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

[Kirjava]

can you explain how the proposed rule change would make competitions more difficult to run in any way?

can you show where he said it would?

[Vincents]

I'm glad this discussion is continuing. I'm even more glad that multiple WRC members are monitoring and sometimes weighing in. Carry on.

[Mike Hughey]

Sometimes I think keyan is adding more than necessary to the discussion, but:

Arguments in favor of removing the rule:

• Simplify the regulations.
• Create consistency across the speedsolving events.
• Remove weird cases from the rules.
• Make competitions appear more professional.

I agree with all 4 of these arguments. I definitely favor removing the rule, for those reasons.

[Bob]

Arguments in favor of removing the rule:
Simplify the regulations. This is a big one. For someone that has only been to, say, Southern California competitions they may not understand, but hosting competitions in a new area, spreading cubing to new communities, one of the biggest hurdles is training judges. Some have said that the regulations are already simple enough, but that just isn't true. People regularly complain about bad judges. Adding a category between "solved" and "unsolved" makes the work of a new judge harder. Everything that we can do that makes judging simpler while still maintaining fairness helps to increase the number of competitions that are held and spread cubing to more people. "More competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair conditions". The proposed rule change adds to the first three of those.

Removing the +2 changes it to a DNF. The category between "solved" and "unsolved" is still there. We still have to analyze the same solves. The only thing simpler about it is that we would be that if the puzzle is more than one move away, we do not need to analyze if the second turn is 45 degrees away.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

[DrKorbin]

Simplify the regulations. ... Adding a category between "solved" and "unsolved" makes the work of a new judge harder. Everything that we can do that makes judging simpler while still maintaining fairness helps to increase the number of competitions...

I think that determination of the angle of misalign and comparsion it with 45 degrees angle won't blow judge's brain. If it blows, he can always ask more experienced judge. If you (as organizer) have troubles with explanation of this rule to your judges, you can get competitors involved.
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".

Create consistency across the speedsolving events.

And why do we need to create consistency across the different speedsolving events?

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.

Here is another example: two persons, A and B, try 20 cubes in multi-bld. A forgets to undo a setup move in first two cubes, messes them and gets 18/20. B forgets to undo every setup move after every algorithm, but only in the 1st cube, and he gets 19/20. B made ten times as many mistakes as A, and yet we consider him to have performed better.
Regarding your argument, I don't see anything bad in this situation.

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!". ... 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. ... would also allow more people to become interested in cubing and join the community.

Oh yeah, and if that president said "Why does he get to look at it first? That's cheating! I won't give you a sponsorship!" then you would propose a prohibition of preinspection?
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.

You state "But it's clear that it is almost solved." Almost solved is, inherently, unsolved. Can you explain why a cube that is unsolevd should count as solved?

It is counted as solved with penalty , not solved and not unsolved.

Do you think that the competitor has shown their intent to solve?

Probably he had shown it when he started the timer. But intention has nothing to do with it. He either solved it or solved it with penalty or didn't solve it.

[Dene]

This thread is actually really annoying. You and Dene are stuck with arguing against arguments against a change instead of finding overwhelming arguments for a change.

I've stated my main argument over and over and over again, but one more time just for you: There are only two reasons why a cube would be left with a misaligned slice upon stopping the timer: 1) because the competitor took a risk; 2) because the competitor is lazy. The WCA, in my opinion, should not be here to accommodate lazy people and risk takers. The task of the competitor is to solve the cube, not "almost solve" the cube. As far as I'm concerned it's a simple issue, black and white, with a simple solution. The cube is either solved or not solved.

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.

Sure, the way the rules are currently written. But to an outside observer, one person fully solved 20 out of 21 cubes, the other fell just short on all 20 of their cubes. You can't respond to his problem by reference to the way the regulations are currently stated, because that would be a horribly circular argument and a logical fallacy.

Here is another example: two persons, A and B, try 20 cubes in multi-bld. A forgets to undo a setup move in first two cubes, messes them and gets 18/20. B forgets to undo every setup move after every algorithm, but only in the 1st cube, and he gets 19/20. B made ten times as many mistakes as A, and yet we consider him to have performed better.
Regarding your argument, I don't see anything bad in this situation.

I don't want to respond on behalf of keyan, but my own response to your argument, the big difference is that in keyan's scenario one person made 10 defining errors, spread over their entire solve, whereas in your situation B made 10 errors, 9 of which don't really matter as just the one was a defining error in the context of the solve.

It is counted as solved with penalty , not solved and not unsolved.

Solved with penalty is still solved. It shouldn't be, because it isn't solved.

[Sebastien]

Arguments in favor of removing the rule:

- Simplify the regulations.
- Create consistency across the speedsolving events.
- Remove weird cases from the rules.
- Make competitions appear more professional.

Thank you for summarizing his point Mike!

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.

[...]

VERY good post in my opinion.

[Sebastien]

I've stated my main argument over and over and over again, but one more time just for you: There are only two reasons why a cube would be left with a misaligned slice upon stopping the timer: 1) because the competitor took a risk; 2) because the competitor is lazy. The WCA, in my opinion, should not be here to accommodate lazy people and risk takers. The task of the competitor is to solve the cube, not "almost solve" the cube. As far as I'm concerned it's a simple issue, black and white, with a simple solution. The cube is either solved or not solved.

I'm aware that you stated this over and over again. I just don't consider this an overwhelming argument but just as some subjective point of view.

[Dene]

I'm aware that you stated this over and over again. I just don't consider this an overwhelming argument but just as some subjective point of view.

Whether a cube is solved or not is not subjective at all, or at least until you get to defining the arbitrary point at which we will determine it is definitely solved, or definitely not, but the half-hearted disagreement to 45 degrees seems to have faded away a long time ago.

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.

[aronpm]

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.