# [WCA Regulations 2014] DNF for 1/2 multi BLD



## Lucas Garron (Dec 10, 2013)

According to Delegate consensus, the WRC is planning to change multi BLD score calculation such that 1/2 will be considered DNF.

Scores of 0 with at least two solved cubes will remain the same, and past results will remain valid. The exact planned change is here.

This is intended to discourage competitors from entering multi BLD if they do not actually intend (or expect) to solve *multiple* cubes.
For example, it prevents a competitor from attempting only 1 of 2 cubes in order to try to get podium for multi BLD (in the hopes that enough "serious" competitors DNF) -- which has the potential to waste valuable competition time.

This choice will probably not change, but I'm making this post in case anyone would like input before it is added to the changes for 2014.


----------



## Goosly (Dec 10, 2013)

I don't see how it would waste competition time, since the limit when attempting 2 cubes is only 20 minutes (assuming all competitors start at the same time, which was always the case when I competed in multi).

Probably not a bad change though.


----------



## cubizh (Dec 10, 2013)

If it has retroactive effects, I can understand and fully agree with this decision. If not, it's going to be and feel really weird.


----------



## BillyRain (Dec 10, 2013)

Thank you! Been waiting for this for a long time. If you did not solve MULTIPLE cubes, it should not be possible for you to podium the event. Simples.

100% Agreed


----------



## qqwref (Dec 10, 2013)

Are there really so many people doing 2 cubes and deliberately not solving one of them? What about all the people who legitimately want to try 2 cubes and don't have the skill to get them both? They just can't do the event now unless they get both cubes?


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Dec 10, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Are there really so many people doing 2 cubes and deliberately not solving one of them? What about all the people who legitimately want to try 2 cubes and don't have the skill to get them both? They just can't do the event now unless they get both cubes?



If they are capable of doing 2 cubes they can try 2 cubes, but like all BLD events they might get a DNF. I don't see how this is a problem.

I had never considered this issue before, but now that it's been brought to my attention it think the change makes sense.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 10, 2013)

My point is just that it will have a bigger effect of pushing the least skillful people out of the event than of actually preventing "cheating" / saving time. It's kind of arbitrary anyway - I would prefer to simply choose that 0 points is always DNF.


----------



## DrKorbin (Dec 10, 2013)

qqwref said:


> My point is just that it will have a bigger effect of pushing the least skillful people out of the event than of actually preventing "cheating" / saving time.


Example: I'm the least skillful person in 7x7, and 10 minutes limit pushes me away. But if an organizer will do 15 minutes limit, 7x7 event will consume much more time.


----------



## EMI (Dec 10, 2013)

Good choice. Also, I hate having 1/2 as my official PB although I have already achieved 3/6 (still noob I know^^). Maybe there should be a rule that if the achieved points of two results are the same, the number of solved cubes decides which attempt is better, instead of time. This might have been suggested before, I don't know.


----------



## Bunyanderman (Dec 10, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Are there really so many people doing 2 cubes and deliberately not solving one of them? What about all the people who legitimately want to try 2 cubes and don't have the skill to get them both? They just can't do the event now unless they get both cubes?


I agree with you, why don't you exclude 1/2 from any podium but still count as 0 points.?


----------



## qqwref (Dec 10, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> Example: I'm the least skillful person in 7x7, and 10 minutes limit pushes me away. But if an organizer will do 15 minutes limit, 7x7 event will consume much more time.


A lot of people get 1/2, though. This would be more like setting a 2 minute time limit on 3x3x3.


----------



## porkynator (Dec 10, 2013)

I personally don't care about this, but I think there are many reasons against this decision:
-Will this really save time? It depends on the competition, but I don't think it's worth the change.
-I'd rather see a 1/2 getting 3rd in a comp than a 2 people podium. It happens quite often (judging by the few competitions I went to) to have a 0-points result getting 3rd.
-I've never seen people trying only one cube to get 1/2 multi as a problem; possible comparison: someone who knows he is very slow at, let's say, rubik's clock (or he doesn't even know how to solve it) but wants to have an official result in his wca profile, so he solves it once and DNS all other four solves. Should we prevent him from doing this? (I know the metaphor is not flawless).
-As qqwref already said, there are people 'honestly' getting 1/2, giving them DNF might seem unfair in some ways, since it has always been a valid result.

I know some if the reasons listed above (maybe all of them) are weak, but I think they should be considered. All in all, I don't see any really good reason in favour of modifying the rule either (but give some real data about how much time is wasted at competitions because of people trying to get 1/2 on purpose and I will change my mind).


----------



## ryanj92 (Dec 10, 2013)

I think we should just be done with it and say that 0 points in general is DNF. Just means you have to solve -at least- half your cubes correctly, which doesn't seem like too harsh a condition to get a result 

If we're going to be 'harsh' on one group of people, I don't see why this can't be expanded out (2/4,3/6, etc. , results that not only get you 0 points already but generally are already ranked lower than 1/2 scores)


----------



## Stefan (Dec 10, 2013)

porkynator said:


> getting 1/2, giving them DNF might seem unfair



Getting 1/2, you literally *did not finish* multiple cubes.

You're focusing too much on the _"saving time"_ aspect. The main issue is that it's simply _wrong_ to declare a single solved cube a multi success.



ryanj92 said:


> If we're going to be 'harsh' on one group of people, I don't see why this can't be expanded out (2/4,3/6, etc. , results that not only get you 0 points already but generally are already ranked lower than 1/2 scores)



These cases are entirely different, as multiple cubes were solved.


----------



## ryanj92 (Dec 10, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Getting 1/2, you literally *did not finish* multiple cubes.
> 
> You're focusing too much on the _"saving time"_ aspect. The main issue is that it's simply _wrong_ to declare a single solved cube a multi success.
> 
> These cases are entirely different, as multiple cubes were solved.



Yeah, obviously, and 1/2 'successes' have irked me for a long time, but the way multiBLD is scored at the moment pays no consideration to the absolute number of cubes that are solved...

As an aside, why can't we make 3 the minmum number of cube you can attempt? That way, no exceptions are required, as 2/3 is already a valid result.


----------



## porkynator (Dec 10, 2013)

Stefan said:


> You're focusing too much on the _"saving time"_ aspect. The main issue is that it's simply _wrong_ to declare a single solved cube a multi success.



Probably I don't consider it "wrong" because, for me, the definition of "multiple blindfolded" comes directly from the WCA regulations. Changing the regulations isn't something I would do if not strictly necessary or if it weren't the easiest way to solve a problem; a _real_ problem, not philosophical one.
One rule I apply to many things is "if it works, don't change it". (For example, I don't update my operating system if not for security patches/bugfixes).


----------



## Stefan (Dec 10, 2013)

porkynator said:


> a _real_ problem, not philosophical one.



People disliking it is a real problem.


----------



## Renslay (Dec 10, 2013)

ryanj92 said:


> As an aside, why can't we make 3 the minmum number of cube you can attempt? That way, no exceptions are required, as 2/3 is already a valid result.



So, 2/2 is not a successed multiple bld then? That would be the real discouraging for begginners to try multi BLD!


----------



## MatejMuzatko (Dec 10, 2013)

Finally! :-D


----------



## ryanj92 (Dec 10, 2013)

Renslay said:


> So, 2/2 is not a successed multiple bld then? That would be the real discouraging for begginners to try multi BLD!



I don't see this as particularly radical, when hard and soft cutoffs are regularly used in other events already? I don't see it as discouraging, as someone who does not practise mbld and have only done 2 cube attempts for the fun, I think it would encourage more people to -actually- practice an event that they want to compete in.


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Dec 10, 2013)

BillyRain said:


> Thank you! Been waiting for this for a long time. If you did not solve MULTIPLE cubes, it should not be possible for you to podium the event. Simples.
> 
> 100% Agreed



I agree with this BUT let the competitor then atleast finish even if it is 1/2 and give them their solve but then just
No podium how about that?


----------



## LVP (Dec 10, 2013)

Antonie faz fan said:


> I agree with this BUT let the competitor then atleast finish even if it is 1/2 and give them their solve but then just
> No podium how about that?



The main point is that 1/2 means that you solved just one cube. One. The event is called multiblind, so the logical consequence would be to DNF the result.


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Dec 10, 2013)

LVP said:


> The main point is that 1/2 means that you solved just one cube. One. The event is called multiblind, so the logical consequence would be to DNF the result.



Like other people say someone atleast try's it is not like u are doing 1/1 just give them there solve and no podium that is the dam simple thing to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## uberCuber (Dec 10, 2013)

Antonie faz fan said:


> Like other people say someone atleast try's



You can try 3x3 blind, and if you don't solve a 3x3, you get a DNF.
You can try multiple blind, and if you don't solve multiple 3x3's, you get a DNF.

Just because someone "try's" does not mean they necessarily get a non-DNF result.


----------



## Bhargav777 (Dec 10, 2013)

Pochmann 's point is very valid. Unless 2 cubes are solved, that doesn't make it a multi attempt. I support this idea for sure.


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Dec 10, 2013)

So this means al 1/2 solves already in wca are going to get DNF? again where is the facepalm smiley? can't seem to find it!


----------



## TMOY (Dec 10, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Are there really so many people doing 2 cubes and deliberately not solving one of them? What about all the people who legitimately want to try 2 cubes and don't have the skill to get them both? They just can't do the event now unless they get both cubes?



So what ? Just practice. People who waht to do big blinds need to have the skill to solve a big cube blindfolded if they want to get a non-DNF result, you can't get a podium with only a half-solved big cube. And a 2/2 multi is definitely not harder than a 4BLD.


----------



## EMI (Dec 10, 2013)

Antonie faz fan said:


> So this means al 1/2 solves already in wca are going to get DNF? again where is the facepalm smiley? can't seem to find it!



They aren't, just read the first post. And stop making stupid comments please.


----------



## TDM (Dec 10, 2013)

Antonie faz fan said:


> So this means al 1/2 solves already in wca are going to get DNF? again where is the facepalm smiley? can't seem to find it!


Can't see why you would need to use it, but if you want to know it was removed a while ago.
Please actually read the OP before posting, and if you're going to reply to a comment, then don't reply with just "How do you do a facepalm smiley?"; at least try to say something constructive. Questions like that should go in the OAQT.


----------



## Coolster01 (Dec 10, 2013)

I was thinking about this about a week ago, but didn't post it because I thought I'd get hate 

Totally agree. Its not MULTI blind if 1 cube is solved. If you want to do 2 cubes, thats too bad for you that 1 cube off is a DNF; it's not the WCA's fault that you can't do sup-2 cube MBLDs.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Dec 10, 2013)

As someone who likes multi-bld, but considers himself awful, I would be discouraged to see this change. I constantly get 1/2 or 1/3s weekly. If the only logical reason for this change is to prevent people who have 0 points be podium placers(which can be fixed by saying you need a positive score to place podium), then personally I don't believe that this change should take place.
As well, Cubing is and should be considered a hobby. I believe it is not right to just signify these as DNFs even though they did complete more than 0/x Multi BLD


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 10, 2013)

Jaysammey777 said:


> As someone who likes multi-bld, but considers himself awful, I would be discouraged to see this change. I constantly get 1/2 or 1/3s weekly. If the only logical reason for this change is to prevent people who have 0 points be podium placers(which can be fixed by saying you need a positive score to place podium), then personally I don't believe that this change should take place.


Although podium may be a motivation for a competitor to do this, the real concern is that they are taking time from the competition. As long as they can still get a valid result, there is some motivation.

In addition, adding a special rule to prevent certain results from being "podium" is not really justified. Organizers already have discretion about the awards. The WCA doesn't even recognize podiums, opting instead to list the top 3.



Jaysammey777 said:


> As well, Cubing is and should be considered a hobby. I believe it is not right to just signify these as DNFs even though they did complete more than 0/x Multi BLD



In the end, it comes down to an opinion of what "multi" really means. Most serious multi BLD cubers can solve way more than 2, and that regular BLD is available for anyone who wants a blind success. Given that Delegate consensus (based on competition experience) was significant, I think it is reasonable to assert that "if you want to do multi, do multi".
It isn't infringing on anyone's hobby.


----------



## cubernya (Dec 10, 2013)

Although I agree with this, I would also like to bring up a point brought up earlier: why is a 2/4 10:00 ranked higher than a 3/6 11:00, when the 3/6 is definitely better. Also, same scenario with 3/6 10:00 and it is a tie? How does that make sense?


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 10, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> Although I agree with this, I would also like to bring up a point brought up earlier: why is a 2/4 10:00 ranked higher than a 3/6 11:00, when the 3/6 is definitely better. Also, same scenario with 3/6 10:00 and it is a tie? How does that make sense?



3/6 might require more BLD skill than 2/4, but it is a worse result because it is a worse attempt.


----------



## cubizh (Dec 10, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> Although I agree with this, I would also like to bring up a point brought up earlier: why is a 2/4 10:00 ranked higher than a 3/6 11:00, when the 3/6 is definitely better. Also, same scenario with 3/6 10:00 and it is a tie? How does that make sense?


9f12c) For Multiple Blindfolded Solving, rankings are assessed based on number of puzzles solved minus the number of puzzles not solved, where a greater difference is better. If the difference is less than 0, the attempt is considered unsolved (DNF). If competitors achieve the same result, rankings are assessed based on total time, where the shorter recorded time is better. If competitors achieve the same result and the same time, rankings are assessed based on the number of puzzles the competitors failed to solve, where fewer unsolved puzzles is better.


----------



## cubernya (Dec 10, 2013)

cubizh said:


> 9f12c) For Multiple Blindfolded Solving, rankings are assessed based on number of puzzles solved minus the number of puzzles not solved, where a greater difference is better. If the difference is less than 0, the attempt is considered unsolved (DNF). If competitors achieve the same result, rankings are assessed based on total time, where the shorter recorded time is better. If competitors achieve the same result and the same time, rankings are assessed based on the number of puzzles the competitors failed to solve, where fewer unsolved puzzles is better.



That would put a 2/4 10:00 over 3/6 10:00, which I still think is wrong. I think the number of puzzles solved should be first, then time (as tiebreakers)


----------



## qqwref (Dec 10, 2013)

Lucas Garron said:


> Although podium may be a motivation for a competitor to do this, the real concern is that they are taking time from the competition.


Sure, people who do a single 1/2 multi waste the competition's time... so do people who do an average of 5 in 3x3x3 and average 3+ minutes. Should we put a low cutoff in the regulations for the whole world, to prevent such people from taking time from the competition? My point is that in all speed events we currently let the organizer decide whether they want to let less skilled people take time from the competition, using combined finals and cutoffs. Let's instead do this for multi too - if organizers are really concerned about less-skilled people doing the event, they can require e.g. all competitors must try at least 5 cubes.



Lucas Garron said:


> In the end, it comes down to an opinion of what "multi" really means.


In the end, it comes down to an opinion of what "speed" really means. Most serious cubers can solve a 3x3x3 way faster than 3 minutes - surely a 3 minute solve is not a speedsolve!

But really, I think as long as you try at least 2 cubes, you are doing multi. Allowing someone to DNF a cube is just a bit of leeway to let more people get non-DNF results. Why should the leeway only exist for the people with *more* skill?


----------



## CyanSandwich (Dec 10, 2013)

The title slightly worried me considering I recently got an official 3/6 (the only official NZ mbld)


----------



## uberCuber (Dec 10, 2013)

qqwref said:


> But really, I think as long as you try at least 2 cubes, you are doing multi.



Sure, and trying a 4x4 means you are doing 4BLD. Doesn't mean you'll succeed.



> Why should the leeway only exist for the people with *more* skill?



Because those people actually solved _multiple_ cubes in their _MULTI_ BLD attempt.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 10, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Are there really so many people doing 2 cubes and deliberately not solving one of them? What about all the people who legitimately want to try 2 cubes and don't have the skill to get them both? They just can't do the event now unless they get both cubes?



I've seen it at Melbourne competitions a few times. I dislike it, but I generally attempt 2 cubes and I've had a few close ones. This regulation will probably make me go for 3/3 instead of 2/2. I always seem to make a couple of small mistakes so it would suck to get 1/2 -> DNF.

So personally, I dislike intentional 1/2s, but I dislike how this rule will affect unintentional 1/2s.



qqwref said:


> Let's instead do this for multi too - if organizers are really concerned about less-skilled people doing the event, they can require e.g. all competitors must try at least 5 cubes.
> 
> But really, I think as long as you try at least 2 cubes, you are doing multi. Allowing someone to DNF a cube is just a bit of leeway to let more people get non-DNF results. Why should the leeway only exist for the people with *more* skill?



This sums up my thoughts and I agree with this proposed solution.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 11, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Sure, people who do a single 1/2 multi waste the competition's time... so do people who do an average of 5 in 3x3x3 and average 3+ minutes. Should we put a low cutoff in the regulations for the whole world, to prevent such people from taking time from the competition?





qqwref said:


> But really, I think as long as you try at least 2 cubes, you are doing multi. Allowing someone to DNF a cube is just a bit of leeway to let more people get non-DNF results. Why should the leeway only exist for the people with *more* skill?



Because people who are averaging 3+ in 3x3x3 are probably not doing anything else, so we want to encourage them (WCA mission). Someone who is doing 2 cubes for multi is basically just trying stuff because they can. They are probably doing quite a few other events, so this would not be taking anything significant away from them.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Dec 11, 2013)

Lucas Garron said:


> Because people who are averaging 3+ in 3x3x3 are probably not doing anything else, so we want to encourage them (WCA mission). Someone who is doing 2 cubes for multi is basically just trying stuff because they can. They are probably doing quite a few other events, so this would not be taking anything significant away from them.



I disagree. I actually practice multi bld and am still terrible at it. And I would say that this change would "take away from me"


----------



## uvafan (Dec 11, 2013)

Jaysammey777 said:


> I disagree. I actually practice multi bld and am still terrible at it. And I would say that this change would "take away from me"



Dude, I'm sorry if you can't get a 2/2 in competition. But there's a basic argument here - if you don't solve multiple cubes blindfolded, then it's not a successful Multiple Blindfold solve. Whether or not people who this regulation affects actually practice MBLD is irrelevant at the fundamental level.


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 11, 2013)

What I like about this: It makes a clear distinction between 3BLD and MBLD. This event should be about solving multiple cubes blindfolded, and this update removes the only non-DNF result for 1 cube only.

What I don't like: Inconsistency in results. If we are to make 1/2 illegal now, I don't think it should be a valid result, even in the past. I know it's a minor change, but it's truly a new event with 1/2 not counting, and I feel like we should make all old results match up to our new standard. Otherwise, maybe there should be a distinction like we did for old MBLD results? (I think we should have done this when we started filtering scrambles for quick events too, but that's neither here nor there)

Overall: I'm for the change, but not as strongly for the change if we keep the results as-is.


----------



## uberCuber (Dec 11, 2013)

Jaysammey777 said:


> I disagree. I actually practice multi bld and am still terrible at it. And I would say that this change would "take away from me"



I don't mean to be rude, but if you actually practice multibld and can't attempt 3 cubes in half an hour, you need to seriously think about improving your memory method.


----------



## Sebastien (Dec 11, 2013)

Kit Clement said:


> What I like about this: It makes a clear distinction between 3BLD and MBLD. This event should be about solving multiple cubes blindfolded, and this update removes the only non-DNF result for 1 cube only.



This. 1/2 creates the weird corner case that getting a valid result for MBF can be easier than getting a result for 3BLD. That doesn't seem to be desirable to me.


----------



## szalejot (Dec 11, 2013)

In my opinion every MBLD solve which is not n/n (for example 1/2, 5/7, 10/13) should be DNF.
You can solve certain number of cubes blindfolded or you can not. Without middle states.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Dec 11, 2013)

szalejot said:


> In my opinion every MBLD solve which is not n/n (for example 1/2, 5/7, 10/13) should be DNF.
> You can solve certain number of cubes blindfolded or you can not. Without middle states.


That's way too harsh. 49/50 is obviously more worthy of recognition than 2/2. The points system should be enough. 4/7 is already ranked lower than 2/2


----------



## ~Adam~ (Dec 11, 2013)

I am happy with the decision to make 1/2 DNF but I think it should go one step further and make 0 points a DNF.
Just my opinion.


----------



## Pedro (Dec 11, 2013)

I also agree that 0 points should be DNF too, but making 1/2 = DNF is fine for me, at least for now.

I've seen many people memorise just one cube of the 2, and that's not the intent of the event.



qqwref said:


> Sure, people who do a single 1/2 multi waste the competition's time... so do people who do an average of 5 in 3x3x3 and average 3+ minutes. Should we put a low cutoff in the regulations for the whole world, to prevent such people from taking time from the competition? My point is that in all speed events we currently let the organizer decide whether they want to let less skilled people take time from the competition, using combined finals and cutoffs. Let's instead do this for multi too - if organizers are really concerned about less-skilled people doing the event, they can require e.g. all competitors must try at least 5 cubes.



Right, great idea...so now everybody would take up to 50 minutes instead of less time...

The main point here is not the time, but the possibility of cheating the event (for whatever reason).


----------



## bryson azzopard (Dec 11, 2013)

alright I love blindfold and I see this at comps all the time and I was thinking about posting about this people I know how many people would be for and against this topic so I didn't worry about it. I 100% agree with this I think its stupid to get 1/2 worth 0 points and get podium (maybe) in "multiple" event so if the rule stays it won't bug me at all but I would be more happy so see it get removed then though I only like 3BLD and 4BLD mainly, I think it will be a good foot forward to improving multi-blind in my opinion


----------



## qqwref (Dec 12, 2013)

Pedro said:


> Right, great idea...so now everybody would take up to 50 minutes instead of less time...


You could do this already. Nothing's stopping any random cuber from deciding to try 6 cubes, sitting there for an hour staring at them, and then DNFing. The idea is that if people think there's no chance of them getting a non-DNF result they will generally not bother (and the same logic works with hard cutoffs).


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 12, 2013)

qqwref said:


> You could do this already. Nothing's stopping any random cuber from deciding to try 6 cubes, sitting there for an hour staring at them, and then DNFing.



A1c:


> A1c) A competitor participating in an event must be able to fulfill the event's requirements (e.g. know how to solve the puzzle). A competitor competing with expectation of a DNF result may be disqualified from the event, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 20, 2013)

Lucas Garron said:


> A1c) A competitor participating in an event must be able to fulfill the event's requirements (e.g. know how to solve the puzzle). A competitor competing with expectation of a DNF result may be disqualified from the event, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.


Sorry, I missed this when it was first posted. What's stopping us from doing something like this for multiBLD? We could add a note that a competitor participating in multiBLD must compete with the expectation of solving at least one cube, and that if they do not they may be disqualified from the event at the discretion of the WCA delegate. Simple, easy, gets rid of people who take advantage of 1/2 not being DNF.


----------



## DrKorbin (Dec 22, 2013)

qqwref said:


> expectation of solving at least one cube ... Simple, easy, gets rid of people who take advantage of 1/2 not being DNF.



:-/
1/2 is solving at least one cube. Or did you mean 1 point?
Besides, how can you know before event starts that this guy will race for 1/2?


----------



## ThomasJE (Dec 22, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> *1/2 is solving at least one cube.* Or did you mean 1 point?



And one cube is not Multi-BLD. You did not solve multiple cubes.



DrKorbin said:


> Besides, how can you know before event starts that this guy will race for 1/2?



You don't. But 1/2 would be DNF, and 2/2 would be 2 points.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 26, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> :-/
> 1/2 is solving at least one cube. Or did you mean 1 point?
> Besides, how can you know before event starts that this guy will race for 1/2?


Sorry, that should be "expectation of solving more than one cube". And just like if someone gets DNF on purpose, you would only know after. The judge could report something like a very fast 1/2 where the competitor did not memo (or did not exec) the second cube, and the delegate could disqualify that person if they want. But if someone really tries and gets 1/2, I don't see why they should get a DNF when a 2/4 or 3/6 doesn't get DNFed.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 26, 2013)

qqwref said:


> if someone really tries and gets 1/2, *I don't see why* they should get a DNF when a 2/4 or 3/6 doesn't get DNFed.



Because they literally *d*id *n*ot *f*inish multiple cubes while the 2/4 or 3/6 did.


----------



## TDM (Dec 26, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Because they literally *d*id *n*ot *f*inish multiple cubes while the 2/4 or 3/6 did.


This. I disagreed with the idea of this at first, but eventually, I realised that you shouldn't think of it as DNF for 1/2: think of it as DNF for not solving more than 1.


----------



## Dene (Dec 26, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Because they literally *d*id *n*ot *f*inish multiple cubes while the 2/4 or 3/6 did.



Actually, someone who gets 2/4 or 3/6 etc. also did not finish multiple cubes.

I have almost been convinced that any score of 0 should also count as a DNF.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 26, 2013)

Dene said:


> Actually, someone who gets 2/4 or 3/6 etc. also did not finish multiple cubes.



I don't understand. They did finish multiple cubes. They simultaneously also failed to finish multiple (other) cubes, but that doesn't change the fact that they did in fact finish (certain) multiple cubes.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 27, 2013)

Dene said:


> Actually, someone who gets 2/4 or 3/6 etc. also did not finish multiple cubes.



Hmm... the "not" referring to the "finish" rather than the "did"? I agree it can be read that way, but I'd say that's not the intended interpretation. Plus you'd have to call 98/100 a DNF and 1/2 a non-DNF (as they _"didn't not finish multiple"_... rather contrived). And I'm sure everybody would agree that 98/100 is better than 1/2.


----------



## Dene (Dec 27, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Hmm... the "not" referring to the "finish" rather than the "did"? I agree it can be read that way, but I'd say that's not the intended interpretation. Plus you'd have to call 98/100 a DNF and 1/2 a non-DNF (as they _"didn't not finish multiple"_... rather contrived). And I'm sure everybody would agree that 98/100 is better than 1/2.



Heh I was mostly just teasing with the ambiguity of your statement, given the emphasis you put on it


----------



## Stefan (Dec 27, 2013)

I appreciate you pointing it out, as I hate being ambiguous unintentionally


----------

