StachuK1992
statue
[attempt to make use of this sub-forum]
There are a lot of 'standard' terms that we hold right now that I don't think are the best.
Maybe it's already too late to change some standards, but if it's possible, I'd love to change a few things.
Some quick examples of things I'd like to change/stop/do.
1-ZBF2L->ZBLS, as well as any other LS variations to be named as such.
2-Stop CFOP/Fridrich naming debate, finally.
3-Better meta-definitions for methods. F2L>LL would be one meta-method. CF would be another, perchance.
A nice way to organize methods other than "good" or "bad" or something too convoluted would be nice. I know Thom has already thought about this - other thoughts?
4-CLL/CMLL/CoLL/CIDFKLL. I can't even explain this naming convention. Sure, "CLL" means what it should in whatever context is appropriate, but I'd like to direct a reader's thinking of what CLL I'm referring too without setting up context.
4a-This idea also somewhat follows with ELL, on 3x3 LL(U) vs 3x3 LL(M) vs 4x4 LL(U)
5-I'd like there to be a standard format for publishing a method. Just a fancy way of displaying the attributes of a method, so one could publish faster, and hopefully get their point across quicker. I have some ideas about this - I'll post them tonight hopefully.
6-"2-gen". Without giving context.
7-Can we de-popularize "EJF2L" or at least change it to "I(m)CLS"?
8-Notation for grips.
Please feel free to address these points formally, and make your own as you see fit.
Perhaps it would be easiest to reference particular propositions as such;
"7 - That sounds awesome."
Let's get this rolling,
statue
There are a lot of 'standard' terms that we hold right now that I don't think are the best.
Maybe it's already too late to change some standards, but if it's possible, I'd love to change a few things.
Some quick examples of things I'd like to change/stop/do.
1-ZBF2L->ZBLS, as well as any other LS variations to be named as such.
2-Stop CFOP/Fridrich naming debate, finally.
3-Better meta-definitions for methods. F2L>LL would be one meta-method. CF would be another, perchance.
A nice way to organize methods other than "good" or "bad" or something too convoluted would be nice. I know Thom has already thought about this - other thoughts?
4-CLL/CMLL/CoLL/CIDFKLL. I can't even explain this naming convention. Sure, "CLL" means what it should in whatever context is appropriate, but I'd like to direct a reader's thinking of what CLL I'm referring too without setting up context.
4a-This idea also somewhat follows with ELL, on 3x3 LL(U) vs 3x3 LL(M) vs 4x4 LL(U)
5-I'd like there to be a standard format for publishing a method. Just a fancy way of displaying the attributes of a method, so one could publish faster, and hopefully get their point across quicker. I have some ideas about this - I'll post them tonight hopefully.
6-"2-gen". Without giving context.
7-Can we de-popularize "EJF2L" or at least change it to "I(m)CLS"?
8-Notation for grips.
Please feel free to address these points formally, and make your own as you see fit.
Perhaps it would be easiest to reference particular propositions as such;
"7 - That sounds awesome."
Let's get this rolling,
statue