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

[Dene]

more stuff

Firstly, let's separate the two problems which you have confounded. The first is the "meta" problem, which goes something along the lines of "ocrap I better slow down and be more careful at the end of my solve to ensure I don't stop the timer until it is completely solved, or else the dire consequences of a DNF will destroy my average, unlike a +2 which is all good". The second is the "place the cube or drop it?" problem. I've said all this before, but I'll say it again now for the new people to the conversation:

My response to the "meta" problem is essentially "screw it". If the current "elite" are affected by worrying about a DNF, then they'll have to suffer the consequences and a new breed of cubers will come through that won't be affected by it, and will be able to achieve optimum times regardless.

On a side note, personally I do not think many cubers would be affected by changing +2 to DNF except in circumstances where they already have a DNF (or doing mean of 3, but seriously, solve the damn 6x6 before you stop the timer, you've already had almost 2 minutes to get it right). But if they are affected, other cubers that aren't will be able to reap the rewards of not DNFing. Tough luck, grow a pair.

As for the "place it or drop it?" problem, the response is simple: if you wish to take the risk to get a slightly better time, go ahead, but the WCA is not going to cuddle you while you cry in a corner if your cube "accidentally" makes a turn as a result of that risk. It's not about banning risk taking, it's about having a solved cube when the timer is stopped. How the cuber goes about achieving that is entirely up to them, and if they wish to risk a DNF by throwing their cube across the room in the process of stopping the timer, that's the risk they take.

[cube-o-holic]

Basically, what I'm asking is if you think it's ok if people unknowingly solve the cube?

Absolutely. If you can take a cube from an unsolved state to a solved state I'm content.

[Dene]

So what about trivially solvable positions? We can all agree that a cube off by one move is trivially solvable, and I think a very strong case could be put forward for two moves off being trivially solvable, and maybe even three moves. If the cube was left unfinished by one or two moves deliberately, should there be any penalty at all?

EDIT: I should point out, I'm not criticising you at all, so don't read me like that. I'm just trying to flesh out your exact position, and the implications of it. I'm still not exactly certain where you lie in this issue, so I guess other people would be unsure too. It's important to understand, so people can make an informed decision on whether or not they would be prepared to advocate or defend your position, or whether it can be rejected, etc.

[keyan]

Finishes PLL, performs U3, stops timer. So if +2 is removed that would count as a solve? The cube was solved before the timer was stopped.

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/sh...l=1#post686701
Several big posts of mine that haven't really gotten any response. For all the emotion of those defending this rule, there's little in the way of reasoned arguments.

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

Way back in the day at a Caltech competition, there was a guy solving BLD (Darren Kwong? Not sure.) who finished his cube then sat there, tracing corner cycles with his fingers. We all held our breath until he did an extra corner cycle then stopped the timer with a DNF. Should he have gotten a valid time? He obviously could solve BLD, he just overthought it.

I learned a new word recently, nocebo. The talk of "meta" is effectively this. Some people are so convinced that a rule change will be damaging, they're basically holding their results hostage. If the rules change, they will be sure to get worse results and prove everyone wrong. This is not something the rules should be concerned with.

GuangzhouSCUT results: There were 28 unsolved cubes judged +2, 3.1% of the 900 non-BLD non-magic solves at the competition. Of these, however, 12 were already the slowest solve of the average. That is, changing the result from "close enough" to DNF would have had no impact on the average result. A further 10 would have given a small increase in the average result. Only 6 of the 180 averages recorded at the competition, or 3.3%, would have changed from a valid average to DNF.

I wish more competition organizers could record these sort of results.

Unless anyone thinks that two seconds are trivial, then no one solves expecting to not complete the cube (feet solving aside). Were the above competition held with a rule change judging all unsolved cubes as DNF, competitors could participate with no change in their solving approach and only have a small chance of their results changing from what we see now. Again, competitors could compete with no change in "meta" of whatever sort and the possible impact would be small.

[cube-o-holic]

EDIT: I should point out, I'm not criticising you at all, so don't read me like that. I'm just trying to flesh out your exact position, and the implications of it. I'm still not exactly certain where you lie in this issue, so I guess other people would be unsure too. It's important to understand, so people can make an informed decision on whether or not they would be prepared to advocate or defend your position, or whether it can be rejected, etc.

I don't actually mind saying goodbye to the +2. After reading most of this thread I am almost convinced that it could and should be removed. I certainly don't think 2 and 3 moves off should count.

I should add that I never foresee a future where my 'ideal' timing could be implicated either. I just like the idea of it.

[ThomasJE]

I suggested the idea of a poll to this thread earlier on to see where people lie on this argument, an idea which was waved away. Waved away by the people FOR changing the rule. The +2 rule is accepted by the community. So why change it? We should only change the rule if the majority of people are for changing it. And the only way to find the majority group is through a poll. If the poll is again waved away, then we have no way of seeing who is for what and then, the argument is pointless. I doubt that the arguments in this thread will change the opinions of the people, so the sooner we add a poll, the sooner we can sort out this argument.

[keyan]

IT MUST BE TRUE BECAUSE IT'S WHAT YOU EXPECT

Hopefully someone will provide numbers for other competitions, either supporting my assertion or providing an alternate thought on how this all works.

I suggested the idea of a poll to this thread earlier on to see where people lie on this argument, an idea which was waved away. Waved away by the people FOR changing the rule. The +2 rule is accepted by the community. So why change it? We should only change the rule if the majority of people are for changing it. And the only way to find the majority group is through a poll. If the poll is again waved away, then we have no way of seeing who is for what and then, the argument is pointless. I doubt that the arguments in this thread will change the opinions of the people, so the sooner we add a poll, the sooner we can sort out this argument.

First, the rules don't need to follow what the supposed majority of the community wants. The change in inspection procedure and thus inspection time was criticized by some very vocal people (using much the same arguments as those seen in this thread). The change was still made, despite the opposition. People adapted, and no one was really bothered in the end.
Second, this forum is in no way representative of the community. I've seen pretty good support for removing this rule among the Chinese community, on the grounds that it would make competitions "more professional".

[Kirjava]

Hopefully someone will provide numbers for other competitions, either supporting my assertion or providing an alternate thought on how this all works.

I want to remove +2.

I think this argument for removing +2 is very poor.

[Dene]

I don't actually mind saying goodbye to the +2. After reading most of this thread I am almost convinced that it could and should be removed. I certainly don't think 2 and 3 moves off should count.

Gee wizz, that certainly is a radical position to hold. What justification do you have for allowing cubes off by U2 to count as solved with no penalty?

[keyan]

I think this argument for removing +2 is very poor.

Was never meant as an argument for removal, rather an explanation of why the fear expressed by many in this thread is, I think, unfounded.