I'm glad this discussion is continuing. I'm even more glad that multiple WRC members are monitoring and sometimes weighing in. Carry on.
A penalty on clock would not have anything to do with being part way between hours, but instead being able to solve the clock in "one move." Let's consider one move to mean that you may put the pins in whatever position you like and turn any one dial to solve the clock. The inserts do not have anything to do with the solved state, as the clocks click into place. Boom, consistency attained across puzzles.Create consistency across the speedsolving events. Clock doesn't have an unsolved but close enough state. The proposed rule change would make all speedsolving events consistent in this regard. Another alternative is to define a penalty state for clock, but no one has suggested a good one. Given that the solve state can't be observed without influencing the puzzle, I don't think it's possible to define a penalty state for clock. (The paper inserts for the clocks can move slightly. How do you determine if the puzzle is half way between 11 and 12, or just that the inserts moved? Hard to do without dissecting the puzzle.) Another suggestion was that consistency isn't worthwhile, that we shouldn't bother with this. I don't think that's a very strong argument. Consistency is easily attainable, I think we can work toward it.
And I think he did. In the regulations, a puzzle off by 1 move is still considered solved, but there is a penalty attached. So we are comparing somebody who solved 20 out of 20 cubes with somebody who solved 20 out of 21.Remove weird cases from the rules. I already mentioned multiBLD, 20 cubes each off by one turn versus 21 cubes with 20 solved and one off by two turns. One person made ten times as many mistakes as the other, and yet we consider him to have performed better.
If we want to look more professional, let's get rid of feet solving. IMO feet solving poses more of a threat of looking goofy and unprofessional than does having cubes misaligned by 1 turn receiving penalties. Are you also proposing that we eliminate inspection before the solve? It sounds like you are.Make competitions appear more professional. The two comments I hear most often from non-cubers observing competitions are "Why does he get to look at it first? That's cheating!" and "That wasn't solved!". Counting unsolved cubes as solved makes cubing look bad in the eyes of the general public. That, in itself, isn't necessarily a problem. However, that can still have an impact. Making cubing appear more professional might make finding sponsorship easier. Asian Championship 2010 and World Championship 2011, we were very lucky to have the help of the Baiyoke Hotel. I can imagine a scenario where the president of Baiyoke was initially interested, but then saw an unsolved cube and asked why it was counted, and ended up choosing not to offer sponsorship. I can't see the opposite being the case. Increasing the standing of cubing in the eye of the general public would also allow more people to become interested in cubing and join the community.
So why accept cubes that are off by 44 degrees as solved? You can see rather clearly that the sides are not completely aligned. How about 30 degrees? 10 degrees?You complain that not enough has been done to show why a change would be beneficial. Here are four arguments in favor of changing the rule. Among these, only the point about consistency has been addressed by people against a change, though I feel that argument fell short. These arguments haven't been significantly rebutted, yet more are needed? What are the arguments that show the benefit of keeping the rule change, rather than appeal to tradition and talk of hurt feelings? The only argument I can think of is Stefan's point that it might cause some people to argue more about rulings. Unfortunately, probably true.
You state "But it's clear that it is almost solved." Almost solved is, inherently, unsolved.
I also don't see how the rule change makes competitions easier to run in any way. You mentioned that it would be easier for judges, but honestly, it won't. They still need to check for 45 degrees. The only thing that changes is that they would write "DNF" instead of 12.11 + 2 = 14.11. Except now, if an inexperienced judge unknowingly accepts a result that was off by 45 degrees or more without knowing any better, we've now given somebody credit for a solve instead of giving them a free 2 second bonus.Can you explain why a cube that is unsolevd should count as solved? Do you think that the competitor has shown their intent to solve? In that case, could you address the Olympic shooting thing I mentioned? Or do you think that the competitor has shown their ability to solve, regardless of whether they actually solved or not? In that case, could you address the incorrect PLL thing I mentioned?
You complain about my arguments, the PLL thing was brushed off as absurd, but that's the point. It's supposed to be absurd. Recasting the arguments of those wanting to keep the rule in a more extreme example shows the failings of their arguments. You can complain about the style, but please acknowledge the actual points.
Can you explain what is hindered? Ignoring everything I said above about how a rule change would help, can you explain how the proposed rule change would make competitions more difficult to run in any way?
And how exactly simplification of the rules will increase the number of competitions?
"Oh, I want to organize a competition, but I have no room".
"Oh, I want to organize a competition, but I have no money or sponsorship".
"Oh, I want to organize a competition, but this +2 penalty rule is so complex".
Regarding your argument, I don't see anything bad in this situation.
As it was said before, we should never listen to what non-speedcubers say. There are rules in sports that seem weird to neophytes, and yet they exists.
And I hardly imagine a person that shows some interest in cubing, but when he knows about +2 penalty, he gives up speedcubing. This person was never interested really.
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with any of these points to be an argument for changing this rule.
- Simplification is generally a good point, but not always a good idea. There are many regulations whose removal would bring simplicity, but would would have fatal impact on our sport. Imagine we would get rid of almost all juding and scrambling procedures. Or get rid of WCA Delegates. This would as well create simplicity. I'm not saying the removal of this rule would have such an fatal influence, but I still think that removing the rule would create worse conditions for all competitors.
- The current official events are partwise very different from each other. I think we already have consistency around all events where wimilar measurement is possible.
- You didn't bring any case that I would consider as weird.
- My personal point of view: I don't care at all (and this is nicely said) about what some kind of general public thinks. I refuse in general to even notice comments from people about any kind of matter the are not informed about. Furthermore I don't accept any of your supposed sport analogies, as this is Speedcubing, which is just different from other sports.
Also, if "the competitor took a risk" and "competitor is lazy" are subjective, then you must have another explanation for why a cube would end up misaligned upon stopping the timer (other than doing so deliberately). I would like to hear it, because no one has managed to come up with an alternative explanation as of yet.
When you fail to come up with another reason, I would like you to give your subjective opinion as to why the WCA should cradle competitors like a baby rather than treating them as adults with the mental capacity to understand the difference between solved and not solved, therefore giving them the cushion of a +2 penalty rather than DNFing them.
I think Dene's entire argument sums up to an appeal to ridicule.
1) Competitors who get +2 are taking a risk!
You're using the term "risk" here to add the implication that the solver is doing something bad.
2) Competitors who get +2 are being lazy!
By "being lazy" (a term which you're using to ridicule the opposition) they are already adding 2 seconds on to their time. If a competitor cares about their time, they don't want to have a +2. However, mistakes happen. I think you should realise this fact.
3) The WCA shouldn't cradle competitors like babies!
This isn't even an argument, it's just something you're saying to ridicule the opposing argument and make yourself sound right. Which is, as I mentioned, just an appeal to ridicule.