# Why aren't M2 slices considered a +2?



## JasonDL13 (Sep 5, 2014)

Okay so here's something to talk about.
 
Article 10 "Solved State":

"10e1) For each two adjacent parts (e.g. two parallel, adjacent slices of a cube) of the puzzle that are misaligned more than the limit described in Regulation 10f, the puzzle is considered to require one additional move to solve (see "Outer Block Turn Metric" in Article 12).
10e2) If no further moves are required to bring the puzzle to its solved state, the puzzle is considered solved without penalty.
10e3) If one move is required, the puzzle is be considered solved with a time penalty (+2 seconds)."

If you look at 10e3 if one move is required based off of "Outer Block Turn Metric" it's +2 seconds.

I'm not going to post it here because it explains like every turn so you can look at it here: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#12

So now it's leading to my question. Slice moves (excluding wide moves, ex: Fw) are not in the "Outer Block Turn Metric"

So if you take a solved Rubik's Cube, did F2, it's +2. If you did M2. It's DNF. That sounds silly to me. Because most (or some) people look at it as "Oh it's one turn away it should be a +2" but it's not.

So now it's time I say thank you for reading this. I hope you have a fantastic day. I'm tiered because it's 12:37AM.

Goodbye.


----------



## Goosly (Sep 5, 2014)

JasonDL13 said:


> If you did M2. It's DNF. That sounds silly to me. Because most (or some) people look at it as "Oh it's one turn away it should be a +2" but it's not.



It's not one turn away, it is 2 turns away.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Sep 5, 2014)

JasonDL13 said:


> So if you take a solved Rubik's Cube, did F2, it's +2.



Sounds silly to me, too!


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 5, 2014)

This is the umpteenth time this has been asked. M moves are 2 moves. Done and done.


----------



## Tim Major (Sep 5, 2014)

But M slice isn't +2.


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 5, 2014)

So basically, the WCA recognizes and only recognizes OBTM as the metric used for the regulations, scrambling, and FMC. And according to OBTM, slice moves are not equal to one move, they are equal to two. So since the official metric of the WCA says so, M2 is not a plus two because it is 2 moves, thus DNF. They're not going to change the metric just so slice moves aren't a DNF anymore.


----------



## ySoSrs (Sep 5, 2014)

They don't have to change the regulations or the metric they use, but they could just add an exception so that slice turns on a 3x3 would be the same as a face turn.


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 5, 2014)

ySoSrs said:


> They don't have to change the regulations or the metric they use, but they could just add an exception so that slice turns on a 3x3 would be the same as a face turn.



Why should they do this?


----------



## XTowncuber (Sep 5, 2014)

ySoSrs said:


> They don't have to change the regulations or the metric they use, but they could just add an exception so that slice turns on a 3x3 would be the same as a face turn.



They cannot do this.

Imagine that we had an exception so that slice moves were a +2. Now, take a solved cube, and turn turn the D layer just less than 45 degrees clockwise, and the U layer just more than 45 degrees counterclockwise. +2 or no? Do we compare the middle layer to the U layer, or the D layer? 

it makes the whole notation system ambiguous, something has to be fixed in place in order to determine +2s.


----------



## vcuber13 (Sep 5, 2014)

It's a +2 either way, U' or E will solve the cube.


----------



## Dene (Sep 5, 2014)

If we didn't have +2, this wouldn't be a problem. ^_^


----------



## TMOY (Sep 5, 2014)

It's always the same circular reasioning. Why does the WCA say it's two moves ? Well, because it's two moves, you know. Then why is it two moves ? Well, because the WCA says so, of course.

My opinion on the subject nasn't changed but I'm just tired of fighting against windmills.


----------



## ySoSrs (Sep 5, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Why should they do this?


I'm not saying they *should*, I was just throwing in that it's not needed to change the metric used to change this. I really couldn't care less about whether they change it or not. 



XTowncuber said:


> They cannot do this.
> 
> Imagine that we had an exception so that slice moves were a +2. Now, take a solved cube, and turn turn the D layer just less than 45 degrees clockwise, and the U layer just more than 45 degrees counterclockwise. +2 or no? Do we compare the middle layer to the U layer, or the D layer?
> 
> it makes the whole notation system ambiguous, something has to be fixed in place in order to determine +2s.



The D layer and middle layer aren't misaligned by >45 degrees, so that position is irrelevant. The U layer is misaligned vs. the middle layer by >45 degrees, turning the U layer will solve the cube, hence +2. Nothing ambiguous there? 

If I'm not mistaken, the exception would only affect the case where the middle layer is misaligned by >45 degrees to both outer layers while both outer layers are solved in regards to each other. In current regulations this is a DNF, with such an exception it would be +2. All other cases are already accounted for in the current regulation by +2 or DNF and would stay the same with such an exception.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Sep 5, 2014)

What if the M slice is turned twice, and the S slice is turned 44 degrees? It technically (according to the proposition) would be solved but do this to a cube and it looks anything but. 

I think the WCA is nice enough as is allowing a technically unsolved cube be counted. No need to press any further than the current already liberal regulation. 

Also, the "1 move" stipulation I find to be meaningless because it obviously biases being "one move off" at the end as opposed to anywhere else. Being "one move off" in the middle of a Y-Perm will give a clear DNF, but do it at the end and it's still technically solved.

I say take the +2's as they currently are and let's avoid a slippery slope to let other states start counting (like misoriented edges during BLD, or 2-corner flips).

 solved? Or unsolved?


----------



## TMOY (Sep 5, 2014)

Lol. Sure such cases happen all the time at comps.

And it is possible to do even worse than that with a 777, even under the current regulations.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 5, 2014)

TMOY said:


> It's always the same circular reasioning. Why does the WCA say it's two moves ? Well, because it's two moves, you know. Then why is it two moves ? Well, because the WCA says so, of course.



Why is it one?


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 5, 2014)

How about we just make the metric ATM instead, that way 2 moves=1

Also, if we bring up the topic of axial turns, let's say you do an M'. That, under your rules should be a +2. Now do an R'. Now it's a DNF. However, this would be solved by doing L' R2. 2 moves in OBTM, yet M' can be solved by doing 2 very similar moves in OBTM as well. So why is it that 2 penalty cases that are solved with 2 moves always in one metric, whereas the move count differs in another? (STM)


----------



## obelisk477 (Sep 5, 2014)

I could see STM being the standard adopted some years from now when the number of Roux users will have continued to increase in the community such that they have more influence.


----------



## Me (Sep 5, 2014)

TMOY said:


> It's always the same circular reasioning. Why does the WCA say it's two moves ? Well, because it's two moves, you know. Then why is it two moves ? Well, because the WCA says so, of course.



I haven't seen this explained anywhere in (this) thread, I'll attempt to below...



JasonDL13 said:


> Okay so here's something to talk about.
> So if you take a solved Rubik's Cube, did F2, it's +2. If you did M2. It's DNF. That sounds silly to me. Because most (or some) people look at it as "Oh it's one turn away it should be a +2" but it's not.



Yes, at first look the intuitive thing to say is it's one move away, but consider it a little more deeply.

Centers on a cube do not move, 
therefore M2 is not one move but two. (R2 L2 x2).

If you claim M2 is one move you're contradicting the fundamental nature of the cube.


----------



## Julian (Sep 5, 2014)

Me said:


> I haven't seen this explained anywhere in (this) thread, I'll attempt to below...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Centers do not move with respect to each other. you could solve the cube keeping the UF edge fixed the whole time if you wanted. Think 3gen 2x2 scrambles, FCN skewb scrambles, etc

Also, these days, we have rotations at the end of BLD scrambles, specifically to randomize the centers.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 7, 2014)

JasonDL13 said:


> ...Because most (or some) people look at it as "Oh it's one turn away it should be a +2" but it's not....


Most people that know about a +2 also know that M2 is not 1 move *so the whole reason to talk about this is based on a false assumption*.
Most speedsolvers look at it as "Oh it's two turns away it IS a DNF"
most people look at it as "Oh it's not solved. It looks almost solved though. Why didn't he solve it entirely? What is going to happen now?


----------



## CriticalCubing (Sep 7, 2014)

M moves take 2 moves to solve, thats why no +2


----------



## ySoSrs (Sep 7, 2014)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> What if the M slice is turned twice, and the S slice is turned 44 degrees? It technically (according to the proposition) would be solved but do this to a cube and it looks anything but.


S slice is <45 degrees so its position is irrelevant and needs no move to fix, M slice is turned twice => this would be a +2. Doesn't seem hard to understand or ambiguous to me. It also doesn't matter how it looks, it matters how many moves it takes to get to the solved state.



PhillipEspinoza said:


> Also, the "1 move" stipulation I find to be meaningless because it obviously biases being "one move off" at the end as opposed to anywhere else. Being "one move off" in the middle of a Y-Perm will give a clear DNF, but do it at the end and it's still technically solved


Seems rather obvious why it is like this. You are evaluating how much the cube is solved by comparing it to an arbitrary state, which in this case is the solved state. It doesn't matter if you make a one move mistake in the beginning (or at a certain point) and then do a set of moves that would have solved the cube to this solved state if it wasn't for that one move mistake. The state of the cube in that case would still require more than one move to reach the arbitrary final state, which is the solved state. So it is only logical to evaluate the 1 move compared to the required end state of the cube: the solved state.


----------



## Renslay (Sep 7, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> How about we just make the metric ATM instead, that way 2 moves=1



I highly agree on this one. If you take a 7x7 and do U, 2U, 3U, D, 2D, 3D moves, it still has the impression of a solved cube which is only "misaligned" (which is not true if you do something like U R).

If it would be up to me, I would measure the +2 penalty based on ATM, and leave the FMC based on HTM. But I admit, I cannot say any further reasoning on that.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 7, 2014)

FMC in another metric would be a separate event.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 7, 2014)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> View attachment 4465 solved? Or unsolved?


It's not "solved", but align it to the closest cubical position and it's one move off. That's how I feel: it's one move off. +2.



goodatthis said:


> How about we just make the metric ATM instead, that way 2 moves=1


I like this idea. Much less complicated. If any two layers are more than 45 degrees off from each other, it's not solved; if the cube can be solved by only doing turns from one axis, it's not DNF.



Me said:


> Centers on a cube do not move


M


----------



## jonlin (Sep 7, 2014)

Why are we having an argument for something that has already been cleared up in the WCA Regulations?


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 7, 2014)

jonlin said:


> Why are we having an argument for something that has already been cleared up in the WCA Regulations?


People like to be rebellious.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 7, 2014)

jonlin said:


> Why are we having an argument for something that has already been cleared up in the WCA Regulations?


Maybe people want to change the regulations? The WCA is supposed to listen to the community, after all. It's not a group that rules over cubing, like many big sports organizations do.


----------



## rybaby (Sep 7, 2014)

I think HTM is the norm because of David Singmaster establishing this notation in "Notes on Rubik's Magic Cube." Other cube writers actually did have arrows to denote slices, but this notation probably didn't get used much as cube solutions surfaced online. Another reason could be that, with the stiff cubes of the 80s, slices were usually done by two quick turns on the same axis, e.g. Rw R' instead of M'.


----------



## Coolster01 (Sep 7, 2014)

If you do (1, 0) and (0, -1) then do a / with 89 degrees on sq1, its solved xD not even +2 so theres another kinda flaw


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 7, 2014)

Haha, +2 changing to DNF is way more likely to happen than changing the metric.


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 7, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> Haha, +2 changing to DNF is way more likely to happen than changing the metric.


Exactly, I was actually being sarcastic about changing it to ATM


----------



## Coolster01 (Sep 8, 2014)

M moves are two moves 

/thread


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 8, 2014)

depends on your metric


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 8, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Maybe people want to change the regulations? The WCA is supposed to listen to the community, after all. It's not a group that rules over cubing, like many big sports organizations do.


Maybe people do, but in this case it seems there is no support at all


----------



## GuRoux (Sep 8, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> Maybe people do, but in this case it seems there is no support at all


well m moves really are just one motion, one finger flick.


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 8, 2014)

If you execute M moves as one move, then why not make the metric ETM? That way, if the cube rotates before it falls, it's a +2. Or if you normally don't doubleflick your U2s, then U2 would be a DNF.


----------



## GuRoux (Sep 8, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> If you execute M moves as one move, then why not make the metric ETM? That way, if the cube rotates before it falls, it's a +2. Or if you normally don't doubleflick your U2s, then U2 would be a DNF.



well, U2 really is like two moves. HTM seems to be the metric if all your moves were whole wrist turns, but the speedsolving community has gone past that.


----------



## Cale S (Sep 8, 2014)

I didn't even know half turns are a +2 until a few weeks ago. What seems most logical to me for misalignment penalties is SQTM. 

For square-1, would doing (1, -1) / (-1, 1) after you solve it be a +2 or a DNF? Doing a (1, -1) to that would just be realigning two layers less than 45 degrees (which isn't considered a move), then doing a / would be doing a 180 degree turn which would count as one move, and then the cube would be less than 45 degrees off on both layers from being solved.


----------



## TMOY (Sep 8, 2014)

jonlin said:


> Why are we having an argument for something that has already been cleared up in the WCA Regulations?



Just in case you haven't noticed, having arguments for things already cleared up by the WCA regs is precisely the reason of being of this whole subforum.


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 8, 2014)

Funny how the thread title implies that M slices ARE considered +2.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Sep 8, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Funny how the thread title implies that M slices ARE considered +2.



I really thought the double negative would have been fixed by now.

Not a serious proposal, but just to see what reaction it gets: ATM for deciding solved/penalty/DNF, but penalties stack in the currect metric. That is, off by R is +2, M is +2 for each HTM misalignment, so +4.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 8, 2014)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> I really thought the double negative would have been fixed by now.
> 
> Not a serious proposal, but just to see what reaction it gets: ATM for deciding solved/penalty/DNF, but penalties stack in the currect metric. That is, off by R is +2, M is +2 for each HTM misalignment, so +4.


Not a serious proposal indeed, so what is the point?
Not a serious proposal, because you didn't specify for which cube this is (only 333? or 777 as well?)
Not a serious proposal, because you didn't specify for which event this is (only speed, or blind and fmc as well?)


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Sep 8, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> Not a serious proposal indeed, so what is the point?
> Not a serious proposal, because you didn't specify for which cube this is (only 333? or 777 as well?)
> Not a serious proposal, because you didn't specify for which event this is (only speed, or blind and fmc as well?)



1) I thought it could be an interesting variation to consider, sometimes thinking about how you would feel about certain choices helps you figure out where you would want to draw the line on these issues.
2+3) Why wouldn't it apply to all puzzles/events covered by the current version of the rule?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Sep 8, 2014)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> 1) I thought it could be an interesting variation to consider, sometimes thinking about how you would feel about certain choices helps you figure out where you would want to draw the line on these issues.



Sounds like a good idea to me. Unfortunately, on speedsolving.com it's very hard to 1) propose an incomplete idea, and 2) clean it up with everyone's help. But I don't have any better ideas. :-/



bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> 2+3) Why wouldn't it apply to all puzzles/events covered by the current version of the rule?



Always my favorite: How does it work for Megaminx?






Square-1?


----------



## Silverspeed (Sep 10, 2014)

M slices are in the STM, and the WCA goes by OBTM/STM. That means that in WCA terms, solving an M slice turn would happen as rW' R, or vice versa. So, to them, it's two turns for a single M slice.


----------



## JasonDL13 (Sep 10, 2014)

People who are saying it's "2" moves to do a M slice is wrong. It's 2 outer turns in an M slice.

You can do a single flick using your middle finger to do a M slice. How is that two turns?
That's like saying R is two turns. Because it's actually M' L. (Not exactly but I'm trying to prove a point)

Just like this person said:



GuRoux said:


> well m moves really are just one motion, one finger flick.



And to people who are saying M2 is R2 L2 x2. It's not R2 L2 x2 is R2 L2 x2. M2 is M2. They're two different turns.
You can turn the M slice using one turn. You're not doing 2 turns, R and L. Then a rotation. You're turning the inner slice.


----------



## obelisk477 (Sep 10, 2014)

JasonDL13 said:


> That's like saying R is two turns. Because it's actually M' L. (Not exactly but I'm trying to prove a point)



This. All of this. Except I think you meant M L x.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Sep 10, 2014)

If a Rubik's cube is considered to have 6 axes then off by M results in DNF is entirely justified.


----------



## TMOY (Sep 10, 2014)

IYes sure, fi we choose to consider the cubet the way that makes the DNF justified then the DNF is justified. Thank you Captain Obvious.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Sep 10, 2014)

TMOY said:


> If we choose to consider the cube the way that makes the DNF justified then the DNF is justified.



But we do consider it to have 6 axes.


----------



## TMOY (Sep 10, 2014)

And what if we don't ? Granted, a cube has 6 axes, but it also has 3 slices (for a 3^3). There's no objective reason to give priority to the 6 aces over the 3 slices, it's nothing but a choice the WCA has made.


----------



## rishidoshi (Sep 10, 2014)

Instead of thinking it has 6 faces, think it has 3 layers in each direction. per layer turning to be seen individually. be it R, M or L. Any one of them 3, if misaligned, should be +2. Sad if I didn't finish the H perm perfectly. But I get away with a +2 if i didn't finish any other PLL involving outer face as the last move.


----------



## Goosly (Sep 10, 2014)

rishidoshi said:


> Sad if I didn't finish the H perm perfectly. But I get away with a +2 if i didn't finish any other PLL involving outer face as the last move.



Use R2 U2 R U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R U2 R2. Problem solved. You're welcome


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 10, 2014)

TMOY said:


> And what if we don't ? Granted, a cube has 6 axes, but it also has 3 slices (for a 3^3). There's no objective reason to give priority to the 6 aces over the 3 slices, it's nothing but a choice the WCA has made.


TMOY, I didn't expect this from you. With the six axes you can solve any scramble. With the 3 slices you can only solve the cases with already correct corners.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 10, 2014)

TMOY said:


> it's nothing but a choice the WCA has made.



So what?


----------



## EMI (Sep 10, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> So what?



So it should be discussed?
I don't have an opinion on the +2 regulations, but I have yet to see a sensible argument why HTM is superior to QTM and STM... All people are saying is that the cube has six axis. Well, I think a cube has three dimensions and three layers, creating nine possible moves. Sounds just as reasonable to me.
(In fact, many non-cubers would find it contra intuitive that an R2 is considered one move, but an M is not.)


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 10, 2014)

JasonDL13 said:


> People who are saying it's "2" moves to do a M slice is wrong. It's 2 outer turns in an M slice.
> 
> You can do a single flick using your middle finger to do a M slice. How is that two turns?
> That's like saying R is two turns. Because it's actually M' *L'* (Not exactly but I'm trying to prove a point)
> ...


 Again, if you're going to go off of the "single flick to do an M turn" argument, which has nothing to do with moves and much more to do with fingertricks and execution, then the metric should be ETM. If the cube rotates when you drop it, it's a +2.

Also, on the topic of m turns, I know several people who don't always do M turns as single flicks. Look in the reconstruction database.

Also, fixed the part in bold. Why should we believe your arguments on a matter of things involving M moves when you don't even know which way the M slice goes?


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 10, 2014)

EMI said:


> So it should be discussed?
> I don't have an opinion on the +2 regulations, but I have yet to see a sensible argument why HTM is superior to QTM and STM...



None of you get it.

There is no argument why HTM is superiour. HTM and STM are equally valid.

We use HTM because it's what we're already using and it's a valid metric to use.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 10, 2014)

Okay, here is the thing.
Speedsolvers argument:
We want to have a "something can be misaligned a bit and the cube is still solved"-rule, because otherwise no cube would ever be solved. There would always be a layer just a half degree of.
That half degree is difficult to measure, so we made it "half of a turn" (with a turn being a quarterturn, not a move!). This seems reasonable because we stop the timer really really quickly while dropping the cube. At that moment the impact of the drop can move the layers a bit.
So there was now a definition of solved (not more than half a turn away so we can stop the timer without worrying about the dropping cube.
There came a debate about what happens when it is "more than drop-impact" away from solved and that became the +2 rule. If that was a smart thing to introduce or should have become a DNF is another debate!
In reality we cannot distinguish why a cube was misaligned. It could be from an incomplete last turn or it could be from the drop-impact. So we had to just look at the resting state of the cube to determine if it was solved.
If the cube has a slice-misalignment it is clear that this was from an incomplete last turn so we can consider it unsolved instead of misaligned. This is even more true for an anti-slice-misalignment.

Non-cuber argument:
Give a cube to a non-cuber and watch him scramble. They might do LR moves back to back, but they don't do MES moves. So if they see a cube with a slice-misalignment they don't think it is solved, they think "why didn't he do the last move*S*" (emphasis on the multiple)

Pieces solved argument:
If you are a slice-misalignment away from solved you only have 4 out of 20 moveable pieces solved. That is only 20%. With an RUFLDB misalignment you have 12 out of 20 moveable pieces solved which is 60% so at least more than half.

FMC argument:
Counting moves in HTM and STM as 1 would make FMC a whole different event and all current results incomparable. Sometimes using STM (+2) and sometimes using HTM (everything else) makes things confusing

Blind argument: (weak)
M2 is a very wildly used method. Being an M2 away from solved means you really forgot to do something and should receive a DNF (I am aware of the "when in doubt, do R2 to +2" loophole)

So basically the only argument to use STM for +2 is "I would like to be able to mess up my last fingertrick when it ends with a slice". That is actually a really lousy argument. Just solve the cube, that is what you came to do!


----------



## ~Adam~ (Sep 10, 2014)

So now that Kir has sorted that out for us let's discuss getting rid of +2s related to misaligned layers all together =D

Edit - and AvG. Awesome post.
Edit 2 - Edit 1 was posted as I was quoted


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 10, 2014)

cube-o-holic said:


> So now that Kir has sorted that out for us let's discuss getting rid of +2s related to misaligned layers all together =D


I think I have just provided quite a few arguments why "Kir hasn't sorted that out". HTM > STM because I provided arguments. 7 billion noobs can't be wrong!


----------



## Bindedsa (Sep 10, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> because we stop the timer really really quickly while dropping the cube. At that moment the impact of the drop can move the layers a bit.
> So there was now a definition of solved (not more than half a turn away so we can stop the timer without worrying about the dropping cube.
> There came a debate about what happens when it is "more than drop-impact" away from solved and that became the +2 rule. If that was a smart thing to introduce or should have become a DNF is another debate!
> In reality we cannot distinguish why a cube was misaligned. It could be from an incomplete last turn or it could be from the drop-impact. So we had to just look at the resting state of the cube to determine if it was



So basically the +2 rule exists only because people worried about drop impact, then I completely agree with HTM. I do however disagree that this should be carried over to FMC or any other WCA policy that requires us to qualify what is a move. I suppose that is for another discussion.


----------



## EMI (Sep 10, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> Okay, here is the thing.
> Non-cuber argument:
> Give a cube to a non-cuber and watch him scramble. They might do LR moves back to back, but they don't do MES moves. So if they see a cube with a slice-misalignment they don't think it is solved, they think "why didn't he do the last move*S*" (emphasis on the multiple)



I once gave a cube to my grandma and MES moves were the only thing she did. She was wondering why it didn't seem to scramble up.



AvGalen said:


> Pieces solved argument:
> If you are a slice-misalignment away from solved you only have 4 out of 20 moveable pieces solved. That is only 20%. With an RUFLDB misalignment you have 12 out of 20 moveable pieces solved which is 60% so at least more than half.



This depends on your definition of "pieces solved".

I don't think your FMC argument is very strong. It's not that complicated to see if something is a +2 or not in STM (not more complicated that with HTM).

I do accept your "drop impact" argument though, it makes sense.



Kirjava said:


> None of you get it.
> We use HTM because it's what we're already using



I see now, thanks for clearing things up. (seriously?)


----------



## TMOY (Sep 10, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> Non-cuber argument:
> Give a cube to a non-cuber and watch him scramble. They might do LR moves back to back, but they don't do MES moves. So if they see a cube with a slice-misalignment they don't think it is solved, they think "why didn't he do the last move*S*" (emphasis on the multiple)



Give a non-cuber a cube U away from solved and he won't call it solved either.


> Pieces solved argument:
> If you are a slice-misalignment away from solved you only have 4 out of 20 moveable pieces solved. That is only 20%. With an RUFLDB misalignment you have 12 out of 20 moveable pieces solved which is 60% so at least more than half.



Please define "pieces solved". Personally I see 18 out of 26.



> FMC argument:
> Counting moves in HTM and STM as 1 would make FMC a whole different event and all current results incomparable. Sometimes using STM (+2) and sometimes using HTM (everything else) makes things confusing



Sure it's not possible to change a WCA event , like we did for multiblind for exampls. And current results are perfecly compatible, a solution written the current way is just as valid as a STM solution.



> Blind argument: (weak)
> M2 is a very wildly used method. Being an M2 away from solved means you really forgot to do something and should receive a DNF (I am aware of the "when in doubt, do R2 to +2" loophole)



Being a U away with any method usually means the same. There should be no +2's in BLD at all. 



> So basically the only argument to use STM for +2 is "I would like to be able to mess up my last fingertrick when it ends with a slice". That is actually a really lousy argument. Just solve the cube, that is what you came to do!



The argument is a fairness argument and nothing else. Either count all positions 1 move away from solved as +2 or don't use +2 at all. Is it that hard to understand ?


----------



## tseitsei (Sep 10, 2014)

Whole +2 rule is weird and stupid and it should be removed all together


----------



## Bindedsa (Sep 10, 2014)

TMOY said:


> Give a non-cuber a cube U away from solved and he won't call it solved either.



I think you missed his point, a non cuber would see M' as R' L. Meaning the cube is more than one move away from solved and DNF, not a +2. A non cuber would also probably see U2 as multiple moves, so that would be a argument for QTM not HTM. Either way, the non cuber argument should have no bearing on cubing regulations.


----------



## Pedro (Sep 10, 2014)

TMOY said:


> Sure it's not possible to change a WCA event , like we did for multiblind for exampls. And current results are perfecly compatible, a solution written the current way is just as valid as a STM solution.



I think what he means is that a solution wich contained Rw R' or something like that would be counted differently on STM, and I don't believe we have all solutions written somewhere to make this "conversion".


----------



## TMOY (Sep 10, 2014)

Who said we have to make any kind of conversion ? Just treat all past solution as if they were written that way. After all, if you write down Rw R' it will still count as two moves, just like U U or U U' count as two moves under curent regulations.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 10, 2014)

TMOY said:


> Give a non-cuber a cube U away from solved and he won't call it solved either.
> 
> 
> Please define "pieces solved". Personally I see 18 out of 26.
> ...


A cube that is a U move away from solved is indeed not solved in the eyes of a non-cuber, but I can explain to him that this might be because of drop-impact so we give a +2 penalty. I cannot explain to him dat an M2 or LR away from solved is not always the fault of the cuber.

I will not be tempted to define pieces solved. You can see whatever you want and I cannot disagree with your argument. Having fixed centers is generally accepted for a normal 3x3x3 though

Of course it is possible to change FMC, but results really wouldn't be comparable. For example the lower bounds of STM and HTM are different and many more people would start to do edge-insertions instead of corner insertions. Changing an event to progress the sport is okay, but just to allow more +2's in stead of DNF's for unsolved cubes is not a good enough reason

Being a U2 away usually means you did something wrong (U' instead of U undo setup). Being a U away normally means either a drop error or a user error which is hard to distinguish without giving a judge lots of power. I agree that there should not be a +2 for blind (also not for fmc, but there should be for clock)

The fairness argument is for the misalignment because of drop-impact, not for unfinished moves as I explained. Recap: STM errors can be distinguished from drop-impact misalignment so they shouldn't be DNF. HTM errors cannot be distinguished so solved or +2


----------



## TMOY (Sep 10, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> Of course it is possible to change FMC, but results really wouldn't be comparable. For example the lower bounds of STM and HTM are different


So what ? (And although it is probably true, AFAIK it is not proved yet.)



> and many more people would start to do edge-insertions instead of corner insertions.



This would definitely be an improvement. More insertion possibilities means more opportunities for good FMC solvers to find good solutions, hence less chances that the event is won by some random guy who just got lucky.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 10, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> I think I have just provided quite a few arguments why "Kir hasn't sorted that out". HTM > STM because I provided arguments. 7 billion noobs can't be wrong!



Ah, perhaps my post was difficult to parse.

HTM and STM are equally valid metrics for general use. 

However, I provided the reason why HTM is the metric we will continue to use, and you improved my argument by adding reasons.



EMI said:


> I see now, thanks for clearing things up. (seriously?)



Seriously. That's the genuine simplified reason why we will continue to use HTM.

As for FMC, HTM and STM are not really comparable. Changing from HTM to STM would be more a case of removing one event and adding another.

I would be for having FMC in STM and HTM as two seperate events, but FMC is a bit of a cluster**** now we have mean of three and we are unable to do anything more with it.


----------



## JasonDL13 (Sep 10, 2014)

To those who are talking about non-cubers, who cares? They probably don't know that if you take the blindfold off while touching the cube it's a DNF. But if you're not touching the cube you're fine.

Some people were talking about how +2 was made so if the cube gets misaligned whilst hitting the table, it's still considered solved. That's unlikely to happen to a H-Perm (or something similar, I use a modified U-Perm with M turns) then it's basically the same thing but it's a DNF.



goodatthis said:


> Also, fixed the part in bold. Why should we believe your arguments on a matter of things involving M moves when you don't even know which way the M slice goes?



I in fact made a mistake while I was tiered. No one should pay attention to me now, should they?



AvGalen said:


> Blind argument: (weak)
> M2 is a very wildly used method. Being an M2 away from solved means you really forgot to do something and should receive a DNF (I am aware of the "when in doubt, do R2 to +2" loophole)



I have acknowledged "weak" in your topic. Just so you know.

But some people use R2 to. Very similar to M2. And they can get +2. However I think that +2 should be in blind.
See here: http://youtu.be/oU2tKYvDH2g?t=4m24s

So many people thought he didn't get the last one. And I did for a long time to.

One more thing: I think +2 should only be applied to quarter turns (with slices!). Because then any other way it can be abused.


----------



## XTowncuber (Sep 10, 2014)

So I'm still confused. If we switched to STM, what would be our fixed reference point for determining +2's? Do we just say that if any layer is more than 45 degrees away from any other layer than it's a +2?


----------



## tx789 (Sep 11, 2014)

A problem with changing +2 rules is past results and what would happen to them.


----------



## JasonDL13 (Sep 11, 2014)

tx789 said:


> A problem with changing +2 rules is past results and what would happen to them.



It doesn't really matter. That issue could be applied to any regulation change. Just leave them.


----------



## tx789 (Sep 11, 2014)

JasonDL13 said:


> It doesn't really matter. That issue could be applied to any regulation change. Just leave them.



+2 is a big one. Removing it would mean that all +2's would now be dnf. Also removing it would result in more docs. If you were to remove inspection all speedsolving event result would have to start over since it would be a whole new event. +2's however own change the outcome of the end of solves.

My views on +2's are that since we have them we shouldn't get rid of them. Since it changes events with +2's so much.


----------



## JasonDL13 (Sep 11, 2014)

tx789 said:


> +2 is a big one. Removing it would mean that all +2's would now be dnf.



What does that have to do with anything though? We're not talking about removing +2. Were talking about adding onto it.


----------



## Dene (Sep 11, 2014)

Kirjava is right, and there is no reason to change to any other metric as far as I'm concerned.



tx789 said:


> +2 is a big one. Removing it would mean that all +2's would now be dnf. Also removing it would result in more docs. If you were to remove inspection all speedsolving event result would have to start over since it would be a whole new event. +2's however own change the outcome of the end of solves.
> 
> My views on +2's are that since we have them we shouldn't get rid of them. Since it changes events with +2's so much.



If your issue is that you regularly fail to properly solve your cube when you stop the timer, perhaps you should be practising that. Changing +2 to DNF would affect only a small percentage of overall solves. And I'm willing to bet every penny I have that the amount of misalignments at the end of solves would decrease if the rule changed.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 11, 2014)

Dene said:


> Kirjava is right



***** please I'm always right


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Sep 12, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> A cube that is a U move away from solved is indeed not solved in the eyes of a non-cuber, but I can explain to him that this might be because of drop-impact so we give a +2 penalty. I cannot explain to him dat an M2 or LR away from solved is not always the fault of the cuber.


According to that logic, +2 should only apply to quarter turns. U2 cannot happen from drop impact.

I think +2 was created for more than just drop impact. It also is for AUF mistakes. If you're trying to predict an AUF, it's very easy to tell when the AUF is either U2 or nothing, or when it's U or U', but it can be hard to tell which for some PLLs. That causes cubes to be off by U2; doing things like predicting a U' AUF when it actually was U.

In Roux, a similar mistake (being off by an M move) is a DNF. It's the exact same mistake; AUF versus AMS. The only thing that's different is the solving order. CFOP users finish with U layer permutation. Roux users finish with M layer permutation. Equivalent mistakes (a U move off versus an M move off) aren't treated equally. Another argument in favor of allowing M moves to be +2 instead of DNF is that the regs have a method bias otherwise.


----------



## Dene (Sep 12, 2014)

You should join me in my fight for removing +2s!


----------



## tseitsei (Sep 12, 2014)

Dene said:


> You should join me in my fight for removing +2s!



I support this idea of removing +2 completely


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 12, 2014)

Dene said:


> You should join me in my fight for removing +2s!



I don't care about either of these issues very much.

I wouldn't worry about fighting for +2 removal though, from what I've heard they want to roll it out eventually.


----------



## Dene (Sep 12, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> I don't care about either of these issues very much.
> 
> I wouldn't worry about fighting for +2 removal though, from what I've heard they want to roll it out eventually.



Actually my comment was directed at the guy directly above me (didn't want to quote such a big chunk of text). But it wouldn't hurt if you joint my crusade either


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 12, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> I don't care about either of these issues very much.
> 
> I wouldn't worry about fighting for +2 removal though, from what I've heard they want to roll it out eventually.



I think that is on the same list as reducing/removing the inspection time. VERY heavily debated so no movement for years already


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 12, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> I think that is on the same list as reducing/removing the inspection time. VERY heavily debated so no movement for years already



Oh, that's interesting. I thought people were pushing +2 removal much harder than that.

Wanting to remove inspection time is laughable.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 14, 2014)

I dove into the old yahoo archives and it seems that this has always been a discussion point and causing confusion (source: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/speedsolvingrubikscube/conversations/messages/38848)

My idea is that it just grew historically. There was HTM for scrambling and FMC. There was "<= 45 degrees misalignment is okay". And those two were combined into ">= 45 degrees but still within 1 HTM turn is +2"

(and wanting to remove inspection time has been debated for years. It is quite ridiculous to have more inspection time than time to use for that solve)


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 14, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> It is quite ridiculous to have more inspection time than time to use for that solve)



Why.


----------



## yoinneroid (Sep 14, 2014)

While I'm not sure about the amount of time for inspection, removing inspection entirely will just increase the luck factor.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 14, 2014)

3x3x3 without inspection is a different event. It's like HTM FMC vs ATM FMC.


----------



## stoic (Sep 14, 2014)

I've always been surprised that No Inspection 3x3 as a side event isn't more common. There isn't even a UWR listed on the wiki, for example. 
I've seen Tony Snyder making a case for it - as well as a longer inspection variant - here but 15s seems to be so widely accepted by the community at this point nobody practises anything else. A quick search revealed an old (2010) poll with a 95% preference for the status quo when a choice was given to reduce it - but not much else. 
Just an observation really - Sorry if I'm dragging the thread further off topic.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 14, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> Why.


Because it is called speedsolving, not "inspection".

Personal opinion: I like having 15 second inspection but would be okay with 5.
I don't like +2, that only encourages bad solving but as long as we have it we should have it for all events (I am looking at you Clock)
I like HTM for everything


----------



## GuRoux (Sep 14, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> Because it is called speedsolving, not "inspection".
> 
> Personal opinion: I like having 15 second inspection but would be okay with 5.
> I don't like +2, that only encourages bad solving but as long as we have it we should have it for all events (I am looking at you Clock)
> I like HTM for everything



maybe you are right, but if there is not inspection methods like roux and especially like zz would become clearly inferior. Getting rid of inspection would be disliked by most of the "speedcubers" or perhaps a better name: "inspectioncubers"


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 14, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> Because it is called speedsolving, not "inspection".



Someone looking at a puzzle before timing themselves solving it is well within their right to call it speedsolving and not be incorrect. Is this really the best reason you have? Give me something with substance.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 15, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> Someone looking at a puzzle before timing themselves solving it is well within their right to call it speedsolving and not be incorrect. Is this really the best reason you have? Give me something with substance.


There is enough substance there. If you get 15 seconds inspection for doing a 2 seconds solve that is out of proportion. And if you can only do that 2 second solve because you got so much inspection than it is indeed not speedsolving but "inspectionsolving".
A 2x2x2 solve and a 7x7x7 solve have the same amount of inspection, but the effect on the total solve is extremely different. If you remove inspection from both events both solving times would go up, but not in the same amount. The 15 seconds inspection time is quite random. Why not 5? Why not 1 minute? Why not different per event?


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 15, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> There is enough substance there. If you get 15 seconds inspection for doing a 2 seconds solve that is out of proportion. And if you can only do that 2 second solve because you got so much inspection than it is indeed not speedsolving but "inspectionsolving".



That's really just your opinion on terminology. Feel free to not consider the competitions we go to to be speedsolving competitions, but I don't feel the need to do the same.



AvGalen said:


> A 2x2x2 solve and a 7x7x7 solve have the same amount of inspection, but the effect on the total solve is extremely different. If you remove inspection from both events both solving times would go up, but not in the same amount. The 15 seconds inspection time is quite random. Why not 5? Why not 1 minute? Why not different per event?



We use a 15 second inspection for the same reason we use HTM.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 15, 2014)

"Solving" is both the physical twisting part as well as the mental part. If pretty much the entire latter part is left out of the measurement of the speed, it's not really speedsolving anymore but rather just speedtwisting.

It's not about the words, though, and I don't think it's about that for Arnaud, either. It's about the issues underlying the words. I feel inspection is an unnatural inappropriate idea, ideally we should just get a little time to get the puzzle properly into our hands so that timing doesn't start too early, and any kind of our solving activity starts and starts getting measured right away. Then again, it is what it is, we do what we do, and I don't want to change it.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 15, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> That's really just your opinion on terminology. Feel free to not consider the competitions we go to to be speedsolving competitions, but I don't feel the need to do the same.
> 
> 
> 
> We use a 15 second inspection for the same reason we use HTM.


If you think that reason is "in the beginning we had to pick something and we stuck with it and applied it to everything else" I agree with you.
But I think HTM was chosen because it felt most natural in relationship with the way most people think about the cube
15 seconds seems to be based on how much time people would need to see a good cross (or 2x2x2block or first corners) at that time.
HTM seems to have withstood the test of time better than 15 seconds inspection given that most people don't think fundamentally different about the cube but inspect and solve much faster. As a result people can now 1-look a 2x2x2 and see deep into the 3x3x3 solve. This gives them a big advantage in the twisting-stage that is not measured (great description Stefan)



Stefan said:


> "Solving" is both the physical twisting part as well as the mental part. If pretty much the entire latter part is left out of the measurement of the speed, it's not really speedsolving anymore but rather just speedtwisting.
> 
> It's not about the words, though, and I don't think it's about that for Arnaud, either. It's about the issues underlying the words. I feel inspection is an unnatural inappropriate idea, ideally we should just get a little time to get the puzzle properly into our hands so that timing doesn't start too early, and any kind of our solving activity starts and starts getting measured right away. Then again, it is what it is, we do what we do, and I don't want to change it.


I also don't want to change this, and most other regulations. We already have too many and it has gotten so complicated that we sometimes need translation from "legalise" to human. Some changes from the past have made speedsolving genuinely better but others are a pain in the behind
"just a little bit of time to get the puzzle...." How about the (wild) idea of doing 5 or even 12 solves in a row that I mentioned earlier today?


----------



## GuRoux (Sep 15, 2014)

AvGalen said:


> If you think that reason is "in the beginning we had to pick something and we stuck with it and applied it to everything else" I agree with you.
> But I think HTM was chosen because it felt most natural in relationship with the way most people think about the cube
> 15 seconds seems to be based on how much time people would need to see a good cross (or 2x2x2block or first corners) at that time.
> HTM seems to have withstood the test of time better than 15 seconds inspection given that most people don't think fundamentally different about the cube but inspect and solve much faster. As a result people can now 1-look a 2x2x2 and see deep into the 3x3x3 solve. This gives them a big advantage in the twisting-stage that is not measured (great description Stefan)
> ...



yeah, maybe there can be another event that's with not inspection or "real man" solving oneday.


----------



## SMB3511H (Nov 17, 2014)

Technically M, E and S moves are not "actual" moves imo. they consist of 2 face turns, strictly speaking.


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 17, 2014)

SMB3511H said:


> Technically M, E and S moves are not "actual" moves imo. they consist of 2 face turns, strictly speaking.



Yes this is what the whole thread is about. Please read properly before posting

Also, hi you're from Singapore.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2014)

SMB3511H said:


> Technically M, E and S moves are not "actual" moves imo. they consist of 2 face turns, strictly speaking.



Your second sentence needs an "imo" as well.

And I guess 2 is not a number, because it's 1+1.


----------



## TMOY (Nov 17, 2014)

SMB3511H said:


> Technically M, E and S moves are not "actual" moves imo. they consist of 2 face turns, strictly speaking.



Technically your message is not an "actual" message, it consists of a 2-month bump with a totally useless comment, strictly speaking.

I agree with guysensei1: please read the thread before posting.


----------



## BillyRain (Nov 17, 2014)

I don't support the +2 rule at all anyway as the aim of a solve is to bring the puzzle to it's solved state. If it ain't in the 1/43q solved state then it isn't solved and you have failed the task (imo).

I don't think being an M or M2 off is any different from an R or R2. But i stand by the fact that the puzzle is not solved and therefore there should be no margin for this at all (imo).


----------



## CiaranBeahan (Nov 17, 2014)

BillyRain said:


> I don't think being an M or M2 off is any different from an R or R2.



That's what I think, it's still technically one move away and a one or two moves away is a +2 so why aren't M moves plus 2's?


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 18, 2014)

CiaranBeahan said:


> That's what I think, it's still technically one move away and a one or two moves away is a +2 so why aren't M moves plus 2's?



It's two moves away, and two moves away is a DNF.


----------



## JasonDL13 (Nov 18, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> It's two moves away, and two moves away is a DNF.



The entire point of the thread is to tell people M is two moves in HTM. It's only one in STM. So let's change to STM. I've +2'd at home lots of times in slices.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 18, 2014)

JasonDL13 said:


> The entire point of the thread is to tell people M is two moves in HTM. It's only one in STM. So let's change to STM. I've +2'd at home lots of times in slices.



I don't see why we should change to STM just becuase you want us to.


----------



## JasonDL13 (Nov 18, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> I don't see why we should change to STM just becuase you want us to.



It's not just me. Other people want it to.


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 18, 2014)

JasonDL13 said:


> It's not just me. Other people want it to.



Start a poll and gather statistics then.


----------



## JasonDL13 (Nov 18, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Start a poll and gather statistics then.



Good idea. However: Someone bumped this thread so now it's probably not a good time.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 18, 2014)

JasonDL13 said:


> Someone bumped this thread so now it's probably not a good time.



Why not?


----------



## mDiPalma (Nov 18, 2014)

we really only have 2 options:

1) update regs 10e3 and 10e4 to reflect a time penalty of N^2 seconds, where N is the amount of HTM moves from the solved state

2) unilaterally convert to Snyder Metric


set up a poll for those 2 options and the status quo, and we'll see what happens.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 18, 2014)

1) Stay the same
2) Switch to STM
3) Remove +2 for unsolved cubes


----------



## BillyRain (Nov 18, 2014)

3 pleaseee.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 18, 2014)

If 3) my comp performance would probably improve. I +2 far too often and would just make sure I AUFed instead of +2ing 1/5.


----------



## kcl (Nov 18, 2014)

Removing +2 is completely unfair. I think we need to just leave the rule as it is.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 18, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Removing +2 is completely unfair. I think we need to just leave the rule as it is.



Unfair in what way?


----------



## goodatthis (Nov 18, 2014)

cube-o-holic said:


> Unfair in what way?


Two words: accident allowance.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 18, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> Two words: accident allowance.



I understand the reason it was originally implemented, what I asked was why would it be unfair to remove it.


----------



## JasonDL13 (Nov 18, 2014)

Can you edit a post and make a poll? I couldn't figure out how.

Someone tell me please, I haven't done a poll before.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Nov 18, 2014)

I'd like +2 to remain. I think there is a significant difference between being unsuccessful at solving a puzzle and being 50 degrees off with one layer. If it's removed, people will become slower because of having to check AUF more carefully. I think the penalty should reflect the magnitude of the mistake.



mDiPalma said:


> 1) update regs 10e3 and 10e4 to reflect a time penalty of N^2 seconds, where N is the amount of HTM moves from the solved state


If a cube is off by R U, it should be a DNF, not a +4 IMO. I assume you meant to only apply this idea to cubes that are off by 2 HTM and 1 STM? If so, I think that's a good solution.


----------



## Dene (Nov 19, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I'd like +2 to remain. I think there is a significant difference between being unsuccessful at solving a puzzle and being 50 degrees off with one layer. If it's removed, people will become slower because of having to check AUF more carefully. I think the penalty should reflect the magnitude of the mistake.
> 
> 
> If a cube is off by R U, it should be a DNF, not a +4 IMO. I assume you meant to only apply this idea to cubes that are off by 2 HTM and 1 STM? If so, I think that's a good solution.



All the reasons why your arguments are very poor can be found in this wonderful thread.


----------

