# [WRC] Removal of the +2 Rule



## Vincents (Jan 14, 2013)

The WCA is considering abolishing the so-called "+2" rule with regards to misalignment of a puzzle at the completion of an attempt. Instead, positions where a 2 second penalty would have been applied would now be a DNF.

This is one area for the community to provide feedback. Different reasoning has been offered, and I can provide some that we are debating. I'd like to see what you all have to say first.


----------



## Bhargav777 (Jan 14, 2013)

I don't think that is actually required. For the next generation of cubers, AUF would be a new term then. That would only make us lazy


----------



## rubixwiz031 (Jan 14, 2013)

Eh. I think the rule should be changed, not taken away. Different time penalties for different events.


----------



## TiLiMayor (Jan 14, 2013)

It should be preserved with stm instead of htm..

Penalty should be as a percentage to fit the puzzle it's being applied to..


----------



## Mollerz (Jan 14, 2013)

Well this is going to be interesting! *Popcorn*

I personally think it should stay, but I have no qualms if sufficient reasoning is given to remove it.


----------



## Petro Leum (Jan 14, 2013)

No it's fine as it is. Removing the entire rule would result in people just neglecting the AUF to save some time, but having a 1-layer-misalignment always being a DNF would be ridiculous. (in my eyes ofc)

currently, having a small misalignment will make your time significantly worse, so that you definately try to AUF correctly, but it wont completely waste your solve and ruin your average.

Why fix something that isnt broken?


----------



## Rubiks560 (Jan 14, 2013)

I personally think it should stay. Seems like a hassle to change it.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 14, 2013)

The biggest problem with removing that I can see is the way that a DNF hangs over an entire average, potentially destroying the result, whereas +2 is a contained event which only affects the single solve that it happens on.


----------



## CubeRoots (Jan 14, 2013)

Mollerz said:


> Well this is going to be interesting! *Popcorn*
> 
> I personally think it should stay, but I have no qualms if sufficient reasoning is given to remove it.



I would prefer to +2 than AUF with feet

may provide me with an advantage


----------



## Mollerz (Jan 14, 2013)

CubeRoots said:


> I would prefer to +2 than AUF with feet
> 
> may provide me with an advantage



If you are that slow then the advantage you would gain would be a single rank (If any rank at all) at a very low standpoint in the ranking tables anyway.


----------



## cubernya (Jan 14, 2013)

I personally think that a *quarter turn* off is acceptable, but a *half turn* off should most definitely be a DNF. There's no way you can slip on a half turn, but on a quarter turn it's possible that your hand slipped. Although I will say that on 2x2, I believe anything over a 45 should be DNF.


----------



## DrKorbin (Jan 14, 2013)

Petro Leum said:


> Why fix something that isnt broken?



This. If it works, don't fix it.


----------



## Clarkeeyyy (Jan 14, 2013)

Yea I agree, a 1 layer misalignment DNF is ridiculous. If this attitude keeps up eventually we'll have rules like: when you stop the timer, layers will have to be perfectly aligned.


----------



## Escher (Jan 14, 2013)

I think if the board wishes to take *some* action on the +2 rule, then the choices are either:

a) Remove it
b) Modify it by having different rules and penalties for each puzzle.

The latter seems too complex, so I think removing it would be better. 

That said I'm fine with keeping it as it is, I don't really see how it's that problematic, although I know some people are really big on simplicity with their rules in this community...


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 14, 2013)

First up, I don't really care either way - it isn't a major issue.

I think it helps to attempt to consider this issue without any bias. I enjoy having the +2 rule, it is useful for me - but I don't think we /should/ have it.

It shouldn't have been added in the first place. If it wasn't, no one would be calling to add it at this point.

However, over 45 being a DNF is quite harsh. Is there no middle ground we can reach?



Petro Leum said:


> Why fix something that isnt broken?



To avoid stagnation.


----------



## A Leman (Jan 14, 2013)

Sounds fair to me. Now being U' off will be the same as M' off.


----------



## moralsh (Jan 14, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> I personally think that a *quarter turn* off is acceptable, but a *half turn* off should most definitely be a DNF. There's no way you can slip on a half turn, but on a quarter turn it's possible that your hand slipped.



This, by watching videos you can tell that many +2 are not solve shortcuts but little accidents when dropping the cube, it also would be a lot easier to judge because you have the next corner to check the 90 degrees.


----------



## antoineccantin (Jan 14, 2013)

moralsh said:


> This, by watching videos you can tell that many +2 are not solve shortcuts but little accidents when dropping the cube, it also would be a lot easier to judge because you have the next corner to check the 90 degrees.



If you do U instead of U'


----------



## immortalchaos29 (Jan 14, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> Is there no middle ground we can reach?



I think the +2 rule IS the middle ground. It is still harsh enough to make a very significant difference to your average. No matter how slow you are, performing an AUF never takes longer than 2 seconds, meaning nobody can exploit the rule to their advantage. It is harsh enough to encourage cubers to practice not making this mistake when it really matters.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 14, 2013)

I think it is very important to keep the +2 rule, or something similar, because many misalignments are mistakes that cannot really be called the fault of the cuber (e.g. having a layer turn when the cube hits the table). IMO making a misalignment a DNF will just increase the luck component of performing well in competition, by making it more likely someone will accidentally lose an average. The +2 rule is roughly the amount of time it would take to react to and fix a misaligned side anyway, and is a sort of hedge to prevent luck from having too much of an effect, without making it beneficial to leave the cube misaligned.

That said, I don't go to competitions anymore, so it kind of doesn't matter to me. I will continue using +2s unofficially regardless of what you guys end up doing for competitions.


Edit: I'd also like to note that the whole concept of having to rapidly drop the cube on a surface and slam the hands down on the table only exists in competition and isn't a natural part of the solving process. Competition rules should acknowledge this and seek to minimize its importance in relation to the actual solve.


----------



## Erik (Jan 14, 2013)

Seriously? Again? This has been discussed several times before. I am (still) highly against removing the +2 penalty for several reasons:
- it is debatable if it is or isn't the cubers fault sometimes, like qqwref said
- the impact would be too big, one degree difference can make a mean go DNF. The impact on an average of 5 is huge already, the punishment is hard enough.
- unfair for previous results
- the rule has been around for so long already, I really can't think of any valid reason to get rid of it. Every single time I explain a non-cuber that 1 turn away or better said just-a-bit-too-far is a +2 penalty they react positive and think it's a good rule. Non-cubers can see the cube is almost solved too.
- the +2 rule is a result of the system we use to time a solve. Most +2's happen because there is a small error in the stopping-of-the-timer process. This process is NOT a part of solving a Rubik's Cube. Choosing stackmats as a way to time results in these errors, not because people cannot solve a Rubik's Cube.

Half a turn away (U2) I would agree with though, for me it's about the small line between 2 quarter turns, not a U2.


----------



## Akash Rupela (Jan 14, 2013)

For someone like me who likes his puzzles loses, I have encountered +2s when i threw the puzzle and stopped the timer. Something like that going DNF would hurt. I would repeat what others said, no point fixing whats not broken. 
Though I agree we can have different penalties for quarter turns opposed to half turns. 
I dont think we have the technology, otherwise we could have made up the penalty a linear function of the exact angular deviation from solved state

But removing a penalty is a MUST NO,not a good sign
Edit-Everything that Erik Said


----------



## omer (Jan 14, 2013)

How about having the judge decide whether the misalignment was caused as a result of throwing the puzzle, or it was just a misalignment because the solver was too lazy to finish / got confused and thought it was solved? There's kind of a blurry line between these two but I'm just saying that as an option, maybe someone can improve it.


----------



## Sin-H (Jan 14, 2013)

hellno! don't give even more competences to judges! we already have a huge "poor judge" problem.


----------



## Akash Rupela (Jan 14, 2013)

omer said:


> How about having the judge decide whether the misalignment was caused as a result of throwing the puzzle, or it was just a misalignment because the solver was too lazy to finish / got confused and thought it was solved? There's kind of a blurry line between these two but I'm just saying that as an option, maybe someone can improve it.



Thats like judging magic. Cant happen


----------



## A Leman (Jan 14, 2013)

immortalchaos29 said:


> I think the +2 rule IS the middle ground. It is still harsh enough to make a very significant difference to your average. No matter how slow you are, performing an AUF never takes longer than 2 seconds, meaning *nobody can exploit the rule to their advantage.* It is harsh enough to encourage cubers to practice not making this mistake when it really matters.



What about the old, "I forgot if I did an M2" so I do an R2 and get a +2 instead of a possible DNF in BLD. That is a clear example of exploiting this rule to your advantage.


----------



## Noahaha (Jan 14, 2013)

I think anything past 90° should be a DNF.


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 14, 2013)

imo, anything past 15.0 degrees should be a DNF


----------



## Julian (Jan 14, 2013)

mDiPalma said:


> imo, anything past 15.0 degrees should be a DNF


Seems arbitrary.


----------



## cubernya (Jan 15, 2013)

A Leman said:


> What about the old, "I forgot if I did an M2" so I do an R2 and get a +2 instead of a possible DNF in BLD. That is a clear example of exploiting this rule to your advantage.



This is why there shouldn't be a +2 in any BLD events. BLD is about accuracy, so why should you be allowed to do this?


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 15, 2013)

Julian said:


> Seems arbitrary.



around as arbitrary as the penalty being 2.000 seconds.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jan 15, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> This is why there shouldn't be a +2 in any BLD events. BLD is about accuracy, so why should you be allowed to do this?



Just to voice my opinion here, my (unofficial) PB for 4BLD was at one point a +2. I was using a SS, on the last turn the outer layer jammed and bounced back to over 45 degrees (cube has since been modded and is now better behaved). I didn't realise until after the blindfold was off that it happened. Accidents can still happen in BLD too, though I admit it also gives a chance to exploit the rule.

I'd prefer the rule to stay, though the tweaks mentioned generally sounded acceptable.


----------



## Julian (Jan 15, 2013)

mDiPalma said:


> around as arbitrary as the penalty being 2.000 seconds.


True. Why add more?


----------



## qqwref (Jan 15, 2013)

I could agree with eliminating +2's for BLD, but I'd have to be convinced that accidental misalignments on otherwise correct solves are very unlikely. Has any fast BLD solver had it happen to them?


----------



## immortalchaos29 (Jan 15, 2013)

A Leman said:


> What about the old, "I forgot if I did an M2" so I do an R2 and get a +2 instead of a possible DNF in BLD. That is a clear example of exploiting this rule to your advantage.



I did not have BLD events in mind when I made my comment. Still doesn't mean you can use the rule to your advantage in regular speedsolving.


----------



## Noahaha (Jan 15, 2013)

Seems like the BLD problem would be solved with 90 degrees or more is a DNF.


----------



## immortalchaos29 (Jan 15, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> Seems like the BLD problem would be solved with 90 degrees or more is a DNF.



Good point. This would satisfy both the accuracy goal of BLD and accidents that aren't the fault of the cuber.


----------



## Ickathu (Jan 15, 2013)

I think it should be different times on different cubes.
a +2 on a 3x3 solve is much more significant than on 7x7, but not nearly as dramatic as on 2x2, as an example.


----------



## Coolster01 (Jan 15, 2013)

Mollerz said:


> If you are that slow then the advantage you would gain would be a single rank (If any rank at all) at a very low standpoint in the ranking tables anyway.





qqwref said:


> I could agree with eliminating +2's for BLD, but I'd have to be convinced that accidental misalignments on otherwise correct solves are very unlikely. Has any fast BLD solver had it happen to them?



I may not be fast, but I got one because of slamming the cube too hard. At a comp.


----------



## shelley (Jan 15, 2013)

I'm in support of eliminating +2's for BLD. Accidental misalignment is not something that happens often considering most blindfold solvers (I would think) are more careful and precise with their moves for obvious reasons. It's also much more easily abused with the M2 and R2 trick.

I've had a +2 penalty at the end of a BLD solve once, and it was a legitimate execution mistake, the kind that would have resulted in a DNF if it had happened mid-solve instead of at the end. I've never ended a solve with an accidental misalignment.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Jan 15, 2013)

Petro Leum said:


> Why fix something that isnt broken?





Kirjava said:


> To avoid stagnation.



Change for the sake of change is stupid especially if you change from something good to something worse.

Edit: About changing the rule for BLD, don't people remember the whole thing with stickerless cubes and consistency? I imagine WCA would want to be consistent with the penalty rule too.


----------



## cubeflip (Jan 15, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> The biggest problem with removing that I can see is the way that a DNF hangs over an entire average, potentially destroying the result, whereas +2 is a contained event which only affects the single solve that it happens on.



This.

I understand why the removal of the +2 is being considered, but I think it should stay.
Getting a +2 on a solve is devastating enough in a potentially good average, I would hate to suffer a DNF for such a small mistake.
The +2 rule keeps people from skipping AUF (except maybe slow feet solvers), and is still enough of a punishment to hurt-- but not destroy-- an average.


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 15, 2013)

After years of debate, I still fail to see why this topic is such a huge issue.
I think it's safe to say that a misalignment of up to 90 degrees could very plausibly be from the competitor's anticipation of stopping the timer. I mean, come on. I bet nearly everyone who speedsolves has anticipated a timer stop at some point.
However, for those cases in which a layer is misaligned over 90 degrees, I can't justify them in any way, shape, or form. A 180-degree misalignment of a layer cannot occur during the time between the letting go of the puzzle and the stopping of the timer.

Therefore,
Penalty = 0 if 0 <= |x| <= 45
Penalty = +2 if 45 < |x| <= 90
Penalty = DNF if |x| > 90



qqwref said:


> I could agree with eliminating +2's for BLD, but I'd have to be convinced that accidental misalignments on otherwise correct solves are very unlikely. Has any fast BLD solver had it happen to them?



Idk if I qualify as fast, but this sometimes happens if I do what I think is an R2 at the end of a solve but actually do an R. Feels bad, man.
But that's all controllable.
But I still think that the 90-degree misalignment issue can still arise.

EDIT: To be clear, I support the removal of the +2 rule for BLD events.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 15, 2013)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Therefore,
> Penalty = 0 if 0 <= |x| <= 45
> Penalty = +2 if 45 < |x| <= 90
> Penalty = DNF if |x| > 90


So you're saying there is a huge difference between 89 and 91 degrees? I very much disagree. I'd rather set the DNF limit at 135 - that way you "round" the position to the nearest move, and then the penalty is 0 if it's 0 QTM from solved, +2 if it's 1 QTM from solved, and DNF if it's 2+ QTM from solved.


----------



## Faz (Jan 15, 2013)

What purpose does removing the +2 rule (for speedsolves) have? 

Finishing the solve is *always* going to be a faster option, I can't really think of a situation where somebody could use this rule to their advantage. In most cases, the solver drops the cube, and it misaligns. If we were to remove the +2 rule, I think that the procedure for ending the solve would have to change to prevent DNFs which aren't the solvers' fault whatsoever. Eg: finishing the solve with cube in hand, but that has many problems too. I rarely get +2s at home, but in competition I seem to get them a fair bit, and I think this is because of the different way that I finish the solve in each setting.

+2 is already a decent sized penalty, especially for the top cubers.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jan 15, 2013)

shelley said:


> It's also much more easily abused with the M2 and R2 trick.



8)



> I've had a +2 penalty at the end of a BLD solve once, and it was a legitimate execution mistake, the kind that would have resulted in a DNF if it had happened mid-solve instead of at the end. I've never ended a solve with an accidental misalignment.



Eh, I've gotten a bunch of almost +2's in comp before, but that's just me.


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 15, 2013)

qqwref said:


> So you're saying there is a huge difference between 89 and 91 degrees? I very much disagree. I'd rather set the DNF limit at 135 - that way you "round" the position to the nearest move, and then the penalty is 0 if it's 0 QTM from solved, +2 if it's 1 QTM from solved, and DNF if it's 2+ QTM from solved.



Although this makes sense, I could never see how a 135-degree misalignment could occur between letting go of the cube and stopping the timer, assuming the cube was completely solved before letting go.
Also, this only makes a 90-degree difference from the current rule.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 15, 2013)

It's pretty unlikely for a 135 degree misalignment to occur by accident, but I can see how a 91 degree misalignment might occur. Considering the rule should be as non-arbitrary as possible, 135 degrees is a pretty good stopping point.


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 15, 2013)

qqwref said:


> It's pretty unlikely for a 135 degree misalignment to occur by accident, but I can see how a 91 degree misalignment might occur. Considering the rule should be as non-arbitrary as possible, 135 degrees is a pretty good stopping point.



I'm wondering how a 91-degree misalignment could possibly happen, actually. I guess I'm not thinking this through well enough?
The reason I only foresaw up to 90-degree misalignments was because of 2x2 stopping. With many an ES and LL 2x2 I've had the unfortunate circumstance of getting +2s during practice because of in-air misalignments of 90 degrees.
Even on 3x3, potentially knocking a layer out of alignment in mid-air, assuming the cube was solved prior to the knock, shouldn't cause a misaligment past a quarter turn.
Are there any recorded cases of a such uncontrollable misalignment of over 90 degrees?


----------



## qqwref (Jan 15, 2013)

I'm sure I've had misalignments slightly over 90 degrees in the past. But honestly, the real question is not how common 90-135 degree misalignments are, but how easy it would be for most judges to distinguish between 89.9 degrees and 90.1...


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 15, 2013)

qqwref said:


> I'm sure I've had misalignments slightly over 90 degrees in the past. But honestly, the real question is not how common 90-135 degree misalignments are, but how easy it would be for most judges to distinguish between 89.9 degrees and 90.1...



It should be much easier to judge a 90-degree misalignment than a 45-degree or 135-degree misalignment simply by design. One of the coolest things about DaYan cubes is that when a cube is aligned, the breaks between parts of pieces should line up. Also, if someone is judging, it should be up to their discretion to judge a +2 to a DNF if the threshold is 90 degrees and the misalignment is difficult to judge.


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 15, 2013)

Erik said:


> - unfair for previous results



I'm surprised nobody's been discussing this, it's usually something that gets brought up a lot every time any rule changes are proposed.

Anyway, I like the idea of a half turn off being DNF. I think it's pretty clear that such a thing happening would be from the competitor doing the wrong AUF, not an unintentional misalignment from dropping the cube.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 15, 2013)

uberCuber said:


> I'm surprised nobody's been discussing this, it's usually something that gets brought up a lot every time any rule changes are proposed.



Then you can just mention pops.



uberCuber said:


> Anyway, I like the idea of a half turn off being DNF. I think it's pretty clear that such a thing happening would be from the competitor doing the wrong AUF, not an unintentional misalignment from dropping the cube.



I always thought that +2 was for giving you some leeway when being hasty in stopping the timer to allow for some mistakes as well as covering unintentional misalignments.

That is how it functions - you can try and minimise the leeway allowance but it will always be there.


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 15, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> I always thought that +2 was for giving you some leeway when being hasty in stopping the timer to allow for some mistakes as well as covering unintentional misalignments.
> 
> That is how it functions - you can try and minimise the leeway allowance but it will always be there.



Now it's a matter of the community deciding what's solved "enough" to be put into the leeway margins.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 15, 2013)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Now it's a matter of the community deciding what's solved "enough" to be put into the leeway margins.



I do not think it is. 



sneaklyfox said:


> Change for the sake of change is stupid especially if you change from something good to something worse.



It's not change for the sake of change, when did I say that? Stagnation hinders improvement, which is what we are trying to achieve.

We should not avoid improving things because you think "if it isn't broken don't fix it" is some magic always-correct rule.


----------



## Meep (Jan 15, 2013)

immortalchaos29 said:


> I did not have BLD events in mind when I made my comment. Still doesn't mean you can use the rule to your advantage in regular speedsolving.



I don't know what the verdict on this now is, but there have been instances where the cube being a turn away in this state was given a +2 (Each of which people purposefully took the +2 instead of trying to fix it):


----------



## qqwref (Jan 15, 2013)

That's, uh... I think I'd consider that on par with having a piece (x-center, say) popped out of the cube and lying on the floor somewhere, but the cube being otherwise functional You have to fix it or else it's obviously DNF. I'd like to see that case written into the regulations since it's pretty much exclusive to 5x5x5+.


----------



## Noahaha (Jan 15, 2013)

I think the most logical approach would be to DNF anything 90° or more, since those don't show any intention of making the last turn. It is still fairly arbitrary though given that if someone didn't have any intention of making the last turn, they'd still have a fairly good chance at coming away with a +2.

I think it's okay to have an arbitrary line between solved and +2, but not between +2 and DNF.


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 16, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> I think the most logical approach would be to DNF anything 90° or more, since those don't show any intention of making the last turn. It is still fairly arbitrary though given that if someone didn't have any intention of making the last turn, they'd still have a fairly good chance at coming away with a +2.
> 
> I think it's okay to have an arbitrary line between solved and +2, but not between +2 and DNF.



I would include 90 degrees into the +2 zone. Example: 2x2 in-air incidents.



Kirjava said:


> I do not think it is.



Isn't this very thread for discussing the rule?


----------



## Hays (Jan 16, 2013)

I have to say I cannot really argue against anyone who states that if you have a greater than 45 degree misalignment then you did not solve the cube and therefore you should not get credit for the solve. This is true. The cube is not solved and so you did not accomplish what the entire point of the solve is.

However, I am extremely against the removal of the +2 rule simply because of the safety net it gives. Call me pathetic or haphazard when stopping the timer, but I just like knowing that if I miss judge the AUF or something goes unexpectedly wrong, my entire average is not ruined. (especially on the mean of 3 for 6x6)

Many mistakes during solving are easy to see during the solve, however a missed AUF can be missed in the rush to stop the timer, and I feel that a +2 penalty is logical as it is much greater that the time it would take to fix the mistake (except maybe in feet).


----------

