is divided, with staunch people on both sides, and no really convincing arguments. Honestly, we ought to just keep the regulations as they are until there is some kind of consensus or real argument to change it, and there is definitely not one now. The thread has served its purpose.


----------



## Dene (Dec 14, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Well, I had a feeling it would happen, and I guess it did. I think we've said as much as can be said, and at this point I don't really see anything new being brought up that isn't of the form "how could you possibly believe X, it is obviously ~X". To me, it's just a flamewar between people who think we should be sympathetic when possible towards people who get unlucky, and people who think we should not be, which is obviously not something that has an objective answer, since it depends on your personality.
> 
> I think we've seen that the community is divided, with staunch people on both sides, and no really convincing arguments. Honestly, we ought to just keep the regulations as they are until there is some kind of consensus or real argument to change it, and there is definitely not one now. The thread has served its purpose.


 
Sure that's easy to say when your conclusion supports your position. I have actually provided plenty of reason to change the rule to a DNF, and no one has sufficiently responded to me, or even come close really. The competitor has a task of solving the cube. If they stop the timer and the cube is not solved that is their own fault. We should not reward them for an incomplete solve.

Also I liked the point someone else brought up, that if you miss out one move earlier in the solve it would most likely completely mess the puzzle up by the end, but that person would receive a DNF, even though they messed up the same number of turns as someone who gets a +2. Why should we arbitrarily differentiate between these two possiblities?


----------



## Stefan (Dec 14, 2011)

Dene said:


> Also I liked the point someone else brought up, that if you miss out one move earlier in the solve it would most likely completely mess the puzzle up by the end, but that person would receive a DNF, even though they messed up the same number of turns as someone who gets a +2. Why should we arbitrarily differentiate between these two possiblities?



In that scenario, how can we know it was only one missed move?


----------



## BlueDevil (Dec 14, 2011)

2 seconds is much more time than it would take to fix it, so it is a real penalty. If +2s were DNFs, then it could seriously mess up averages. Like what if a person accidentally stopped the timer at .5 seconds (which is DNF) then forgets one turn on another solve. All of a sudden, their average is DNF. Did they do something so horribly wrong that they deserve to not get an average? No. They just made two small mistakes.


There's my opinion. Just like when reversing a call in football, the officials must have substantial evidence to prove that in no way should the 'call' stay the way it is.


----------



## Dene (Dec 14, 2011)

Stefan said:


> In that scenario, how can we know it was only one missed move?


 
Could be difficult to discern, but what about, say, missing the third to last move on a Y perm. Sticks out like a sore thumb, obvious what the competitor did wrong, but still a DNF.



BlueDevil said:


> 2 seconds is much more time than it would take to fix it, so it is a real penalty. If +2s were DNFs, then it could seriously mess up averages. Like what if a person accidentally stopped the timer at .5 seconds (which is DNF) then forgets one turn on another solve. All of a sudden, their average is DNF. Did they do something so horribly wrong that they deserve to not get an average? No. They just made two small mistakes.



Actually a time of 0.05 will result in a resolve for the competitor. But I won't be picky, I'll just assume you're innocently ignorant, and pretend you said 0.06 which is a DNF. In this case, unless the competitor can show the timer is malfunctioning, it is the competitors fault for not starting the timer correctly, and they deserve a DNF. If they also fail to solve their cube properly then they again deserve a DNF. It is not the WCAs responsibility to compensate for competitors that don't follow the procedures correctly.



BlueDevil said:


> There's my opinion. Just like when reversing a call in football, the officials must have substantial evidence to prove that in no way should the 'call' stay the way it is.


 
Don't see how your analogy fits. If the ball bounces of the post and doesn't cross the line in football you aren't awarded half a goal for a close attempt. Or, another analogy, in a running race you don't get +2 seconds added on for stopping 1 metre short of the finish line.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 15, 2011)

Dene said:


> Actually a time of 0.05 will result in a resolve for the competitor. But I won't be picky, I'll just assume you're innocently ignorant, and pretend you said 0.06 which is a DNF.


 
he said .5, not .05

good job you're not too picky, you'd look like even more of a fool.


----------



## Florian (Dec 15, 2011)

I don't think it should be removed.
A Competition should be still about fun. When I don't come into the second Round because of 2 DNF's i would be quite depressed. 

A +2 Penalty is still very much, it can put up your average by 0.66 and in 2x2 for example thats quite much. I don't think that there a advantage for any cuber if it's added.

And what are we doing with the old time in the database, many averages would change with that rule.


----------



## Dene (Dec 15, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> he said .5, not .05
> 
> good job you're not too picky, you'd look like even more of a fool.


 
Oh dear, BlueDevil I apologise for my error. 

That being said, 0.06 makes for a stronger case than 0.50, as a timer stopped at 0.50 is 99.999999% going to be a competitor error and not a timer malfunction, unless it's a 2x2 solve, in which case it might be the actual time.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Dec 15, 2011)

Is it right (in principle), to either allow, or partially overlook (i.e. +2 for a bad drop) - any substantive changes that are claimed to have occurred to the cube after the timer was stopped?

@Stefan, could you please post some +2 and DNF frequencies derived from the WCA database?


----------



## Dene (Dec 15, 2011)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Is it right (in principle), to either allow, or partially overlook (i.e. +2 for a bad drop) - any substantive changes that are claimed to have occurred to the cube after the timer was stopped?



If the competitor drops the puzzle in a rush to stop the timer, causing the cube to land in such a way as for a piece to pop or a layer to turn, then we have no choice. It is impossible for us to accurately regulate on whether something has happened before or after the timer is stopped unless intensive video evidence was used, which, as discussed in another thread, is not going to happen in speedcubing any time soon. It is unfortunately impossible to obediently abide to principles when we have technological limitations. The best thing we can do is have a clear rule that decides what to do in situations, and to apply that rule consistently and fairly so that everyone is on equal footing.



reThinking the Cube said:


> @Stefan, could you please post some +2 and DNF frequencies derived from the WCA database?


 
+2s are not recorded in the database, or at least not to my knowledge. Also, I'm pretty sure many judges do not know the correct procedure for writing up a +2, and instead don't bother to write it out properly they would just add the 2 seconds in their head and write down the appropriate time straight away. Also, a +2 penalty can be given for reasons other than a misaligned slice. It would be impossible to even make an estimate of whatever you want to know.


----------



## Specs112 (Dec 15, 2011)

Dene said:


> I'm pretty sure many judges do not know the correct procedure for writing up a +2, and instead don't bother to write it out properly they would just add the 2 seconds in their head and write down the appropriate time straight away.


 
TIL that there's a correct procedure for writing out a +2.

This proves your point, doesn't it.


----------



## keyan (Dec 15, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I think we've seen that the community is divided, with staunch people on both sides, and no really convincing arguments.


 
I don't think that is the case. Please don't try to kill the debate prematurely. 

Arguments in favor of eliminating a +2 allowance for unsolved cubes: 

Consistency - clock
Fairness - some cubers say the current rule has a method bias when a cube unsolved by an M turn is DNF while a cube unsolved by a U turn isn't
Simplicity - only two classifications, solved and unsolved, simplifies judging
Simplicity - eliminates the awkward situations in FMC and multiBLD

This is aside from the basic argument that competitive cube solving should require solving a cube. 

If you say that we've argued to a standstill, could you point out the arguments for the status quo?


----------



## hcfong (Dec 15, 2011)

Dene said:


> If the competitor drops the puzzle in a rush to stop the timer, causing the cube to land in such a way as for a piece to pop or a layer to turn, then we have no choice. It is impossible for us to accurately regulate on whether something has happened before or after the timer is stopped unless intensive video evidence was used, which, as discussed in another thread, is not going to happen in speedcubing any time soon. It is unfortunately impossible to obediently abide to principles when we have technological limitations. The best thing we can do is have a clear rule that decides what to do in situations, and to apply that rule consistently and fairly so that everyone is on equal footing.


 
I believe there already is one. 
10b)	Only the resting state of a puzzle is considered, when the timer has stopped.

I think this is clear enough. Some may say it means only the resting state of the puzzle at the moment of stopping the timer, but I've always interpreted as meaning the resting state of the puzzle after the timer has stopped. So when someone finishes his solve correctly, drops it, stops the timer and the cube bumps away of the table and rolls on for a couple seconds and stops, I have always considered the state of the puzzle at the moment it stopped. (Okay, I only had to do that once, and in that case, everything was okay)


----------



## cubersmith (Dec 15, 2011)

Dene said:


> Uh, how is it not your fault that there was a +2? Take the extra time to place the puzzle down carefully or face the consequences.


 
Thats not the point. The point is that the penalty proposed is too harsh.


----------



## Dene (Dec 15, 2011)

hcfong said:


> I believe there already is one.
> 10b)	Only the resting state of a puzzle is considered, when the timer has stopped.


 
Yes you are exactly right, I was just talking about the hypothetical, not the way things already are  .


----------



## Godmil (Dec 15, 2011)

keyan said:


> Consistency - clock



Good argument for changing clock.



keyan said:


> Fairness - some cubers say the current rule has a method bias when a cube unsolved by an M turn is DNF while a cube unsolved by a U turn isn't



That's not really a big deal, lots of Roux solves end in Us and every EPLL can end in Ms



keyan said:


> Simplicity - only two classifications, solved and unsolved, simplifies judging



It's hardly rocket science as it is though.

For Dene's points. Naturally if you don't align the cube properly it is your fault... nobody can really doubt that. But what is the effect on speedcubing overall if +2s were removed? Two mistakes in an Ao5 will knock you out of the competition. There is currently a high risk game played by some people.. they can go balls out for the last step and potentially get really fast times... but sometimes they misjudge it and incur a penalty. If the penalty is 'your out of the competition' then it stands to reason people are going to be a lot more careful and slow down. I think it would definitely make people a lot more hesitant during their solves, and I just can't see that as being a good thing overall for speedcubing. It's really exciting when someone like Hays breaks the 6x6 WR; it could have been the case that his solves might have been slower overall if he was aware that having a misalignment on the final turn would have nullified his average.

I don't think there is a good argument for any benefit of removing +2s that outweigh the negative impact it will have overall.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 15, 2011)

Dene said:


> You mean, telling someone that they haven't completed the puzzle when they haven't completed the puzzle? Seems fair to me.


 I think telling the competitor that 2 seconds for missing a turn (which would have taken less than 0.5 seconds) is added to their solve time is a harsh enough penalty.


----------



## Mal (Dec 15, 2011)

aronpm said:


> I think telling the competitor that 2 seconds for missing a turn (which would have taken less than 0.5 seconds) is added to their solve time is a harsh enough penalty.


 
I agree


----------



## Dene (Dec 15, 2011)

aronpm said:


> I think telling the competitor that 2 seconds for missing a turn (which would have taken less than 0.5 seconds) is added to their solve time is a harsh enough penalty.


 
And what about the poor person that missed the third to last turn of their Y perm?



Godmil said:


> There is currently a high risk game played by some people.. they can go balls out for the last step and potentially get really fast times... but sometimes they misjudge it and incur a penalty. If the penalty is 'your out of the competition' then it stands to reason people are going to be a lot more careful and slow down. I think it would definitely make people a lot more hesitant during their solves, and I just can't see that as being a good thing overall for speedcubing.



You are greatly exaggerating the effect that this would have. Why don't you yourself try doing an average of maybe 20 or 30 3x3 solves now and make sure to DNF yourself every time you would normally +2. In this case, go into it with the mindset that you need to be extra careful when finishing your solves to solve the cube properly. I bet your overall average will be exactly the same as your normal average.

People seem to have this mindset that DNFs are the devil and will spawn trouble everywhere for speedcubing, but it really won't make any difference other than ensuring that people that do not solve their cube get no credit for it, and people that do solve their cube get their due credit.



Godmil said:


> It's really exciting when someone like Hays breaks the 6x6 WR; it could have been the case that his solves might have been slower overall if he was aware that having a misalignment on the final turn would have nullified his average.


 
Oh come on, you're just trolling me right? Just in case you're not, I'm pretty sure Kevin Hays would not be worried about adding an extra 0.5s to every solve to ensure the cube is properly solved and he places it down so that it doesn't misalign at the end. The total time added to his mean? Barely anything at all, certainly less than a +2 would add.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 15, 2011)

Dene said:


> And what about the poor person that missed the third to last turn of their Y perm?


 
I cannot understand why you and others keep bringing this example of missing a turn in a solve up. Mis-performing AUF at the end (which is not part of an algorithm) and missing part of an algorithm are very, very different things.


----------



## Dene (Dec 15, 2011)

aronpm said:


> I cannot understand why you and others keep bringing this example of missing a turn in a solve up. Mis-performing AUF at the end (which is not part of an algorithm) and missing part of an algorithm are very, very different things.


 
Ok then, I'll use a different example. Someone attempts to do AUF before PLL, but does the turn the wrong way, thus doing the PLL from the wrong angle and leaving the cube in an unsolved state (i.e. with a new PLL) and stops the timer.


----------



## adragast (Dec 15, 2011)

Dene said:


> Ok then, I'll use a different example. Someone attempts to do AUF before PLL, but does the turn the wrong way, thus doing the PLL from the wrong angle and leaving the cube in an unsolved state (i.e. with a new PLL) and stops the timer.
> 
> You've really backed yourself into a corner now.


 
Come on, Dene, at one point you say only the final state of the cube matters and now you are trying to say being off 1 turn at the final state or being completely off because one turn was missed earlier in the solve should be considered the same ? And it is clear that the solve is off by 1 turn or less (50 degrees for example) but not clear if someone missed one turn (and it would clearly not be 50 degres but a whole turn. 

I agree with qqwref that most has already been said about it and the discussion does not seem to evolve.

That said, I am still not sure if adding the same amount of time for every events make sense (2s is a huge percentage of a 2x2 solve and a small percentage of a 7x7 solve; it does not take the same amount of time to auf with two hands, one hand or feet, ...).


----------



## aronpm (Dec 15, 2011)

Dene said:


> Ok then, I'll use a different example. Someone attempts to do AUF before PLL, but does the turn the wrong way, thus doing the PLL from the wrong angle and leaving the cube in an unsolved state (i.e. with a new PLL) and stops the timer.


Still not the same. In one case, the cube is 1 turn away from solved, and in the other it's not even close.


----------



## Dene (Dec 15, 2011)

In both cases the cube is unsolved. In both cases it is because the AUF was done incorrectly. You are arbitrarily choosing when in a solve a mistake can be made with no justification other than "in one case it was earlier in the solve and in the other case it was at the end of the solve". How is that fair? As the person that messed up AUF before PLL I think that is horribly unfair. Everyone should be treated equal for their errors.

@adragast Sure why not? My view is consistent yes?


----------



## adragast (Dec 15, 2011)

Dene said:


> You are arbitrarily choosing when in a solve a mistake can be made


No, it is not an arbitrary choice. And no, this was not our only justification. The first justification was made by Stefan earlier in this post and was about how difficult it would be to judge a one-turn mistake earlier in the solve. You, who always complain how hard it is to get enough judges and so on, I am surprised you are ignoring this argument.
I have added another argument which was that it can be less than one complete false turn at the end (50 degrees for example).



Dene said:


> Everyone should be treated equal for their errors.


They are. Everyone messing up early in the solve get a DNF, everyone getting one wrong turn at the end gets a +2.

Please, don't try too hard, you are only making the idea look worse and worse.


----------



## Godmil (Dec 15, 2011)

ok, maybe I was exaggerating a little with my last examples. But the inconsitency argument you're using now is over the top. Give a cube to a random person... if it's a PLL away, they're unanimously going to say that it's not solved. Now give them one that is just 50 degrees away on one layer, you're not going to find many people who say this isn't a solved cube.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 15, 2011)

Dene said:


> In both cases the cube is unsolved. In both cases it is because the AUF was done incorrectly. You are arbitrarily choosing when in a solve a mistake can be made with no justification other than "in one case it was earlier in the solve and in the other case it was at the end of the solve". How is that fair? As the person that messed up AUF before PLL I think that is horribly unfair. Everyone should be treated equal for their errors.


It's not arbitrary to say that 1 move off is "almost solved, with a penalty" and a layer off is not.


----------



## TimMc (Dec 15, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Give a cube to a random person... if it's a PLL away, they're unanimously going to say that it's not solved. Now give them one that is just 50 degrees away on one layer, you're not going to find many people who say this isn't a solved cube.



If you give a cube _that's one move away from being solved_ to a random person then they'll probably perform the final move and say "AH HAH! I'VE SOLVED IT! LESS THAN FIVE SECONDS! YEAHAW!"... Why? Because even they can acknowledge that it's not in a solved state when there's one move left.

Tim.


----------



## Godmil (Dec 15, 2011)

Some people may do that just to be a dick. But if someone saw it was half a turn away from being solved do you think they'd seriously be like: "you'll never be able to solve that."


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 15, 2011)

Godmil: Using a 6x6 to argue a +2s penalty is pretty silly. The longer a solve takes, the less significant 2 seconds becomes. You should have been arguing +2 for the sub1 2x2 WR. A +2 in that case would have shattered the chance at a WR, and wouldn't even have you close at it.

Now let's put this situation into perspective: You perform a 0.69 solve on 2x2, drop it, and stop the timer. Let's go ahead and say through a simple cell phone camera you can clearly see the cube was solved before it hits the table but not after. This takes a new WR and moves it to a time that's not even in the top 100 (according to the WCA database). Now this *is* a case where setting it down carefully could have made this solve not a WR solve had he carefully placed the cube down first.

Dene: An incorrect AUF before performing PLL cannot be "proven" as to what happened. You would agree that some people know PLL algs for (at least some cases) all angles, while some people only know one alg per case. You cannot ask a competitor which alg he performed and which AUF he went to perform, otherwise you might as well ask them if they received a +2 or DNF (except in this case much less ability to discern the truth from fiction). An incorrect post-PLL AUF can be proven.

That being said, I do tend to agree with Ryan Reese about removing the +2 misalignment rule from BLD events and changing it to DNF, *unless* we change an inner slice (so M for 3x3 and all inner slices on higher order cubes) realignments (universally) to being a +2 instead of DNF.


----------



## SoulSeeker (Dec 15, 2011)

oh dene..  as far as i can tell you think of it as: "oh come on it's crystal clear - we have a competition with a very simple goal. solve the cube in the shortest time possible and if u fail succeeding in completely solving the cube you are out. your time oviously should not count. that's it"
but dude we're not a high class sponsored whatever community. the aim for most of us is having fun and not getting an average because of 2 dnfs just su**s. especially if you know that your cube was solved and only off by some degrees of one single layer. maybe you feel treated unfair because you always make sure that your cube is perfectly aligned and you dont get +2's but people are different you know? just like in other things, school for example. you like to be perfect, being on time, sharpened pencils for geometry and stuff - other people dont. just because they are different in their habits doesn't make them any worse.

and back to the "correctness in competition" think about showjumping as an example. the goal is to get over the obstacles -> as simple as speedcubing. but if you knock down some of them you are assessed with additional time and not just being disqualified.

just take it a tiny bit less serious and relax or do you want competitions with maybe 4-5 events left, with very strict timings and every competitor has its own booth because otherwise the danger of cheating is too high. talking is strictly forbidden because it could disturb the competitors etc. 
i prefer competitions as they are, where you are able to meet persons, talk and have fun and not being punished for every false step (of course this may sound far fetched but i hope you get what i wanna say)

p.s. sorry for any mistakes and unclarity its kinda hard for me to express myself in english the proper way


----------



## Stefan (Dec 15, 2011)

Dene said:


> And what about the poor person that missed the third to last turn of their Y perm?


 
Actually he made wrong turns. Those last two when he shouldn't. His mistake is strictly inside his solve attempt and 100% his own fault, whereas an incomplete or too far turn at the end due to having to stop the timer isn't.


----------



## SoulSeeker (Dec 15, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Actually he made wrong turns. Those last two when he shouldn't. His mistake is strictly inside his solve attempt and 100% his own fault, whereas an incomplete or too far turn at the end due to having to stop the timer isn't.


 well it might be.. it could either be bad luck (turned after dropping the cube) or just sloppy turning which is in fact 100% your own fault


----------



## Stefan (Dec 15, 2011)

SoulSeeker said:


> well it might be.. it could either be bad luck (turned after dropping the cube) or just sloppy turning which is in fact 100% your own fault


 
No. That's *not* _"strictly inside his solve attempt"_. And I specifically said _"due to having to stop the timer"_, so it's not _"just sloppy turning"_ but at least _"sloppy turning due to having to stop the timer"_, so at least a small part of the fault is from that flawed procedure, so it's not 100% from the cuber. Unlike Dene's other scenario, which has nothing to do with the procedure and *is* 100% the cuber's fault.


----------



## Godmil (Dec 15, 2011)

fatboyxpc said:


> Godmil: Using a 6x6 to argue a +2s penalty is pretty silly.


Actually it's a very good example. 6x6 is done by mean of 3, so if in one solve one face is off by 50 degrees then the whole mean is DNF. How does that not sound too harsh?


----------



## BadMeetsEvil (Dec 15, 2011)

There are chances a layer would be less than 45 degrees away in the cuber's hands but get misaligned when its dropped onto the stackmat. or something similar. I do think the 2 second penalty is a good enough one for misalignment, it isn't something a cuber can take advantage of, since the AUF hardly takes half a second.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 15, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Actually it's a very good example. 6x6 is done by mean of 3, so if in one solve one face is off by 50 degrees then the whole mean is DNF. How does that not sound too harsh?


 
I missed that, good point.


----------



## Dene (Dec 15, 2011)

adragast said:


> No, it is not an arbitrary choice. And no, this was not our only justification. The first justification was made by Stefan earlier in this post and was about how difficult it would be to judge a one-turn mistake earlier in the solve. You, who always complain how hard it is to get enough judges and so on, I am surprised you are ignoring this argument.



When we treat both cases the same and DNF them, where does the problem occur? Less training for the judges as far as I can tell.



adragast said:


> I have added another argument which was that it can be less than one complete false turn at the end (50 degrees for example).



qqwref already provided a nice argument for why we should use 45 degrees. If you're too lazy to get it that close to solved it's your own fault.



Godmil said:


> ok, maybe I was exaggerating a little with my last examples. But the inconsitency argument you're using now is over the top. Give a cube to a random person... if it's a PLL away, they're unanimously going to say that it's not solved. Now give them one that is just 50 degrees away on one layer, you're not going to find many people who say this isn't a solved cube.


 
They'd say "it's pretty much solved" just like the person who runs 99.5 metres pretty much ran 100 metres, but they still didn't finish.



SoulSeeker said:


> stuff


 
You're forgetting that we are talking about _competitions_. Have as much fun as you like and use whatever rules you like at home with your friends, but at competitions we should set a higher standard. Otherwise you are actually reducing a competition to a social gathering, in which case what's the point? Why should we put hours and hours of effort into organising venues, paying for timers and displays, paying for certificates and prizes, etc. etc. etc. just for a bunch of kids that want to chill? I don't see why it's so hard to treat a competition as a competition. For most people a competition is a rare occasion anyway, so why is it a big deal for there to be stricter rules imposed on you just once in a while?



Stefan said:


> Actually he made wrong turns. Those last two when he shouldn't. His mistake is strictly inside his solve attempt and 100% his own fault, whereas an incomplete or too far turn at the end due to having to stop the timer isn't.


 
Ok but you've backed yourself into the same corner that aronpm has. What about the person that makes _the exact same mistake_ as the person who does the wrong AUF at the end of the solve, by doing the wrong AUF before the PLL? Maybe you can do one better than aronpm, and rather than avoiding the issue I bring up, actually address it. Why should we arbitrarily distinguish between people who make the exact same error at different times? Just saying "oh well this one looks better at the end" should not be good enough. Both made the same mistake, both had unsolved cubes.

Also, it is the competitors fault. How could it _not_ be? Did a magic fairy fly along and use a mind control device to force the competitor to stop the timer with an unfinished solve?



fatboyxpc said:


> Godmil said:
> 
> 
> > Actually it's a very good example. 6x6 is done by mean of 3, so if in one solve one face is off by 50 degrees then the whole mean is DNF. How does that not sound too harsh?
> ...


 
But what you failed to acknowledge is my point that the time it takes for Kevin Hays to be careful at the very end of his PLL after around 2 minutes of solving, just to ensure that the cube is properly solved, is almost nothing in comparison.


----------



## Pedro (Dec 15, 2011)

Dene said:


> Ok but you've backed yourself into the same corner that aronpm has. What about the person that makes _the exact same mistake_ as the person who does the wrong AUF at the end of the solve, by doing the wrong AUF before the PLL? Maybe you can do one better than aronpm, and rather than avoiding the issue I bring up, actually address it. Why should we arbitrarily distinguish between people who make the exact same error at different times? Just saying "oh well this one looks better at the end" should not be good enough. Both made the same mistake, both had unsolved cubes.


Because it is _not the exact same mistake_. Sure, both are a one-move-mistake, but done at different points of the solve, wich give completely different results.
Consider this:
Person A does a 90 degrees turn in the wrong direction before PLL. Results in a scrambled cube

Person B does a 44 degrees turn in the right direction after PLL. Results in a cube with one layer 46 degrees off.

Is it the exact same mistake?


What I think is that noone is going to convince the other here. People have different opinions and reasons for them. Wouldn't it be better if we tried to take votes from the biggest possible number of cubers? I know that's hard, but it has more of a point than 4 or 5 arguing here, trying to convince eachother.


----------



## Dene (Dec 15, 2011)

Pedro said:


> Person A does a 90 degrees turn in the wrong direction before PLL. Results in a scrambled cube
> 
> Person B does a 44 degrees turn in the right direction after PLL. Results in a cube with one layer 46 degrees off.



Person A does a 90 degree turn in the wrong direction before PLL. Results in an unsolved cube. Receives a DNF
Person B does a 90 degree turn in the wrong direction after PLL. Results in an unsolved cube. Receives a +2

What have we learnt from all this? You can make as many uncomparable cases as you like, there are still plenty of comparable ones that point out the absurdity of the situation.



Pedro said:


> What I think is that noone is going to convince the other here. People have different opinions and reasons for them. Wouldn't it be better if we tried to take votes from the biggest possible number of cubers? I know that's hard, but it has more of a point than 4 or 5 arguing here, trying to convince eachother.


 
That is a bad idea. The WCA should not be governed by a popularity contest, it should be governed by what is in the best interests of competitive speedcubing.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 15, 2011)

Dene said:


> What about the person that makes _the exact same mistake_ as the person who does the wrong AUF at the end of the solve, by doing the wrong AUF before the PLL?



The mistake might be the same, but like it or not, the result isn't. One leaves a clearly almost solved cube, the other doesn't. One has demonstrated that he can solve it, the other hasn't. Except for H-perm and N-perm, where your mid-solve-wrong-AUF guy also leaves an almost solved cube, which is why he gets it accepted.



Dene said:


> Also, it is the competitors fault. How could it _not_ be?



If he made the mistake because he had to let go off the puzzle after the actual solve, then he wouldn't have made it if he hadn't had to do that. Again, in that case it's at least partially the fault of the procedure and the penalty makes up for the flaw in the procedure, not for the mistake of the cuber.



Dene said:


> Person A does a 90 degree turn in the wrong direction before PLL. *Doesn't result in an almost solved cube.* Receives a DNF
> Person B does a 90 degree turn in the wrong direction after PLL. *Does result in an almost solved cube.* Receives a +2


 
Fixed that for you (by not ignoring the obvious difference in result).



Godmil said:


> 6x6 is done by mean of 3, so if in one solve one face is off by 50 degrees then the whole mean is DNF.


 
Hmm, are there other sports where you get several independently judged attempts and a mistake in one/some can similarly nullify your results in the others?


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Dec 15, 2011)

Here's my take on the difference between the different AUF mistakes. I would say they are not the same, since although they both involve one incorrect/missed move and leave the cube unsolved, one leaves the cube _trivially_ unsolved and can happen due to bad luck resulting from stopping the timer (it has been pointed out before that stopping the timer is an artificial construct which is undesirable - out hobby is speedsolving, not speedsolving and speedstarting and speedstopping timers), while the other leaves the cube non-trivially unsolved and cannot be caused by stopping the timer.

Also, why do all mistakes need to be punished equally? Yes, in both situations you have an unsolved cube, but one trivially so, and one non-trivially so. There are many different severities of punishment for breaking the law, but you can't feasibly argue that everyone who breaks the law should be punished identically as some crimes are more serious than others. Similarly, I would say that mistakes in competition should be punished according to how severe they are. If a cube is trivially unsolved and is potentially not entirely the cuber's fault (I maintain that stopping the timer in the way we do is not an integral part of solving, it is an unfortunate side-effect of technological limitations), it should be a penalty which isn't too severe, but which will still encourages people to be careful. I'd say a +2 is a good balance.


----------



## Dene (Dec 16, 2011)

So ultimately what you guys are saying, and what I've been trying to illustrate in the most negative way possible, is that it is the WCAs responsibility to decide at which point during a solve it is ok to make a mistake, leaving the puzzle unsolved (whether trivial or not; to me leaving a cube 3 moves from solved is still trivial, why shouldn't that be a +2?). I think this is absolutely absurd. I would like to hear a very good reason why it should the the WCAs responsibility to determine when it is ok to make a mistake. In no other sport that I am aware of is it ok to get close to finishing the race then stop just before the finish line. I cannot see any good reason why our sport should be any different.

Also, sure starting and stopping the timer is an artifact of technological shortcomings, and not actually part of solving the puzzle itself, but everyone is aware of that and everyone knows the correct procedures and they should just have to deal with that appropriately. I can't think of a good analogy from other sports, but say for example someone in a running race does not know how to use the blocks properly, and at the start of the race they trip up. They don't get any bonus points for that, nor should they.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Dec 16, 2011)

Dene said:


> ... is that it is the WCAs responsibility to decide at which point during a solve it is ok to make a mistake, leaving the puzzle unsolved (whether trivial or not ...


 
They set the regulations, who else would decide? That said, I do disagree with the consensus on other issues, but those belong in a different thread and have been discussed before.

And who said anything about bonus points? We are adding 2 seconds to a time as a penalty for the cube being trivially unsolved, I'd say that's the opposite of giving someone bonus points.

The best analogy I have been able to think of is golf, it's not perfect but it will do for now. You are supposed to hit the ball towards the hole and land on a part of the course after every shot. Do they get disqualified for landing in a pond instead of on the course? No, they get a small penalty on their score, and carry on. Why shouldn't they get disqualified for a small mistake and not putting the ball on the course during one shot? It would be overly harsh, that's why. Like I said, not a perfect analogy, but not too far off either I think.


----------



## tim (Dec 16, 2011)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> And who said anything about bonus points? We are adding 2 seconds to a time as a penalty for the cube being trivially unsolved, I'd say that's the opposite of giving someone bonus points.


 
Compared to a DNF +2 seconds are indeed "bonus points".


----------



## Stefan (Dec 16, 2011)

Dene said:


> WCAs responsibility to decide at which point during a solve it is ok to make a mistake


 
Now that's a strange backwards perspective. This is SpeedSolving, not SpeedNotMakingMistakes. I'd fix that to it's the _WCAs responsibility to determine whether and how fast you can solve_. The wrong-AUF-mistake-after-PLL guy clearly showed that he can solve and about how fast, whereas your wrong-AUF-before-PLL guy didn't.


----------



## jonlin (Dec 16, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Now that's a strange backwards perspective. This is SpeedSolving, not SpeedNotMakingMistakes. I'd fix that to it's the _WCAs responsibility to determine whether and how fast you can solve_. The wrong-AUF-mistake-after-PLL guy clearly showed that he can solve and about how fast, whereas your wrong-AUF-before-PLL guy didn't.


 I agree with this statement. Let's say in a race, two people are racing with strict WCA regulations. And the example above happens where AUF before PLL happens. and now the other guy does the same. Wouldn't that mean you would obviously see that the second guy did better, although since they were cubing with misaligned layer=DNF, they would consider each other no better than the other?


----------



## SoulSeeker (Dec 16, 2011)

Dene said:


> stuff


i think u didnt get what i meant to tell you. im not talking about a huffy fluffy sit in with friends where u are just joking around. 

i just want a FRIENDLY environment at competitions and not a military like:
_"what's you name? ok sit down there and stay quiet"
"it's your turn, go into the waiting area without talking to anyone"
"hey you come"
1)"nope thats a dnf u had your hands 2 mm too far of the timer"
2)"ah nope thats 46 degrees.. clearly dnf"
3)"it popped as it fell onto the timer? well not my problem dnf"
4)"yeah maybe it was a timer malfuction none of my business dnf"
5)"i saw u watching other competitors solving.. you are clearly trying to cheat - disqualified"

"magic, clock, 2x2 etc are u crazy? thats kids stuff.. thats not even puzzles its just a joke we are not cometing in useless stuff and we dont care if people like it or not"_

and btw u asked for other sports and i mentioned showjumping in my post but maybe thats no sport to you.. whatever


----------



## samchoochiu (Dec 16, 2011)

why change the rule just to **** people off?
most people are fine with it, in fact everyone I meet at a competition is fine with it.
I lost first place due to a +2 at a an event that takes 1 sec (magic) and im fine with it.
The judge told me they should change the +2 rule to +X depending on the puzzle. I dont agree with that, it just makes things complicated. Maybe I'm just biased towards things remaining the same but I feel the regulations are fine as it is. Anymore or less will make competing/judging too complicated or too simple(if thats the right word)

But come on, this topic has already been discussed many times years ago and it is still clear that more people want to keep the +2 rule. Why keep bringing back this stupid topic again?
If you think +2 is too forgiving then you're wrong because the wca used to let you do another solve for pops.


----------



## The Bloody Talon (Dec 16, 2011)

^we have these rules not just because of people *want* these rules


----------



## Dene (Dec 16, 2011)

Stefan said:


> your wrong-AUF-before-PLL guy didn't.


 
But he clearly did, to anyone that does know how to solve. As a judge, after OLL I could tell what PLL he had, and I could tell that he did the wrong AUF but the correct PLL algorithm, therefore I can tell that he knows how to solve the cube. 

Also, it's nice that you put an emphasis on the _solving_ part of speedsolving, because I'm pretty sure we all agree that a cube that is one turn off is not solved. It's very close, but it's not solved.



SoulSeeker said:


> moar stuff


 
That is nothing like what I am suggesting. 

As for showjumping, sorry I actually had to look up what that was (I knew immediately once I saw, I just never knew the proper name of the sport). I don't think it's a comparable sport though, and if you were to compare it, then, as far as I'm aware, in showjumping points are taken off throughout the entire course for mistakes. So using your sport as a comparison you will have to accept that a mistake at any point during the solve is ok as long as the competitor shows that they know how to solve the cube. I love it when people come up with analogies that fail to support their position.



samchoochiu said:


> If you think +2 is too forgiving then you're wrong because the wca used to let you do another solve for pops.


 
And that rule was scrapped. What's your point?


----------



## aronpm (Dec 16, 2011)

Dene said:


> But he clearly did, to anyone that does know how to solve. As a judge, after OLL I could tell what PLL he had, and I could tell that he did the wrong AUF but the correct PLL algorithm, therefore I can tell that he knows how to solve the cube.


 
TIL every judge is an experienced cuber


----------



## Dene (Dec 16, 2011)

aronpm said:


> TIL every judge is an experienced cuber


 
Hence why we should simplify the rule to something clearcut. It is definitely not fair if one judge knows what they're doing and another doesn't, which just gives more reason to apply the same rule in every case.


----------



## Dene (Dec 16, 2011)

I thought up a nice experiment that will help to provide further evidence for my side of the argument that the +2 rule should be removed in favour of a DNF rule.

I challenge anyone that is interested to do two averages of 50 on their 3x3 cube just by setting up a random PLL+AUF, then solving it and stopping using a speedstacks timer. In the first average of 50, apply the current rules, with a +2 for being one turn off and a DNF for being two or more turns off. In the second group apply my proposed DNF rule. Hypothetically, or at least what people seem convinced of, is that in the first group people will go much harder and faster, accepting the risk of getting a +2. In the second group people will be a bit more cautious and slower, with much less risk.

*What are the possible results?*
1. _Too many DNFs_; can't make anything of the results. In this case, one suggested rule is for every DNF, take off the fastest time, then the next fastest time etc. But if there are too many DNFs this would really invalidate the results. For the sake of argument we will hope there aren't many DNFs overall. (I should point out quickly that there is no reason to assume that either group will have considerably more DNFs than the other, if in fact care is taken in group 2 to ensure the cube is properly solved before stopping the timer; in fact if either group were to have more DNFs it should be group 1).
2. _Group 1 is faster_. That is, when you go hard out, knowing the risk of +2 is higher, overall you're still faster. This should only happen if very few +2 penalties are incurred.
3. _Group 2 is faster_. That is, when you go more carefully, overall you perform better. This should only occur if group 1 gets too many +2s and it ruins the average.

*What do these results mean?*
Well actually, the beauty of this experiment is that both case 2 and case 3 support my argument in favour of removing the +2 rule and replacing it with a DNF rule! If the result is that of case 2, then the number of penalties that are incurred is so negligible that there is no reason to worry about whether that penalty is a +2 or a DNF, as both should have a similar result on an overall average. If the result is that of case 3, then clearly you are better off taking that extra care with the knowledge that a penalty for not properly solving the cube is a DNF.


EDIT: A range of reasons for why this favours my rule rather than just keeping the +2 is that, firstly, it nullifies the reasons provided for keeping the +2, and secondly no good argument has been provided against my reasons for favouring a DNF rule.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Dec 16, 2011)

Dene said:


> If the result is that of case 2, then the number of penalties that are incurred is so negligible that there is no reason to worry about whether that penalty is a +2 or a DNF, as both should have a similar result on an overall average.


 
I disagree with this conclusion. Just because they don't happen often doesn't mean that we can disregard how it is punished. Your idea for testing is good in theory, but not so good in practice, as we would need a lot of people to do it and post their results honestly to derive meaningful results.

Also, we cannot let the judge decide if the solver made an incorrect AUF before the last algorithm for various reasons:
1. The judge may not be a speedcuber, so will not know which case came up and if the solver did an incorrect AUF
2. The judge may be a speedcuber, but is not familiar with the method used by the solver
3. The judge maybe a speedcuber who uses the same method as the solver, but uses a different alg for the last step case which came up and so cannot recognise what the solver did.
4. The judge may be a speedcuber who uses the same method as the solver, but the solver recognised and executed the alg for the last case faster than the judge could recognise it.
etc., I have more examples but they are not needed.

In short, the judge cannot be relied upon to decide if there was an incorrect AUF before the last alg performed, but it is easy to check in hindsight if the solver made an incorrect twist at the end of the solve and is only one move away from the solved position. Both situations are off by one twist, but only one can be consistently and readily verified. Since the one twist off at the end can be due to technological limitations, it seems reasonable to give the solver the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure it is fairly common in sports for a minor transgression to be treated leniently if there is some doubt about what caused it, while still giving a small penalty. It is unfortunate if you made the same mistake earlier in the solve, because it cannot be generally proven to have happened.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 16, 2011)

Dene said:


> do two averages of 50 on their 3x3 cube just by setting up a random PLL+AUF, then solving it and stopping using a speedstacks timer. In the first average of 50, apply the current rules, with a +2 for being one turn off and a DNF for being two or more turns off. In the second group apply my proposed DNF rule.



If someone does it, I suggest to alternate between the two rather than first doing all of the first and then all of the second. I imagine I'm not the only one going through stages, I usually get considerably faster after the first 30-40 solves. Also, it might be more meaningful to judge it as ten averages-of-5 (and then average those).



Dene said:


> If the result is that of case 2, then the number of penalties that are incurred is so negligible that there is no reason to worry about whether that penalty is a +2 or a DNF, as both should have a similar result on an overall average.



You can't infer a negligible number of penalties from the time. I could gain 0.41 seconds in raw solving time compared to group 2 but get a +2 in every fifth solve. I wouldn't call 20% negligible and I certainly would worry about 20% DNFs - enough to make me go even slower after the first in an average-of-5, fearing to lose my average. And in mean-of-3 it's even more significant, there I'd worry even more about even fewer penalties and right from the start.

In your experiment, you have group 1 solves judged by group 1 rules and you have group 2 solves judged by group 2 rules. You don't have group 1 solves judged by group 2 rules, but you're trying to argue with that as if you had. Also, judging group 1 solves by group 2 rules doesn't make sense - when you're going to get judged by group 2 rules, you'll do group 2 solves, not group 1 solves. Plus there's no need to somehow try to infer what would happen if group 2 rules were applied - you've just actually done that in the experiment, in group 2! And in that case 2, it was slower. Which reasons provided for keeping the +2 does that nullify?


----------



## Dene (Dec 16, 2011)

@bobthegiraffemonkey: I'm glad you agree with me; we should most certainly not let a judge determine whether the competitor can or cannot solve the cube based on when the error was made. 



Stefan said:


> You can't infer a negligible number of penalties from the time. I could gain 0.41 seconds in raw solving time compared to group 2 but get a +2 in every fifth solve. I wouldn't call 20% negligible and I certainly would worry about 20% DNFs - enough to make me go even slower after the first in an average-of-5, fearing to lose my average. And in mean-of-3 it's even more significant, there I'd worry even more about even fewer penalties and right from the start.



I see you didn't take the time to think about my thought experiment as much as I would have liked. Had you done so, you would have realised that the time difference between the two groups, assuming no penalties at all, would be minimal, if any at all.



Stefan said:


> In your experiment, you have group 1 solves judged by group 1 rules and you have group 2 solves judged by group 2 rules. You don't have group 1 solves judged by group 2 rules, but you're trying to argue with that as if you had.



Noooo, what I'm arguing is that if we compare the current rules to the proposed DNF rule the result does not matter. I think the problem you have is that it looks like I am requesting group 1 and group 2 to solve in different ways, but that is not the case. Both groups start on equal footing but have different rules applied to them after each solve. So essentially we start with one group of 100, and split it into two groups of 50.

The experiment could be performed differently, where group 1 and group 2 are asked to solve differently, with the same rule applied, which would have to be that of the +2 rule (as applying the DNF rule to group 1 would be a circular argument, as you pointed out), but the result would be the same.



Stefan said:


> Which reasons provided for keeping the +2 does that nullify?


 
Overall, assuming the average times in both groups are essentially the same, as I predict (with minimal penalties applied and the general solve time being very similar), this experiment shows that it makes no difference whether people solve with the mentality of the +2 rule or the DNF rule. This first nullifies the reason of "it will hurt people more" and "it will remove the fun" (those two go together), as it shows that people would not overall be affected. It nullifies "it will ruin my average", as the experiment shows that being careful will have minimal effect on their average. It indirectly nullifies the reason of "what about a +2 that isn't my fault" (ignoring the fact that it is their fault) because it shows that being more careful essentially gives the same result. It also indirectly nullifies the "DNF is a large penalty" claim for the same reason.

The only other argument I've seen is the best Feliks could come up with: "but, but, but    I'M SCARED  "


----------



## Robocopter87 (Dec 16, 2011)

Well I read the thread with a starting mind on the side of the turning it into the DNF. I mean, jeez, is it really that hard to turn the last piece? A single flick of a finger? The cuber ought set the puzzle down properly oriented, otherwise he didn't even really solve it. 

However, aronpm won me over to the other side of the argument. Plus 2 is a harsh penalty for what would've taken less than a second, it doesn't really make sense to put the super harsh enforcement of a DNF on it as well. Then its ruining Ao5 and such. 

The whole thing with DNF is putting a punishment on unaligned end turns. But... they already did that! Thats why the +2 is in there in the first place! 

Now, I'm not going to get into how this is for U slices and not M slices because I don't really know what to say for that. Seems kinda unjust to me but I don't really use any M slice heavy method so I don't know how bad it really is.


----------



## Dene (Dec 16, 2011)

Robocopter87 said:


> However, aronpm won me over to the other side of the argument. Plus 2 is a harsh penalty for what would've taken less than a second, it doesn't really make sense to put the super harsh enforcement of a DNF on it as well. Then its ruining Ao5 and such.


 
So the big question is, why didn't they take that extra second to fix the last turn? The correct answer is risk/laziness, for which the WCA should not accommodate. Yesterday at the cubing meetup in Melbourne, because it was a hot topic of conversation, I was openly enforcing the DNF rule, and two or three times (in a 4 hour period) I dropped my cube with a layer not solved, and before stopping the timer quickly went to fix it, and each time it cost me about 1 second. This just provides more reason to favour the DNF rule, punishing people for being lazy or taking a risk, and rewarding those that do things properly.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 17, 2011)

Dene said:


> This just provides more reason to favour the DNF rule, punishing people for being lazy or taking a risk, and rewarding those that do things properly.


 
Adding 2 seconds is _already_ a penalty that "punishes people for being lazy or taking a risk, and rewards those that do things properly."


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Dec 17, 2011)

Dene said:


> @bobthegiraffemonkey: I'm glad you agree with me; we should most certainly not let a judge determine whether the competitor can or cannot solve the cube based on when the error was made.


 
You misunderstood my point. We cannot let the judge determine a missed/incorrect AUF (or other twist) at an arbitrary point during the solve, it can only feasibly be done in hindsight for the last twist of the solve. The two situations are therefore different, and should be treated differently. Ideally it might be nice for a +2 to be awarded for eg. a wrong AUF before PLL (in my opinion, although there are other subjective issues with this which are moot anyway), but it cannot be objectively determined in hindsight in general, and when it can it would involve having the entire solve filmed in high enough quality for a reconstruction and be analysed, and this is far too impractical to do. A wrong AUF at the end of the solve can be seen after the solve has finished and the puzzle is at rest, so we have the ability to give benefit of the doubt. Also, the last twist of the solve is the only one affected by having to drop the puzzle and stop the timer, which again makes it a special case. I fail to see why you continue to treat these situations (missing AUF at the end versus missing AUF before last alg) as being equivalent - they simply aren't in practice.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 17, 2011)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> I fail to see why you continue to treat these situations (missing AUF at the end versus missing AUF before last alg) as being equivalent - they simply aren't in practice.


 
Also, when the last AUF is missed, the F2L is still solved and the LL is still solved.


----------



## Robocopter87 (Dec 17, 2011)

As aronpm said, the +2 is punishing people for this.

I'm glad you fixed your layers, and your reward for properly solving was not having an extra second or two added on.

Dene, I totally understand where you are coming from. It is super annoying to me to know that people get off the hook when the cube is clearly not solved. That's just plain not right. However, I think +2 is a fitting punishment for this. It adds more time than it would've taken to do it right. That's the punishment for taking the risk/being lazy. If I were to make the punishment any more punishing, I would make it more seconds added, not make it a DNF.

And I was brutally honest about the not solved thing, I hate it so much. (And Deja Vu for arguing with Dene. At least I get to debate with someone with some intelligence for once)


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Dec 17, 2011)

Obviously, the majority of the +2 are caused by the requirement of having to let go of the cube while stopping the timer as fast as possible. 

Doing this procedure correctly is the responsibility of the competitor, and not the WCA, but it will be flawed when competitors:

(1) [Me2MindlessWithLOLHurry4WR] 
mindlessly let go of their cubes to stop the timer (defacto declaring (falsely) to have solved the cube at the time of letting go) without first ensuring that it is actually solved - and then a judge must determine whether it qualifies as an "almost" solve psuedo enough to get a +2 psuedo-time.

(2) [Me2CarelessWithLOLCube2Loose] 
carelessly allow their cubes to drop in such a way as to cause substantive changes to occur, oftentimes after the timer has already been stopped.

In either of those cases, the current +2 rule gives some license to be irresponsible with the procedure (AND PROBABLY WHY IT FINDS FAVOR WITH SO MANY), but it would be wholly appropriate to just DNF them all.

A DNF is NOT too harsh. It is what it says it is - DID NOT FINISH. And if competitors don't want to receive a DNF for what was once a +2, then they should be more responsible and FINISH their solves correctly.

No more psuedo-times for psuedo-solves. 



Spoiler



Abolish the +2 diaper FTW.


----------



## Robocopter87 (Dec 17, 2011)

The +2 isn't a diaper. The +2 isn't looking after lazy/risky people. The +2 is a punishment. And a good one.

Normally a turn of the cube is pretty quick (less than a second).
If the person fails to make that last turn, they receive a +2.
This is x4 the time it would've taken them to turn it originally. (Generalizing a flick as .5 of a second.)
I don't know about you but thats punishment enough. If Feliks Zemdegs would've dropped the cube with a misaligned face he would've gotten 7.66. 
That would be quite the punishment to know you just got world record and failed to make that final turn. Making it a DNF would suck all the more.

+2 is punishment enough, don't you think? Its not really a diaper. Because when it comes down to it, even though it isn't technically solved, they obviously would've been able to solve it. So they add two seconds and the person walks away punished but not decimated.

It really is too harsh to be a DNF.


----------



## Dene (Dec 17, 2011)

I believe any case of a mistake would fall under either laziness or risk taking. I challenge you to come up with one example that isn't. 

If you can manage to come up with a case, the extreme rarity of such a case compared to cases that are just lazy or risk taking is not enough to give everyone a +2, in my opinion. Mistakes happen, you should learn from it by not making the mistake again. Giving people bonus points for making mistakes is not going to help them learn.


----------



## Robocopter87 (Dec 17, 2011)

What are you talking about? Bonus points? That doesn't even make sense. They aren't being rewarded for making the error.


----------



## Dene (Dec 17, 2011)

Yes they are. The error they make is not solving the cube. Instead of treating them thus, we give them the time they stopped the timer at plus an arbitrary additional number. That seems like a big bonus to me.


----------



## Robocopter87 (Dec 17, 2011)

I understand where you are coming from. Except you are being too strict. Look, lets think about this differently. You got a guy. This guy can solve a Rubiks cube in 10 seconds. This guy has been cubing for years, solved the cube thousands of times. Hes finally gonna get a sub 10 avg at a comp or at least his best average yet.

Its his last solve. He races to solve, at 9 Seconds he gets that rush and quickly finishes his PLL. Boom. 9.86. Not Bad. 

However, when he looks at the cube one face is misaligned. Its in the 65 degree off range. 

So, we got this guy who finally has a sub 10 avg (Not counting penalties). But hes got a misaligned face. This guy has solved thousands of cubes.

We know and the judge knows and the guy knows and everybody who is watching knows that this guy is capable of solving a Cube. Its pretty darn strict to say, "You didn't solve the cube technically." I mean cmon. Be more realistic. He knows what hes doing. But yes, he does deserve punishment.

Now Under the current system: He is given a +2, bumping his average over 10. Sucks. He was so close. (This is obviously enough to teach this guy a lesson about making sure its aligned before hitting the timer.) But he still walks away with a nice average.
With a DNF: He gets the worst time. Bringing his average to a bad place. Now he has been taught a lesson, but hes offended that it all was wrecked. Now he walks away hurt and punished. 

Same lesson taught, but not so strict. Still punished. Not destroyed.

He gets an OK average, was his fault, he understands that. Instead of him getting a terrible average and hating the system.

I like to think of it as a nicer atmosphere. If I had gotten a DNF for that I would be so mad. I might not even compete anymore. 

The DNF would work. Yes, it definitely would teach the lesson. But so does the +2. Except it isn't super harsh.

When put into a real situation, the plus 2 is obviously the better choice. A DNF is just a slap to the face.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 17, 2011)

Dene said:


> Giving people bonus points for making mistakes is not going to help them learn.


 
"Bonus points" implies that the people making the mistake are being rewarded for the mistake, and gaining an advantage over the other people. They are not, they are being punished. Please stop using the term "bonus".


----------



## Dene (Dec 17, 2011)

@aronpm: I'll take you're constantly avoiding my points/questions as you have run out of any sort of defense of your point of view and are simply resorting back to your "but it will hurt me   " argument, which is really what it comes down to for the people defending the +2 rule.

@Robocopter87: I would tell the person in your hypothetical scenario to pick their nuts up off the ground and take the DNF like a man. They'll have other chances. We aren't here to determine who can and cannot solve a cube based on their history, we are here to judge whether or not they solved the cube given to them at this exact point in time, and if so, how fast they solved it.

Basically it comes back to what Stefan said here, where he proposed the only really good reason for keeping the rule - because people are used to it. But if we changed the rule the mindset would change too. Therefore your hypothetical scenario is invalid.


----------



## Robocopter87 (Dec 17, 2011)

Do you at least understand where we are coming from? You show no sign of moving but do you at least understand why we want to keep it? And whats so bad about the current mindset? Is it really that bad?

I personally will stop fighting for it and just stop posting in here. I've stated all I wish to say. My opinion is against removing the +2. Thats my opinion. I gave my reasons. Others can continue with their opinions. I don't wish to clog the thread.


----------



## SoulSeeker (Dec 17, 2011)

Robocopter87 said:


> Do you at least understand where we are coming from? You show no sign of moving but do you at least understand why we want to keep it? And whats so bad about the current mindset? Is it really that bad?
> 
> I personally will stop fighting for it and just stop posting in here. I've stated all I wish to say. My opinion is against removing the +2. Thats my opinion. I gave my reasons. Others can continue with their opinions. I don't wish to clog the thread.


 
+1

in your previous post you expressed exactly what i thought about the matter


----------



## David Zemdegs (Dec 17, 2011)

I think it is entirely irrelevant comparing cubing to any other "sport" (Apologies to Tim Major who thinks cubing should not be called a sport). You can refer to other sports based on your bias for or against this suggested change. It should be about what the cubing community decides is relevant for itself. For me, I like simplicity and in a regulated competition, its important to minimise any ambiguity. So from my perspective, a puzzle is either solved or not. If we give +2 for one turn then why not +4 for two or +6 for three? Im all for keeping it simple and would endorse this change IMHO.


----------



## Pedro (Dec 17, 2011)

I agree with fazdad in the point that


> it is entirely irrelevant comparing cubing to any other "sport"



Solving a cube is not a linear race, as the 100m. You have many possible paths to reach the same goal. In the 100m race, you simply cross the line or you don't. With cubing you can make a turn some degrees to much or too few, but that doesn't mean you can't solve the cube.

And in your experiment, if we consider the solver to be consistant, he/she would have the same number of +2/DNFs in each 50 solves. Let's say it is 5 (10%).
Assuming the time to do a PLL is pretty short, suppose the average is about 1.5 seconds. Adding a +2 more than doubles the time. So you have 45 * 1.5 + 5 * 3.5 = 85 / 50 = 1.7 global average. That is 13% more. In a full solve of 10 seconds, the average would be 10.2 with the penalties, which is just 2% added time.

Your experiment makes no sense, because PLL is too short to give any relevant comparison. One should do full solves applying each rule and that would have some meaning.

Oh, and yeah, "bonus points" for a +2 is just...well...

Edit:

Another thing I just thought.
So you're basically saying that we should treat someone who grabs the scrambled cube, applies no moves and stops the timer the same way as someone who did the solve, but dropped the cube a bit too fast/clumsy/not properly that one layer turned to 46 degrees?
That doens't sound good at all to me...


----------



## jonlin (Dec 17, 2011)

Dene said:


> @aronpm: I'll take you're constantly avoiding my points/questions as you have run out of any sort of defense of your point of view and are simply resorting back to your "but it will hurt me   " argument, which is really what it comes down to for the people defending the +2 rule.
> 
> @Robocopter87: I would tell the person in your hypothetical scenario to pick their nuts up off the ground and take the DNF like a man. They'll have other chances. We aren't here to determine who can and cannot solve a cube based on their history, we are here to judge whether or not they solved the cube given to them at this exact point in time, and if so, how fast they solved it.
> 
> Basically it comes back to what Stefan said here, where he proposed the only really good reason for keeping the rule - because people are used to it. But if we changed the rule the mindset would change too. Therefore your hypothetical scenario is invalid.


 Dene, people are not going to be that great against the not keeping +2 argument. In fact, you're the only one in favor of removing it. 
Stop arguing now. Dene is obviously not going to budge, because he can find a loophole in every statement you guys make.
Yet I support the plus 2 rule. The +2 is like a punishment already. Why change that? Dene, I give you a challenge. Give me a specific reason why you don't give a really logical reason why you support the DNF misaligned statement. You just say why, because people are lazy or risk taking. People have accidents sometimes. But all you do now is contradict other people's statements. Give me a reason why DNF is better than +2. Because people make mistakes. Can you not accept that? Thrawst said:


> You should use mistakes to reflect on what you should do in future competitions.



Nullifying solves won't help that. Give it up. Explain.


----------



## Jaycee (Dec 17, 2011)

jonlin said:


> You just say why, because people are lazy or risk taking. People have accidents sometimes.


 
"But they have accidents because they were taking a risk"


----------



## jonlin (Dec 17, 2011)

Jaycee said:


> "But they have accidents because they were taking a risk"


 
Sometimes people aren't rushing or lazy and they still accidentally stop the timer. Then +2.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Dec 17, 2011)

People can train themselves to stop having accidents once they realize their +2 diaper has been removed.


----------



## Jaycee (Dec 17, 2011)

jonlin said:


> Sometimes people aren't rushing or lazy and they still accidentally stop the timer. Then +2.


 
I agree with you. I just think that would be the kind of response Dene would make.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Dec 17, 2011)

Dene said:


> I believe any case of a mistake would fall under either laziness or risk taking. I challenge you to come up with one example that isn't.


 
Are you really so arrogant to suggest that people should be infallible? They aren't, and neither are you, so maybe you should act a little more sympathetically and cut them some slack. Mistakes are inevitable, and it makes for a much better atmosphere at competitions if people know they won't be punished too harshly for small errors.


----------



## Cheese11 (Dec 17, 2011)

Dene said:


> I believe any case of a mistake would fall under either laziness or risk taking. I challenge you to come up with one example that isn't.


 
So say one is doing a math question. And they get it wrong. Does that mean they were taking a risk? Does that mean their lazy? Not at all, it means they made a mistake.


----------



## adragast (Dec 17, 2011)

For me, the reasons to keep the +2s are:
- consistency with what has been done (difficult/impossible to change all the times to now, unfair to compete against averages set with "milder" rules)
- historical reason: the community being a bit indulgent towards competitors to compensate for the fact that we should measure how long it takes to the competitors to solve the cube and not to "start the timer, take the cube off the mat, solve the cube, let the cube go and stop the timer"
- to many +2s seems big enough a "punishment"

Reasons to remove the +2s are:
- simplicity (cube either solved or not, we don't need a third state "almost solved") 
- removal of an arbitrary number (why 2s ? why the same number for 2 hands, one-hand and feet ? why the same number for a 10s solve and a 10min solve ?)
- removal of the HTM choice in those events (cube off by M is unsolved, cube off by R2 is "almost solved")

I personally don't believe in the "bad luck" argument: rules should not account for that. If someone finishes his solve, let the cube go and stop the timer but his cube completely explodes when hitting the mat, he will get a DNF. This is also bad luck. That does not mean we should change the rules so that he gets a +2 instead of a dnf. And if this rule existed, I hope many would be in favour to remove it.
On the contrary, I personally don't believe in the "what about the guy who was off one turn before pll" argument either and I explained why earlier.

I know some people try to avoid comparing speedcubing to other sports but just if some would accept a small example: 
If someone in soccer shoots and the ball hits the bar and goes away, it is not a goal. It was pretty close. The one shooting may have scored many many times before, it may have been bad luck (some scratch on the bar, some wind, some grass on the shoe, ...) but still, the team of the player gets nothing. Not a goal, not half a goal, not a bonus in case of a draw, nothing. 



Cheese11 said:


> So say one is doing a math question. And they get it wrong. Does that mean they were taking a risk? Does that mean their lazy? Not at all, it means they made a mistake.


Then they should not be said to have finished the math problem in [time they used for it] + 2s.



Pedro said:


> Another thing I just thought.
> So you're basically saying that we should treat someone who grabs the scrambled cube, applies no moves and stops the timer the same way as someone who did the solve, but dropped the cube a bit too fast/clumsy/not properly that one layer turned to 46 degrees?
> That doens't sound good at all to me...


I agree it does not sound good to me. But if you apply this reasoning what about the guy who solved the cube, dropped it a bit too fast/clumsy/... and the cube pops. He is treated the same way as you first guy. It does not seem right either. In my example above, the guy shooting and hitting the bar should also get something better than a guy not touching the ball at all but it is not the case.



jonlin said:


> Dene, [...] you're the only one in favor of removing it.


No, he is not. 



jonlin said:


> Give me a specific reason why you don't give a really logical reason why you support the DNF misaligned statement.


I don't like to reply on his behalf, but I wrote 3 reasons up there.


----------



## Dene (Dec 17, 2011)

jonlin said:


> Give me a specific reason why you don't give a really logical reason why you support the DNF misaligned statement.


 
I have provide many many reasons throughout this thread. I think they would number at least 5, possibly up to 10. I have thought I will, at some stage, come up with an "official proposal" to the WRC, summarising all of the arguments for both sides of the debate, and of course arguing in favour of the DNF rule. If I get around to that then you will have a summary of all of my arguments, but otherwise feel free to read back and check out all of the reasons I have provided (or else I probably support all the reasons given by other people).



bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Are you really so arrogant to suggest that people should be infallible? They aren't, and neither are you, so maybe you should act a little more sympathetically and cut them some slack. Mistakes are inevitable, and it makes for a much better atmosphere at competitions if people know they won't be punished too harshly for small errors.


 
They won't be punished too harshly for small errors. There are many instances where people are penalised for small errors without complete disqualification. But they should not be rewarded for not solving the cube. Yes people are infallible, errors happen throughout the world every second of every day, but that's why you accept the consequences of your actions and learn from your mistakes.


----------



## TimMc (Dec 18, 2011)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Mistakes are inevitable, and it makes for a much better atmosphere at competitions if people know they won't be punished too harshly for small errors.



Isn't this the current atmosphere in which blindfolded solvers have to compete? I.e. DNF for a small error.

Simply showing +2's in the WCA database, highlighted as red, may change the way that competitors finish their solves. Would you prefer a fast average recorded with 2-3 +2's against it or a clean fast average with no +2's?

Tim.


----------



## keyan (Dec 18, 2011)

Too much to respond to everything. 



aronpm said:


> Consistency? Because 1 event of 18 (excluding FMC) doesn't have a +2 penalty, the other 17 events should have their +2 penalty removed? What is this I don't even.


Yes, consistency. As in, the rules would be consistent across all the puzzles. Plenty of ways you could have chosen to respond. Perhaps going the other direction, consistency by adding a +2 to clock, as someone else suggested (though that has its own problems). Perhaps you could have explained why consistency isn't necessary. You could have even explained why consistency would be detrimental. But instead you chose gibberish lolspeak. Thanks for your contribution? 



Stefan said:


> No. That's *not* _"strictly inside his solve attempt"_. And I specifically said _"due to having to stop the timer"_, so it's not _"just sloppy turning"_ but at least _"sloppy turning due to having to stop the timer"_, so at least a small part of the fault is from that flawed procedure, so it's not 100% from the cuber. Unlike Dene's other scenario, which has nothing to do with the procedure and *is* 100% the cuber's fault.


If we had a way to time only the turning portion of a solve, self-timing cubes, would you consider it acceptable to do a U4 after PLL and claim the cube solved, regardless of the final state? 



jonlin said:


> Dene, people are not going to be that great against the not keeping +2 argument. In fact, you're the only one in favor of removing it.


No. Just that some of us have jobs, and can't be posting here every day when the majority of arguments brought against are about hurt feelings. In fact, based on the number of people replying here, I could argue that the majority of cubers don't care one way or the other. 


jonlin said:


> Dene, I give you a challenge. Give me a specific reason why you don't give a really logical reason why you support the DNF misaligned statement.


Well, aside from the fact that you are ignoring all the reasons Dene has given, how's my little list here? 

Simplicity - only two solve classifications, rather than three now, makes juding easier
Consistency - clock
Simplicity - weird cases in the rules like multiBLD
Fairness - slice turns

Can anyone say why these are wrong? Or unnecessary? Is there any argument that having the current +2 rule increases simplicity, consistency or fairness? 

I think there's a problem of people using loaded language here. "Punish" "reward" and "teach a lesson" are totally unnecessary. This is simply about when a cube is considered solved or not. As Tim said, a non-cuber wouldn't consider a cube off by one turn (much less U2 R44degrees L44degrees) as solved. I don't think that we need to try to accommodate non-cubers, but I do think they provide a useful perspective. Lots of people here are arguing simply becuse they have become accustomed to seeing a cube as solved where most people wouldn't. 

Proposal: 
A cuber gets to PLL, with a clockwise U. They accidentally do a counter-clockwise U and DNF. A friend was filming, and has a very good view with high definition video. Can this cuber petition the board for the solve to count, saying that they "obviously know how to solve"? How about, in the video the counter-clockwise U takes exactly one second. With the 4:1 ratio previously mentioned, could they petition for the solve to count with a four second penalty? 

As I said, we use scorecards that record the different type of +2s given. Of 1780 non-clock, non-magic, non-BLD solves last weekend, there were a total of 35 +2s. Less than two percent. Of those, only two would have resulted in a competitor's average becoming DNF. Just over half of a percent of the 371 competitor-averages. Not nearly as terrible a problem, I think, than some are suggesting. This is with the current rules, where cubers are supposedly not worried about unsolved cubes because the "punishment" isn't so bad, leading to lots of +2s. 

This really is a flashback to the removal of the POP rule and the lowering of inspection time. At the time there were people afraid of the changes, saying that it would make cubing "less fun". Same argument here. Inspection had a lot more added benefit, but with the POP rule, it's nearly the same. Similarly, should this rule change, I imagine no one would be bothered about it after a year, or just a few competitions.

Edit: I have scorecards from other previous competitions if anyone is interested in more numbers.


----------



## Godmil (Dec 18, 2011)

keyan said:


> Well, I'm not Dene, so do the four I brought up not count?


 
Not if your going to ignore the existing criticisms of them.


----------



## keyan (Dec 18, 2011)

Could you point me to which posts? You already addressed consistency, I know. Not so much a criticism as a perfectly legitimate alternative proposal. But that still requires you to give a good +2 definition for clock. Someone else mentioned slice turns, and of course it's not a 'method bias' as some have claimed in the past, but it's still two very similar cases being treated very differently. What about the other two?


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Dec 18, 2011)

So Dene and others would consider the 1-turn scramble to be a completely acceptable "scrambled" state just like any other unsolved position? If it came up on an official scramble you would look at it and say, "Well, technically it IS unsolved". You would count the noob turning one face as actually bring the cube from an unsolved position to a solved position, and count it the same as someone who actually knows how to solve the cube? This would be my only problem I guess.

Also, this black/white type thinking is kind of annoying. It'd be tantamount to a teacher saying "YOU EITHER KNOW SOMETHING OR YOU DON'T. YOU MISS A QUESTION ON A TEST YOU FAIL. DOESN'T COUNT".

ALSO, imagine if when you popped a piece because you were being too rough with it (or for whatever reason) that your solve was automatically disqualified (because you are not allowed to take the cube apart and put it back together, kinda like you can't take off the stickers). Don't you think that would be a little harsh?


----------



## keyan (Dec 18, 2011)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> So Dene and others would consider the 1-turn scramble to be a completely acceptable "scrambled" state just like any other unsolved position? If it came up on an official scramble you would look at it and say, "Well, technically it IS unsolved".


A single turn scramble is acceptable under current rules, no? I would accept it with the resignation that, yes, single solve rankings never meant much, but unfortunately most people that complain about lucky solves only acknowledge that after they get one themselves. 

Stefan recently suggested dropping scrambles of less than or equal to three moves, because they can be considered trivially solvable. Lots of people seemed to agree with this. I suggest that, in light of this, all cubes three turns or less from solved be considered "solved with penalty". 



PhillipEspinoza said:


> You would count the noob turning one face as actually bring the cube from an unsolved position to a solved position, and count it the same as someone who actually knows how to solve the cube?


Just as much as I count the noob who gets a ten second LL skip, knowing they're not on the same level as someone that averages ten seconds. Competition results will never be an accurate picture of overall level. Sometimes you do better than average in competition. Sometimes you do worse. People shouldn't invest so much emotion in rankings. 



PhillipEspinoza said:


> Also, this black/white type thinking is kind of annoying. It'd be tantamount to a teacher saying "YOU EITHER KNOW SOMETHING OR YOU DON'T. YOU MISS A QUESTION ON A TEST YOU FAIL. DOESN'T COUNT".


No. It's like a teacher saying "If you answer incorrectly you don't get partial credit." Which shouldn't cause argument. 



PhillipEspinoza said:


> ALSO, imagine if when you popped a piece because you were being too rough with it (or for whatever reason) that your solve was automatically disqualified (because you are not allowed to take the cube apart and put it back together, kinda like you can't take off the stickers). Don't you think that would be a little harsh?


How is that related?


----------



## Pedro (Dec 18, 2011)

Phillip gave what is, for me, the best argument so far.

Basically you guys are saying that a set of scrambles like this would be fair:
1. U
2. L'
3. D2
4. B
5. F

That obviously sucks, then...

(Of course I don't like 2-move scrambles, too, but that's a different thread/topic/rule)



adragast said:


> I agree it does not sound good to me. But if you apply this reasoning what about the guy who solved the cube, dropped it a bit too fast/clumsy/... and the cube pops. He is treated the same way as you first guy. It does not seem right either. In my example above, the guy shooting and hitting the bar should also get something better than a guy not touching the ball at all but it is not the case.



Well, I think a cube with 46 degrees off is a lot different than a cube missing a piece...And that's why we treat it differently.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Dec 18, 2011)

TimMc said:


> Isn't this the current atmosphere in which blindfolded solvers have to compete? I.e. DNF for a small error.
> 
> Simply showing +2's in the WCA database, highlighted as red, may change the way that competitors finish their solves. Would you prefer a fast average recorded with 2-3 +2's against it or a clean fast average with no +2's?
> 
> Tim.


 
BLD events are different from the other ones, they have a whole different feel to them. To get a successful BLD solve requires accuracy, so small mistakes are obviously punished much more harshly in that if they happen during the solve you can't see what you did wrong and will probably get a DNF. It is a different type of event, and it's not the focus of discussion in this thread.

The second point I agree with. It would add a little more psychological reason to try and not +2 for most people. I would say that it is fair to do, and I would be happy to have any +2s I had in competition marked like this. It would probably be seen as a way of seeing how fast the average should have been without the mistake and highlighting that the competitor would have achieved it if they had not messed up (unless it was the highest time in an average, in which case the DNF would make no difference. This obviously doesn't apply to MO3). It would work especially well if they were on some boundary they wanted to beat and didn't because of the +2.

Edit: @Keyan: for your teacher analogy, you don't make your point well. In exams (let's use physics as an example), you provide working along with your final answer, so that you don't lose all your marks for one small error - you get marks for the parts that are correct since you show that you know what you were doing, but you don't get full marks for making a small error. In physics exams at school we were told that the marking system worked a follows: if you make a small maths error, you get some deduction in marks, while if you made a physics error they didn't mark any more of that question and you lost all the marks after the error. In a solve, you can make a solving error partway through and not notice until after you have done more solving and put the cube down - DNF, or make a small error at the end when stopping the timer is involved (which is not strictly solving, like the maths parts were not considered as essential in a physics test), but you have shown that the cube was solved other than a small error you get a small penalty (like getting a mark deducted for a small maths error.)


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 18, 2011)

Some of the arguments about the regulations are getting very heated, with people strongly defending opinions without thinking clearly about their justifications. So, I would like to tell a story about a specific regulation revisions took place 2005-2006, when I was joining the community.

It used to be that if your cube popped during an official solve, you could request an additional attempt. From the 2005 regulations:


> In 'Best of' rounds solves with a puzzle defect cannot be exchanged by an extra attempt. If a puzzle defect occurs, the competitor may choose to repair the puzzle and continue the solve.
> 
> In 'Average of 5' or 'Mean of 3' rounds solves with a puzzle defect may be exchanged by an extra attempt, depending on the announcement for the competition. There may be maximum 1 extra attempt per round.



In the 2006 regulations, this changed to allow extra attempts only for 'Mean of 3' rounds. 2006 is also the only year we've had two major revisions of the regulations, and in the 2006v2 regulations, pops were no longer allowed:
"5c)	If a competitor has a puzzle defect, this does not give him the right to an extra attempt."

At this time, the speedcubing.com UWR pages were still a central place where everyone posted their times, and which defined community standards. Macky provided a good argument for removing pops in a Dec. 2005 post. After the initial regulation change, there was a thread about whether competitors could intentionally pop a cube. After Ron's announcement of the 2006v2 (draft) regulations, there was another discussion about pops and the UWRs.


Here are some thoughts on this:

Some people believed there was no need to disallow pops. The fast cubers know and trusted each other, and there was no reason to believe someone would cheat. But it is easy to mistake the fact that you don't think you/someone else would/could abuse a rule with the fact that a rule can be easily misused. You might have tried to argue that a person should deserve another pop if the judge could tell it wasn't on purpose, because it wasn't their fault. I can't find it ight now, but I posting a comment saying that I received an extra attempt on a POP once, and that I was glad the rules allowed it. The rule was nice, and it could have been fair. But the fact is that that the rule did provide an advantage that people were simply used to.
(Also: Just because you don't think a rule can be abused doesn't mean it won't. We learned this the hard way in 2008 with BLD, but peopel succumb to this argument time and gime again. There is also such an aspect to +2s with BLD.)

I believe there are many things we're holding on to just because we're used to them, mainly:

 Inspection time
 +2 penalities for misalignments

Here's how I see most people arguing in this thread: *You have an opinion and you're trying to come up with reasons to support it.* Instead, *you should be looking at the facts and seeing which stance it supports better.*
Stefan its playing Devil's advocate against removing +2s because he's trying to help figure out if the arguments Chris is using are strong enough, and he's looking at it from the perspective of trying to understand how we should define "solving the puzzle" in a competition setting. Although the "how-it-looks-to-an-outsider" reasoning should be used with care, you should think of yourself as someone who is trying to understand the WCA Regulations for the first time. The +2 penalty can be justified, but is a historical courtesy, not an absolute solution. I don't think anyone would argue that the removal of POPs was a bad decision, and I believe that most of the reasoning for keeping +2s are similar reasons that justified allowing POPs.


Personal opinions:
I was against removing pops because I didn't understand things well enough at the time. I used to be against removing +2s, but this thread has done enough to convince me that most arguments arbitrary/emotional opinions or based on the fact that we're just used to them. I believe that competitions will work just fine if we remove the privilege of +2. Competitors still have fair chances to get an average, and if they want to avoid risking a +2 they should practice it like they would practice to avoid pops. Looking at all the reasons, I've come to the conclusion that I think it is better and simpler to define a cube either as solved or not (with no penalty inbetween), and I will ask the WRC to consider this change seriously.

Note: While I used to be against removeing inspection time, I think that it also makes much more sense that solving the puzzle should *not* allow for this. However, this is a much harder change to make to the regulations; in particular, it is a much harder *transition* to make from previous results. Removing +2 misaligment penalties is much more realistic.

P.S.: More history, because I don't think most people remember it. The rules about alignments have had two major changes in the past. One was that the allowable misalignment for a cube was up to 45 degrees instead of one piece touching the next. The other was that any number of slices on the same axis were allowed to be misaligned at once. Both were significant changes, but I don't think anyone has disputed that either was a reasonable decision. I think keeping the one-axis definition is good, and 45 degrees ("closer to a sovlved than not") is useful enough to make the limit.


tl;dr: Please try to look at this issue more objectively, and consider the fact that such "drastic" changes in the past have been good decisions. And: look at the highlighted sentences in the middle of this post.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 18, 2011)

keyan said:


> You could have even explained why consistency would be detrimental. But instead you chose gibberish lolspeak. Thanks for your contribution?


 
Your argument was too ridiculous to warrant a proper response. You want a proper response? Fine. It's not important whether clock has a +2 rule or not. Consistency doesn't imply that there cannot be any exceptions. If clock is that one exception, so be it.

If you care so much about consistency, you should realize that new results under the non-+2 regulations would be inconsistent with old results. All previous +2 results should be DNFs but are not, and there is no way of changing this. Even if it were, since you care about fairness, would it be fair to retroactively say "Sorry, you had a +2 which is now a DNF, you are no longer [national/continental/world] champion, please return your prize money and trophy"?

With regards to multiBLD, Ron has already said that the ruling is to add +2 to each cube, even if it exceeds 10*n or 60 minutes. This is a very hypothetical occurrence anyway.

The +2 rule is already simple. If the turn is clearly under 45 degrees, the decision is obvious. If it is close to 45 degrees, the Delegate can be called over to make the final verdict. That is not complicated.

Their is no unfairness in using HTM for +2. CFOP solves can end using slice moves, and Roux solves can end using face turns. No method bias. STM metric should not be adopted for penalties, and especially not for FM. What about people who DNF because they ended a solve off by RL? Should we introduce an axial turn metric?

Your proposal is utterly ridiculous. The puzzle was not close to solved, in regards to distance from the solved state. Distance from the solved state is far more important than number of pieces unsolved.

I would like to conclude this post with some quotes. If anyone can guess who said them, they win an e-cookie.



> I don't really have a response to this. I just think it's a really harsh stance to take. People make mistakes, why severely punish them for it? Is 2 seconds not enough of a punishment?





> Another point I would like to make is that the same penalty applies to someone who does completely solve the cube (the purpose of the entire thing) and then overshoots, or the cube bounces and does a turn by itself. Why should a cuber be penalised because we do not have the technology to stop timing a solve as soon as it reaches the solved position?





> All I'm saying is that we should not punish people because we lack the technological sophistication. It may have a negative side-effect as you pointed out, but let's be honest a +2 is a bad thing no matter what happens.


----------



## tim (Dec 18, 2011)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> ALSO, imagine if when you popped a piece because you were being too rough with it (or for whatever reason) that your solve was automatically disqualified (because you are not allowed to take the cube apart and put it back together, kinda like you can't take off the stickers). Don't you think that would be a little harsh?



Yep, that would be too harsh. It would be also too harsh if we DNF solves from people who get POPs right after they release the cube and stop the timer (since that might also be a side effect of the timing procedure we're using). Oh, wait...

/edit: I'm obviously not the first one who brought up that argument...



Pedro said:


> (Of course I don't like 2-move scrambles, too, but that's a different thread/topic/rule)


 
Huh, why? One more move and it's a different topic?


----------



## keyan (Dec 18, 2011)

Pedro said:


> Basically you guys are saying that a set of scrambles like this would be fair:
> ...
> That obviously sucks, then...


What if tomorrow a competition is held where totally random scrambles result in five solves: A perm, U perm, T perm, H perm, X perm? What if a random blind scramble happens to be superflip? Competition results will never be perfect. It's just the way it is. I could see removing +2 while filtering short scrambles. 



bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Edit: @Keyan: for your teacher analogy, you don't make your point well. In exams (let's use physics as an example), you provide working along with your final answer, so that you don't lose all your marks for one small error - you get marks for the parts that are correct since you show that you know what you were doing, but you don't get full marks for making a small error. In physics exams at school we were told that the marking system worked a follows: if you make a small maths error, you get some deduction in marks, while if you made a physics error they didn't mark any more of that question and you lost all the marks after the error. In a solve, you can make a solving error partway through and not notice until after you have done more solving and put the cube down - DNF, or make a small error at the end when stopping the timer is involved (which is not strictly solving, like the maths parts were not considered as essential in a physics test), but you have shown that the cube was solved other than a small error you get a small penalty (like getting a mark deducted for a small maths error.)


Not all schools are the same. I would bet that if you had never heard of this before, you would find it weird. 



aronpm said:


> You want a proper response? Fine. It's not important whether clock has a +2 rule or not. Consistency doesn't imply that there cannot be any exceptions. If clock is that one exception, so be it.
> If you care so much about consistency, you should realize that new results under the non-+2 regulations would be inconsistent with old results. All previous +2 results should be DNFs but are not, and there is no way of changing this. Even if it were, since you care about fairness, would it be fair to retroactively say "Sorry, you had a +2 which is now a DNF, you are no longer [national/continental/world] champion, please return your prize money and trophy"?


So you start by saying that consistency isn't important, then say that we can't change the rules because of inconsistencies created? Maybe you haven't been cubing long enough. Look at Lucas's examples. POPs. Reduced inspection time. Changed +2 definition. We haven't retroactively changed those. We can move forward without being chained by our past. 



aronpm said:


> With regards to multiBLD, Ron has already said that the ruling is to add +2 to each cube, even if it exceeds 10*n or 60 minutes. This is a very hypothetical occurrence anyway.


Uh, last I knew that wasn't true. 3/3 29:59 +2 = 2/3 30:00 Either way, it's kinda weird. And there's still the example I was actually talking about. 20 cubes with each cube off by one turn. 20 cubes with 19 solved and one off by two turns. 



aronpm said:


> The +2 rule is already simple. If the turn is clearly under 45 degrees, the decision is obvious. If it is close to 45 degrees, the Delegate can be called over to make the final verdict. That is not complicated.


I agree, not complicated. The complicated part is where we have an additional solve classification beyond "solved" and "not solved". 



aronpm said:


> Your proposal is utterly ridiculous. The puzzle was not close to solved, in regards to distance from the solved state. Distance from the solved state is far more important than number of pieces unsolved.


It was supposed to be ridiculous. Still uses the same logic that someone else used to justify +2. "They obviously know how to solve it." Is there a problem with the logic? If no, why is one acceptable and the other not? If yes, then that logic can't be used to justify +2. 

Lucas, great post, thanks.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 18, 2011)

I don't mind removing +2, but it might cause an issue with the future scramble filtering process.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 18, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I don't mind removing +2, but it might cause an issue with the future scramble filtering process.


How so? Just because there would be fewer states that we consider "solved"? I think this is a separate issue, to the extent that scramble filtering needs a good solution that doesn't depend on something like what we consider solved.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 18, 2011)

Lucas Garron said:


> How so? Just because there would be fewer states that we consider "solved"? I think this is a separate issue, to the extent that scramble filtering needs a good solution that doesn't depend on something like what we consider solved.


 
You're right actually, it doesn't cause an issue.

What is wrong with the solution of doing no filtering? (This might belong in another thread)


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Dec 18, 2011)

Lucas I see your points, and they are good ones. However, I am not so ready to accept that I should accept any change merely because all changes up to this point have been good ones. That seemed to be your tl;dr point. With the POP example, you can see a big advantage you get from abusing the former rule (you basically get a mulligan). But what advantage(s) (similar in weight to the former POP rule) do you think someone who abuses the +2 rule will get? 

The reason why I brought up popping is because like a +2 and wearing headphones, you can't tell if they're doing it intentionally so they could cheat the system. Therefore, since it is not part of solving the cube in the conventional way, and since someone could abuse the privilege of allowing puzzle malfunctions, all solves involving pops or other similar puzzle malfunctions (like twisting an individual corner piece during solve) should be considered a DNF. If a person cares not to get a DNF then they should be more careful with their turning and choose more reliable puzzles.


----------



## Dene (Dec 19, 2011)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> But what advantage(s) (similar in weight to the former POP rule) do you think someone who abuses the +2 rule will get?


 
They get the advantage of taking that extra risk or being lazy. A more important question is, why should we favour the +2 rule in favour of the DNF that solves many regulation issues, as brought up by keyan? Is there any great disadvantage in getting a DNF rather than a +2, when either way it will probably be the worst solve in an average anyway? (Except for in the cases of means, but these only occur in events that take significantly longer times, and therefore the extra effort required to ensure the cube is completely solved in negligible in comparison).

Also, I would like to thank keyan for the time he put into working out those numbers. Stellar effort! And proves a great point, which I have been trying to stress throughout this thread, i.e., that changing the rule to DNF will not make much of a difference.


----------



## Escher (Dec 19, 2011)

Dene, you don't think it makes much of a difference to you because I get the impression you've never been awarded a +2 (that you've ever cared about).

The difference is not in 'hard results'. I wonder how many of Keyan's were 'nearly' plus 2s that the competitor had to go back and fix before stopping the timer. The difference primarily affects the metagame, particularly in puzzles where stopping procedure is a higher percentage of the solving process (no comments about the validity of said events). I think in these events we will see a negative impact on times/the game, and I don't see how the arguments raised here are really enough to justify that.

The main hypothetical situations I can see the metagame changing considerably are in events that most of the people arguing for change are not experts in. I'm not saying this changes the validity of their arguments but I think it detracts from their familiarity with competitor strategies during rounds, and ability to see how much the new 'floor' function changes/damages the game. 

I don't actually care too much about competing anymore (I realised I suck at it), so the rule change won't affect me so much. I just think regulation changes that damage the strategies of the top-end cubers are generally not positive changes, especially when the arguments to set this in motion are those from consistency (I don't see how clock regulations are relevant to other twisty puzzles bar the rubik's logo), simplicity (I don't see how judge incompetency should be important) and 'HTM choice'. 

I'm not sure exactly what is so offensive about the +2 regulation - it does exactly what it is intended to do; saves competitors when they have made a last-second mistake or luck has bitten them, and punishes their time enough for it to be something to avoid, while not being something that might completely wreck their participation in the competition. 

I'm going to call up the argument from conservatism and say when there is no clear direction it's best to do nothing. If people could tell me exactly how removing +2 helps work towards "more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair conditions", that would be great. Especially since many people have brought up the issue that removing the plus 2 seems intuitively 'unfair', thus impeding the fun, and also calling into question what exactly we mean by 'fair'.


----------



## gogozerg (Dec 19, 2011)

Robocopter87 said:


> Normally a turn of the cube is pretty quick (less than a second).
> If the person fails to make that last turn, they receive a +2.
> This is x4 the time it would've taken them to turn it originally. (Generalizing a flick as .5 of a second.)



Heu?!?
And where's the proof the person would have made the right last turn?
How can you even assume the person wanted to solve it?
If we follow the logic behind the +2 rule, we could just say that all missing moves count as +2. All competitors would have a worst time around 40s without touching the cube.

A puzzle is solved, or it is not.
We're not doing poetry!
And why are so many of you talking about "luck"? It's beyond my understanding...

---------

By the way, I remember once, I had to declare a "+2" where 2 orthogonal slices were clearly not aligned. IE:
R/2 (angle <PI/2 - Article 10f )
U2 (angle >PI/2 - Article 10e1+10e3 )

---------

Last thought.
At my last competition I had two +2 in a round.
Without the +2 rule, I think I could have had a better average, since I would have been more cautious.

Gilles.


----------



## Dene (Dec 19, 2011)

I was not trolling at any stage. Perhaps I'm just getting it all wrong.



Escher said:


> Dene, you don't think it makes much of a difference to you because I get the impression you've never been awarded a +2 (that you've ever cared about).



I get the odd +2, and I'm never happy about it.



Escher said:


> The difference primarily affects the metagame...
> I just think regulation changes that damage the strategies of the top-end cubers are generally not positive changes



"People are used to +2 therefore we shouldn't change it"



Escher said:


> I'm not sure exactly what is so offensive about the +2 regulation - it does exactly what it is intended to do; saves competitors when they have made a last-second mistake or luck has bitten them, and punishes their time enough for it to be something to avoid, while not being something that might completely wreck their participation in the competition.



What I've been arguing the whole time is that we shouldn't have to save competitors, that is the risk they take and they should be treated appropriately. Also, keyan's numbers show what I largely suspected, in that almost no one would be affected by a DNF more than a +2.



Escher said:


> I'm going to call up the argument from conservatism and say when there is no clear direction it's best to do nothing. If people could tell me exactly how removing +2 helps work towards "more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair conditions", that would be great. Especially since many people have brought up the issue that removing the plus 2 seems intuitively 'unfair', thus impeding the fun, and also calling into question what exactly we mean by 'fair'.


 
Plenty of clear direction has been given. Also, your reference to the motto is irrelevant. It's about what is best for speedcubing, not about keeping everyone happy, which is never going to happen. (Might I refer to the old POP rule change here, which, as Lucas alluded to, is very similar to this rule change in how people feel about it, and the result will be the same as well, i.e. people will get used to it and move on and everyone will be happy again).


----------



## Robocopter87 (Dec 19, 2011)

gogozerg said:


> Heu?!?
> And where's the proof the person would have made the right last turn?
> How can you even assume the person wanted to solve it?
> If we follow the logic behind the +2 rule, we could just say that all missing moves count as +2. All competitors would have a worst time around 40s without touching the cube.
> ...


 

Talk about inconsistency.

You talk about technicalities. You ask questions like, "How do we know he intended to solve it?" You ask how we even know he would made the right turn. You say its not technically "solved".

Yet, your last thought is, "without this rule, I would've gotten a better average." Oh yeah? How do I know you would've intended to solve it? How do I know that you would be cautious? How do I know that you would've made that last turn properly?

Don't you guys understand? You are being way too technical. No duh they intended to solve it. Why go to a comp to not solve it? The solve hundreds to thousands of times and you are questioning whether or not they actually even know how to align a misaligned U face? 

Yes. if we followed the logic they could get times like that. Except we aren't stupid. We DON'T follow the logic for the WHOLE cube. It is ONE misaligned face.







If I went down the street with the cube looking like this. And asked every single person, regardless of age, if they were capable of solving it. There would would be none who couldn't do it. (Besides infants, Mentally impaired, and few other exceptions. Obviously we won't go into that.) Any person in their right mind could do it. 

Why on earth would you even assume that there is slightest possibility that a person at a SPEEDCUBING comp solves the cube and is incapable of aligning the last face?

Yes. When it comes down to super technicalities (aka "There is the 1/10000000 possibility they might intend to use this rule which lengthens time to shorten their time.

Cmon. Lets be real. 

No. We never will know the true intentions of the cubers. But its safe to say that MOST people are intending to solve. 

So. If we are being all technical. Then yes, you guys are absolutely right. But, if we are being more real and putting it into REAL situations. Then no, you guys are absolutely wrong. (Or gals. I just generalize to guys.)

I posted again because I had questions directed at me.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Dec 19, 2011)

Ultimately this is a First World Problem and people will have to get used to it if the rules change, so either way I'm w/e. 

But I honestly don't believe the +2 rule is causing as much damage to anything or anyone as to merit it's removal.



Dene said:


> They get the advantage of taking that extra risk or being lazy.


 
If being lazy is an advantage then maybe we should get rid of the option of sitting in a chair. Lazy people shouldn't be allowed to compete.


----------



## tim (Dec 19, 2011)

Robocopter87 said:


> If I went down the street with the cube looking like this. And asked every single person, regardless of age, if they were capable of solving it. There would would be none who couldn't do it. (Besides infants, Mentally impaired, and few other exceptions. Obviously we won't go into that.) Any person in their right mind could do it.


 
The same is true for cubes off by M2 which is a DNF. So what's your point? We consider a cube "almost solved" (aka +2) if the average joe can solve it?


----------



## Escher (Dec 19, 2011)

Dene said:


> "People are used to +2 therefore we shouldn't change it"



...to something that damages your average (and meta) so severely. Taking the essence of my argument and not pitching it against something else is completely unhelpful. Your argument might as well be "+2 penalty should be changed to beheading" for all that oversimplification gives.



Dene said:


> What I've been arguing the whole time is that we shouldn't have to save competitors, that is the risk they take and they should be treated appropriately. Also, keyan's numbers show what I largely suspected, in that almost no one would be affected by a DNF more than a +2.



Keyan's numbers strictly show the number of penalties that were awarded, nothing more, stop trying to use them to determine the effects of a regulation change. 



Dene said:


> Plenty of clear direction has been given. Also, your reference to the motto is irrelevant. It's about what is best for speedcubing, not about keeping everyone happy, which is never going to happen. (Might I refer to the old POP rule change here, which, as Lucas alluded to, is very similar to this rule change in how people feel about it, and the result will be the same as well, i.e. people will get used to it and move on and everyone will be happy again).


 
The directions may be clear, but whether to follow them isn't if it is only given by a noisy minority. How is my reference irrelevant exactly? Is that not the general aim of the regulations? To ensure more fun in a fair environment? 

What is 'best for speedcubing' is irrelevant to this argument, since it's completely subjective. We should be worrying about changes to regulations within the context the regulations have created, not an 'absolute aim'.

The fact that 'people will get used to it' doesn't minimise the negative effect now. I'm sure people would get used to it if they changed 3x3 to mo3 to have shorter rounds and stop people from 'getting the advantage' of not having their worst time included.


----------



## Dene (Dec 19, 2011)

Ah good, I see what you were saying more clearly now. But I am willing to put a lot of money on the fact that changing +2 to DNF will not significantly change the meta of people. At the most recent cubing meetup in Melbourne I was being very explicit in applying to myself a DNF in a case where I would normally +2, and it didn't change a thing at all. But of course this is hardly a useful sample. Perhaps it would be of more value to you if I were to set up a mini unofficial comp in Melbourne, applying the DNF rule and seeing how things turned out. Sure, the sample would still be small, but there are a range of different characters here to contribute to that sample, including perhaps one of the most important people in Feliks, seeing as you think the top-ranked cubers matter so much.

Seeing as this is your argument, I would like to see you argue convincingly for why you think this would affect the meta of top-ranked cubers so significantly as to deem it a poor choice in change. When giving your example I would like you to bear in mind the history of the POP rule, as that makes for a very good comparable case.


I would also add, about your comment on keyan's numbers, that the simple fact of the matter is, the vast majority of cubers won't know, nor care, about the DNF rule. In my experience as a delegate it is pretty clear that most people don't know the regulations very well, and that includes people that you would expect to at least be roughly familiar. Therefore these people don't have any particular meta in mind when it comes to misaligned slices at the end of solves, therefore the vast majority of people simply won't be affected by any change. Now I know you think top-ranked cubers are more important therefore we should consider them more, so you might think my point just here is useless, but then again, my point certainly applies to the "more fun for more people" thing that you seem so keen on (that is, it applies in the sense that it won't affect the amount of fun the vast majority of people have).


----------



## Escher (Dec 19, 2011)

I think that the fact it would affect the meta of top-ranked cubers at all, weighed against the fact that most people, as you put it, 'dont know or dont care', means that a regulation change to that effect would only be a negative thing.

I'll reply properly tomorrow, no time now.


----------



## keyan (Dec 19, 2011)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> If a person cares not to get a DNF then they should be more careful with their turning and choose more reliable puzzles.


Isn't that what we've all been saying in favor of removing +2? 



Robocopter87 said:


> Don't you guys understand? You are being way too technical. No duh they intended to solve it. Why go to a comp to not solve it? The solve hundreds to thousands of times and you are questioning whether or not they actually even know how to align a misaligned U face?
> ...
> If I went down the street with the cube looking like this. And asked every single person, regardless of age, if they were capable of solving it. There would would be none who couldn't do it. (Besides infants, Mentally impaired, and few other exceptions. Obviously we won't go into that.) Any person in their right mind could do it.


In general I think it's best to not respond to such a rambling post, but with regard to the two points I've quoted, I want you to explain first how my U perm example (post #161) is unacceptable given your logic here, and second why you aren't arguing to consider as "solved with penalty" all "trivially solvable" cases (defined as three or fewer moves from solved by Stefan, or with your own definition).



Escher said:


> Keyan's numbers strictly show the number of penalties that were awarded, nothing more, stop trying to use them to determine the effects of a regulation change.


I think the numbers tell quite a lot. It says to me that your argument that this will change the approach cubers take in competition is making a mountain out of a molehill. In the current environment, where we don't have "harsh punishments" and cubers are supposedly free to not worry about not solving their cube, +2s are a very rare event. Were the rule to change but competitors weren't informed, and so went ahead competing with their current mindset, almost nothing would change. The impact would be tiny. 

I'll respond to the 'metagame' bit after I get a chance to compare some competitor's previous averages.


----------



## Escher (Dec 19, 2011)

keyan said:


> I think the numbers tell quite a lot. It says to me that your argument that this will change the approach cubers take in competition is making a mountain out of a molehill. In the current environment, where we don't have "harsh punishments" and cubers are supposedly free to not worry about not solving their cube, +2s are a very rare event. Were the rule to change but competitors weren't informed, and so went ahead competing with their current mindset, almost nothing would change. The impact would be tiny.
> 
> I'll respond to the 'metagame' bit after I get a chance to compare some competitor's previous averages.


 
"[the] numbers strictly show the number of penalties that were awarded, nothing more"
The statement above is completely true. It's impossible to derive the conclusions you've reached.

Also, you're taking a (small compared to the number of solves in the database) sample from every single event where a +2 can be awarded, not where the +2 meta is relevant.

If you didn't tell competitors, and awarded a DNF in a plus2 situation for a fast 2x2er's first solve I can guarantee you'd completely mind**** them and their average. There are plenty of conceivable occurrences whereby some other error is committed early in an average and the rest is damaged due to having to be extremely careful of not overshooting or putting the puzzle down too hard. In an ideal world nobody would make these mistakes, but they do, and they have been doing for the past 4-5 (?) years. The onus is on you to demonstrate to the community that removing +2 wouldn't be damaging to top competitor mindset, or that the damage is minimal enough to warrant removal for the sake of your argument from simplicity.

I don't want to sound elitist but it is the elite that are setting the records and getting into news media and expanding the reach of cubing. It's for the boundary-pushing competitors where every single miniscule reaction and turn makes a huge difference, and it's for these whom the meta change 'would' affect the most. 

Maybe it's just me, but in my experience +2s are a regular occurrence at UK competitions, and certainly weren't rare at US Nats or CO. If you want to start making conclusions about meta change, then a separate poll needs to be set-up where a reasonable proportion of the community votes.


----------



## Pedro (Dec 19, 2011)

tim said:


> Huh, why? One more move and it's a different topic?



No, what I meant is that 2 moves away is a DNF, no matter the rule changing or not, and filtering scrambles is another thread/discussion.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 19, 2011)

Rowan: Thank you for clarifying my point. You saw what I was attempting to say and made it much clearer.

Dene: I agree with you 100% about "people seem to not know the regulations that well, including those you'd expect to know them." I do disagree with you on this same point, though. The only competitors I see that do not know the +2/DNF rules are new competitors. That being said: Most (my opinion, obviously) competitors with more than one competition on their WCA profile page will have a clear enough (relative, I know) understanding of the difference between a +2 and DNF (at least when it comes to misalignments). Rowan is completely right: Take a competitor who might not have seen the regulations update (say they were without the ability to see the rule change(s) and the delegate/organizer at their next competition doesn't mention a ruleset update) and put them in a 2x2 event, they will have a significantly worse average than usual if they get a DNF instead a +2 on their first solve. This could very well be true for 3x3 solves. The truth is knowing that you cannot afford another DNF will affect your times. I've already seen impedance created from one DNF or +2 in a 2x2 round with some competitors (to be fair they aren't a sub3 average, but still).

I agree with Rowan on his point about the stopping procedure being more time of the solve. Large cubes obviously won't matter near as much to take that extra half second to verify you are aligned correctly. Look at the current 2x2 WR: an extra 0.5 second would obviously blow this time (and I believe I already mentioned this).


----------



## Dene (Dec 19, 2011)

Now that you've speculated, I thought I would check some facts. I don't have any programming skills so I can't do any sort of thorough analysis, but I decided to do a quick look over the profiles of Feliks Zemdegs and Rowe Hessler, and Michal Pleskowicz, the top three cubers in 3x3 speedsolve at the 2011 World Championships, and also acknowledged as among the best cubers in the world. There weren't a lot of examples to go by, but I will post some of their averages that included DNFs to see how destroyed they were. Except they weren't destroyed at all:

_Feliks Zemdegs:_
3x3: 7.78, DNF, 11.27, 6.77, 7.58
Average: 8.88. WR single, 6.77
NOTE: The DNF was the second solve in the average.
Not only did he get what was a reasonable average for him, certainly not considerably better or worse than anything else he was getting (at the same competition his other averages were 9.07, and 7.91, which became the WR average), but two solves later he went and got the new WR single! This, of course, happened just after he had beaten Erik's long-standing 7.08 WR earlier in the competition.

4x4: 38.28, 40.91, DNF, 36.84, 37.00
Average: 38.73
In this case the DNF came in the middle of the average, and after that he proceeded to get the _best two times of the average_. The average was not the best because of the solves that came _before_ the DNF, not _after_.

2x2: 3.31, 2.80, DNF, 1.61, 2.93
Average: 3.01
A normal average for him at the time (which, incidentally, was followed in the final round by the OcR), Feliks once again proceeded to get his best solve _after_ the DNF.

Megaminx: 1:02.86, DNF, 1:05.47, 1:09.80, 1:02.58
Average: 1:06.04
Even though megaminx isn't one of his main events, I thought I'd put this one in there too for the sake of it. This is the current OcR. 

Also from Feliks, the old OcR in Square-1 had a DNF on the second solve. The current OcR for OH has a DNF on the final solve (this doesn't show much re. the meta thing, but still shows that a DNF is not necessarily devastating).

_Rowe Hessler:_
3x3: DNF, 9.96, 9.44, 10.40, 9.56
Average: 9.97
A brilliant example of why all this "meta" talk is a load of crap. Rowe's most recent attempt, a DNF on the first solve, followed by a decent sub10 average.

3x3: 11.13, 8.88, DNF, 9.44, 8.38
Average: 9.82
Just another example of a fairly recent average. This could have been significantly better if not for the 11.13 on the first solve, which is unfortunate. I'd be interested to know if that was a +2 or not.

4x4: 41.66, 39.91, DNF, 44.59, 36.40
Average: 42.05
Rowe's PB 4x4 average in competition, the best solve comes after the DNF, once again.

2x2: I won't pick out any specific cases, but if you look through all his averages there are a few with DNFs in them and they are mostly normal averages, and certainly no exceptional cases of a DNF completely destroying an average except one occurrence of two DNFs. But this only shows to me that he obviously didn't care enough to be careful after the first DNF (which is what you meta-argument defending people seem to think would happen, that is, people would slow down a lot and be more careful after an early DNF).

OH: 13.03, DNF, 13.86, 18.19, 16.05
Average: 16.03
Just one of a few examples from Rowe's OH averages. This is once again a normal average for him in comparison to other competition averages. The DNF is followed by a very fast 13.86.

_Michal Pleskowicz:_
Our current World Champion is a good example of how you can avoid DNFs if you put your mind to it. He has a very good record regarding these. Unfortunately there is no information on his +2 penalty history for misaligned slices. I'll just point out a couple of averages that show that DNFs do not destroy averages.
3x3: 10.21, 8.33, 9.93, 9.68, DNF
Average: 9.94

And an old average of his from 2009, which was his PB at the time:
3x3: DNF, 15.09, 14.38, 17.27, 14.90
Average: 15.75


Because all of this was such a successful endeavour I thought I would have a quick check of the averages of two previous World Champions and also highly respected cubers.

_Breandan Vallance:_
3x3: DNF, 9.28, 10.13, 9.21, 9.27
Average: 9.56
A recent average for him, and the best he had done in quite a few months.

3x3: 9.00, DNF, 8.88, 9.46, 10.77
Average: 9.74
Done at WCs

3x3: 9.33, DNF, 9.21, 9.78, 10.63
Average: 9.91
The _winning_ average at USNats 2011.

_Yu Nakajima:_
Another example of how you can solve the cube when you put your mind to it, not a single 3x3 DNF!
4x4: DNF, 1:08.68, 48.44, 48.41, 46.06
Average: 55.18
This is the only case I have seen of a DNF "destroying" an average, except my guess is that it was actually a big old POP that destroyed the average, and not his meta, seeing as he proceeded to get what were good times for him after that.

5x5: DNF, 1:23.09, 1:29.05, 1:19.11, 1:16.41
Average: 1:23.75
The NR at the time.


So what can we conclude from all this? Firstly it should be made clear that we cannot conclude that changing a +2 to a DNF will have no affect on cubers. All of this had no information on +2, nor on how changing the rule would affect the meta of elite cubers. However what it does show is that elite cubers are not concerned in the least by getting a DNF. Therefore I think we have good reason to believe that the meta of cubers would not change significantly in the face of a change of rule, as penalties in general are a rare occurrence (thanks to the data provided by keyan), and even when a penalty is incurred the elite cubers simply don't let it affect them.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Dec 20, 2011)

Dene, I think your inference is rather flawed. You have picked out data which appears to suit your argument, but which doesn't include why the solves were DNFs or how easy the solves were that were fast after the DNFs. There is also the fact that there is naturally some variation in solve time, so it is hard to tell what the solve times 'should' be to compare against what happened after the DNF. Logically, you can conclude pretty much nothing from the data you posted.


----------



## Robocopter87 (Dec 20, 2011)

tim said:


> The same is true for cubes off by M2 which is a DNF. So what's your point? We consider a cube "almost solved" (aka +2) if the average joe can solve it?



The M2 thing is not part of this discussion. However I don't see why this is only for the U face. Anywho, no, thats not my point. He asked me how we knew they intended to solve it. he asked me how I knew he was capable of solving it. The point of the going down the street was to show that a cuber is obviously capable of aligning that face. Except in +2 scenarios, for whatever reason, the cuber failed to finish the revolution.


----------



## Dene (Dec 20, 2011)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Dene, I think your inference is rather flawed. You have picked out data which appears to suit your argument, but which doesn't include why the solves were DNFs or how easy the solves were that were fast after the DNFs. There is also the fact that there is naturally some variation in solve time, so it is hard to tell what the solve times 'should' be to compare against what happened after the DNF. Logically, you can conclude pretty much nothing from the data you posted.


 
I picked out *every* relevant average with a DNF, except for in the cases where I mentioned. I didn't pick out specific cases to suit my argument. If you don't believe me go and check their WCA profiles.

As for the rest of the stuff you said, that applies to any average, therefore generalises across all situations and all rules. If that applies to past averages with the +2 rule it would apply to future averages with the DNF rule, therefore it is completely irrelevant. Logically, I can conclude exactly what I did from the data I provided.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Dec 20, 2011)

Dene said:


> _Feliks Zemdegs:_
> 3x3: 7.78, DNF, 11.27, 6.77, 7.58
> Average: 8.88. WR single, 6.77
> NOTE: The DNF was the second solve in the average.
> Not only did he get what was a reasonable average for him, certainly not considerably better or worse than anything else he was getting (at the same competition his other averages were 9.07, and 7.91, which became the WR average), but two solves later he went and got the new WR single! This, of course, happened just after he had beaten Erik's long-standing 7.08 WR earlier in the competition.



This is a good point in seeing whether or not DNF affects the meta of top cubers, but this is pre-+2-regulation change. Wouldn't the regulation change essentially double the chance of a DNF? And wouldn't knowing that affect your meta differently? I dunno if the data provided would really be indicative of how meta would be affected if the +2 regulation change were to go into effect. It's kinda like changing it to a mo3, where you would in fact be more afraid to DNF because that would ruin your average, then using avg of 5 to show how DNF doesn't effect meta.

On another note, imagine if that 11.27 was a +2, under the rule change it would DNF the average. The real question is how many good averages would turn into DNF averages given the proposed regulation change? An example (not so good average but w/e) in AZ Showdown this was the winning average.

10.86, 11.31, (41.47), 13.03+, 10.21 = 11.73 (sucky I know)

Had it been under the regulation change, this average would've went from winning the competition to a 21.21 avg, all because it was 1° off for the 11.03 solve. How many good or winning averages would this new rule have affected? I'm too lazy to research it myself, DNF me I guess. 

Point: *It seems like all the +2 regulation change would do is increase the chances of a competitor getting a DNF* for some arbitrary measure of "laziness"? (At 46° you're lazy and deserve a DNF but at 45° you're okay). It is therefore meaningless to use old results to show how DNF will not affect a top cubers meta/performance under the new regulation change.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 20, 2011)

Dene: I was reading your post and was about to reply, but Phillip said pretty much what I wanted to say. Since all of your data is pre +2 -> DNF, this only shows that their DNFs are due to not performing algorithms correctly (I'd speculate this is probably the case for the 3 cubers you mentioned in 3x3, at least), most likely pops for 2x2, and I will go ahead and speculate that it's probably less relevant in 4x4 (especially the longer you go down the line as the 4x4 curve at least appears steeper than 3x3).

The whole point of the argument is that getting a +2 instead of a DNF means you have to be even more careful than you are now, and you cannot account for that in the current data set (no matter how much you try to display said results). You already know that we don't have a way to see what solves were a +2, and more specifically which +2's were misaligned layers vs other +2 penalties.

I can tell you this right now: I'm quite the nervous competitor, especially when I'm averaging better at home than what I did at the previous competition, but the only thing a single DNF does to me is irritate me because that means any +2's I get will raise my average. I get annoyed at me being silly enough to get a +2, but it doesn't really affect the "metagame" that much. I am interested in your +2 -> DNF experiment though, and will do an average of 50 and post you the results in IRC or something. I don't think this thread is the place for everybody posting experiment results. I would like to see this experiment conducted with a lot more people, though.

I could probably argue with your logic about +2's that we should never have a +2, including time penalties, timer/hand penalties, etc. You might already be on this path though, and I've missed it since I'm looking at this specifically in regards of misaligned layers vs +2's altogether.


----------



## Dene (Dec 20, 2011)

Basically everything you two have said is irrelevant. The examples I gave were directly to do with how getting a DNF affects the meta of cubers, causing it to destroy their averages. The data clearly shows that the meta of cubers is not affected after a DNF, and no one has provided any reason why that should be different if we give out a DNF for a misalignment instead of a +2. For example, if that 11.27 solve by Feliks was a +2 (it wouldn't be hard to find that out, I'm sure there's a video), if he knew he would DNF the average he probably would have gone to the extra effort to fix the misalignment before slamming down on the timer, which would have cost him less than 2 seconds, and made the average better.

Also, I don't recommend doing my experiment, it was more of a thought experiment than anything else, and I'm pretty sure I got the point across. Whether you agree with that or not, I don't know (probably not, tbh  ).

Phillip: As the regulations currently stand the difference between no penalty and a +2 is between 45 degrees and 46 degrees. The difference between a +2 and a DNF is between 45 degrees and 46 degrees. What's your point?


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 20, 2011)

Dene, I was watching a tv show after I posted that and realized that doing 50 solves here at home won't change my meta (but it should show how often I'd +2/DNF). Doing solves at home I care far less than solves in competition, and I am certain I'm not the only one who is like this. I am also certain that I'd be much more careful about my +2's (that would now be DNFs) in competition, because I have a hefty amount of +2's in competition. At either UIndy Open or Dayton the month before that, I had a 3x3 round where I had 3 +2's and a DNF. I realize that I'm nowhere near "good" by any means, but it doesn't change the fact that my times would have been slower had it been DNF's under my current mind set (and that my times would all be increased by at least 0.5 by ensuring I place the cube correctly and have it aligned properly).

With 2x2 (for me) it's even worse. I for sure slow down when I get a DNF in 2x2, for fear of popping (most likely the cause of the first DNF), so it adds easily 1s to my time (I'm slow at 2x2, sue me).


----------



## Cool Frog (Dec 20, 2011)

Dene said:


> Basically everything you two have said is irrelevant. The examples I gave were directly to do with how getting a DNF affects the meta of *TOP* cubers, causing it to destroy their averages. The data clearly shows that the meta of *TOP* cubers is not affected after a DNF, and no one has provided any reason why that should be different if we give out a DNF for a misalignment instead of a +2. For example, if that 11.27 solve by Feliks was a +2 (it wouldn't be hard to find that out, I'm sure there's a video), if he knew he would DNF the average he probably would have gone to the extra effort to fix the misalignment before slamming down on the timer, which would have cost him less than 2 seconds, and made the average better.


 As with the last statement that is a pure assumption.
You can't generalize all cubers into the Top cuber group.


----------



## Dene (Dec 20, 2011)

Cool Frog said:


> As with the last statement that is a pure assumption.
> You can't generalize all cubers into the Top cuber group.


 
Don't look at me, Escher was the one that thinks the top cubers are more important than the rest of us, not me. Do please try and keep up if you're going to post. And of course it's an assumption. Almost every argument that everyone is making is based solely on assumptions and nothing else. I mean, nobody has any real data to base their claims on, do they?

@fatboyxpc maybe you should be more careful and solve your cubes properly to save yourself all of those +2s.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 20, 2011)

Dene said:


> @fatboyxpc maybe you should be more careful and solve your cubes properly to save yourself all of those +2s.


 
If only you knew how many +2's I had at home  I have some real bad habits I need to break


----------



## jincronics_07 (Dec 20, 2011)

i dont agree what if you are solving 4x4 and 5x5 +2 doest matters unlike for 2x2 and 3x3.


----------



## Escher (Dec 20, 2011)

Dene said:


> Don't look at me, Escher was the one that thinks the top cubers are more important than the rest of us, not me.


 
Lolz I never said that.


----------



## keyan (Dec 21, 2011)

Escher said:


> "[the] numbers strictly show the number of penalties that were awarded, nothing more"
> The statement above is completely true. It's impossible to derive the conclusions you've reached.


Your statement is of course true. However, numbers mean nothing without analysis. Would you like me to add a disclaimer to my post: "I am not omniscient, all interpretation provided reflect my own views, and are not endorsed by SpeedSolving.com or its sponsors."
I'm curious, what's your interpretation of those numbers? 



Escher said:


> If you didn't tell competitors, and awarded a DNF in a plus2 situation for a fast 2x2er's first solve I can guarantee you'd completely mind**** them and their average.


That's not what I was saying. Hold a competition exactly as we do now, but simply record +2s as DNF. I expect almost nothing would change. 



Escher said:


> The onus is on you to demonstrate to the community that removing +2 wouldn't be damaging to top competitor mindset, or that the damage is minimal enough to warrant removal for the sake of your argument from simplicity.


Or is the burden on your side, to prove that this psychological boogeyman does exist? 



Escher said:


> I don't want to sound elitist but it is the elite that are setting the records and getting into news media and expanding the reach of cubing. It's for the boundary-pushing competitors where every single miniscule reaction and turn makes a huge difference, and it's for these whom the meta change 'would' affect the most.


I remember in previous discussions of this issue, some said that removing this rule would only hurt slower cubers. That such a change would 'obviously' have opposite results is interesting. 

I'm glad that I quoted Phillip's post before it was edited. Is the little 'edited by' note at the bottom automatic, or can that be changed as well? Who has authority to edit other people's posts?


----------



## Godmil (Dec 21, 2011)

Dene said:


> The examples I gave were directly to do with how getting a DNF affects the meta of cubers, causing it to destroy their averages. The data clearly shows that the meta of cubers is not affected after a DNF,



Hahaha. Your examples make no sense whatsoever. How do you know those solves wouldn't have been a little faster if they didn't have a DNF? Just cause a time is still quite good doesn't mean it is as good as it could have been. You would need some large averages to prove the point.


----------



## Pedro (Dec 21, 2011)

Dene said:


> Phillip: As the regulations currently stand the difference between no penalty and a +2 is between 45 degrees and 46 degrees. The difference between a +2 and a DNF is between 45 degrees and 46 degrees. What's your point?


 
The point is that the difference between no penalty and DNF would be between 45 and 46 degrees, with your proposal.

And your examples are flawed. "Top cubers are not affected at all by a DNF". Well, maybe that's one of the reasons why they are top cubers...and how do you know the rule change will affect them more or not? We can't know.

As I said before, this debate is going nowhere. I'm wondering what the WRC action will be. Since there is no agreement here, the rule shouldn't be changed. But how exactly will WRC do this? What if the people in there are in favour of changing the rule?


----------



## tim (Dec 21, 2011)

Pedro said:


> and how do you know the rule change will affect them more or not? We can't know.



Correct. I wonder why this question matters at all, though. I'm pretty sure everyone will adopt to the new rules pretty quickly.



Pedro said:


> As I said before, this debate is going nowhere. I'm wondering what the WRC action will be. Since there is no agreement here, the rule shouldn't be changed. But how exactly will WRC do this? What if the people in there are in favour of changing the rule?


 
The WRC isn't supposed to be democratic, is it? So it actually doesn't matter if we agree.
(It probably shouldn't be democratic. Most decisions require some background knowledge which the average cuber (me included) doesn't have.)


----------



## Escher (Dec 21, 2011)

keyan said:


> Your statement is of course true. However, numbers mean nothing without analysis. Would you like me to add a disclaimer to my post: "I am not omniscient, all interpretation provided reflect my own views, and are not endorsed by SpeedSolving.com or its sponsors."
> I'm curious, what's your interpretation of those numbers?



'Not many people in your sample got +2s awarded' was my interpretation. Maybe it's my negative bias that stopped me from going as far as yours.



keyan said:


> That's not what I was saying. Hold a competition exactly as we do now, but simply record +2s as DNF. I expect almost nothing would change.



I expect the metagame would.



keyan said:


> Or is the burden on your side, to prove that this psychological boogeyman does exist?



Lol 'bogeyman' to describe metagame. I should make a separate thread with a poll to copy your idea of using a small sample to make conclusions about the effects of regulation change.



keyan said:


> I remember in previous discussions of this issue, some said that removing this rule would only hurt slower cubers. That such a change would 'obviously' have opposite results is interesting.


 
In my experience faster competitors are more likely to attempt to perform manoeuvres like AUF with less pausing and caution than slower cubers since each delay costs a larger percentage of the solve time. If a 40 second competitor spends .5s double checking it's obviously less of a difference between that and a 9s cuber. It seems intuitive to suggest that faster people are more likely to overshoot. Though I guess it could perhaps mean they're more likely to be 100% certain of AUF before performing it.

Also that fact that Dene used the 4 fastest competitors I can think of makes me lol.

I agree with Pedro. This debate is going nowhere (oh no, this supports my position!), I don't think it's constructive to continue.


----------



## Pedro (Dec 21, 2011)

tim said:


> Correct. I wonder why this question matters at all, though. I'm pretty sure everyone will adopt to the new rules pretty quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, I don't think it should be democratic. The problem is who is responsible for the decisions? How will they take the decisions? Based on this thread? On a popular vote? On what they feel like?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 21, 2011)

tim said:


> The WRC isn't supposed to be democratic, is it? So it actually doesn't matter if we agree.
> (It probably shouldn't be democratic. Most decisions require some background knowledge which the average cuber (me included) doesn't have.)



You know, you could just read the proposal and talk about this in the WRC thread.

Although we're still getting things together, Vincent, Clément, Sébastien, and I are essentially operating as the WRC for now, and we're going to be talking about all the regulation changes tomorrow.

Although the Regulations should mostly be built by community consensus, there is a limit to the effectiveness of pure democracy. Ron has made some strong decisions in the past (like removing POPs), and if there is anything the WRC should make a separate decision about, it would be a topic like this.

I will still make sure to read every post in this thread, though.


----------



## Dene (Dec 21, 2011)

@Godmil if you like i could go through the competition averages of every other person that had the same scrambles, then compare those averages to others of those people around the same time to prove to you that there is no reason to believe the elite cubers would have done better had they not DNFed. But really you're just being way too pedantic and throwing out baseless suggestions that add nothing to the discussion. How about you stop contributing nothing to this thread and start giving evidence for your beliefs like I have attempted to do. The *facts* _support_ my claim, maybe it's time you accepted it (same goes for other +2 supporters). 

@Escher I don't understand, why is that funny?


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Dec 21, 2011)

Just because it seems to me like this discussion is getting harder to see clarity in, I'm going to quote the 2 posts that has so far made the best argument for keeping the +2 penalty in comps.



qqwref said:


> I read that as "We already do this and it's frustrating, so why not do it for everything?" I know that's not what you meant, but that's what I think: not allowing +2 is frustrating and just makes it all that much easier to mess up. I feel like a DNF is a huge penalty because two of them in an average means you get pushed to the bottom of the ranking, kicking you out of any future rounds and preventing you from placing anywhere near the top. It is not always possible to prevent misalignments, except by waiting after the solve and putting the cube down carefully, and that isn't something the fastest people should have to do. So basically if you get an early DNF then it's just luck whether you can get an average or not. I don't like that.
> 
> 
> Also, there's the intuitive fairness argument. If you get a misalignment that isn't your fault, and are given a +2, that's acceptable: the judge says "you take a 2 second penalty because the cube is misaligned" and you go "eh, alright, I'll be more careful next time." So that's a fair penalty, because luck (or being super careful about putting the cube down) can affect a solve by more than 2 seconds by itself. But if you get a DNF, then it's more like this: the judge says "looks like it's above 45 degrees off, so the cube isn't solved, DNF" and you go "seriously? it wasn't my fault!" and then the judge replies "sorry, those are the rules." It ends up feeling way more unfair and frustrating.
> ...


 


teller said:


> +2 is murder and can ruin an average. This does not need to be even more draconian by kicking the cuber when he or she is down with a DNF to the stomach.
> 
> If it takes you longer than +2 to turn a side, as in feet, I don't think you'll be breaking any records today and I won't lose any sleep over the fact that you might have gamed the system.


 
Again, this is just me trying to make the arguments clearer on both sides, it seems to have partly boiled down to people saying "Thats a stupid idea, let's do it this way".


----------



## jskyler91 (Dec 22, 2011)

Has anyone truly found a fair solution to the +2's of the past on other people's records? Many people have gotten +2's and DNF's in an average and allowing them to have the saving grace of the plus two, but not us seems unfair. If no one can find a way to solve this issue then it seems that it would be simply unfair to change it now. One possible solution that might make a happy median however (sorry if this has been discussed, but there is 22 pages in this forum already and I do not have the time to read them all) is to make a quarter turn a +2 and anything over that is a DNF. 

I would actually say this is a more fair system as being U2 away seems much more of a not complete cube then simply being a U or a U'. I realize that we consider them to be the same in our half turn metric, but in reality they are not and I think (I we are going to make the rules stricter) then this is how we should do it. All of this being said I still really don't see a way to make the old times comparable to the possible new ones.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 22, 2011)

jskyler91 said:


> Has anyone truly found a fair solution to the +2's of the past on other people's records? Many people have gotten +2's and DNF's in an average and allowing them to have the saving grace of the plus two, but not us seems unfair. If no one can find a way to solve this issue then it seems that it would be simply unfair to change it now.


 
We removed POPs in the past - what you have brought up is not a problem.


----------



## MTGjumper (Dec 22, 2011)

Except we were significantly further away from the human limits of speedsolving when that change was made.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 22, 2011)

So this was somewhat mentioned already, about a non-cuber who will turn a side and then say "look I solved it!" I believe here though that when a cube is in an obviously solveable state to a non-cuber, then the cube is obviously solved *enough*. The problem this presents though is that some non-cubers actually know how to fix the M2 U2 M2 pattern, or the M2 E2 S2, etc. We wouldn't consider either of those states solved, but when only one face is turned incorrectly it is very obvious the competitor knows how to solve the cube.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 22, 2011)

MTGjumper said:


> Except we were significantly further away from the human limits of speedsolving when that change was made.


 
Indeed, and I remember someone pulling out a crystal ball and predicting that we would get this much faster. So we definitely knew that back then. And he also said we wouldn't get faster after the end of 2011 anymore.


----------



## MTGjumper (Dec 22, 2011)

Except the rate of improvement of world records is clearly much slower.


----------



## Dene (Dec 22, 2011)

fatboyxpc said:


> So this was somewhat mentioned already, about a non-cuber who will turn a side and then say "look I solved it!" I believe here though that when a cube is in an obviously solveable state to a non-cuber, then the cube is obviously solved *enough*. The problem this presents though is that some non-cubers actually know how to fix the M2 U2 M2 pattern, or the M2 E2 S2, etc. We wouldn't consider either of those states solved, but when only one face is turned incorrectly it is very obvious the competitor knows how to solve the cube.


 
Whether a competitor knows how to solve a cube or not has no effect on whether they solved it this time or not. I don't see any reason why you even make that point. I could swim 40 metres in a 50m pool without too much hassle and it's clear that I could finish if I wanted to, but if I don't I won't get a time in the Olympics (or any other swimming event). (btw, this example is not referring to myself; I can swim 50m but it would take a long time and would not at all be easy >.< ).


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Dec 22, 2011)

Dene said:


> Whether a competitor knows how to solve a cube or not has no effect on whether they solved it this time or not. I don't see any reason why you even make that point. I could swim 40 metres in a 50m pool without too much hassle and it's clear that I could finish if I wanted to, but if I don't I won't get a time in the Olympics (or any other swimming event). (btw, this example is not referring to myself; I can swim 50m but it would take a long time and would not at all be easy >.< ).


 
It doesnt have any effect on whether they solved it in that case, but the point is speedcubing is not like other sports. To give a counter example, in a game of chess, if one player knows that they are going to be checkmated before it happens, and there is no way for them to stop it, they will stop the game there and take the loss. Does this mean that the other player didn't win, since the end of the game was not truly reached, even though both players and any spectators know that the game is over?


----------



## Stefan (Dec 22, 2011)

MTGjumper said:


> Except the rate of improvement of world records is clearly much slower.


 
Please clarify what you mean, as this can't be it:


```
1982   1 world record
2003  18 world records
2004  42 world records
2005  54 world records
2006  51 world records
2007  72 world records
2008  73 world records
2009  74 world records
2010  79 world records
2011  73 world records (as of Dec 22, with six competitions still ahead)

select year, sum(if(regionalSingleRecord='WR',1,0)+if(regionalAverageRecord='WR',1,0))
from results, competitions
where competitions.id = competitionId
group by year
order by year
```


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 22, 2011)

How many world records would be affected if the rule had already changed?


----------



## amostay2004 (Dec 22, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> How many world records would be affected if the rule had already changed?


 
A recent one that comes to mind is Feliks' 5x5 avg WR at World Championships. He had a counting +2, and if it was a DNF he would still have WR average, just not sub-1


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 22, 2011)

I think what simon's trying to say is that if we change the rule, records set with the rule enabled may become unbeatable.

I'm pretty sure the record will be broken again without any +2.


----------



## MTGjumper (Dec 22, 2011)

I was mainly pointing out that making a change to the rules that could make it harder to set faster times is easier when people are getting much faster anyway. I wasn't saying that it was significantly less likely for more records to be broken if +2 was changed to DNF.

Also, in regards to my point on rate of records being broken, I meant the increments by which average records are being broken tend to be smaller, most notably for puzzles that are very popular (2x2, 3x3 etc.)


----------



## TheZenith27 (Dec 22, 2011)

I never get +2s, but I would never support removing the penalty. I would, however, suggest making M slice a +2, as I think getting a DNF on an M slice is outrageous.


----------



## keyan (Dec 22, 2011)

First, I disagree with anyone suggesting to end the discussion. I don't see this as having come to a stalemate. What I see is a few people making unsubstantiated claims, then saying they should be proven wrong, rather than provide supporting evidence themselves. The data is limited, but we can actually analyze the situation. Emotional appeals aren't going to help anything. 

And then the analogies. So many analogies. 

How about this one: 
Basketball game. Tied. Only seconds left on the clock. Blocked pass leads to a scramble for the ball at half court. One player in the middle of the confusion comes up with the ball, and at the buzzer makes a spectacular half court jump shot. Straight into the wrong net. 
He showed he could make the shot. He didn't give up. He just happened to get turned the wrong way. Does his team get the points and win the game? 
(I'm pretty sure not. But I don't even know if I got the nomenclature right.) 

But really, could we just stop with the terrible analogies? 

The problem with Dene's test, is that it cannot work. The same problem with Rowan's assertion of the influence of metagame, and demand that those in favor of changing the rule prove it wrong. It cannot be proven wrong. The test can't be blinded. Some people would go about their cubing as always and have no trouble. Some people would be adamant about the negative influence of the change and, conscious or not, would DNF more. 

I'm really having trouble making myself clear, apparently. But that's what I was trying to suggest. Hold a competition exactly as we do now. But record +2s as DNFs. (This is the part I'm apparently not expressing clearly. The competitor isn't aware of the change in procedure. They think +2s apply as before.) The competitor would go ahead cubing like they always do, and we have a decent experiment to see what the result of this rule change would be. Unfortunately, no one is going to go to the trouble of doing this. 

However, with the right record keeping, we actually can do this. I already did. By looking at past results, changing +2s to DNFs, we can see what impact removing this rule would have if competitors didn't change anything about how they compete. That is, if "meta" were irrelevant. And what we see is that about half of a percent of valid averages became DNF averages. Not a big change. The data set is small, I know, but this weekend I should have a chance to go through some other competition results. 

As for the argument that such a rule change will stifle future records, that's pretty defeatist. Also the same argument that was brought up when POPs were eliminated. And again when inspection time was reduced. I think we've done pretty well since then. 



Pedro said:


> The point is that the difference between no penalty and DNF would be between 45 and 46 degrees, with your proposal.


The same issue exists under the current regulations. 



Escher said:


> In my experience faster competitors are more likely to attempt to perform manoeuvres like AUF with less pausing and caution than slower cubers since each delay costs a larger percentage of the solve time. If a 40 second competitor spends .5s double checking it's obviously less of a difference between that and a 9s cuber. It seems intuitive to suggest that faster people are more likely to overshoot. Though I guess it could perhaps mean they're more likely to be 100% certain of AUF before performing it.
> 
> Also that fact that Dene used the 4 fastest competitors I can think of makes me lol.


Could you actually define what your "metagame" is? Exactly who is involved? If it was so silly of Dene to look at the fastest cubers, who should he look at? I take your statement here to mean that you think fast cubers will be significantly more influenced by removing this rule than slower cubers. So what did Dene do wrong? Do you have any thoughts on why, in previous iterations of this discussion, it was "obvious" to some that such a change would only impact slower cubers? 



fatboyxpc said:


> So this was somewhat mentioned already, about a non-cuber who will turn a side and then say "look I solved it!" I believe here though that when a cube is in an obviously solveable state to a non-cuber, then the cube is obviously solved *enough*. The problem this presents though is that some non-cubers actually know how to fix the M2 U2 M2 pattern, or the M2 E2 S2, etc. We wouldn't consider either of those states solved, but when only one face is turned incorrectly it is very obvious the competitor knows how to solve the cube.


You're saying you think that "solved with penalty" should be determined by whether the case is trivially solvable? And one turn is trivially solvable? Is two turns trivially solvable? Can I expect to see you arguing that a cube two turns from solved be counted as "solved with penalty"? Is U2 R(44 degrees) distinctly more solvable than U R'? What about (Uu)2 R(44 degrees) l(44 degrees)? 



MTGjumper said:


> I was mainly pointing out that making a change to the rules that could make it harder to set faster times is easier when people are getting much faster anyway. I wasn't saying that it was significantly less likely for more records to be broken if +2 was changed to DNF.


New records are a measure of the success of speedcubing as a sport/hobby? Another unrelated sports analogy, but do you think it was a bad idea for swimming to ban the LZR suit? 



TheZenith27 said:


> I never get +2s, but I would never support removing the penalty. I would, however, suggest making M slice a +2, as I think getting a DNF on an M slice is outrageous.


I wish you would argue your point. Why would you never support such a change? People throwing out their opposition without an argument, it's like someone handing you a monochrome cube and demanding you solve it. 
To go back to the bad analogies.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Dec 22, 2011)

keyan said:


> You're saying you think that "solved with penalty" should be determined by whether the case is trivially solvable? And one turn is trivially solvable? Is two turns trivially solvable? Can I expect to see you arguing that a cube two turns from solved be counted as "solved with penalty"? Is U2 R(44 degrees) distinctly more solvable than U R'? What about (Uu)2 R(44 degrees) l(44 degrees)?


 
Trivially solved is <=1 move HTM from solved position. TBH, I think that the +2 should only be for misalignments on 1 axis, not a turn and a misgalignment.
In my opinion the +2 acts as a safety net against people who get nervous, to such an extent that you panic at the end of a solve. This helps people to be more relaxed, instead of having the pressure of a DNF on them, especially during final rounds, or PB solves/Averages.


----------



## Pedro (Dec 22, 2011)

keyan said:


> I'm really having trouble making myself clear, apparently. But that's what I was trying to suggest. Hold a competition exactly as we do now. But record +2s as DNFs. (This is the part I'm apparently not expressing clearly. The competitor isn't aware of the change in procedure. They think +2s apply as before.) The competitor would go ahead cubing like they always do, and we have a decent experiment to see what the result of this rule change would be. Unfortunately, no one is going to go to the trouble of doing this.


A decent experiment? How's that? It doesn't make sense if people are not aware of what's going on. Some people's argument is that KNOWING about the more-likely DNF will influence solving times...



keyan said:


> > ...45 x 46 degrees
> 
> 
> The same issue exists under the current regulations.


My problem is not about the issue itself. Is about wheter 45x46 degrees should be the decision between solved and DNF (instead of solved and +2 as it is now).
Stefan has mentioned this before, but I think giving a DNF for what can be less than one degree off (and which may not be clear or possible to reach a consensus) is way to harsh, in my opinion. Unless we start bringing angle-measurement-equipment to competitions...


And my point about the discussion is that nothing new is going to appear. The WRC will be the one making the decision, and I'm sure they have plenty of stuff to read here.


----------



## Robocopter87 (Dec 22, 2011)

fatboyxpc said:


> So this was somewhat mentioned already, about a non-cuber who will turn a side and then say "look I solved it!" I believe here though that when a cube is in an obviously solveable state to a non-cuber, then the cube is obviously solved *enough*. The problem this presents though is that some non-cubers actually know how to fix the M2 U2 M2 pattern, or the M2 E2 S2, etc. We wouldn't consider either of those states solved, but when only one face is turned incorrectly it is very obvious the competitor knows how to solve the cube.


 
Yes, I mentioned that. We don't apply that logic to more than one move though, because then you could technically start from a scrambled and jsut solve to a point that is easily solvable and hit the timer. This is where it becomes technicalities. U Turn off is obviously the farthest we can apply the "Anybody can solve it from here" logic, because after that it means the cuber failed to even finish his movements. 

One U Turn off usually means the person got flustered and their fingers shakes and they hit the timer without completing that turn. We say, " No Biggie, it happens, +2." No harm done.
Now three or four turns off means the cuber didn't properly complete the algorithm, which obviously means that they failed to solve. DNF. 

However, I agree that this shouldn't be just for U slices. Even though these rules shouldn't be method based, we can't argue the fact that crap tons of people use methods (Primarily Roux) that end with M slices. 



MaeLSTRoM said:


> Trivially solved is <=1 move HTM from solved position. TBH, I think that the +2 should only be for misalignments on 1 axis, not a turn and a misgalignment.
> In my opinion the +2 acts as a safety net against people who get nervous, to such an extent that you panic at the end of a solve. This helps people to be more relaxed, instead of having the pressure of a DNF on them, especially during final rounds, or PB solves/Averages.



Bingo. 

Yes the cuber shouldn't end with a misaligned turn. Yes they should have some sort of punishment. Which is the +2. 

Summary: My "Anybody can solve it" Logic should only be applied to one misaligned turn. And MaeLSTRoM is right.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Dec 23, 2011)

keyan said:


> Emotional appeals aren't going to help anything.


 
Just want to address this one. If it affects the emotions/psychological state of people solving such that it affects their times, then clearly emotions are relevant. Also, since it is impossible to get data from competitions already held which will back up either argument since all those solves were set without DNFs for misalignments, and neither the existence or reason for +2s are recorded afaik (and the variance of any such data would be too high to draw meaningful conclusions from anyway), I would say that emotional arguments actually hold more weight. Clearly not everyone agrees with this.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 23, 2011)

Robocopter: This isn't only for U layer misalignments. The current +2 rule affects any single face, more than one face turned greater than 45 degrees means the cube is in a DNF state. This is actually the "rabbit hole" I said could be created when saying "the cube is obviously solved when it's one turn away," but you can sometimes see an obvious 2 move solution, or 3 move solution, etc. It honestly boils down to how familiar you are with the cube. The bottom line is, though, *most* non-cubers (I'm saying most here because if we find somebody with a disability or something that prevents them from understanding) can see that the cube is one turn away from being solved and "solve" it themselves.


----------



## Vincents (Dec 23, 2011)

Wow, this thread has gotten large. At some point in the next week or two, hopefully someone will come up with a concise, balanced summary. I have my impressions, but they're probably wrong.


----------



## Dene (Dec 23, 2011)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Just want to address this one. If it affects the emotions/psychological state of people solving such that it affects their times, then clearly emotions are relevant. Also, since it is impossible to get data from competitions already held which will back up either argument since all those solves were set without DNFs for misalignments, and neither the existence or reason for +2s are recorded afaik (and the variance of any such data would be too high to draw meaningful conclusions from anyway), I would say that emotional arguments actually hold more weight. Clearly not everyone agrees with this.


 
People can have emotions over all sorts of things. I don't see how they're relevant to anything that will be of use. 

Also people should stop deciding how many moves away is trivially solved. It depends on the case; 2 moves will be trivial to the vast majority of people in the world; nothing more to say. They +2 rule is arbitrary and pointless and inconsistent.


----------



## keyan (Dec 23, 2011)

> How about this one:
> Basketball game. Tied. Only seconds left on the clock. Blocked pass leads to a scramble for the ball at half court. One player in the middle of the confusion comes up with the ball, and at the buzzer makes a spectacular half court jump shot. Straight into the wrong net.
> He showed he could make the shot. He didn't give up. He just happened to get turned the wrong way. Does his team get the points and win the game?
> (I'm pretty sure not. But I don't even know if I got the nomenclature right.)


No longer talking hypotheticals. 
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer04/shooting/news/story?id=1864883
Now of course cubing isn't like other sports. But this is interesting. Emmons didn't run a race and stop half way. He made a slight mistake at the very end because he was nervous. He simply turned (himself) slightly the wrong way. There was no question that he could do it. There was no question of his intent. Does anyone feel that he should have gotten partial points for the shot? He would have a silver medal if so. 



MaeLSTRoM said:


> In my opinion the +2 acts as a safety net against people who get nervous, to such an extent that you panic at the end of a solve. This helps people to be more relaxed, instead of having the pressure of a DNF on them, especially during final rounds, or PB solves/Averages.


I think Pedro's the only one here that was around, but back in the days of Ryan Heise's BLD contest, there was a guy going by the name "chi chu" who dominated. He was averaging sub 60 when the world record was 1:28. His first WCA competition, when an average solve for him would have easily been WR, he was so nervous his hands were visibly shaking and he couldn't perform algorithms. Got about two minutes. Where was his safety net? 



Pedro said:


> A decent experiment? How's that? It doesn't make sense if people are not aware of what's going on. Some people's argument is that KNOWING about the more-likely DNF will influence solving times...


The experiment tests the hypothesis that removing the rule wouldn't cause a change. 

Why I say Dene's test is impossible is a sort of reverse placebo effect. Some people are so certain that a change in rules would be bad that they would do worse if asked to test their performance. However, we can test what would happen without such a placebo effect. Looking at past competitions and showing what changes would happen if we changed +2s to DNFs. That is, we can look at what would happen if competitors didn't let the rule change their behavior. I've already done this with one competition. I'll get back with more soon as I have time. I know the sample size is small, but we can even get more data. Competition organizers and delegates could check old score cards and just assume all +2s were due to unsolved cubes, rather than stopping and starting procedure. That would skew the data a bit higher, but so be it. At least gives us some data to talk about, rather than just people stating as fact their feelings about the change. 

From such data, we can see what change the rule would have on its own. One case has already shown just a minimal change. If others show similar results, we can take that to mean changing the rules would have a similarly small change in and of the rule change itself. Beyond that, a "huge increase" of DNFs that some people have claimed would happen, would be the result of a reverse placebo effect. If fear is causing the competitor to perform worse, that's the competitor's problem to deal with. 

However, I don't think that would happen. Just like the POP rule. Some people said removing it would ruin people's results. After the change, nothing. We've continued improving, just like we will continue to do so. 



Pedro said:


> My problem is not about the issue itself. Is about wheter 45x46 degrees should be the decision between solved and DNF (instead of solved and +2 as it is now).


45 and 46 degrees right now stand between solved and DNF. U D(45 degrees) versus U D(46 degrees). 

The problem I have with the emotional arguments is that they are preventing reason based discussion. When reasonable points are being shouted down as "ridiculous" without any explanation, you're failing to advance the discussion. If a change is or isn't made, it's best to do so with regard to all the points for and against the change in question. What's being brought up aren't points against the change itself, but rather statements that change will make some people unhappy. That's not something we can change, nor something that we should weigh too heavily. Some people were unhappy about adding 6x6 and 7x7. (Those that always get stuck scrambling.) Does that mean we shouldn't have added the events?


----------



## Pedro (Dec 23, 2011)

keyan said:


> The experiment tests the hypothesis that removing the rule wouldn't cause a change.


I'm probably sleep deprived, but I don't see your point here. We can't test anything, because changing the rule may change people's mind/attention/meta/whatever. So, simply taking +2 and applying DNFs doesn't show what would happen. 



> 45 and 46 degrees right now stand between solved and DNF. U D(45 degrees) versus U D(46 degrees).


Well, that's (TWO 45x46) = DNF, not just one, which is the proposal. I must admit I've never seen that happen (except maybe for square-1), but it should be a DNF anyway...I don't think U D is a single move, and don't think it would happen by the cube hitting the table (or would it?). That raises the point of slice turns being DNF, which I also consider wrong, since they are used as a single move (by most people, at least).


----------



## keyan (Jan 2, 2012)

Replying to an old post while waiting on a PCR. 


Stefan said:


> You don't have group 1 solves judged by group 2 rules, but you're trying to argue with that as if you had. Also, judging group 1 solves by group 2 rules doesn't make sense - when you're going to get judged by group 2 rules, you'll do group 2 solves, not group 1 solves.


Yeah, that's a problem with the way that Dene posed his trial. However, we do have a huge amount of solve data explicitly solved under group 1 conditions. We can look at competition solves, at least those that we have +2 data for, and see the result that Dene was looking for in his test. That is, we have solves where the cubers were solving without any hypothetical change in "meta", without a "fear of punishment", without any of these changes, and we can see the result of this rule change and only the rule change. Any other potential impact of a change would be entirely created in the heads of cubers unhappy with the regulations. 

We're pretty short on data to look at, though. (Do other organizers keep old scorecards in case of competitors questioning results in the database?) Based off of the data that we do have, though, we can see that +2s are a rare event, and this rule change would have a very small impact on competition results. 

We already have two similar cases to look at. The POP rule and the change in inspection time that came with the change in inspection procedure. 

The primary argument against removing the +2 rule is that some competitors dislike the change, and claim it will impact their results and "punishes" competitors for things outside their control. These are the same arguments that were used against removing the POP rule. In that case, we decided those arguments were insufficient. 

However, the POP rule is different from the +2 rule, as there are more cases where the former could be abused. And so, some say that as there are fewer direct negatives that result from keeping the +2 rule, it should be kept given the claimed negative impact such a change would have on competition results. But there is already precedent for rejecting the hypothetical emotional state of competitors when considering changes in competition regulations. When the inspection procedure was changed, inspection time was reduced. This was done against similar arguments that such a change would make comeptition results worse. The point in question, the amount of time given for inspection, is distinctly more arbitrary than whether a cube is solved or not. When discussing rules dealing with such an arbitrary choice, such emotional arguments could be seen to have more validity. And yet these same arguments were rejected. The difference between 15 seconds inspection and 18 seconds inspection, for example, are clearly more arbitrary than the difference between a solved cube and a cube off by one turn. For an arbitrary decision, such emotional arguments carry more weight. Why not choose 18 seconds, if cubers were really going to be so terribly impacted. But we didn't, and they weren't. 

"I don't like the change because my results will be worse. My results will be worse because I don't like the change." We already have precedent for rejecting this argument.


----------



## keyan (May 10, 2012)

Disappointing to see this thread buried. 

I don't really follow sports, so I only became aware of this comparison recently. 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...-false-start-final-Yohan-Blake-wins-gold.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/14779544
Yes, cubing isn't the same as running or other sports. But let's try the comparison for a moment. 

In running the technology exists to time exactly from when the runner leaves their starting block to when they cross the finish line. Reacting to a starting gun is not, inherently, part of running. It's a procedural aspect of timing. If pure running speed were the only question, runners could be timed across a set 100 meter track after a free range of track to get up to speed. But that's not what is done. Part of the race is distinctly not running. 

Now, with regard to the +2/DNF issue, a false start is now grounds for disqualification. A mistake in the non-running part of the race removes a competitor from the competition. One significant difference between cubing and running is that we take an average. Judging an unsolved cube DNF would have far less impact on results than the current IAAF rules. Judging unsolved cubes as DNF would be less strict than the current regulations of one of the world's largest sports governing bodies. 

Despite the talk of "bad luck" and "timing procedure", what happens in the vast majority of unsolved cubes under discussion here is that the competitor tried to "jump the gun" by beginning to stop the timer while they were still mid-solve. Given that literally jumping the gun leads to disqualification in a sport with just one chance, why are we currently so lenient when competitors fail to finish their solve, particularly given that our use of averages averages means reasonably DNFing such a solve would usually not impact the overall result at all. 

I'm curious how others see the comparison between the treatment of unsolved cubes and false starts.


----------



## Ickathu (May 10, 2012)

I don't really care what it gets changed to, but I want slice turns to be +2 if outer turns are +2. As people have said before, why should roux users get more of a penalty than CFOP users because they use M instead of R (for example). If Slice turns are DNF, outer turns are DNF, etc.
Oh, and I'm also referring to inners on big cubes when I say slice turns.



keyan said:


> In running the technology exists to time exactly from when the runner leaves their starting block to when they cross the finish line. *Reacting to a starting gun is not, inherently, part of running. It's a procedural aspect of timing.* If pure running speed were the only question, runners could be timed across a set *100 meter track after a free range of track to get up to speed. *But that's not what is done. Part of the race is distinctly not running.
> 
> Now, with regard to the +2/DNF issue, *a false start is now grounds for disqualification*. A mistake in the non-running part of the race removes a competitor from the competition. One significant difference between cubing and running is that we take an average. Judging an unsolved cube DNF would have far less impact on results than the current IAAF rules. Judging unsolved cubes as DNF would be less strict than the current regulations of one of the world's largest sports governing bodies.
> 
> Despite the talk of "bad luck" and "timing procedure", what happens in the vast majority of unsolved cubes under discussion here is that the competitor tried to *"jump the gun"* by beginning to stop the timer while they were still mid-solve. Given that literally jumping the gun leads to disqualification in a sport with just one chance, why are we currently so lenient when competitors fail to finish their solve, particularly given that our use of averages averages means reasonably DNFing such a solve would usually not impact the overall result at all.


 
^^^ yes.
Most +2s are already the worst time in the average, so making them DNF won't really change much unless you are a really consistent +2er.
Let's let them do a cross average, f2l average, OLL avg and PLL avg, with examination before each stage then. It's the same idea as running.


----------



## Kirjava (May 10, 2012)

Ickathu said:


> why should roux users get more of a penalty than CFOP users because they use M instead of R (for example).



Because R is one move and M is two.



Ickathu said:


> Let's let them do a cross average, f2l average, OLL avg and PLL avg, with examination before each stage then. It's the same idea as running.


 
wat


----------



## peterbone (May 10, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Because R is one move and M is two.


Subjective


----------



## TMOY (May 10, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Because R is one move and M is two.


No. M is one move period. It's just that the current WCa regulations count it as if it was two.


----------



## keyan (May 10, 2012)

Reviewing the thread, these are the arguments that I found in favor of the status quo. (I started only skimming after the first dozen pages, though, as the "pro +2" arguments got very repetitive. Apologies if I missed a point.) 



> DNFs would become too frequent.


I only looked at one competition, but I found it very representative based on my experience. The numbers showed that only about two percent of solves would be impacted by the rule change in question here. 



> Such a rule change would be inconsistent with previous results


The previous handling of the POP rule and inspection time show that we aren't concerned with this. 



> Misaligned layers can be caused by "bad luck"


Similarly, an unsolved cube can unintentionally rotate and become solved due to 'luck'. Based on personal experience, these situations are in the extreme minority of unsolved cubes. When such a case does occur, it is the result of an overly loose puzzle, which was the competitor's choice to use. The competitor was aware of the condition of their puzzle, and was aware of the possible of unintended turns. If the competitor is worried about this happening, they can tighten their cube. 



> Such a rule change makes competitors feel bad.


The regulations are not intended to make everyone happy. They are meant to make for a consistent and fair solving environment. The consistency and fairness of this rule are in question. Furthermore, bad feelings created by a rule change would be a result of a sense of entitlement, that leniency for unsolved cubes is deserved. The current +2 rule is arbitrary, and any bad feelings would only be because people are used to it. Were it removed, people would quickly adapt. 



> Competitors are more likely to argue over judgement if +2 is changed to DNF.


This ties back to the previous point. People would argue because they feel their solve should count regardless whether they actually finished the solve or not. I'd like to believe that once people realized that the overall impact of the rule would be small, there wouldn't be much argument. I feel like this is the strongest argument against removing the +2 rule. 



> Inexperienced judges over-apply penalties, meaning penalties should be overly lenient.


If a competitor questions a judge's ruling, they should consult the competition delegate. Also, in my experience, judges actually under-apply penalties. 



> Many +2s are a result of the act of stopping the timer, which is separate from solving the cube.


Given that we are competing for fastest solve, timing is inherently part of the competition. The method of timing could be improved, but that doesn't change whether an unsolved cube should or shouldn't be considered "close enough". Furthermore, often an unsolved cube results from a competitor either mis-predicting AUF or fumbling during the final few turns. The fact that the timer is separate from the puzzle doesn't mean that competitors shouldn't be required to solve the puzzle. Also, why should a competitor who in a hurry makes an incorrect turn be given a chance that isn't given to a competitor who in a hurry smashes the timer so hard they knock the battery loose? 



> Changing the rule would cause competitors to solve more slowly, reducing the number of records.


First, the point of competition is not to set new records every competition. Second, there is nothing showing that competitors will necessarily solve more slowly. The only time this would matter is at the very end of solves, where the vast majority of cubers don't have trouble. 



> A cube off by one layer is effectively solved.


A cube off by two layer is, to the vast majority of the world and an even larger portion of cubers, similarly trivially solvable. Anyone arguing this point should be arguing for solves off by two turns to also be considered "close enough". 



> Such a rule change would affect "meta".


Competitors that intentionally get worse results shouldn't be a concern of the regulations. 

There are a few points that I previously made that never were responded to. (Beyond being called stupid.) I'd like to ask again. 


> Proposal:
> A cuber gets to PLL, with a clockwise U. They accidentally do a counter-clockwise U and DNF. A friend was filming, and has a very good view with high definition video. Can this cuber petition the board for the solve to count, saying that they "obviously know how to solve"? How about, in the video the counter-clockwise U takes exactly one second. With the 4:1 ratio previously mentioned, could they petition for the solve to count with a four second penalty?


Can anyone explain what is wrong with this argument? 


> http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer04/shooting/news/story?id=1864883
> Now of course cubing isn't like other sports. But this is interesting. Emmons didn't run a race and stop half way. He made a slight mistake at the very end because he was nervous. He simply turned (himself) slightly the wrong way. There was no question that he could do it. There was no question of his intent. Does anyone feel that he should have gotten partial points for the shot? He would have a silver medal if so.


This got no response. Can anyone explain their feelings about this event, and how it relates to cubing? 


> If we had a way to time only the turning portion of a solve, self-timing cubes, would you consider it acceptable to do a U4 after PLL and claim the cube solved, regardless of the final state?


This also got no response. Does anyone think that this would be reasonable? Didn't some people complain about computer cube simulators that allowed this? 



There are a number of points in favor of changing this rule that never got a counter argument. Two I would like to point out again are in BLD. 

One multiBLD competitor attempts 20 cubes, finishing with each off by one turn. Another competitor attempts 20 cubes with 19 solved and one off by one turn. Who performed better? 

One 3BLD competitor incorrectly undoes a setup move mid-solve, finishing his attempt with eight pieces unsolved. Another competitor incorrectly undoes a setup move at the end of the solve, finishing his attempt with one layer unsolved. A third competitor incorrectly undoes a setup move mid-solve when the eight pieces involved just happen to be from the same layer, finishing his attempt with one layer unsolved. Who performed better?

Now four big posts from me on this page (oops, not the same page anymore). I look forward to responses.


----------



## Kirjava (May 10, 2012)

peterbone said:


> Subjective


 
Yet generally accepted.



TMOY said:


> No. M is one move period.



Subjective



TMOY said:


> It's just that the current WCa regulations count it as if it was two.



Exactly, and I don't think we'll be changing FMC to use STM any time soon, so why even attempt to use that argument?


----------



## Pedro (May 10, 2012)

Why not change to STM? Many people use M-driven methods now, and they execute M moves as one move...


----------



## Kirjava (May 10, 2012)

Pedro said:


> Why not change to STM? Many people use M-driven methods now, and they execute M moves as one move...


 
Because we use HTM for FMC and there is no real reason to change it.

Antislice turns can be executed as one move, but this doesn't mean that we should use ATM.


----------



## Eazoon (May 10, 2012)

I think its a good idea to change it. It may be hard at first with all the old solves, but its like when freezers were invented. All the icemen lost there jobs,but it was for the best.


----------



## RNewms27 (May 10, 2012)

Why should the regulations depend on what method you use? Roux users chose to practice a 2-move flick and therefore take the risk. If you do not want to DNF because you are off by a slice move, I suggest you switch to a safer method. It isn't hard to avoid misalignment with roux anyway.


----------



## TMOY (May 10, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Exactly, and I don't think we'll be changing FMC to use STM any time soon, so why even attempt to use that argument?


Because my opinion on the subject won't change anytime soon either. 

And I consider FMC as a broken event (mainly for that reason, but not only).


----------



## Kirjava (May 10, 2012)

This seems like a big deal for you. Maybe you should make a topic for us to discuss it in? WCA based threads are all the rage these days.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (May 11, 2012)

I know someone who is interested in athletics and coaches at a local club, and I haven't personally heard anyone who doesn't think the rules on false starts are overly harsh and badly designed, not that it really makes any difference to this thread.


----------



## Dene (May 11, 2012)

Oh jolly good keyan. I've been thinking about reviving this thread for a long time, but I couldn't think of anything new to add. I'll just make my main point here:

The only reason someone would ever +2 at the end of the solve is because of laziness or risk taking. Neither of these are good reasons to maintain the +2 rule. The WCA is not a mother to the babies that compete in it. It's time to cut the umbilical cord and remove this joke of a rule.


----------



## BlueDevil (May 11, 2012)

I've +2'd only twice. Once it was just because of carelessness with the solve, and the other time because I released the puzzle with some misalignment, and when it landed, it fully misaligned to give me a +2. I've also +2'd in magic, but at that point, one's average is bad no matter if it is a DNF or a +2.

Basically, I agree that it is an unnecessary rule. If it's over 45 degrees, the solver was too careless and should just get DNF'd. Maybe a rule change would help people to become more accurate...



Dene said:


> The WCA is not a mother to the babies that compete in it. It's time to cut the umbilical cord and remove this joke of a rule.


Nice analogy – and I totally agree


----------



## qqwref (May 11, 2012)

Psh, fine, change it. I don't even go to competitions anymore, why should I care about fairness?


----------



## keyan (May 11, 2012)

qqwref said:


> Psh, fine, change it. I don't even go to competitions anymore, why should I care about fairness?


Care to explain what exactly about the proposed change is unfair?


----------



## Hays (May 11, 2012)

The only reason I would be against this rule change is because of the mean of 3 format for 6x6 and 7x7. If I were to get finish one of my solves with a larger than 45 degree misalignment I would get a DNF for the entire average.

On smaller cubes this wouldn't matter considering I could get one +2/DNF and still get an acceptable average, giving me the security needed to be able to finish my solves at full speed. 

This might be a more anti-MO3 argument rather than against changing the +2 regulation to a DNF. I definitely agree that getting rid of the +2 is fair and maybe needed, but I wouldn't want it to happen simply because of the higher DNF average risk on 6x6.


----------



## ben1996123 (May 11, 2012)

I see no valid reason to change it.


----------



## ThomasJE (May 11, 2012)

ben1996123 said:


> I see no valid reason to change it.



Agreed. Hays' reason is the main argument, and as many 6x6/7x7 solvers like their cubes loose (as far as I know), the change would have the most impact on them. Some would say to tighten their cubes, but would we then be able to break the WR's again and be stuck with an 'unbeatable time'? 2x2 is another event where +2's are common (I used to +2 quite a bit); and a +2 has more effect on 2x2 then 3x3/4x4 because of the much shorter times and 'more rush' to complete the solve. A poll should be added to this thread.


----------



## Dene (May 11, 2012)

Hays said:


> The only reason I would be against this rule change is because of the mean of 3 format for 6x6 and 7x7. If I were to get finish one of my solves with a larger than 45 degree misalignment I would get a DNF for the entire average.


 
And so you should, assuming we maintain the MO3. If you can't solve one cube properly that's your own fault.



ben1996123 said:


> I see no valid reason to change it.


 
I would like you to go back through this thread and provide responses to every argument I have made. You do not have to come up with original answers. Until you do this, you have absolutely no say on this topic.



ThomasJE said:


> Agreed. Hays' reason is the main argument, and as many 6x6/7x7 solvers like their cubes loose (as far as I know), the change would have the most impact on them. Some would say to tighten their cubes, but would we then be able to break the WR's again and be stuck with an 'unbeatable time'? 2x2 is another event where +2's are common (I used to +2 quite a bit); and a +2 has more effect on 2x2 then 3x3/4x4 because of the much shorter times and 'more rush' to complete the solve.



I have already responded to this argument, but to refresh your memory:
Basically, there is already an element of risk to people that want to solve really fast and get WRs. First of all, there is almost always the risk of a pop, secondly usually the end part is done extremely fast at the risk of a +2 or even potentially screwing up the end and getting a DNF, thirdly there is a risk in the dropping of the puzzle and stopping the timer, where a loose cube could turn "by itself". If the rule changed from +2 to DNF, none of these risks would change; no more, no less.

Now think about it, in the future, is it going to be even close to possible for a +2ed solve to end up the WR? Of course not, because the closer we get to the "human limit" the harder that will get. So essentially changing the rule to DNF will have no impact whatsoever on the potential to get a WR or not. Your argument is complete hogwash, basically. The argument about "meta" is the only one that could be impacted by the change of the rule, but all it means is the current top cubers will have to get over it, or the newgen will come through and take over. It should not affect the question of whether or not the rule needs to be changed.



ThomasJE said:


> A poll should be added to this thread.



100% absolutely not.


----------



## Kirjava (May 12, 2012)

Dene said:


> I would like you to go back through this thread and provide responses to every argument I have made. You do not have to come up with original answers. Until you do this, you have absolutely no say on this topic.


 
This is quite a lot to ask of someone considering that you often refuse to give evidence and claim you can't be bothered to continue a discussion.


----------



## Dene (May 12, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> This is quite a lot to ask of someone considering that you often refuse to give evidence and claim you can't be bothered to continue a discussion.


 
When have I done that? Seeing as it happens "often", I should expect you to come up with at least a few examples.


----------



## Kirjava (May 12, 2012)

Can't be bothered.


----------



## Hays (May 12, 2012)

Dene said:


> And so you should, assuming we maintain the MO3. If you can't solve one cube properly that's your own fault.



True. This isn't the most concerning argument against a potential rule change. However, a rule change would definitely cause more grief who participate in the mean of 3 events than in the average of 5 events.




Dene said:


> Now think about it, in the future, is it going to be even close to possible for a +2ed solve to end up the WR? Of course not, because the closer we get to the "human limit" the harder that will get. So essentially changing the rule to DNF will have no impact whatsoever on the potential to get a WR or not. Your argument is complete hogwash, basically. The argument about "meta" is the only one that could be impacted by the change of the rule, but all it means is the current top cubers will have to get over it, or the newgen will come through and take over. It should not affect the question of whether or not the rule needs to be changed.



How far into the future are we talking about? Maybe for smaller cubes this is already happening, but for bigger cubes, especially 6x6 and 7x7 it is definitely possible to get single world records, and easily average world records with a counting plus two solve, and I don't see this changing within upcoming years. A +2 in a mean of 3 is only a .67 difference. And for example, if the 7x7 average were to get down to even 2:00, counting a plus 2 would certainly not stop a world record from being attainable.



Dene said:


> I would like you to go back through this thread and provide responses to every argument I have made. You do not have to come up with original answers. Until you do this, you have absolutely no say on this topic.



While the original post was obviously lacking some background reading and consideration of the opposing side. This is a mean overstated retort. I have not read every single argument you have made in this thread, and I doubt more than a couple people have. This does not completely rule out the opinions of everyone else.


----------



## Dene (May 12, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Can't be bothered.


 
:tu



Hays said:


> How far into the future are we talking about? Maybe for smaller cubes this is already happening, but for bigger cubes, especially 6x6 and 7x7 it is definitely possible to get single world records, and easily average world records with a counting plus two solve, and I don't see this changing within upcoming years. A +2 in a mean of 3 is only a .67 difference. And for example, if the 7x7 average were to get down to even 2:00, counting a plus 2 would certainly not stop a world record from being attainable.



Perhaps, but an average with no +2 is always going to be better than the same average with a +2, so just finish the solve and you're always better off, right?



Hays said:


> While the original post was obviously lacking some background reading and consideration of the opposing side. This is a mean overstated retort. I have not read every single argument you have made in this thread, and I doubt more than a couple people have. This does not completely rule out the opinions of everyone else.


 
It rules out the opinion of anyone that fails to provide absolutely any reasoning behind it. Obviously my response was disproportional, but that's how I work, deal with it


----------



## CubingGenius97 (May 12, 2012)

Why exactly do you suggest that, do you feel that it is better to just scrap the solve instead of adding two seconds or is it a completely different reason.


----------



## Dene (May 12, 2012)

Who suggest what?


----------



## cubenut99 (May 12, 2012)

Don't remove the +2 penalty 
If you dont solve the cube by misalined layar it should be a +2 any thing over a 90 degree turn away from being solved sould and is a dnf


----------



## BlueDevil (May 12, 2012)

cubenut99 said:


> Don't remove the +2 penalty
> If you dont solve the cube by misalined layar it should be a +2 any thing over a 90 degree turn away from being solved sould and is a dnf


 
Actually, one layer being 180 degrees off is still a +2. The WCA used half-turn metric, so a U2 (for example) counts as one move, so a cube being off by U2 would be a +2 with the current regulations.


----------



## qqwref (May 12, 2012)

Dene said:


> Perhaps, but an average with no +2 is always going to be better than the same average with a +2, so just finish the solve and you're always better off, right?


What? That's like saying "Well hey, your solve would have been faster if you used this optimal xcross, so why didn't you do that?" What happens happens, and it's silly to deny someone a WR on a technicality just because they *could* have avoided it if they somehow knew that error would occur.


----------



## Dene (May 13, 2012)

But a +2 isn't an "error", it is either laziness or risk taking.


----------



## pi.cubed (May 13, 2012)

Dene said:


> But a +2 isn't an "error", it is either laziness or risk taking.



How do you classify it if the the cube turns when it hits the table?


----------



## aronpm (May 13, 2012)

pi.cubed said:


> How do you classify it if the the cube turns when it hits the table?


 
Obviously if you drop the cube, you're being lazy and taking a risk so if an accident happens it's completely your fault and the solve should be DNF.


----------



## Dene (May 13, 2012)

And if you don't read Aron's post in a sarcastic tone, that is exactly the correct answer.

EDIT: Oh and there is also an element of risk in using a cube that is loose enough to turn "by itself".


----------



## Notan (May 23, 2012)

It's just ridiculous for this to have gotten this far. A cubing competition isn't around to punish laziness or taking risks or like that, it's to judge ability. Yes, it wouldn't be a giant deal if the rule was changed to DNF, but two extra seconds are more than enough to compensate for a single turn, except for something like BLD.


----------



## Dene (May 24, 2012)

Notan said:


> It's just ridiculous for this to have gotten this far. A cubing competition isn't around to punish laziness or taking risks or like that, it's to judge ability. Yes, it wouldn't be a giant deal if the rule was changed to DNF, but two extra seconds are more than enough to compensate for a single turn, except for something like BLD.


 
It's not about punishing someone. It's about determining whether or not they solved a puzzle. 

You might counter "but it should be about whether or not they _can_ solve the puzzle, and if they were close enough that should be ok". I have provided responses to this argument throughout this thread (and I think others have too). Refer to those responses for yourself, but essentially, it's a poor argument.


----------



## RaresB (May 24, 2012)

Dene said:


> It's not about punishing someone. It's about determining whether or not they solved a puzzle.
> 
> You might counter "but it should be about whether or not they _can_ solve the puzzle, and if they were close enough that should be ok". I have provided responses to this argument throughout this thread (and I think others have too). Refer to those responses for yourself, but essentially, it's a poor argument.


 
Yup i agree with this, its like any sport, you can probably score but if you hit the goal post no matter how close, its not in, i dont see why this is not applied to cubing and was wondering if there are any sports which take a similar approach of penalizing you minimally for being close to a sucess


----------



## cubernya (May 24, 2012)

pwnAge said:


> Yup i agree with this, its like any sport, you can probably score but if you hit the goal post no matter how close, its not in, i dont see why this is not applied to cubing and was wondering if there are any sports which take a similar approach of penalizing you minimally for being close to a sucess


 
"Almost only counts in horseshoes"
Just sayin


----------



## RaresB (May 24, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> "Almost only counts in horseshoes"
> Just sayin


 I do not know anything about horseshoes but im assuming you mean the tossing game, correct me if im wrong but the objective is to get as close as possible to the stake on the ground, thats like golf you need to get as close to the whole as possible, cubing however is not a as close as possible approach it should be yes or no


----------



## RNewms27 (May 24, 2012)

pwnAge said:


> I do not know anything about horseshoes but im assuming you mean the tossing game, correct me if im wrong but the objective is to get as close as possible to the stake on the ground, thats like golf you need to get as close to the whole as possible, cubing however is not a as close as possible approach it should be yes or no


 
No. Golf is like FMC. I do prefer DNF over +2. It would help me practice the finish of the solve.


----------



## BlueDevil (May 24, 2012)

pwnAge said:


> I do not know anything about horseshoes but im assuming you mean the tossing game, correct me if im wrong but the objective is to get as close as possible to the stake on the ground, thats like golf you need to get as close to the whole as possible, cubing however is not a as close as possible approach it should be yes or no


 
In horseshoes, you throw a U shaped metal object (horseshoe) at a stake in the ground. You get 1 point for being close to the stake, 2 points for leaning on the stake, and 3 for having the horseshoe around the stake. 

So if you do well, you get 3, but you still get some points for being close. This is the only sport I can think of with a rule similar to +2. But it is much harder to get a ringer (3 points) in horseshoes, than it is to make sure a rubik's cube does not have a layer off by a turn.

You can still use your own opinion on whether the +2 penalty is good or bad.


----------



## cubernya (May 24, 2012)

For the record: I believe that we shouldn't completely eliminate it _yet_. I believe we should make it a quarter turn, not half, for now. In a year or two we could make the full switch to DNF. Of course, this is just an idea, but I think it's a good idea.


----------



## MattMcConaha (May 24, 2012)

I think the +2 rule should stay. By dropping the cube (especially 2x2 for me) sometimes the cube will turn itself. It doesn't happen that often, but it does happen.

As for the black or white/solved or not solved thing, I believe there is a 'pretty much solved' region. If you get a +2, ANYONE could finish that solve in less than 2 seconds. Even someone who has never heard of a Rubik's Cube before. If you are only one turn away (excluding BLD) then it is fairly obvious that you could have finished and had an unfortunate and possibly unavoidable accident at the end. No one uses this rule as a way to improve times, and if it is suspected that someone is doing so then that individual can be given DNFs, but not everyone.

Basically, I don't see the reason for removing the rule. It has been there for a long time and I don't know of any real problems that have been caused by it. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

And one last thing, why are we comparing speedsolving to other sports? Are we trying to turn speedsolving into horseshoes and diving? NO, it's speedsolving. There's no reason for us to piggyback off of these other, completely unrelated sports. Football doesn't have a hockey style punishment system because football isn't hockey. Speedsolving doesn't have the same timing policy as 100m dash because speedsolving isn't the 100m dash.


----------



## RaresB (May 24, 2012)

MattMcConaha said:


> I think the +2 rule should stay. By dropping the cube (especially 2x2 for me) sometimes the cube will turn itself. It doesn't happen that often, but it does happen.
> 
> As for the black or white/solved or not solved thing, I believe there is a 'pretty much solved' region. If you get a +2, ANYONE could finish that solve in less than 2 seconds. Even someone who has never heard of a Rubik's Cube before. If you are only one turn away (excluding BLD) then it is fairly obvious that you could have finished and had an unfortunate and possibly unavoidable accident at the end. No one uses this rule as a way to improve times, and if it is suspected that someone is doing so then that individual can be given DNFs, but not everyone.
> 
> ...


 
Life's hard sometimes we just have to deal with accidents and errors and move on. I feel that making +2's, DNF makes cubing more official. I reread the horseshoe example and it seems as if you are trying to get as close to the horseshoe as possible similar to darts IIRC. The purpose in cubing is clearly not to get close, therefore all non solved attempts should be DNF


----------



## Dene (May 24, 2012)

MattMcConaha said:


> I think the +2 rule should stay. By dropping the cube (especially 2x2 for me) sometimes the cube will turn itself. It doesn't happen that often, but it does happen.



This has already been addressed many times. There are two problems with your argument:
1) If the cube can turn "by itself" then it is your own fault for having a cube too loose. The only puzzle of mine that turns "by itself" is my square-1, and if a layer happens to turn while dropping that is the _risk_ I take. (Again I emphasise the WCA is not here to accommodate risk takers and lazy people; if you disagree with this statement I would like to see you provide an argument, because so far everyone on the pro +2 rule side has either avoided it or essentially said "but I'm scared", which is not a valid reason).
2) It does not take long to place the cube down rather than dropping it. I will once again refer to this video. And again, _the WCA is not here to accommodate risk takers and lazy people_.



MattMcConaha said:


> As for the black or white/solved or not solved thing, I believe there is a 'pretty much solved' region. If you get a +2, ANYONE could finish that solve in less than 2 seconds. Even someone who has never heard of a Rubik's Cube before. If you are only one turn away (excluding BLD) then it is fairly obvious that you could have finished and had an unfortunate and possibly unavoidable accident at the end. No one uses this rule as a way to improve times, and if it is suspected that someone is doing so then that individual can be given DNFs, but not everyone.



The "appeal to triviality" claim has already been addressed. Where do you draw the line? I'm willing to bet that 99.9999% of people that can figure out how to solve one layer could also figure out how to solve two, so why stop at one? Long story short, there is no need for us to come up with such a boundary, and we can avoid a lot of other difficult cases, by keeping it simple and actually requiring people to solve the cube.



MattMcConaha said:


> Basically, I don't see the reason for removing the rule. It has been there for a long time and I don't know of any real problems that have been caused by it. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.



People don't even have to solve the cube to get credit for solving it! It's a joke, really. The rule _is_ broken and it _needs_ to be fixed.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (May 24, 2012)

In snooker, if one player is snookered and trying to hit a certain ball, the referee has the power to decide that they were 'close enough' to the ball they were trying to hit, in certain circumstances, and not call a miss. They are treating it as if they hit the ball, even when they didn't. This happened recently in the World Championships (I forget who).


----------



## Godmil (May 24, 2012)

it's been a while, but I'm sure in Golf if you go wildly out of bounds, you can take a penalty stroke and play the shot again. So in a sport where the aim is to get a ball from the one place to another, there is still the room to actually swap to a new ball with a penalty. Not quite as nice and bob's Snooker analogy, but it shows how penalties can be applied and the process of play is changed to accommodate (in golf's case it's more fair than making someone play from the sea).


----------



## hcfong (May 24, 2012)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> In snooker, if one player is snookered and trying to hit a certain ball, the referee has the power to decide that they were 'close enough' to the ball they were trying to hit, in certain circumstances, and not call a miss. They are treating it as if they hit the ball, even when they didn't. This happened recently in the World Championships (I forget who).


 
A 'miss' is not the act of missing the object ball, but an arbitrary decision from the referee when he believes the player has not made a good enough attempt to hit the object ball. Missing the object ball is a foul with of 4 penalty points or the value of the object ball (whichever is the highest) awarded to the opponent. So, if a referee is believes the player has made a good enough attempt to hit the object ball, as was in the case you mentioned, he will still call a foul, but not a miss. A miss is never called on its own but always as a 'foul and a miss'. A foul for missing the object ball and a miss for not making a good enough attempt to hit the object ball. 

As an analogy for misaligned layers in speedcubing, I believe it supports that there should be at least some sort of penalty for misaligned layers. If a competitor cant be bothered to check whether the cube is solved completely, then it can be regarded as not making a good enough attempt to solve the cube and should be penalised.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (May 24, 2012)

hcfong said:


> A 'miss' is not the act of missing the object ball, but an arbitrary decision from the referee when he believes the player has not made a good enough attempt to hit the object ball. Missing the object ball is a foul with of 4 penalty points or the value of the object ball (whichever is the highest) awarded to the opponent. So, if a referee is believes the player has made a good enough attempt to hit the object ball, as was in the case you mentioned, he will still call a foul, but not a miss. A miss is never called on its own but always as a 'foul and a miss'. A foul for missing the object ball and a miss for not making a good enough attempt to hit the object ball.
> 
> As an analogy for misaligned layers in speedcubing, I believe it supports that there should be at least some sort of penalty for misaligned layers. If a competitor cant be bothered to check whether the cube is solved completely, then it can be regarded as not making a good enough attempt to solve the cube and should be penalised.


 
Yes, I know the rules . I realise I didn't explain it fully, I only mentioned enough to show the similarity - that some margin of error is allowed for being close. I also realise I forgot to say they still get penalised for the shot, I did mean to but it somehow never made it onto the page.


----------



## AnsonL (Jun 3, 2012)

What if the misalignment is something like 46 degree, it's just too close to being solved,how is it a DNF when it's not even one move away from solved.should make it so that anything >90 degree is DNF.


----------



## 5BLD (Jun 4, 2012)

Then why bother to fully AUF?


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jun 4, 2012)

Dene said:


> It's not about punishing someone. It's about determining whether or not they solved a puzzle.



Finishes PLL, performs U3, stops timer. So if +2 is removed that would count as a solve? The cube was solved before the timer was stopped.

Not really arguing the case just curious about the response.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Jun 4, 2012)

I don't know if this is what you're asking about but

10b)Only the resting state of a puzzle is considered, when the timer has stopped.


----------



## Dene (Jun 4, 2012)

cube-o-holic said:


> Finishes PLL, performs U3, stops timer. So if +2 is removed that would count as a solve? The cube was solved before the timer was stopped.
> 
> Not really arguing the case just curious about the response.


 
I get your point, and there are a variety of ways I could approach responding to it. But first it is important to clarify what you are saying because you have given an ambiguous situation. I am assuming that what you intend to say is that, as the competitor finishes PLL and comes to AUF, they perform a U3, and in the process the cube at some stage goes into the fully solved state, but then continues on, and ultimately the competitor stops the timer when the cube is in a position where the U slice is off by more than 45 degrees. If this interpretation is incorrect then please correct me, but I don't see why you would argue for the other possibility entailed by your statement (that the cube was solved before the timer was stopped, and also after the timer was stopped >.<).

Now, let's say for the sake of argument my immediate response to you is "we are determining whether they have solved the puzzle or not _in this instance_, not whether they _can_ solve the puzzle or not; upon the stopping of the timer the cube was not solved, therefore it is a DNF". 

You would be perfectly entitled to respond "but the puzzle was solved in this instance, at least at one stage, and it is only a fault of the timing procedure that the person did not get credit for that".

I could then respond "yea well that's the procedure, we have to use these timers, so deal with it and make sure it's solved when you stop the timer". But that would be too easy, and a bit unconvincing for some people I'm sure.

So I will respond in a different way. Suppose that we have a new timing mechanism that times the competitor from the moment they first make a move on the cube, until the cube is in its solved state. Now it would be a potential _strategy_ of a cuber, once they come to AUF, to perform a U3 really quickly without considering the actual state of the cube after PLL, and by doing this they would guarantee that they go through the solved state, and the timer will stop at that point, regardless of whether they continue turning the puzzle or not. 

This then leaves three possibilities for the person that just performs a U3 at the end of a solve, rather than actually determining what the AUF is and directly solving it (and two of these possibilities should be very familiar to anyone that has been reading my posts in this thread):

1) They are taking a risk, by blindly performing a U3 and hoping it will end up in the solved state.
2) They are being lazy, by just doing a U3 and not caring if it is solved at the end or not.
3) They are using a strategy, and taking advantage of a timing procedure.

Now seeing as no one has a decent response to 1 and 2, I can immediately say that if it is one of those then it is the competitors fault and they deserve a DNF. Feel free to disagree with me if you will; I would love to see the reasoning of someone that thinks the WCA should accommodate risk taking and laziness.

So now I ask you the question, and you can decide for yourself what you think:
Is it fair, or in the spirit of the WCA, that a competitor can abuse the timing procedure to their advantage to ensure the best time possible?

I'll leave it up to you what to make of that moral question.


----------



## Dene (Jun 4, 2012)

AnsonL said:


> What if the misalignment is something like 46 degree, it's just too close to being solved,how is it a DNF when it's not even one move away from solved.should make it so that anything >90 degree is DNF.



This point has already been addressed, although I think there were people that were left unsatisfied. Basically: 44.9999 etc. degrees is the last point at which the cube is closer to solved than not solved. May as well round that to 45 degrees for the sake of simplicity.

The current rule is +2 for more than 45 degrees off, so cubers should already know to have it less than that. There should be no change in the fact that ultimately the attempt is to get the cube solved, and not "nearly solved".


----------



## Rune (Jun 4, 2012)

"This point has already been addressed, although I think there were people that were left unsatisfied. Basically: 44.9999 etc. degrees is the last point at which the cube is closer to solved than not solved. May as well round that to 45 degrees for the sake of simplicity"

It´s nothing to round; 44.9999 etc. equals exactly 45.0000 etc.


----------



## Jaycee (Jun 4, 2012)

Rune said:


> It´s nothing to round; 44.9999 etc. equals exactly 45.0000 etc.


 
As numbers are one of my three loves, it pains me to see this being said. O.O


----------



## aronpm (Jun 4, 2012)

Jaycee said:


> As numbers are one of my three loves, it pains me to see this being said. O.O


 
44.999... recurring is exactly 45.


----------



## Jaycee (Jun 4, 2012)

That's never made sense to me (I have seen it before), so I don't agree. Yes, I'm aware that I'm in the minority because I disagree.


----------



## blah (Jun 4, 2012)

Jaycee said:


> That's never made sense to me (I have seen it before), *so I don't agree*. Yes, I'm aware that I'm in the minority because I disagree.


?

It doesn't make sense that light can travel. People and things travel. Light doesn't travel. Light is light. It doesn't make sense that "nothing can travel faster than light" because light doesn't travel in the first place. Yes, I'm aware that people have won prizes and sh*t for this but I don't agree with them.

Note: I don't actually think Dene meant a recurring decimal >_>


----------



## Rune (Jun 4, 2012)

Note: I don't actually think Dene meant a recurring decimal >_> 
Then, what does "etc" mean?


----------



## Dene (Jun 4, 2012)

Well, no I didn't mean a recurring decimal in the sense that it would equal 45, because 45 is *not* closer to solved than not solved (obviously it is equally close to being solved and not solved). Where the .99999 etc. get stopped is an interesting question, but a rather pointless one as I'm sure we all understand what I mean, and it's good to see no one actually objecting to me


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jun 4, 2012)

Dene said:


> So now I ask you the question, and you can decide for yourself what you think:
> Is it fair, or in the spirit of the WCA, that a competitor can abuse the timing procedure to their advantage to ensure the best time possible?



If we were competing in a perfect world where we had a perfect timing system for every competitor (time starts when first face is turned and as soon as puzzle is in a solved state the timer is stopped) then I see no issue with a U3 to guarentee a solve.
IMO it would be like disqualifing a goal in football if the ball comes back out of the goal.
Obviously this is impractical with the current state of the WCA.

edit - the question is loaded with your opinion. It should have read something like 'Should a competitor be able to abuse the timing procedure to ensure the best time possible?'.


----------



## Dene (Jun 4, 2012)

cube-o-holic said:


> If we were competing in a perfect world where we had a perfect timing system for every competitor (time starts when first face is turned and as soon as puzzle is in a solved state the timer is stopped) then I see no issue with a U3 to guarentee a solve.
> IMO it would be like disqualifing a goal in football if the ball comes back out of the goal.


 
Your analogy is inaccurate. If the rules of soccer were to get the ball into the goal and to have it stay in there, then it would be a bit more comparable. But it's hard to compare the two in this respect, because in cubing there is a specific state that we are aiming for in the cube, whereas in soccer the aim is simply to get the ball over the goal line. 

In my opinion, and the WCA seems to agree with me (although I should stress my own opinion is not necessarily that of the WCA), that the state of the cube we should be checking to see if it is in fact solved or not, is the final resting state of the cube after the competitor has stopped. Otherwise, why AUF at all?


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jun 4, 2012)

I would like to see cubing get so big that enough money would be involved so the amount of time it takes to solve a cube is counted as the solve time. *This wouldn't include* the amount of time it takes to start the timer, pick up the cube, stopping the timer and *anything you do after solving the cube*.
I don't however see this actually happening but you can see how I came to the football analogy.



Dene said:


> Your analogy is inaccurate.


For how the rules are now but that wasn't what I was talking about.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jun 4, 2012)

Dene: Short preface: I have not followed this thread for some time. I saw it on the front page and clicked to the newest post it showed me, which was yours of 12 hours ago (at the time of this posting anyhow). Please direct me to the post where this might have been already discussed / countered / etc if this is the case.

Remember the "meta game" that was being discussed? You showed a video of putting the cube down that had a .17 difference, and that could easily be the difference of a WR. Now, a simple counter to this could be "Well sure, Feliks got 7.03 for the first taking of the WR, then he got 6.9x, kept getting lower until he's now at 5.66." We could also go to the effect of looking at 0.96 2x2 single WR and the now current 0.69. With that same argument though, with the putting down the cube adding .17, that 0.69 would actually be 0.86. The next 2x2 time is 0.72.

We can see here that the even past the meta game, the physical game itself, can be affected by dropping the cube or placing it down then stopping the timer. For all of these sub1 solves, a +2 would have (obviously) screwed them here, but in the case of the top 3 solves here, dropping the cube or putting it down could have easily made the difference of who got the 2x2 single WR.

Side note: This also could possibly show that (at least some) competitors have a lack of concern about +2's (at least in 2x2), which at least hints about the meta game in 2x2 with these competitors.


----------



## Dene (Jun 5, 2012)

cube-o-holic said:


> stuff


 
So let us say, for example, John Doe is just finishing PLL and the AUF is off by U, but for some reason John thinks that he screwed up his PLL and actually has to do another J perm to finish the solve. Now in the process of going to do this J perm he first does a U', thus solving the cube first, then proceeding to do a J perm. He "stops" the solve after the J perm.

If this were to happen now, and he stopped the timer with the cube off by a J perm he would get a DNF. According to you, though, the timer should have stopped before he performed that unnecessary J perm. 

Basically, what I'm asking is if you think it's ok if people _unknowingly_ solve the cube? 

I mean, while this is an unlikely consequence of your procedure, it could still happen. More importantly though, by your idea the AUF essentially becomes completely redundant, so why bother with it at all? In which case, screw the +2 rule for a misaligned slice at all, why not just make anything off by one turn, including U2, solved without penalty?

Personally, I think this is a negative consequence of your procedure, and is a very good reason to avoid it.


----------



## Dene (Jun 5, 2012)

fatboyxpc said:


> more stuff



Firstly, let's separate the two problems which you have confounded. The first is the "meta" problem, which goes something along the lines of "ocrap I better slow down and be more careful at the end of my solve to ensure I don't stop the timer until it is completely solved, or else the dire consequences of a DNF will destroy my average, unlike a +2 which is all good". The second is the "place the cube or drop it?" problem. I've said all this before, but I'll say it again now for the new people to the conversation:

My response to the "meta" problem is essentially "screw it". If the current "elite" are affected by worrying about a DNF, then they'll have to suffer the consequences and a new breed of cubers will come through that won't be affected by it, and will be able to achieve optimum times regardless. 

On a side note, personally I do not think many cubers would be affected by changing +2 to DNF except in circumstances where they already have a DNF (or doing mean of 3, but seriously, solve the damn 6x6 before you stop the timer, you've already had almost 2 minutes to get it right). But if they are affected, other cubers that aren't will be able to reap the rewards of not DNFing. Tough luck, grow a pair.

As for the "place it or drop it?" problem, the response is simple: if you wish to take the risk to get a slightly better time, go ahead, but the WCA is not going to cuddle you while you cry in a corner if your cube "accidentally" makes a turn as a result of that risk. It's not about banning risk taking, it's about having a solved cube when the timer is stopped. How the cuber goes about achieving that is entirely up to them, and if they wish to risk a DNF by throwing their cube across the room in the process of stopping the timer, that's the risk they take.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jun 5, 2012)

Dene said:


> Basically, what I'm asking is if you think it's ok if people _unknowingly_ solve the cube?



Absolutely. If you can take a cube from an unsolved state to a solved state I'm content.


----------



## Dene (Jun 5, 2012)

So what about trivially solvable positions? We can all agree that a cube off by one move is trivially solvable, and I think a very strong case could be put forward for two moves off being trivially solvable, and maybe even three moves. If the cube was left unfinished by one or two moves deliberately, should there be any penalty at all?

EDIT: I should point out, I'm not criticising you at all, so don't read me like that. I'm just trying to flesh out your exact position, and the implications of it. I'm still not exactly certain where you lie in this issue, so I guess other people would be unsure too. It's important to understand, so people can make an informed decision on whether or not they would be prepared to advocate or defend your position, or whether it can be rejected, etc.


----------



## keyan (Jun 5, 2012)

cube-o-holic said:


> Finishes PLL, performs U3, stops timer. So if +2 is removed that would count as a solve? The cube was solved before the timer was stopped.


http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?34096-WCA-Regulations-2012-Remove-2-penalty-for-misaligned-sides&p=686701&viewfull=1#post686701
Several big posts of mine that haven't really gotten any response. For all the emotion of those defending this rule, there's little in the way of reasoned arguments. 


> If we had a way to time only the turning portion of a solve, self-timing cubes, would you consider it acceptable to do a U4 after PLL and claim the cube solved, regardless of the final state?


Way back in the day at a Caltech competition, there was a guy solving BLD (Darren Kwong? Not sure.) who finished his cube then sat there, tracing corner cycles with his fingers. We all held our breath until he did an extra corner cycle then stopped the timer with a DNF. Should he have gotten a valid time? He obviously could solve BLD, he just overthought it. 

I learned a new word recently, nocebo. The talk of "meta" is effectively this. Some people are so convinced that a rule change will be damaging, they're basically holding their results hostage. If the rules change, they will be sure to get worse results and prove everyone wrong. This is not something the rules should be concerned with. 

GuangzhouSCUT results: There were 28 unsolved cubes judged +2, 3.1% of the 900 non-BLD non-magic solves at the competition. Of these, however, 12 were already the slowest solve of the average. That is, changing the result from "close enough" to DNF would have had no impact on the average result. A further 10 would have given a small increase in the average result. Only 6 of the 180 averages recorded at the competition, or 3.3%, would have changed from a valid average to DNF. 

I wish more competition organizers could record these sort of results. 

Unless anyone thinks that two seconds are trivial, then no one solves expecting to not complete the cube (feet solving aside). Were the above competition held with a rule change judging all unsolved cubes as DNF, competitors could participate with no change in their solving approach and only have a small chance of their results changing from what we see now. Again, competitors could compete with no change in "meta" of whatever sort and the possible impact would be small.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jun 5, 2012)

Dene said:


> EDIT: I should point out, I'm not criticising you at all, so don't read me like that. I'm just trying to flesh out your exact position, and the implications of it. I'm still not exactly certain where you lie in this issue, so I guess other people would be unsure too. It's important to understand, so people can make an informed decision on whether or not they would be prepared to advocate or defend your position, or whether it can be rejected, etc.



I don't actually mind saying goodbye to the +2. After reading most of this thread I am almost convinced that it could and should be removed. I certainly don't think 2 and 3 moves off should count.

I should add that I never foresee a future where my 'ideal' timing could be implicated either. I just like the idea of it.


----------



## ThomasJE (Jun 5, 2012)

I suggested the idea of a poll to this thread earlier on to see where people lie on this argument, an idea which was waved away. Waved away by the people FOR changing the rule. The +2 rule is accepted by the community. So why change it? We should only change the rule if the majority of people are for changing it. And the only way to find the majority group is through a poll. If the poll is again waved away, then we have no way of seeing who is for what and then, the argument is pointless. I doubt that the arguments in this thread will change the opinions of the people, so the sooner we add a poll, the sooner we can sort out this argument.


----------



## keyan (Jun 5, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> IT MUST BE TRUE BECAUSE IT'S WHAT YOU EXPECT


Hopefully someone will provide numbers for other competitions, either supporting my assertion or providing an alternate thought on how this all works.



ThomasJE said:


> I suggested the idea of a poll to this thread earlier on to see where people lie on this argument, an idea which was waved away. Waved away by the people FOR changing the rule. The +2 rule is accepted by the community. So why change it? We should only change the rule if the majority of people are for changing it. And the only way to find the majority group is through a poll. If the poll is again waved away, then we have no way of seeing who is for what and then, the argument is pointless. I doubt that the arguments in this thread will change the opinions of the people, so the sooner we add a poll, the sooner we can sort out this argument.


First, the rules don't need to follow what the supposed majority of the community wants. The change in inspection procedure and thus inspection time was criticized by some very vocal people (using much the same arguments as those seen in this thread). The change was still made, despite the opposition. People adapted, and no one was really bothered in the end. 
Second, this forum is in no way representative of the community. I've seen pretty good support for removing this rule among the Chinese community, on the grounds that it would make competitions "more professional".


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 5, 2012)

keyan said:


> Hopefully someone will provide numbers for other competitions, either supporting my assertion or providing an alternate thought on how this all works.



I want to remove +2.

I think this argument for removing +2 is very poor.


----------



## Dene (Jun 5, 2012)

cube-o-holic said:


> I don't actually mind saying goodbye to the +2. After reading most of this thread I am almost convinced that it could and should be removed. I certainly don't think 2 and 3 moves off should count.



Gee wizz, that certainly is a radical position to hold. What justification do you have for allowing cubes off by U2 to count as solved with no penalty?


----------



## keyan (Jun 5, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> I think this argument for removing +2 is very poor.


Was never meant as an argument for removal, rather an explanation of why the fear expressed by many in this thread is, I think, unfounded.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 5, 2012)

keyan said:


> rather an explanation of why the fear expressed by many in this thread is, I think, unfounded.



cool. then your explanation is poor.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jun 5, 2012)

Dene said:


> What justification do you have for allowing cubes off by U2 to count as solved with no penalty?



Where did you get that impression? I don't mind if the cube is scrambled on the table *if it has passed through it's solved state* which we don't have the facilities to deal with.


----------



## applemobile (Jun 5, 2012)

I propose +3


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jun 5, 2012)

Dene: Yes, I did end up combining those two issues, my apologies for that. I do agree that such the meta game might only be affected if the competitor already had a dnf, and that it might not be affected if they did not. I know that when it comes to me, if I've got a clean slate I don't care too much about penalties happening, but once I get one, nerves are much worse.


----------



## keyan (Jun 5, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> cool. then your explanation is poor.


I can live with that. Since I'm not afraid of the proposed change, all I can do is consider how I would look at it if I were, and what argument might influence me. If that's not good enough for someone else, little I can do. 

I've written a lot in this thread that hasn't gotten much response, if any. Since the thread's quite long, rather than ask people to go back and look for my posts, I'll repeat some of my questions here. 

In multiBLD, how is it that 20 cubes each off by one turn is better than 21 cubes with 20 solved and one off by two moves?

If we had a way to time only the turning portion of a solve, self-timing cubes, would you consider it acceptable to do a U4 after PLL and claim the cube solved, regardless of the final state? 

A cuber gets to PLL, with a clockwise U. They accidentally do a counter-clockwise U and DNF. A friend was filming, and has a very good view with high definition video. Can this cuber petition the board for the solve to count, saying that they "obviously know how to solve"? How about, in the video the counter-clockwise U takes exactly one second. With the 4:1 ratio previously mentioned, could they petition for the solve to count with a four second penalty? Despite the absurdity of this case, it still uses the same logic that someone else used to justify +2. "They obviously know how to solve it." Is there a problem with the logic? If no, why is one acceptable and the other not? If yes, then that logic can't be used to justify +2. 

New records are a measure of the success of speedcubing as a sport/hobby? Another unrelated sports analogy, but do you think it was a bad idea for swimming to ban the LZR suit? 

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer04/shooting/news/story?id=1864883
Now of course cubing isn't like other sports. But this is interesting. Emmons didn't run a race and stop half way. He made a slight mistake at the very end because he was nervous. He simply turned (himself) slightly the wrong way. There was no question that he could do it. There was no question of his intent. Does anyone feel that he should have gotten partial points for the shot? He would have a silver medal if so. 

Back in the days of Ryan Heise's BLD contest, there was a guy going by the name "chi chu" who dominated. He was averaging sub 60 when the world record was 1:28. His first WCA competition, when an average solve for him would have easily been WR, he was so nervous his hands were visibly shaking and he couldn't perform algorithms. Got about two minutes. Where was his safety net? 

What's being brought up aren't points against the change itself, but rather statements that change will make some people unhappy. That's not something we can change, nor something that we should weigh too heavily. Some people were unhappy about adding 6x6 and 7x7. (Those that always get stuck scrambling.) Does that mean we shouldn't have added the events?

For the argument that sloppy turning is the result of a timing procedure which is wholly outside the solving process, what of the cuber that in a rush to finish their solve smashes the timer so hard they knock the battery loose? In a rush to finish their solve accidentally hits the reset button?


----------



## Dene (Jun 5, 2012)

cube-o-holic said:


> Where did you get that impression? I don't mind if the cube is scrambled on the table *if it has passed through it's solved state* which we don't have the facilities to deal with.



Oh ok. When you said "I don't mind removing +2, but being off by 2 or 3 moves is not acceptable" I thought you meant remove +2 for being one move off, and having no penalty.

It's an interesting case that you seem to advocate then. Certainly our technologies won't in the near future be able to time in this manner so it isn't an issue at all, but if it comes to it, what would the WCA do? I mean, would the _intentions_ of the cuber be taken into consideration? As in, did they intend to go past the solved state to get it to solved, or did they just make a random turn and happen to go past that state? 

A debate for another day


----------



## Carrot (Jun 5, 2012)

cube-o-holic said:


> Where did you get that impression? I don't mind if the cube is scrambled on the table *if it has passed through it's solved state* which we don't have the facilities to deal with.



10b)Only the resting state of a puzzle is considered, when the timer has stopped.

Not sure how that is NOT dealing with that problem?

(I have no real arguments in this, I just know that the day +2 turns into DNF I will never ever have a non-DNF pyra avg :3 )


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 5, 2012)

keyan said:


> I've written a lot in this thread that hasn't gotten much response, if any.



Probably because most of your point seem to be arbitrary, very subjective and in no way more valuable then the counter-argument "But it's clear that it is almost solved."


This thread is actually really annoying. You and Dene are stuck with arguing against arguments _against_ a change instead of finding overwhelming arguments _for_ a change. 

As long as there are no arguments for changing the penalty to DNF that are more valuable than _I think a move away is not solved and should be DNF!_ I don't see why a change should be even considered.


----------



## ThomasJE (Jun 5, 2012)

Sebastien said:


> This thread is actually really annoying. You and Dene are stuck with arguing against arguments _against_ a change instead of finding overwhelming arguments _for_ a change.



Agreed.



Sebastien said:


> As long as there are no arguments for changing the penalty to DNF that are more valuable than _I think a move away is not solved and should be DNF!_ I don't see why a change should be even considered.



Agreed. Again.

Seriously though, why are we thinking of changing a rule that will then hinder us rather than help us. Virtually every speedcuber has been affected and taken advantage of this rule. So why should we change it?


----------



## keyan (Jun 5, 2012)

Sebastien said:


> Probably because most of your point seem to be arbitrary, very subjective and in no way more valuable then the counter-argument "But it's clear that it is almost solved."
> 
> This thread is actually really annoying. You and Dene are stuck with arguing against arguments _against_ a change instead of finding overwhelming arguments _for_ a change.
> 
> As long as there are no arguments for changing the penalty to DNF that are more valuable than _I think a move away is not solved and should be DNF!_ I don't see why a change should be even considered.


Arguments in favor of removing the rule: 
Simplify the regulations. This is a big one. For someone that has only been to, say, Southern California competitions they may not understand, but hosting competitions in a new area, spreading cubing to new communities, one of the biggest hurdles is training judges. Some have said that the regulations are already simple enough, but that just isn't true. People regularly complain about bad judges. Adding a category between "solved" and "unsolved" makes the work of a new judge harder. Everything that we can do that makes judging simpler while still maintaining fairness helps to increase the number of competitions that are held and spread cubing to more people. "More competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair conditions". The proposed rule change adds to the first three of those. 
Create consistency across the speedsolving events. Clock doesn't have an unsolved but close enough state. The proposed rule change would make all speedsolving events consistent in this regard. Another alternative is to define a penalty state for clock, but no one has suggested a good one. Given that the solve state can't be observed without influencing the puzzle, I don't think it's possible to define a penalty state for clock. (The paper inserts for the clocks can move slightly. How do you determine if the puzzle is half way between 11 and 12, or just that the inserts moved? Hard to do without dissecting the puzzle.) Another suggestion was that consistency isn't worthwhile, that we shouldn't bother with this. I don't think that's a very strong argument. Consistency is easily attainable, I think we can work toward it. 
Remove weird cases from the rules. I already mentioned multiBLD, 20 cubes each off by one turn versus 21 cubes with 20 solved and one off by two turns. One person made ten times as many mistakes as the other, and yet we consider him to have performed better. 
Make competitions appear more professional. The two comments I hear most often from non-cubers observing competitions are "Why does he get to look at it first? That's cheating!" and "That wasn't solved!". Counting unsolved cubes as solved makes cubing look bad in the eyes of the general public. That, in itself, isn't necessarily a problem. However, that can still have an impact. Making cubing appear more professional might make finding sponsorship easier. Asian Championship 2010 and World Championship 2011, we were very lucky to have the help of the Baiyoke Hotel. I can imagine a scenario where the president of Baiyoke was initially interested, but then saw an unsolved cube and asked why it was counted, and ended up choosing not to offer sponsorship. I can't see the opposite being the case. Increasing the standing of cubing in the eye of the general public would also allow more people to become interested in cubing and join the community. 

You complain that not enough has been done to show why a change would be beneficial. Here are four arguments in favor of changing the rule. Among these, only the point about consistency has been addressed by people against a change, though I feel that argument fell short. These arguments haven't been significantly rebutted, yet more are needed? What are the arguments that show the benefit of keeping the rule change, rather than appeal to tradition and talk of hurt feelings? The only argument I can think of is Stefan's point that it might cause some people to argue more about rulings. Unfortunately, probably true. 

You state "But it's clear that it is almost solved." Almost solved is, inherently, unsolved. Can you explain why a cube that is unsolevd should count as solved? Do you think that the competitor has shown their intent to solve? In that case, could you address the Olympic shooting thing I mentioned? Or do you think that the competitor has shown their ability to solve, regardless of whether they actually solved or not? In that case, could you address the incorrect PLL thing I mentioned? 

You complain about my arguments, the PLL thing was brushed off as absurd, but that's the point. It's supposed to be absurd. Recasting the arguments of those wanting to keep the rule in a more extreme example shows the failings of their arguments. You can complain about the style, but please acknowledge the actual points. 



ThomasJE said:


> Seriously though, why are we thinking of changing a rule that will then hinder us rather than help us. Virtually every speedcuber has been affected and taken advantage of this rule. So why should we change it?


Can you explain what is hindered? Ignoring everything I said above about how a rule change would help, can you explain how the proposed rule change would make anything more difficult?


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 5, 2012)

keyan said:


> can you explain how the proposed rule change would make competitions more difficult to run in any way?



can you show where he said it would?


----------



## Vincents (Jun 5, 2012)

I'm glad this discussion is continuing. I'm even more glad that multiple WRC members are monitoring and sometimes weighing in. Carry on.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 5, 2012)

Sometimes I think keyan is adding more than necessary to the discussion, but:



keyan said:


> Arguments in favor of removing the rule:
> 
> Simplify the regulations.
> Create consistency across the speedsolving events.
> ...


I agree with all 4 of these arguments. I definitely favor removing the rule, for those reasons.


----------



## Bob (Jun 5, 2012)

keyan said:


> Arguments in favor of removing the rule:
> Simplify the regulations. This is a big one. For someone that has only been to, say, Southern California competitions they may not understand, but hosting competitions in a new area, spreading cubing to new communities, one of the biggest hurdles is training judges. Some have said that the regulations are already simple enough, but that just isn't true. People regularly complain about bad judges. Adding a category between "solved" and "unsolved" makes the work of a new judge harder. Everything that we can do that makes judging simpler while still maintaining fairness helps to increase the number of competitions that are held and spread cubing to more people. "More competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair conditions". The proposed rule change adds to the first three of those.


Removing the +2 changes it to a DNF. The category between "solved" and "unsolved" is still there. We still have to analyze the same solves. The only thing simpler about it is that we would be that if the puzzle is more than one move away, we do not need to analyze if the second turn is 45 degrees away.



> Create consistency across the speedsolving events. Clock doesn't have an unsolved but close enough state. The proposed rule change would make all speedsolving events consistent in this regard. Another alternative is to define a penalty state for clock, but no one has suggested a good one. Given that the solve state can't be observed without influencing the puzzle, I don't think it's possible to define a penalty state for clock. (The paper inserts for the clocks can move slightly. How do you determine if the puzzle is half way between 11 and 12, or just that the inserts moved? Hard to do without dissecting the puzzle.) Another suggestion was that consistency isn't worthwhile, that we shouldn't bother with this. I don't think that's a very strong argument. Consistency is easily attainable, I think we can work toward it.


A penalty on clock would not have anything to do with being part way between hours, but instead being able to solve the clock in "one move." Let's consider one move to mean that you may put the pins in whatever position you like and turn any one dial to solve the clock. The inserts do not have anything to do with the solved state, as the clocks click into place. Boom, consistency attained across puzzles.



> Remove weird cases from the rules. I already mentioned multiBLD, 20 cubes each off by one turn versus 21 cubes with 20 solved and one off by two turns. One person made ten times as many mistakes as the other, and yet we consider him to have performed better.



And I think he did. In the regulations, a puzzle off by 1 move is still considered solved, but there is a penalty attached. So we are comparing somebody who solved 20 out of 20 cubes with somebody who solved 20 out of 21.



> Make competitions appear more professional. The two comments I hear most often from non-cubers observing competitions are "Why does he get to look at it first? That's cheating!" and "That wasn't solved!". Counting unsolved cubes as solved makes cubing look bad in the eyes of the general public. That, in itself, isn't necessarily a problem. However, that can still have an impact. Making cubing appear more professional might make finding sponsorship easier. Asian Championship 2010 and World Championship 2011, we were very lucky to have the help of the Baiyoke Hotel. I can imagine a scenario where the president of Baiyoke was initially interested, but then saw an unsolved cube and asked why it was counted, and ended up choosing not to offer sponsorship. I can't see the opposite being the case. Increasing the standing of cubing in the eye of the general public would also allow more people to become interested in cubing and join the community.



If we want to look more professional, let's get rid of feet solving. IMO feet solving poses more of a threat of looking goofy and unprofessional than does having cubes misaligned by 1 turn receiving penalties. Are you also proposing that we eliminate inspection before the solve? It sounds like you are.



> You complain that not enough has been done to show why a change would be beneficial. Here are four arguments in favor of changing the rule. Among these, only the point about consistency has been addressed by people against a change, though I feel that argument fell short. These arguments haven't been significantly rebutted, yet more are needed? What are the arguments that show the benefit of keeping the rule change, rather than appeal to tradition and talk of hurt feelings? The only argument I can think of is Stefan's point that it might cause some people to argue more about rulings. Unfortunately, probably true.
> 
> You state "But it's clear that it is almost solved." Almost solved is, inherently, unsolved.



So why accept cubes that are off by 44 degrees as solved? You can see rather clearly that the sides are not completely aligned. How about 30 degrees? 10 degrees? 



> Can you explain why a cube that is unsolevd should count as solved? Do you think that the competitor has shown their intent to solve? In that case, could you address the Olympic shooting thing I mentioned? Or do you think that the competitor has shown their ability to solve, regardless of whether they actually solved or not? In that case, could you address the incorrect PLL thing I mentioned?
> 
> You complain about my arguments, the PLL thing was brushed off as absurd, but that's the point. It's supposed to be absurd. Recasting the arguments of those wanting to keep the rule in a more extreme example shows the failings of their arguments. You can complain about the style, but please acknowledge the actual points.
> 
> ...



I also don't see how the rule change makes competitions easier to run in any way. You mentioned that it would be easier for judges, but honestly, it won't. They still need to check for 45 degrees. The only thing that changes is that they would write "DNF" instead of 12.11 + 2 = 14.11. Except now, if an inexperienced judge unknowingly accepts a result that was off by 45 degrees or more without knowing any better, we've now given somebody credit for a solve instead of giving them a free 2 second bonus.


----------



## DrKorbin (Jun 5, 2012)

keyan said:


> Simplify the regulations. ... Adding a category between "solved" and "unsolved" makes the work of a new judge harder. Everything that we can do that makes judging simpler while still maintaining fairness helps to increase the number of competitions...


I think that determination of the angle of misalign and comparsion it with 45 degrees angle won't blow judge's brain. If it blows, he can always ask more experienced judge. If you (as organizer) have troubles with explanation of this rule to your judges, you can get competitors involved.
And how exactly simplification of the rules will increase the number of competitions?
"Oh, I want to organize a competition, but I have no room".
"Oh, I want to organize a competition, but I have no money or sponsorship".
"Oh, I want to organize a competition, but this +2 penalty rule is so complex".



keyan said:


> Create consistency across the speedsolving events.


And why do we need to create consistency across the _different_ speedsolving events?



keyan said:


> Remove weird cases from the rules. I already mentioned multiBLD, 20 cubes each off by one turn versus 21 cubes with 20 solved and one off by two turns. One person made ten times as many mistakes as the other, and yet we consider him to have performed better.


Here is another example: two persons, A and B, try 20 cubes in multi-bld. A forgets to undo a setup move in first two cubes, messes them and gets 18/20. B forgets to undo every setup move after every algorithm, but only in the 1st cube, and he gets 19/20. B made ten times as many mistakes as A, and yet we consider him to have performed better.
Regarding your argument, I don't see anything bad in this situation.



keyan said:


> Make competitions appear more professional. The two comments I hear most often from non-cubers observing competitions are "Why does he get to look at it first? That's cheating!" and "That wasn't solved!". ... I can imagine a scenario where the president of Baiyoke was initially interested, but then saw an unsolved cube and asked why it was counted, and ended up choosing not to offer sponsorship. ... would also allow more people to become interested in cubing and join the community.


Oh yeah, and if that president said "Why does he get to look at it first? That's cheating! I won't give you a sponsorship!" then you would propose a prohibition of preinspection?
As it was said before, we should never listen to what non-speedcubers say. There are rules in sports that seem weird to neophytes, and yet they exists.
And I hardly imagine a person that shows some interest in cubing, but when he knows about +2 penalty, he gives up speedcubing. This person was never interested really.



keyan said:


> You state "But it's clear that it is almost solved." Almost solved is, inherently, unsolved. Can you explain why a cube that is unsolevd should count as solved?


It is counted as solved _with penalty_ :fp, not solved and not unsolved.


keyan said:


> Do you think that the competitor has shown their intent to solve?


Probably he had shown it when he started the timer. But intention has nothing to do with it. He either solved it or solved it with penalty or didn't solve it.


----------



## Dene (Jun 6, 2012)

Sebastien said:


> This thread is actually really annoying. You and Dene are stuck with arguing against arguments _against_ a change instead of finding overwhelming arguments _for_ a change.



I've stated my main argument over and over and over again, but one more time just for you: There are only two reasons why a cube would be left with a misaligned slice upon stopping the timer: 1) because the competitor took a risk; 2) because the competitor is lazy. The WCA, in my opinion, should not be here to accommodate lazy people and risk takers. The task of the competitor is to solve the cube, not "almost solve" the cube. As far as I'm concerned it's a simple issue, black and white, with a simple solution. The cube is either solved or not solved. 



Bob said:


> And I think he did. In the regulations, a puzzle off by 1 move is still considered solved, but there is a penalty attached. So we are comparing somebody who solved 20 out of 20 cubes with somebody who solved 20 out of 21.



Sure, the way the rules are currently written. But to an outside observer, one person fully solved 20 out of 21 cubes, the other fell just short on all 20 of their cubes. You can't respond to his problem by reference to the way the regulations are currently stated, because that would be a horribly circular argument and a logical fallacy.



DrKorbin said:


> Here is another example: two persons, A and B, try 20 cubes in multi-bld. A forgets to undo a setup move in first two cubes, messes them and gets 18/20. B forgets to undo every setup move after every algorithm, but only in the 1st cube, and he gets 19/20. B made ten times as many mistakes as A, and yet we consider him to have performed better.
> Regarding your argument, I don't see anything bad in this situation.



I don't want to respond on behalf of keyan, but my own response to your argument, the big difference is that in keyan's scenario one person made 10 _defining_ errors, spread over their entire solve, whereas in your situation B made 10 errors, 9 of which don't really matter as just the one was a defining error in the context of the solve.



DrKorbin said:


> It is counted as solved _with penalty_ :fp, not solved and not unsolved.



Solved with penalty is still solved. It shouldn't be, because it isn't solved.


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 6, 2012)

Mike Hughey said:


> Arguments in favor of removing the rule:
> 
> - Simplify the regulations.
> - Create consistency across the speedsolving events.
> ...



Thank you for summarizing his point Mike!

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with any of these points to be an argument for changing this rule.

- Simplification is generally a good point, but not always a good idea. There are many regulations whose removal would bring simplicity, but would would have fatal impact on our sport. Imagine we would get rid of almost all juding and scrambling procedures. Or get rid of WCA Delegates. This would as well create simplicity. I'm not saying the removal of this rule would have such an fatal influence, but I still think that removing the rule would create worse conditions for all competitors.
- The current official events are partwise very different from each other. I think we already have consistency around all events where wimilar measurement is possible.
- You didn't bring any case that I would consider as _weird_.
- My personal point of view: I don't care at all (and this is nicely said) about what some kind of _general public_ thinks. I refuse in general to even notice comments from people about any kind of matter the are not informed about. Furthermore I don't accept any of your supposed sport analogies, as this is Speedcubing, which is just different from other sports.



DrKorbin said:


> [...]



VERY good post in my opinion.


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 6, 2012)

Dene said:


> I've stated my main argument over and over and over again, but one more time just for you: There are only two reasons why a cube would be left with a misaligned slice upon stopping the timer: 1) because the competitor took a risk; 2) because the competitor is lazy. The WCA, in my opinion, should not be here to accommodate lazy people and risk takers. The task of the competitor is to solve the cube, not "almost solve" the cube. As far as I'm concerned it's a simple issue, black and white, with a simple solution. The cube is either solved or not solved.



I'm aware that you stated this over and over again. I just don't consider this an overwhelming argument but just as some subjective point of view.


----------



## Dene (Jun 6, 2012)

Sebastien said:


> I'm aware that you stated this over and over again. I just don't consider this an overwhelming argument but just as some subjective point of view.



Whether a cube is solved or not is not subjective at all, or at least until you get to defining the arbitrary point at which we will determine it is definitely solved, or definitely not, but the half-hearted disagreement to 45 degrees seems to have faded away a long time ago. 

Also, if "the competitor took a risk" and "competitor is lazy" are subjective, then you must have another explanation for why a cube would end up misaligned upon stopping the timer (other than doing so deliberately). I would like to hear it, because no one has managed to come up with an alternative explanation as of yet. 

When you fail to come up with another reason, I would like you to give your _subjective_ opinion as to why the WCA should cradle competitors like a baby rather than treating them as adults with the mental capacity to understand the difference between solved and not solved, therefore giving them the cushion of a +2 penalty rather than DNFing them.


----------



## aronpm (Jun 6, 2012)

I think Dene's entire argument sums up to an appeal to ridicule.

_1) Competitors who get +2 are taking a risk!_
You're using the term "risk" here to add the implication that the solver is doing something bad.
_2) Competitors who get +2 are being lazy!_
By "being lazy" (a term which you're using to ridicule the opposition) they are already adding 2 seconds on to their time. If a competitor cares about their time, they don't want to have a +2. However, _mistakes happen_. I think you should realise this fact.
_3) The WCA shouldn't cradle competitors like babies!_
This isn't even an argument, it's just something you're saying to ridicule the opposing argument and make yourself sound right. Which is, as I mentioned, just an appeal to ridicule.


----------



## Bob (Jun 6, 2012)

Dene said:


> When you fail to come up with another reason, I would like you to give your _subjective_ opinion as to why the WCA should cradle competitors like a baby rather than treating them as adults with the mental capacity to understand the difference between solved and not solved, therefore giving them the cushion of a +2 penalty rather than DNFing them.



You do realize that most of the competitors in our sport are *not* adults, right?


----------



## gogozerg (Jun 6, 2012)

Sebastien said:


> but I still think that removing the rule would create worse conditions for all competitors.


Asking for people to solve puzzles makes their life harder.
More seriously, removing the "pop" rule created _worse_ conditions.


----------



## Julian (Jun 6, 2012)

gogozerg said:


> Asking for people to solve puzzles makes their life harder.
> More seriously, removing the "pop" rule created _worse_ conditions.


Another solve for a POP? Couldn't competitors force a POP to get another solve? Or is this why the rule was removed in the first place?


----------



## Stefan (Jun 6, 2012)

Bob said:


> You do realize that most of the competitors in our sport are *not* adults, right?



Fun fact:


```
mysql> select sum( if( year*10000+100*month+day <= 19940606, 1, 0 )) atleast18,
    ->        sum( if( year*10000+100*month+day >  19940606, 1, 0 )) under18
    -> from Persons, (select distinct personId from Results, Competitions where Competitions.id=competitionId and year>=2012) tmp
    -> where personId=Persons.id and year and month and day;
+-----------+---------+
| atleast18 | under18 |
+-----------+---------+
|      1936 |    1935 |
+-----------+---------+

mysql> select sum( if( year*10000+100*month+day <= 19940605, 1, 0 )) atleast18,
    ->        sum( if( year*10000+100*month+day >  19940605, 1, 0 )) under18
    -> from Persons, (select distinct personId from Results, Competitions where Competitions.id=competitionId and year>=2012) tmp
    -> where personId=Persons.id and year and month and day;
+-----------+---------+
| atleast18 | under18 |
+-----------+---------+
|      1935 |    1936 |
+-----------+---------+
```

Of all the competitors this year where we have the birth date, the "majority" is now 18 or older.

Oh wait, the scale-tipping guy born 18 years ago on June 6 is Mexican, and in Mexico it's still June 5 right now.


----------



## Dene (Jun 6, 2012)

Oooh some fun!



aronpm said:


> You're using the term "risk" here to add the implication that the solver is doing something bad.



Not at all. I've said before, and I'll repeat again, the aim is not to stop or prevent people taking risks, and I do not think it is a bad thing. I take risks when solving almost every time. The point is that taking a risk is taking a risk, and it should not be the position of the WCA to give people taking risks some protective padding in case their risk doesn't pay off (or else it isn't really much of a risk at all).



aronpm said:


> By "being lazy" (a term which you're using to ridicule the opposition) they are already adding 2 seconds on to their time. If a competitor cares about their time, they don't want to have a +2.



I only use the laziness one for the few rare cases that might occur where someone isn't taking a risk but still has a misaligned slice (without deliberately doing it). I certainly think that 99.9% of misaligned slices are caused by risk taking, and that is where the emphasis should lie. 



aronpm said:


> However, _mistakes happen_. I think you should realise this fact.



Of course I realise mistakes happen. They happen in every day life all the time. Often, people suffer the consequences of making mistakes. Rarely do mistakes end up benefiting the person. In sport, this is certainly even rarer. The WCA shouldn't be here to cover people that make mistakes, it should be here to determine whether, in this instance, a competitor has solved the cube or not. They can make a million mistakes if they like, as long as it is solved at the end. 



aronpm said:


> _3) The WCA shouldn't cradle competitors like babies!_
> This isn't even an argument, it's just something you're saying to ridicule the opposing argument and make yourself sound right.



Congratulations for noticing that, Captain Obvious. But I notice you point that out while not actually addressing the point I made. In fact, you haven't addressed any of the points I made. You've really convinced me now...


----------



## aronpm (Jun 6, 2012)

Dene said:


> it should not be the position of the WCA to give people taking risks some protective padding in case their risk doesn't pay off (or else it isn't really much of a risk at all).


It is still a risk; they have the risk of 2 seconds being added to their solve.


> The WCA shouldn't be here to cover people that make mistakes, it should be here to determine whether, in this instance, a competitor has solved the cube or not. They can make a million mistakes if they like, as long as it is solved at the end.


+2 is not beneficial. It is a penalty.


> Congratulations for noticing that, Captain Obvious. But I notice you point that out while not actually addressing the point I made. In fact, you haven't addressed any of the points I made. You've really convinced me now...


You have no points. keyan is the only person making any decent argument against +2. Sorry about that.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 6, 2012)

Vincents said:


> I'm glad this discussion is continuing. I'm even more glad that multiple WRC members are monitoring and sometimes weighing in. Carry on.



I'm also still here. I'm trying not to get too involved, but I'm glad Chris (keyan) is making all his points. If he's sounding desperate, it's because he has to argue almost on his own, in a field of terrible rhetoric.

I'm starting to think we should have criteria for WCA Regulation changes. Right now, I have in mind:

1) When adding/changing rules, the primary consideration should be whether it would make for objectively better regulations.
2) If it is objectively better, and significantly conflicts with past regulations, *then* we should consider whether it is worth the cost of switching.


Personally, the argument in this thread is convincing me that with regard to criterion 1, removing +2's is better: it would have been better not to have had the penalty in the regulations, ever (there are some valid arguments to the contrary, but I haven't seen them argued well enough, and this post is not intended to address them).

This is being heavily conflated with criterion 2. Yes, the problem of switching is a big concern, but it should be done if we can decide whether the change is better. To this regard, I would appreciate it if people spent more time addressing criterion 1 (unless they have a sane argument that we should not follow the criteria like this). Unfortunately, it seems that this is extremely difficult for the "nocebo" sort of reasons Chris mentioned.

As I think I've said before, what I expect will happen is that the change will not be made *simply* because it is controversial, and there are many more uncontroversial rules to fix first.
(If this comes up for discussion in 2013, and somebody tries to use the argument that we shouldn't switch because the current discussion didn't lead to a switch, they'll be lucky if I don't do more than let out a sigh and ignore them.)


----------



## Nico1 (Jun 6, 2012)

In baseball, if you miss the sweet spot by less than 1/16 of an inch, your walk-off grand slam could turn into a game ending ground ball double play. However, we all know that you COULD have hit a home run... but you didn't.


----------



## Dene (Jun 6, 2012)

aronpm said:


> It is still a risk; they have the risk of 2 seconds being added to their solve.



So what purpose does the +2 serve other than to give credit where it isn't due?



aronpm said:


> +2 is not beneficial. It is a penalty.



Again, what purpose does it serve?



aronpm said:


> You have no points. keyan is the only person making any decent argument against +2. Sorry about that.



And yet, you have failed, time and time again, to come up with any argument against my own (and I _do_ have points, if you fail to see them I can't help you). If it isn't decent, one would have thought it would have crumbled by now.


----------



## keyan (Jun 6, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> can you show where he said it would?


That was my interpretation of his usage of "hinder" in the context of a discussion about competition regulations. However, acknowledged, post edited. 



Bob said:


> Removing the +2 changes it to a DNF. The category between "solved" and "unsolved" is still there. We still have to analyze the same solves. The only thing simpler about it is that we would be that if the puzzle is more than one move away, we do not need to analyze if the second turn is 45 degrees away.


Sorry, I don't see where removing one of the judging classifications is equally complicated. Can you explain what is the category between solved and unsolved that is still there? I honestly don't understand your second sentence. 
Edit: Reading again, I think I understand what you're saying. Currently, the rules have two points of distinction between three different categories: solved, unsolved but close, unsolved. The proposed change would have one point of distinction between two categories. That's simpler. 



Bob said:


> A penalty on clock would not have anything to do with being part way between hours, but instead being able to solve the clock in "one move." Let's consider one move to mean that you may put the pins in whatever position you like and turn any one dial to solve the clock. The inserts do not have anything to do with the solved state, as the clocks click into place. Boom, consistency attained across puzzles.


Yeah, this is how I treat unclear clocks in competition. However, this really isn't a good procedure. The only way to check the state of the puzzle is to manipulate the puzzle. What if the competitor disagrees? "No, it didn't click!" With a cube you observe, whereas clock you have to manipulate. 



Bob said:


> And I think he did. In the regulations, a puzzle off by 1 move is still considered solved, but there is a penalty attached. So we are comparing somebody who solved 20 out of 20 cubes with somebody who solved 20 out of 21.


Here you're saying a puzzle off by one turn is solved. Putting aside the way the current regulations treat cubes, can you say what is the difference between a solved cube and an unsolved cube? 



Bob said:


> If we want to look more professional, let's get rid of feet solving. IMO feet solving poses more of a threat of looking goofy and unprofessional than does having cubes misaligned by 1 turn receiving penalties. Are you also proposing that we eliminate inspection before the solve? It sounds like you are.


Feet and inspection are separate issues deserving other threads. But no, I'm not. Sorry, forgot to mention that yesterday. Late night. See my post just now in the stickerless cube thread. Removing inspection would change part of how we actually solve, whereas this change deals not with solving, but how we treat unsolved cubes. I see these as different. 



Bob said:


> So why accept cubes that are off by 44 degrees as solved? You can see rather clearly that the sides are not completely aligned. How about 30 degrees? 10 degrees?


This has already been discussed. Less than 45 degrees is closer to solved than unsolved. Greater than 45 is closer to unsolved than solved. Exactly 45 tie goes to the runner. So far, no one has seemed to disagree with this. 



Bob said:


> I also don't see how the rule change makes competitions easier to run in any way. You mentioned that it would be easier for judges, but honestly, it won't. They still need to check for 45 degrees. The only thing that changes is that they would write "DNF" instead of 12.11 + 2 = 14.11. Except now, if an inexperienced judge unknowingly accepts a result that was off by 45 degrees or more without knowing any better, we've now given somebody credit for a solve instead of giving them a free 2 second bonus.


Currently judges are told that if a cube looks to be unsolved, it might mean something more than record the score, risne and repeat. So now they have to write out 12.11+2=14.11. They have to remember not to just write 12.11+2, or even more bothersome 14.11+2. But then they also learn that there's another step, where it's off by even more. So that cube that's off by 90 degrees is +2, so 180 must be unsolved, right? What about this one, the top is turned some, but so is the bottom. This 4 layer one has two layers turned, that's not solved, right? Reducing the amount of stuff that new judges need to learn and keep in mind during a competition makes the training process easier, allows them to focus on other stuff (not starting the solve with cube in hand, not twisting corners in place, etc.) and helps the competition run better. 
Anecdotally, I don't think it's likely for a judge to unknowingly accept a cube over 45 degrees. More common that they think a cube off by only a small amount should be considered unsolved. 



DrKorbin said:


> I think that determination of the angle of misalign and comparsion it with 45 degrees angle won't blow judge's brain. If it blows, he can always ask more experienced judge. If you (as organizer) have troubles with explanation of this rule to your judges, you can get competitors involved.
> And how exactly simplification of the rules will increase the number of competitions?
> "Oh, I want to organize a competition, but I have no room".
> "Oh, I want to organize a competition, but I have no money or sponsorship".
> "Oh, I want to organize a competition, but this +2 penalty rule is so complex".


Venue and sponsorship are unrelated issues. 
I've seen plenty of people that have trouble learning this alongside all the other stuff that a judge is supposed to learn. Reducing the amount of learning and work that judges have to do means that less time can be spent before the competition on training, means that more people might be willing to help judge, means that judges might not get as tired and want/need to take a break during the competition. Have you ever seen a competition fall apart because the judges got tired and just left? Yeah, that there reduces the number of competitions that can be held. Everything that makes the process simpler without impacting fairness or changing the inherent nature of solving are beneficial. Don't just brush it off as something small, it still adds up. 



DrKorbin said:


> It is counted as solved _with penalty_, not solved and not unsolved.


We record results as just numbers. What is differentiating the person that (feet) solves in 1:18 and intentionally skips the last move and the person that solves in 1:20? 



Sebastien said:


> Thank you for summarizing his point Mike!
> 
> I'm sorry, but I can't agree with any of these points to be an argument for changing this rule.
> 
> ...


-I get the impression you didn't read my post. No offense taken, I know my writing isn't very concise, but I specifically addressed what you say here. Changes that simplify the process without changing fairness or the inherent nature of solving are very different from removing the scrambling procedure. Can you clarify exactly what are the worse conditions you see from the proposed rule change? Is treating unsolved cubes as unsolved specifically unfair? 
-The speedsolving events are all very similar, in that they all are basically defined by Article A of the WCA regulations. The speedsolving events are basically all the same, but we added this extra classification and realized that it doesn't work for one of the puzzles. 
-You think that someone that made ten mistakes performed better than someone that made two? Narrowing it down a little, two multiBLD solvers both attempt 20 cubes and finish in exactly the same time. The competitor who made twenty mistakes gets a better result than the person that made two. That's not even a little weird? 
-Changing the basic nature of speedsolving to please outsiders is totally unnecessary, I agree. But the proposed change has nothing to do with the basic nature of speedsolving. The objective is still to solve the cube with speed. The change is not proposed because of how outsiders see it, but that is still one of the benefits that may be had. 

Lucas, thanks, well said and I hope people try to make their points as you said.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2012)

Can you stop using the 'risk' argument Dene? You could make a much better case for the removal of +2 by choosing something else to focus on.

Also your childish name calling does really well to discredit what you're saying.


----------



## Pedro (Jun 6, 2012)

I agree with Aaron about Dene's points.

+2 is not beneficial, it is a penalty. Do you think the same result should be awarded to someone who starts and stops the timer without even touching the cube and someone else who solves it but is risky/lazy/whatever and the cube ends up misaligned by 46 degrees?

And this is not treating people like babies. It would if we counted that as solved with no penalty. It's more like saying "_hey kid, you didn't do exactly what we want and were very close to having a DNF. Be careful next time_"


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 6, 2012)

keyan said:


> We record results as just numbers. What is differentiating the person that (feet) solves in 1:18 and intentionally skips the last move and the person that solves in 1:20?



A solve with penalty is just equivalent to a 2 seconds slower solve (without parity). I see no problem with that.



keyan said:


> -I get the impression you didn't read my post. No offense taken, I know my writing isn't very concise, but I specifically addressed what you say here. Changes that simplify the process without changing fairness or the inherent nature of solving are very different from removing the scrambling procedure. Can you clarify exactly what are the worse conditions you see from the proposed rule change? Is treating unsolved cubes as unsolved specifically unfair?



I did read your post, but I agree that I did not address that specific part too well.

I'm still convinced that the +2 penalty is the natural way of handling the kind of minor mistakes which happen in the hurry that results from the stopping procedure we use in competition. This is by far the reason why I am for keeping the rule (I would absolutely support DNF for >90° by the way).



keyan said:


> -You think that someone that made ten mistakes performed better than someone that made two? Narrowing it down a little, two multiBLD solvers both attempt 20 cubes and finish in exactly the same time. The competitor who made twenty mistakes gets a better result than the person that made two. That's not even a little weird?



No, this is not weird at all. The better result is the better result. period. Instead of _weird_ you could argue that this is _unfair_. I might agree with that in the case you describe, but you have to admit that this case is ver constructed and (as I claim) is never going to happen in competition. Also such _unfair_ situations are absolutely not "+2 penalty"-specific. Please take a look at DrKorbins example which is (at least to me) way more plausible.


----------



## Dene (Jun 6, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Can you stop using the 'risk' argument Dene? You could make a much better case for the removal of +2 by choosing something else to focus on.



I have no need, other people are making other arguments. I'm more interested in breaking down counterarguments, but people insist on me putting forward my own position, and I do it over and over and everyone ignores it or makes feeble attempts at trying to counter it. Why can't someone just put forward a nice strong argument for a statement along the lines of "the WCA _should_ accommodate risk takers", because only then would someone bother to challenge my position.



Kirjava said:


> Also your childish name calling does really well to discredit what you're saying.



I wasn't really name calling, but don't go taking the fun out of this, it's providing way too much juicy entertainment for me.



Pedro said:


> +2 is not beneficial, it is a penalty.



If we are judging people on whether or not they solved a cube in this instance, and the person failed to _completely_ solve the cube by leaving it with a misaligned slice, and we give the person a +2 instead of actually saying they _did not finish_ (NOTE: DNF) the cube, then they are indeed benefiting, by still getting a time rather than a DNF (which would seem the logical option, as far as I can tell).



Pedro said:


> Do you think the same result should be awarded to someone who starts and stops the timer without even touching the cube and someone else who solves it but is risky/lazy/whatever and the cube ends up misaligned by 46 degrees?



In short: yes. But I should say more to give justice to that response by saying this: the current rule still gives the same DNF result to the person that starts and stops the timer without doing anything to their cube, and the person that solves the whole thing except by one turn plus another layer off by 46 degrees, or off by an M slice, for example. Do you think these people should be given the same result? Considering how damn close the person off by _barely_ two moves is to solved. Really, it's only applying a DNF to a slightly adjusted range. Even though the case you presented and the one I presented aren't identical, they are very similar, and I think it greatly weakens your reasoning to something we can dismiss. If you disagree, and feel that extra move at the end of the solve is so much more important to whether someone deserves a time or not, then please say so.



Pedro said:


> And this is not treating people like babies. It would if we counted that as solved with no penalty. It's more like saying "_hey kid, you didn't do exactly what we want and were very close to having a DNF. Be careful next time_"



Ok then, we're treating competitors like toddlers  (we'll ignore the possibility of toddlers actually competing >.< ).

And what harm in giving the competitor a DNF? "hey kid, you need to make sure you finish that last turn like you did for the other 60+ you did during the solve, it's not so much to ask is it? Just be a bit more careful at the end and you'll still get a full average so don't worry about it".


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2012)

Dene said:


> Why can't someone just put forward a nice strong argument for a statement along the lines of "the WCA _should_ accommodate risk takers", because only then would someone bother to challenge my position.



I don't believe risk taking has any real bearing on this issue - please find something of more substance to argue with. "The WCA shouldn't accommodate risk takers" isn't a strong argument in the first place.



Dene said:


> I wasn't really name calling, but don't go taking the fun out of this, it's providing way too much juicy entertainment for me.



I wouldn't mind, but you're really not helping +2 get removed.

The more fuss, the less likely we are to get anywhere - and the less likely that anything will be done. You're just causing fuss.


----------



## Pedro (Jun 6, 2012)

Dene said:


> In short: yes. But I should say more to give justice to that response by saying this: the current rule still gives the same DNF result to the person that starts and stops the timer without doing anything to their cube, and the person that solves the whole thing except by one turn plus another layer off by 46 degrees, or off by an M slice, for example. Do you think these people should be given the same result? Considering how damn close the person off by _barely_ two moves is to solved. Really, it's only applying a DNF to a slightly adjusted range. Even though the case you presented and the one I presented aren't identical, they are very similar, and I think it greatly weakens your reasoning to something we can dismiss. If you disagree, and feel that extra move at the end of the solve is so much more important to whether someone deserves a time or not, then please say so.


Well, one move and two moves are different. And 3 and 4 and so on. So where do we draw the line? I think one move is acceptable because of loose cubes and the timing procedure. Two moves away (even if it's one by 46 degrees) is a result of not making one turn at all (the second to last).

And no, I don't think this people should get the same result, specifically the M slice one, but that's another issue...



> Ok then, we're treating competitors like toddlers  (we'll ignore the possibility of toddlers actually competing >.< ).
> 
> And what harm in giving the competitor a DNF? "hey kid, you need to make sure you finish that last turn like you did for the other 60+ you did during the solve, it's not so much to ask is it? Just be a bit more careful at the end and you'll still get a full average so don't worry about it".


Well, some random kid going to his first competition ever and not getting a valid average because he was 1 degree away would be really sad, I think.


----------



## Dene (Jun 7, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> "The WCA shouldn't accommodate risk takers" isn't a strong argument in the first place.



In combination with the rest of my case, I think it is. I certainly don't see anyone coming up with any real disagreement. 



Pedro said:


> I think one move is acceptable because of loose cubes and the timing procedure. Two moves away (even if it's one by 46 degrees) is a result of not making one turn at all (the second to last).



You're kidding about the loose cubes thing right? You seriously think that we should give cubers bonus points (i.e. a time rather than a DNF) for using obscenely loose cubes on purpose?

As for the timing procedure, I once again refer to Lars Vandenbergh's video, which demonstrates the minimal cost. Furthermore, the fact that there are seemingly very very few cases in the entire database of cubing solves at competitions where the cube has turned "by itself" as a consequence of the timing procedure (and in these cases the cubes would have been too loose, so we bring it back to the first point).

What it comes back to, as I've said many times, is the cuber taking a risk by using a loose cube and throwing it down. So, now we come to the point where you have to justify why we should accommodate risk takers, as opposed to requiring people to present a fully solved cube upon the stopping of the timer. Otherwise your argument is finished.



Pedro said:


> Well, some random kid going to his first competition ever and not getting a valid average because he was 1 degree away would be really sad, I think.



First of all, I think this is very rare. In my experience, which to be fair is not that great, most newbie cubers at competitions are slower, and deliberately make each turn right to the end, and usually have their cubes fully solved and almost perfectly cubic upon the stopping of the timer. It is almost always the fast cubers that get a +2, as a result of going insanely fast at the end and throwing the cube down without taking care to ensure it's fully solved. 

Secondly, even if one solve was off by 46 degrees, it would only take a simple explanation to let them know the rule, that in this case they will get a DNF, but if they ensure they're careful for the rest of their solves they'll still get an average. keyan's data backs up my scenario better than yours:



keyan said:


> GuangzhouSCUT results: There were 28 unsolved cubes judged +2, 3.1% of the 900 non-BLD non-magic solves at the competition. Of these, however, 12 were already the slowest solve of the average. That is, changing the result from "close enough" to DNF would have had no impact on the average result. A further 10 would have given a small increase in the average result. Only 6 of the 180 averages recorded at the competition, or 3.3%, would have changed from a valid average to DNF.



Only 6 averages out of 180 would have been a DNF average. I would be really interested to find out whether it was fast or slow cubers that would have been affected the most by getting a DNF rather than +2. If my theory is correct, it would have been faster cubers more affected by this.

EDIT: Incidentally, I would like to get confirmation from keyan that all of the +2's he used in his analysis were all in fact penalties for misaligned slices, and not penalties for other reasons. He did say "28 unsolved cubes", but I doubt he observed every one of those, and usually there wouldn't be any way to distinguish between a +2 for a misaligned slice as opposed to a +2 for some other penalty (unless they deliberately keep track of that somehow). This is important, because it would only be the penalties for misaligned slices that would go to DNF, and not other penalties, which I think are far more common among newbies (such as not stopping the timer correctly, etc.)


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 7, 2012)

Dene said:


> I certainly don't see anyone coming up with any real disagreement.



"WCA shouldn't eat children"

I don't see good disagreement, so it must be a good argument against +2.


----------



## antoineccantin (Jun 7, 2012)

Dene said:


> Furthermore, the fact that there are seemingly very very few cases in the entire database of cubing solves at competitions where the cube has turned "by itself" as a consequence of the timing procedure (and in these cases the cubes would have been too loose, so we bring it back to the first point).



This happens relatively often in Magics.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 7, 2012)

My perspective is basically one of justice/fairness. Mistakes happen. Sometimes it's someone forgetting to concentrate because they've finished the hard part of the solve, sometimes it's someone not being completely used to dropping the cube after every solve, sometimes it's a loose cube hitting the mat the wrong way. Yeah, sometimes it's someone leaving an unsolved cube on purpose, but I've never seen anyone with a huge number of +2s in practice so I really doubt this is a common scenario. And I don't think it's fair or reasonable to give a DNF for a fraction-of-a-second mistake that leaves the cube so close to solved.

In the end, isn't the WCA about fun? It's not fun to have to worry that at any point a random fluctuation could ruin your average, especially if the only alternative is to delicately put the cube down and waste a significant amount of time (yes, .2 seconds can matter a lot in 3x3!). And what's so bad about the current rules, anyway? No fast solvers are being pushed down in the rankings because an objectively slower cuber is taking a "risky" AUF approach. All it does is provide an incentive to be accurate while still letting people compete if they make small errors.



Jaycee said:


> That's never made sense to me (I have seen it before), so I don't agree. Yes, I'm aware that I'm in the minority because I disagree.


There's no disagreement to be made here. It comes down to understanding how the real numbers are constructed (that is: what makes two real numbers distinct). The place value notation is useful but that's not actually how numbers are defined, and there's nothing that says there has to be a one-to-one mapping between numbers and place-value equivalents. Do some research and you'll see what I mean.



Sebastien said:


> This thread is actually really annoying. You and Dene are stuck with arguing against arguments _against_ a change instead of finding overwhelming arguments _for_ a change.


I can agree with this. Most of the things said in this thread are either trivial arguments over details or people refusing to seriously consider someone else's situation.


----------



## Dene (Jun 7, 2012)

WARNING: I am aware of the fact that this post has ended up very long (over 1700 words apparently), so bear with me if you can be bothered. Hopefully there are no errors, and if you notice something wrong politely point it out and I will fix it.



Kirjava said:


> "WCA shouldn't eat children"
> 
> I don't see good disagreement, so it must be a good argument against +2.



Ok sure, but my argument is relevant to the discussion and eating children is not, and there is more to my argument than one irrelevant sentence, and if you go way back in the thread people have actually attempted to counter my argument and failed, so I guess people have seen it as relevant.


I want to clarify this whole situation to make my argument clearer:
A cube is either solved or not solved. There are states that are close to solved, but they are still not solved. The important question is whether these close-to-solved states should be allowed.

So what we have is a situation where someone can only argue about one of two positions: for giving close-to-solved states a +2, or for giving close-to-solved states a DNF.

In forming an argument for one's position, there are two variations on how it can be approached. One can either argue in _favour_ of their position, or _against_ the other position.

This leaves us with four ways overall to argue:
1) Argue in favour of giving close-to-solved states a +2
2) Argue against giving close-to-solved states a DNF
3) Argue in favour of giving close-to-solved states a DNF
4) Argue against giving close-to-solved states a +2

In looking at all of these positions, it will become clearer where my own argument sits. So let us look at the arguments presented for each position. Some things to note first though:
- I will try my best to get in all the arguments, but there’s no way I’m going back through this entire thread to find everything.
- I will give one reference for each argument, although many people may have said the same thing.
- Bear in mind that in a lot of cases the argument could be rephrased and put into the other section (i.e. 1 & 2 the same, 3&4 the same), so I just pick one or the other with whatever I think sounds better.
- I have not looked at any posts since keyan bumped the thread three weeks ago, as I can’t recall anything new being added.
- There may be a bias towards my own position, although I have tried to keep things neutral as much as possible.
- This is a bit of a mess, and I have decided I can’t be bothered to organise everything in some way, so I have mainly left things in chronological order (this may also help to not bias things).

*1) Argue in favour of giving close-to-solved states a +2*
blade740:
- +2 is enough to penalise sloppy cubers; it is a harsh enough penalty

Radu:
- It gives a safety barrier for the limitations of our timing procedure, whereby a cube is dropped and turns by itself

Kian:
- +2 is severe enough to be useful but not so severe as to be ridiculous and capricious

Zane Carney:
- Anyone who can get a puzzle one move from solved has clearly demonstrated they know how to solve it. A small error shouldn't prevent someone from getting that recognised

Michael Gottlieb: 
- Starting and stopping the timer is not part of solving the cube, therefore a protective buffer is necessary for unlucky situations

BlueDevil:
- +2 is already more time than it would take to make the final move, so it’s enough of a penalty

Stefan:
- It is the status quo


* 2) Argue against giving close-to-solved states a DNF*
Sebastien Auroux:
- The community is not ready for this change

MadsMohr:
- Judge rulings could be harder to make with more on the line

blade740:
- This would hurt inexperienced cubers but won't help anyone
- It could potentially invalidate hundreds of results

Radu:
- It will be a disadvantage for the good cubers who might miss an average and not get in to the next round, just because of a rush or unluckiness

emolover:
- Many people would DNF way too often

Michael Gottlieb:
- Having no leniency is frustrating, and would end up making it easier to mess up
- If you get an early DNF it’s just luck whether you will get an average or not
- There is an intuitive fairness aspect: if you get a misalignment that isn't your fault, and are given a +2, that's acceptable, but a DNF would make competitors feel like it’s way more unfair and frustrating

Stefan:
- It would make tough decisions on the 45° cut-off much tougher, with more on the line, and competitors may not find decisions as reasonable with the harsher penalty

fatboyxpc:
- Knowing that there is a threat of a DNF will affect the meta of competitors, causing them to take more care at the end of their solves, resulting in slower times (this is particularly significant with regards to single WRs)

Florian:
- Competitions should be about fun, and giving competitors a DNF for a simple mistake, potentially taking them out of future rounds, would take that fun away


* 3) Argue in favour of giving close-to-solved states a DNF*
Olivér Perge:
- Dropping the cube as opposed to placing it down does not save much time (refer  Lars Vandenbergh’s video)
- A safety net of 45° is enough
- It would solve the problem of having the same penalty for magic and 7x7x7

MadsMohr:
- This gives our sport a more mature and professional/serious image.

 Olivér Perge:
- It removes the problem with slice turns counting as two moves, even if executed as one
- The actual solve process and required final position are the same, so nothing about what the competitor should be doing is changing
- There is more consistency with errors within the same solve. If an error of one move is made earlier in the solve (e.g. wrong AUF before executing PLL) it is punished equally to a one move error made at the end of the solve. Put another way: there is no fundamental distinction between any given move during a solve, but two moves could be treated differently
- Finishing the puzzle properly is the part of the whole solve

 Olivér Perge:
- Getting more than one solve with a misaligned slice in an average is not that common, therefore DNF is not too harsh a penalty
- People would get used to finishing their solves properly quickly enough

Clement Gallet:
- Brings about consistency between events, as there is no alternative for a misaligned slice on clock
- Removes weird cases, such as on Square-1, where (0,-1)/(1,1) is counted as solved with penalty, when it looks like a DNF

Dan Cohen:
- Even though it may be frustrating, having no leniency already works on clock, and therefore it would work on other puzzles too

liljthedude:
- A puzzle is either solved or not solved; there is no grey area, so there shouldn’t be grey are in how we judge it

keyan:
- Fairness in “luck” (or “bad luck”): If a cube drops onto the table and turns by itself, this is treated less harshly than a cube that drops onto the table and pops 
- Fairness between “chance”: If during a BLD solve one move is done incorrectly, by chance it ends up with one layer misaligned, but one move done incorrectly and any other point in the solve could leave it off by three pieces. In this case, chance is determining how much “luck” or “bad luck” that we allow 

Gilles Roux:
- Luck has nothing to do with it; cubers can perform optimally hundreds of move sequences, so it is not a lot to expect that they perform their last move correctly

keyan:
- This brings about simplicity, by only having two classifications: solved and not solved

reThinking the Cube:
- A DNF is an appropriate ruling for a puzzle that has not been finished; pseudo-times should not be given for pseudo-solves


Lastly for this section, in response to the meta-argument, this post and the following discussion are of interest. What people make of it is up to them.


* 4) Argue against giving close-to-solved states a +2 *
Olivér Perge:
- It creates the issue of trying to explain to non-cubers and the media why a cube with a misaligned slice is valid

MadsMohr:
- If you can't complete the task more than three times out of five then you don't deserve a result

 Olivér Perge:
- Getting a +2 is largely a result of rushing at the end of a solve and is a bad habit which is not hard to change

 Olivér Perge:
- Unfairness, in that the same penalty of +2 is given, for example, for touching the puzzle before starting the timer, which is much harsher

Dene:
- It is the competitors fault if there is a misaligned slice, therefore they should be prepared for the consequences of it occurring

Zane Carney:
- The +2 rule could be used deliberately to one’s advantage (although this would most likely only apply to feet or BLD)

keyan:
- The only reason people want to keep the +2 rule is because they are scared

Dene and Dene
- The WCA should not have to account for the risks that competitors take, nor their laziness. Starting and stopping the timer correctly is part of the procedure and everyone has that knowledge before going into a solve, therefore the decision to drop the cube rather than place it down, is a conscious risk taken by the competitor. Also, leaving a cube in a state that is around about 45° is the risk competitors take by not ensuring that the finish each turn properly, therefore the delegates ruling on difficult cases should be final

*END OF ARGUMENTS*

So what can we make of all of this giant mess? Well, there are a lot of arguments for each position, although the most have been given in favour of the DNF rule, so hopefully that will satisfy Sebastien. But which stance has the strongest arguments? I guess that is up to the WRC. I would give my own analysis but I'm pooped. This post took me all day to make (on and off) and I just can't be bothered. I'll wait for feedback and respond to that >.<



Special mention to Robocopter87 <3


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 7, 2012)

Dene said:


> Ok sure, but my argument is relevant to the discussion



This rule is nothing to do with risk.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 7, 2012)

So I've been looking back over the discussions from the last couple of days, and I think there are a couple of points that have been overlooked, so I'll just put them down here:



Dene said:


> And what harm in giving the competitor a DNF? "hey kid, you need to make sure you finish that last turn like you did for the other 60+ you did during the solve, it's not so much to ask is it? Just be a bit more careful at the end and you'll still get a full average so don't worry about it".


A large part of getting good times (at least in my opinion) is your mindset. If you get a really fast solve, but mess up the ending (last move) you would currently get a +2 penalty, and be more careful next solve. If this was changed to DNF, then after making that one mistake, you are not only worrying about what times you get, because your average now is all counting, you also become 'paranoid' that you'll make this mistake again, and your times will suffer from the pressure. (This happens to me in clock, I mess up one solve and there goes the average because I lose focus so much).



Pedro said:


> Well, one move and two moves are different. And 3 and 4 and so on. So where do we draw the line? I think one move is acceptable because of loose cubes and the timing procedure. Two moves away (even if it's one by 46 degrees) is a result of not making one turn at all (the second to last).


I agree a lot with this, the current +2 situation actually implies that you attempted to make the last move, but made a small mistake and get penalised, whereas if you got a DNF from misalignment, this shows you haven't attempted the last move. However, I think the last bit of that quote should read "...at all (the last)".



qqwref said:


> ...And I don't think it's fair or reasonable to give a DNF for a fraction-of-a-second mistake that leaves the cube so close to solved.
> 
> 
> In the end, isn't the WCA about fun? It's not fun to have to worry that at any point a random fluctuation could ruin your average, especially if the only alternative is to delicately put the cube down and waste a significant amount of time (yes, .2 seconds can matter a lot in 3x3!). And what's so bad about the current rules, anyway? No fast solvers are being pushed down in the rankings because an objectively slower cuber is taking a "risky" AUF approach. All it does is provide an incentive to be accurate while still letting people compete if they make small errors.


I very much agree with this.

Also in response to this:


qqwref said:


> ...but I've never seen anyone with a huge number of +2s in practice so I really doubt this is a common scenario.


Actually, I can think of one person who gets many +2's and DNF's in competitions in one event especially:


Odder said:


> ...I just know that the day +2 turns into DNF I will never ever have a non-DNF pyra avg :3







One last thing.


Spoiler



(Spoilered because it isnt entirely relevant to the discussion, just the quality of it.) From reading this thread it seems to me that the quality of discussion is starting to slip, from one member in particular, and I will ask that we keep the discussions civil, so that we can come to a unified opinion, instead of lowering to this sort of posting, which I find non-constructive to the discussion:


Dene said:


> Oooh some fun!





Dene said:


> Congratulations for noticing that, Captain Obvious.


----------



## Pedro (Jun 7, 2012)

I think it's clear that people have different views on this, and it's not likely we're going to convince each other.
The best way would be to have everyone vote, but that's not really possible. So basically we're here trying to conving the WRC about one position or the other, but I'm not sure it's constructive discussion...

Perhaps we should make some kind of standard procedure to submit a rule change proposal and stop arguing forever and going nowhere


----------



## ThomasJE (Jun 7, 2012)

Pedro said:


> I think it's clear that people have different views on this, and it's not likely we're going to convince each other.
> The best way would be to have everyone vote, but that's not really possible. So basically we're here trying to conving the WRC about one position or the other, but I'm not sure it's constructive discussion...
> 
> Perhaps we should make some kind of standard procedure to submit a rule change proposal and stop arguing forever and going nowhere



But then people will argue over whether a rule change should be made or not. No matter what procedure there is, you will always get discussions.


----------



## Pedro (Jun 7, 2012)

I wasn't very clear.

We should have a form where you fill in your position (against or in favor) and your reasoning, and submit it to the WRC.


----------



## jonlin (Jun 7, 2012)

Dene said:


> Whether a cube is solved or not is not subjective at all, or at least until you get to defining the arbitrary point at which we will determine it is definitely solved, or definitely not, but the half-hearted disagreement to 45 degrees seems to have faded away a long time ago.
> 
> Also, if "the competitor took a risk" and "competitor is lazy" are subjective, then you must have another explanation for why a cube would end up misaligned upon stopping the timer (other than doing so deliberately). I would like to hear it, because no one has managed to come up with an alternative explanation as of yet.
> 
> When you fail to come up with another reason, I would like you to give your _subjective_ opinion as to why the WCA should cradle competitors like a baby rather than treating them as adults with the mental capacity to understand the difference between solved and not solved, therefore giving them the cushion of a +2 penalty rather than DNFing them.



At Harvard Open 2012, I was doing the 2x2 final, using Ortega, and my 3.55+2 was because of a lockup that sprang the cube back about 60 degrees. It would have been a fast solve.
The PBL was R2 F2 R2.


----------



## Dene (Jun 8, 2012)

jonlin said:


> At Harvard Open 2012, I was doing the 2x2 final, using Ortega, and my 3.55+2 was because of a lockup that sprang the cube back about 60 degrees. It would have been a fast solve.
> The PBL was R2 F2 R2.



Ok good. In my response, first it is important to note that _by choice_ you were using a puzzle that had this particular functional limitation, that occasionally it can lock up in a weird way that causes layers to turn "by theirself". 

Now it is easy enough for me to say that the competitor was risk taking, by using a puzzle that has this functional limitation. 

However you might respond that you had absolutely no knowledge of this functional limitation beforehand, and fair enough, it's probably a rare occurrence. In this case you could make an appeal to _innocent ignorance_.

So congratulations to you, you have found another category in which a competitor might be left with a misaligned slice.

However, there are things to note:
Firstly, this occurrence must be extremely rare. I justify this in two ways. The first is the inherent nature of the ignorance, in that, for you to claim innocent ignorance it can't have happened to you before, and therefore it must be a rare occurrence by _nature_ of the problem. The second is the fact that I've been around for a fair while now and never noticed complaints about this happening before.

Secondly, it is very very important that the appeal to innocent ignorance can only be made _once ever_ for the same problem. As soon as the problem has occurred to you, or someone else that makes you aware of it, you immediately have knowledge of the problem. Therefore any future attempts made with the same brand of puzzle are taken as a risk, with the knowledge of the functional limitation.

So when we put these two together it is fairly safe to say that the appeal to innocent ignorance could only be made once in blue moon. And I think a very strong case can be made that the impact of it is so minute that there is no justification whatsoever for the +2 rule. After all, it would only be that one solve in an average that would be a DNF due to innocent ignorance, so the competitor still has every chance to get a full average, and from then on they no longer have an excuse. 

To conclude: The occurrence of this would be insanely rare, and it would have only a small impact on that person at the time, and never again in the future, therefore giving a +2 for all misaligned slice cases is not justified.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 8, 2012)

Dene said:


> Ok good. In my response, first it is important to note that _by choice_ you were using a puzzle that had this particular functional limitation, that occasionally it can lock up in a weird way that causes layers to turn "by theirself".
> 
> Now it is easy enough for me to say that the competitor was risk taking, by using a puzzle that has this functional limitation.
> 
> ...



I think there is one inherent problem with this argument. The lockup in this case was not *directly a fault of the cuber*. The blame lies in the hardware. I personally think that your argument that the WCA should not allow risks is quite frankly unsupportable. Also there is no way that you can claim that the impact was minor. If this solve had been a DNF, that could have afectd the mindset of the competitor and causes them to lose focus because of something that *was not directly under their control*.Although I agree that in most cases the fault lies with the competitor, sometimes the cube is at fault, and losing your chance at an average because of your cube is more unfair than giving them time penalties.
Also, I note that you are using the same argument over and over again, without any extension or support of it. Is this really the only reason that you suggest the removal of +2 over?


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 8, 2012)

Try to think of it from this perspective;

Imagine no +2 rule existed up to this point for WCA competitions.

If someone suggested it as a new rule, can you think of the responses it would face? It would mostly be ignored, or shown the list of problems it faces before being dismissed.

I do think going from solved to DNF with no buffer zone is harsh, but preferable to the +2 copout.


----------



## Dene (Jun 8, 2012)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> I think there is one inherent problem with this argument. The lockup in this case was not *directly a fault of the cuber*. The blame lies in the hardware.



Where is the problem? The issue being the fault of the puzzle is acknowledged. Did you not read what I said at all? Although I understand that it is a bit hard on the person, having a +2 rule for every single misaligned slice case is hardly a good solution to this one, extremely rare occurrence. It's a case of "that's unfortunate, and it would be nice to give you some sort of recognition, but unfortunately there is no way to fairly moderate this case, and at least it won't happen again".



MaeLSTRoM said:


> I personally think that your argument that the WCA should not allow risks is quite frankly unsupportable.



This is not my argument at all. My argument is that the WCA should not _accommodate_ risk taking by giving giving every competitor a default diaper. If people want to take risks, that should be perfectly allowable, but people should face the appropriate consequences for taking that risk. So what is the appropriate consequence? Well, if the cube is solved then they hopefully get a good time, but if the cube is not finished then we should give them the proper ruling for an unfinished cube, i.e. DNF.



MaeLSTRoM said:


> Also there is no way that you can claim that the impact was minor. If this solve had been a DNF, that could have afectd the mindset of the competitor and causes them to lose focus because of something that *was not directly under their control*.



First of all, please be careful with wording, as it can be a bit misleading. Normally I wouldn't care, but in my opinion this discussion is absolutely critical and I want everything to be completely clear so as not to mislead people by accident. Just remember, we are talking about hypotheticals here. "... the impact would have been minor" and "... could have affected the mindset of the competitor and caused them to lose focus..."

As for the point you bring up, perhaps it could affect the mindset of the competitor, but if it does that is tough luck. There will always be more opportunities for them to get over it, bring it back and perform to their top potential again. Personally, I can really not genuinely see this sort of thing throwing someone off so much that they break down entirely, quit cubing, and never compete again (NOTE: exaggerated case). And if someone did react such a way, to be honest I don't really think I'd be disappointed to see them leave.

But even if we do make a mountain out of a molehill in this situation, I still think my argument is too strong, i.e. this would be such a rare occurrence and could never be repeated with the same competitor, therefore it doesn't justify a blanket +2 rule for every other case where it is the competitors fault. It's a matter of balance, and the balance is significantly against this very rare occurrence.



MaeLSTRoM said:


> Although I agree that in most cases the fault lies with the competitor, *sometimes* the cube is at fault, and losing your chance at an average because of your cube is more unfair than giving them time penalties.



What exactly do you mean by "sometimes"? If you mean "every now and then" I think that would be way too generous an assumption. At the very least, you need to pitch an argument against my claim that this occurrence would be very rare, because I cannot see it happening very much at all.

And I don't think it's a fair statement to make that the person is likely to miss out on a chance at an average because of the DNF. For the average they are currently in they still have four other opportunities to solve the cube and get an average. Alternatively, if there is a chance that the DNF is so costly to their average _in terms of raw times_ that they miss out on the next round, to be fair they probably didn't deserve to get to the next round anyway. I justify this statement by making these points:
- A person gets five solves in an average, so it is not fair to pinpoint the blame on one of those solves. To put this another way: each solve in an average only comprises a 20% contribution to that average (and that includes the best and worst solves which are eliminated; they still play their part).
- If the competitor's times are so borderline to the cutoff needed to get to the next round then you can hardly say they were genuinely disadvantaged by that one solve, as their times can't have generally been good enough regardless.
- If a competitor has a solve that has 2 seconds added to it, and that solve is still not the worst solve in their average, and therefore contributes positively to their average, I believe we are left with four possible situations (not exclusive in all cases). In my opinion, in none of these situations is that one solve which hypothetically receives a DNF so devastating that it is solely to blame, or even largely to blame, for the competitor missing out on the next round. I will illustrate these situations with slightly exaggerated examples to make the points clearer:
If a solve with a +2 is still counting then either:
1) The solve itself was probably not reflective of the competitors real times, e.g. (15.00), (16.50), 15.50, 15.50, 13.01+2=15.01
OR
2) They had another solve which was very poor, e.g. (15.00), (20.00), 15.50, 15.50, 15.50+2=17.50
OR
3) There would have been little difference between their worst times anyway, e.g. (15.00), (17.51), 15.50, 15.50, 15.50+2=17.50
OR
4) The competitor has generally inconsistent times, e.g. (13.00), (20.00), 15.00, 18.00, 14.50+2=16.50

Now let us consider these situations in regards to the potential to ruin the average if those +2's had instead been DNFs.

In situation 4 it is impossible to say the competitor deserved to get to the next round, given their times are all over the place, and seemingly in any given situation could pull out an average anywhere between 13 and 20. Even though changing the +2 to a DNF would negatively impact their average, the negative impact is a result of their general inconsistency, and not because of that one solve which is only contributing 20%.

Situation 3 can be dismissed outright; if the +2 had instead been given a DNF it would not affect their average very much at all.

Situation 2 would definitely affect their average, but at the same time the competitor has had four other attempts, and like situation 4, their lack of consistency is the main reason for their receiving a poor average.

In situation 1 we have to assume that the competitor has generally consistent times (otherwise refer situation 2 or 4). If their times are generally consistent, then although their average is negatively impacted, it would still be reflective of their abilities. If they miss out on the next round with an average that is still reflective of their abilities it would be a stretch to say that they genuinely deserved to get to the next round. It would certainly be false to say that a DNF for that one solve was the reason they missed out on the next round. 

To conclude this long point: The DNF in any of the cases cannot reasonably be said to be the reason the competitor missed out on an average. At most one could only claim it contributed to several reasons that, when combined, become the cause of the competitor missing out on the average.

At the beginning of this response to your point I italicised the phrase "in terms of raw times". If you were wondering exactly what I meant by that, hopefully it is now clearer: I don't genuinely think that the DNF is ever that costly to an average, as it could only be a contributing factor to a range of causes. It is only if you ignore all of the factors and look at the raw times in themselves does it appear as if a DNF is so costly (in some cases).



MaeLSTRoM said:


> Also, I note that you are using the same argument over and over again, without any extension or support of it. Is this really the only reason that you suggest the removal of +2 over?



If you look back in the thread I'm fairly sure there were discussions of my argument, and it was fleshed out somewhat. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by supporting it. In what way exactly? I've challenged people to come up with alternatives to a misaligned slice being the result of either risk taking or laziness, and thus far I have found one example, and we are discussing it right now. But if that's not what you're getting at please elaborate, as I'm interested in any way to strengthen my argument as it can only help me. Just a note: to be fair the vast majority of what I have done in this thread is rebut other arguments, and really my own argument is just one big rebuttal for a lot of the pro +2 arguments out there.

And of course this is not the only reason I suggest the removal of the +2, but other people are arguing other points. I don't see any need to join in to a large extent, unless I see somewhere I feel I can contribute. Again, refer to my giant post above to see some of the other arguments that have been put forward.


----------



## jonlin (Jun 9, 2012)

Dene said:


> Ok good. In my response, first it is important to note that _by choice_ you were using a puzzle that had this particular functional limitation, that occasionally it can lock up in a weird way that causes layers to turn "by theirself".



This is an extremely rude comment, as it contradicts what you have said later in the post.


MaeLSTRoM said:


> I think there is one inherent problem with this argument. The lockup in this case was not *directly a fault of the cuber*. The blame lies in the hardware. I personally think that your argument that the WCA should not allow risks is quite frankly unsupportable. Also there is no way that you can claim that the impact was minor. If this solve had been a DNF, that could have afectd the mindset of the competitor and causes them to lose focus because of something that *was not directly under their control*.Although I agree that in most cases the fault lies with the competitor, sometimes the cube is at fault, and losing your chance at an average because of your cube is more unfair than giving them time penalties.
> Also, I note that you are using the same argument over and over again, without any extension or support of it. Is this really the only reason that you suggest the removal of +2 over?



Yes, my solve *Would* have been affected by a DNF, because the counting 7 second solve would have lifted my average to 6 seconds, rather than 5.41. That would have affected my ranking by 4 places.

EDIT: The DNF would have actually rose my average to 6.00 seconds.


----------



## Dene (Jun 10, 2012)

jonlin said:


> This is an extremely rude comment, as it contradicts what you have said later in the post.



Whoa back up the bus. Where did I contradict myself?


----------



## jonlin (Jun 10, 2012)

Dene said:


> Whoa back up the bus. Where did I contradict myself?



When you said that I was risk taking when I used a 2x2 that cough cough accidentally cough cough locked up and sprang back, you said it was risky for to bring a puzzle that had this limitation. First of all, this never happened anywhere but now. Second of all,:



Dene said:


> To conclude: The occurrence of this would be insanely rare, and it would have only a small impact on that person at the time, and never again in the future, therefore giving a +2 for all misaligned slice cases is not justified.


Which contradicts what you said in the first paragraph of the post.
Which, if I understand correctly, is that not all +2's are risk taking or lazy.


----------



## Dene (Jun 10, 2012)

I get the impression that you're misreading me, although I might be misreading you so I'm a little confused. I'll respond to what I think you're trying to say. My guess is that it's just a misunderstanding. (NOTE: I correct some of your grammar to how I am reading it; if I have corrected it wrong then please point it out).



jonlin said:


> When you said that I was risk taking when I used a 2x2 that accidentally locked up and sprang back, you said it was risky to bring a puzzle that had this limitation.



If you are aware of this limitation then proceed to use this puzzle in competition, while not taking the appropriate precaution before stopping the timer (i.e. making sure it isn't locked up and about to spring back), then it _is_ taking a risk. However if you don't know about this limitation, it is a case of innocent ignorance, which I described.



jonlin said:


> Second of all:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To make things easier, here is the first (trimmed) paragraph from my post:



Dene said:


> First it is important to note that _by choice_ you were using a puzzle that had this particular functional limitation, that occasionally it can lock up in a weird way that causes layers to turn "by theirself".



I cannot for the life of me see any contradiction in these two sentences of mine. They aren't even talking about the same thing in particular. In the first paragraph of my post I said that you chose to use the puzzle, and I later clarified that you may or may not have known about the functional limitation. In the conclusion I say that the occurrence of the "innocent ignorance" case, i.e. unknowingly using a puzzle that had this limitation, is rare and doesn't justify giving a +2 for all possible misaligned slice cases, just as a precaution in case innocent ignorance does occur.

Just to note, because there is an ambiguous word in my sentence. I said "therefore giving a +2 for all misaligned slice cases is not justified". This could be read in two ways:
1) There are no occurrences of a misaligned slice in which a +2 is justified.
2) There is not enough justification to give a +2 for every occurrence of a misaligned slice, because the vast majority are the fault of the competitor (i.e. risk taking or laziness).

The second version is what I meant to say, although I could understand why you might be confused if you read it in the first way.

I may as well take this time to give another reason why it isn't justified: Ignorance is no excuse. This is only my opinion, but I'm not the only one that takes this approach. As far as I'm aware, in most sports, as well as other avenues such as law enforcement, ignorance is not an excuse. 



jonlin said:


> Which, if I understand correctly, is that not all +2's are risk taking or lazy.



This sentence has me most confused. Neither the first paragraph of my post, nor the last, is making that statement. I mean, yes I do concede that during the post, but rather in the fourth paragraph ("So congratulations to you, you have found another category in which a competitor might be left with a misaligned slice").

Have I cleared things up, or do you still think I've contradicted myself?


----------



## jonlin (Jun 11, 2012)

Thank you.
Bye now.


----------



## keyan (Jun 26, 2012)

Sad to see this thread dead again. 

Lucas has made two good posts, here
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...saligned-sides&p=686723&viewfull=1#post686723
and here
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...saligned-sides&p=750300&viewfull=1#post750300
explaining how well-reasoned argumments about this topic could be made. So far, no one has bothered to do so. So far I've given four points showing the benefits of removing this rule, and no one has given a good argument against them. As it stands, those arguing for the rule are holding to two points, "meta" and "fun". 

The "meta" argument falls, in that a competitor is responsible for their own solving. Anyone intentionally performing worse shouldn't be a consideration in the regulations. Should the rule be removed, most people wouldn't need to change anything about their solving. Some people would adapt. (I don't think Doug Li ever had to worry about cubes turning "on their own".) If someone refuses to adapt and holds their results hostage, they're only hurting themselves and we shouldn't have to consider them. 

The "fun" argument falls to previous statements to the contrary
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?30588-Is-it-worth-it-to-go-to-competitions
Or are people acknowledging that they don't really believe what they tell beginners? 

With no solid arguments in favor of keeping it, I hope that we can now move forward and remove this unnecessary regulation.


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 26, 2012)

Thanks for the ~100th repetition of your very subjective point of view ~50th post without bringing in something new.

This rule is not going to change quicker just because you are bringing the same stuff again every 2 weeks.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 26, 2012)

So instead of posting a riposte, you'll complain that he's using the same arguments?

You're both being inane.


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 26, 2012)

True, and thanks for joining the club


----------



## Tyson (Jul 30, 2012)

What are the rebuttals to the arguments for removing the +2 second penalty? I would say it makes a lot of sense. The +2 is a relic that was inherited when the WCA was first started. It was something used at WC 2003, and we know a lot more in 2012 than we did in 2003. There's no doubt in my mind that removing a +2 would simplify the process. There is also potential that these solves would be judged more precisely, as a more drastic outcome for misalignment might encourage inexperienced judges and competitors alike to summon the WCA delegate.

I don't really understand why the argument is subjective. It's pretty clear that the +2 rule doesn't actually make sense, and can't even be applied to all puzzles.


----------



## ottozing (Jul 30, 2012)

How would it simplify the prcoess? The only difference is instead of checking to see whether or not it's a +2, you're checking to see whether or not it's a DNF.


----------



## Tyson (Jul 30, 2012)

Precisely. It reduces the number of scenarios, and eliminates a consideration for the judge. Times being entered into the database now never have to be considered for +2, and we don't have to worry about judges adding/forgetting to add the 2 second penalty. And, as stated earlier, it makes events more uniform, in that Clock doesn't have a +2 penalty.


----------



## Julian (Jul 30, 2012)

Sounds fine, but what about inconsistency with past results? Or will we just ignore that and move on?


----------



## DrKorbin (Jul 30, 2012)

Tyson said:


> Precisely. It reduces the number of scenarios, and eliminates a consideration for the judge.


If +2 rule is canceled, the only difference in scenarios will be: if a puzzle has 2 misalignments, one of which is clear and another is vague, then that will be clearly DNF.
In all other cases (one misalignment) scenarios are not reduced: you still must check if this misalignment is <45 degrees.


Tyson said:


> we don't have to worry about judges adding/forgetting to add the 2 second penalty.


You will have to worry about judges adding/forgetting to add DNF.


Tyson said:


> And, as stated earlier, it makes events more uniform, in that Clock doesn't have a +2 penalty.


Clock doesn't have +2 - so what? Events are uniform - so what?


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 30, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> If +2 rule is canceled, the only difference in scenarios will be:



This is just... wrong.



DrKorbin said:


> You will have to worry about judges adding/forgetting to add DNF.



A DNF is not added to a solve. If a solve is DNF, no actual time is written.



DrKorbin said:


> Clock doesn't have +2 - so what? Events are uniform - so what?



Simplification is good.


----------



## DrKorbin (Jul 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> This is just... wrong.


Why?


Kirjava said:


> A DNF is not added to a solve. If a solve is DNF, no actual time is written.


Should I say "You will have to worry about judges writing/forgetting to write DNF"?


Kirjava said:


> Simplification is good.


This is just... wrong.


----------



## Inusagi (Jul 30, 2012)

I get that it's more complicated for the judges/delegate to type the results with the +2 penalty, however I do still believe that it's better to keep the rule. The reason is that a lot of good cubers who deserves to proceed to the next round won't get there if they get one side misaligned more than 45 degrees twice. Or, lets say that it happened just once, and the competitor knows that he has to be careful with the next solves, and then he gets a pop. Even though it is easy to align the last move, it still is not easy during a competition where you're about to get a new record or a really good time.


----------



## porkynator (Jul 30, 2012)

Judges can forget to add the +2 penality because when, for example, you solve the cube in 10.00 and there is a penality, a judge can write:
a. 10.00+2
b. 12.00+
c. 12.00
I've competed in 3 competition, and it was always like this.
The option b is clearly the most dangerous, but also the a can lead to misunderstanding. The c is ok, but you do not keep track of the +2 solves.
Without this rule, if there is a penality, a judge can write:
a. DNF
So yes, it's easier.

Although this is a simplification, I must say I'm not happy, because almost in every official average I do there is at least a +2. But that doesn't matter, I agree it's better if this rule gets removed.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 30, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> Why?



Because you no longer have to check if the cube is either no moves away or one move away or more, you're just checking if it's solved or not. There are other differences.



DrKorbin said:


> Should I say "You will have to worry about judges writing/forgetting to write DNF"?



You could, but it'd make it no longer relevant. Adding +2 is different to denoting DNF, people do it in different ways and these ways can be interpreted differently by different people.



DrKorbin said:


> This is just... wrong.



Why is simplification and standardisation of rules bad?


----------



## Godmil (Jul 30, 2012)

I'm totally on the fence on this subject now.



Kirjava said:


> Why is simplification and standardisation of rules bad?



Simplification in itself isn't necessarily good. The WCA could have like 5 rules total, and that would be very simple and easy for people to learn... but would inevitably fail to cover all the needed issues and wouldn't be clear enough on common misinterpretations, etc.
When you say Simplicity is good, I have to assume you mean simplicity without loosing clarity or failing to cover all eventualities.
But then that's all about how you define simple... simple could be fewer rules, or it could be lots of rules that leave nothing ambiguous etc... either way it's easy to see how one person can say simplicity is best and another can question if that's the case.


----------



## Goosly (Jul 30, 2012)

porkynator said:


> Judges can forget to add the +2 penality because when, for example, you solve the cube in 10.00 and there is a penality, a judge can write:
> a. 10.00+2
> b. 12.00+
> c. 12.00



The regulations state that the judge should write: 10.00 +2 = 12.00
If you see a judge writing anything else, just inform him/her about the correct way.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 30, 2012)

I'm saying that simplification in this context is good, not in every single case.


----------



## gogozerg (Jul 30, 2012)

Keep in mind there are 5 other kinds of 2 second penalties (rarely applied).
Should they be changed to DNF too, to make rules more simple?


----------



## Dene (Jul 30, 2012)

I was about to say this myself.

Please everyone bear in mind that this is only talking about misaligned slices.

(Maybe I should keep my mouth shut because I want to remove +2 for misaligned slice  ).


----------



## speedcubingman (Jul 30, 2012)

i think a +2 penalty should be changed to a dnf, because it is clearly not finished with a 45 degree turn or more. i don't like dnf's but it makes sense


----------



## DrKorbin (Jul 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Because you no longer have to check if the cube is either no moves away or one move away or more, you're just checking if it's solved or not. There are other differences.


That's what I told before, read my post carefully. And the situation when a cube is one certain and one uncertain move away is infrequent. Commonly a cube (if +2) is one move away.


Kirjava said:


> Why is simplification and standardisation of rules bad?


Let's get rid of preinspection. It will simplify the rules - a judge must not start his timer and tell "8 sec" and "12 sec".
Let's get rid of every discipline except 3x3 - it will simplify the rules much more.
Simplification is not good in all cases.


Kirjava said:


> I'm saying that simplification in this context is good, not in every single case.


And that is subjective.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 30, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> That's what I told before, read my post carefully. And the situation when a cube is one certain and one uncertain move away is infrequent. Commonly a cube (if +2) is one move away.



I just didn't feel like your cumbersome wording succinctly described how there will be a reduction from three states to two.

In this instance, the simplification of the rules is a good thing, as interpreting the results will be clearer, amoungst other things.



DrKorbin said:


> Let's get rid of preinspection. It will simplify the rules - a judge must not start his timer and tell "8 sec" and "12 sec".
> Let's get rid of every discipline except 3x3 - it will simplify the rules much more.
> Simplification is not good in all cases.



There's no such thing as 'preinspection'. Also, see my post about context.



DrKorbin said:


> And that is subjective.



I don't think so. Rule changes are usually either a Good Thing(tm) or not.


----------



## Ranzha (Jul 30, 2012)

DrKorbin, you're taking things way out of proportion. Remember what this thread is meant for.

I'm on the fence about this, too. It seems like it's too easy to DNF if the penalty is removed. And it is. But I'm not keen to keeping it as a crutch.


----------



## Tyson (Jul 31, 2012)

(I bet Stefan has this answer...)

Does anyone remember where the discussion regarding removing the POP solves took place? I feel like it's a lot of the same argument, and we got rid of POPs.


----------



## Bob (Jul 31, 2012)

I see arguments about POPs going back to 2004

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/message/10301


----------



## Daniel Wu (Jul 31, 2012)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> DrKorbin, you're taking things way out of proportion. Remember what this thread is meant for.
> 
> I'm on the fence about this, too. It seems like it's too easy to DNF if the penalty is removed. And it is. But I'm not keen to keeping it as a crutch.



This basically sums up what I'm thinking as well. 

The POP thing seems to differ from +2 in that POP could be taken advantage of if a competitor was having a bad solve in order to get a new solve, whereas +2 can't really be taken advantage of (except for a few cases like M2 BLD solves by doing R2 at the end etc etc).


----------



## ThtDarnNeighbor (Jul 31, 2012)

i feel that they need to change the +2 rule to include a misalligned slice because the current rule favours cfop and petrus over methods like roux, in which the m move is one of the, if not the last move before finishing the cube


----------



## Bob (Jul 31, 2012)

ThtDarnNeighbor said:


> i feel that they need to change the +2 rule to include a misalligned slice because the current rule favours cfop and petrus over methods like roux, in which the m move is one of the, if not the last move before finishing the cube



But the +2 rule was there before Roux. People who learned and adopted the Roux method did so knowing that a misaligned M slice is a DNF.


----------



## Ranzha (Jul 31, 2012)

ThtDarnNeighbor said:


> i feel that they need to change the +2 rule to include a misalligned slice because the current rule favours cfop and petrus over methods like roux, in which the m move is one of the, if not the last move before finishing the cube



Going off of what Bob said, it puts Rouxers at a higher risk, but that's the nature of the method. When the reg was put into place, it wasn't set to cater to any existing method, or likewise. It was method-neutral.
But I dunno these days if removing the penalty is beneficial to the cubing community or not. I feel like there will be a tonne more DNFs, and a good number of them will be because of flukes.


----------



## TMOY (Jul 31, 2012)

Bob said:


> But the +2 rule was there before Roux. People who learned and adopted the Roux method did so knowing that a misaligned M slice is a DNF.



Maybe the Roux method didn't exist yet, but corners first methods already did, so your argument doesn't hold. And the fact that we have to comply to a stupid rule in order to compete in WCA events doesn't make the rule less stupid.


----------



## 5BLD (Jul 31, 2012)

ThtDarnNeighbor said:


> i feel that they need to change the +2 rule to include a misalligned slice because the current rule favours cfop and petrus over methods like roux, in which the m move is one of the, if not the last move before finishing the cube



Then you could argue, what if someone accidentally solved, did U and then D' then stopped the timer?

No one's going to change M/S/E to +2.


----------



## TMOY (Jul 31, 2012)

And what if we replace U and D' with L and L again ? Should we swith to QTM because of that ?

It's truly sad to see Roux users shoot themselves in the foot like that.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 31, 2012)

I find your tirade against HTM tiring TMOY.

There's literally no reason why STM should be 'more valid' than HTM. We have to use one of them and HTM is the one we use. 

It's time you got over it.


----------



## TMOY (Jul 31, 2012)

As you have said yourself a zillion times, rules should be method neutral. And HTM is not. This is a perfectly valid reason.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 31, 2012)

HTM is method neutral.

An example of somthing that is /not/ method neutral would be filtering easy crosses.


----------



## Cubenovice (Jul 31, 2012)

I'm pretty sure Okayama woudn't mind switching to STM 

I would like to see the +2 rule removed and wouldn't mind switching to STM at the same time.
Time to brush of the HTA skills...


----------



## macky (Jul 31, 2012)

Tyson said:


> (I bet Stefan has this answer...)
> 
> Does anyone remember where the discussion regarding removing the POP solves took place? I feel like it's a lot of the same argument, and we got rid of POPs.





Bob said:


> I see arguments about POPs going back to 2004
> 
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/message/10301



from Lucas's post



Lucas Garron said:


> Macky provided a good argument for removing pops in a Dec. 2005 post. After the initial regulation change, there was a thread about whether competitors could intentionally pop a cube. After Ron's announcement of the 2006v2 (draft) regulations, there was another discussion about pops and the UWRs.


----------



## gogozerg (Jul 31, 2012)

TMOY said:


> As you have said yourself a zillion times, rules should be method neutral. And HTM is not. This is a perfectly valid reason.


So, a method neutral rule is a rule that makes all methods equal, the good and the crap methods?

A rule may have different results depending on the method you're using. The point is, it must not be decided to benefit a particular method.

From a megaminx (a puzzle without parallel cut planes) solver point of vue, STM would be an aberration, favoring some cubic puzzle solvers.


----------



## TMOY (Jul 31, 2012)

A megaminx does have parallel cut planes. I remember very well that you pointed it out yourself in an old discussion on the WCA forum


----------



## gogozerg (Jul 31, 2012)

Oh yes sorry, my mistake, it has some.


----------

