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

[Dene]

I think there is one inherent problem with this argument. The lockup in this case was not directly a fault of the cuber. The blame lies in the hardware.

Where is the problem? The issue being the fault of the puzzle is acknowledged. Did you not read what I said at all? Although I understand that it is a bit hard on the person, having a +2 rule for every single misaligned slice case is hardly a good solution to this one, extremely rare occurrence. It's a case of "that's unfortunate, and it would be nice to give you some sort of recognition, but unfortunately there is no way to fairly moderate this case, and at least it won't happen again".

I personally think that your argument that the WCA should not allow risks is quite frankly unsupportable.

This is not my argument at all. My argument is that the WCA should not accommodate risk taking by giving giving every competitor a default diaper. If people want to take risks, that should be perfectly allowable, but people should face the appropriate consequences for taking that risk. So what is the appropriate consequence? Well, if the cube is solved then they hopefully get a good time, but if the cube is not finished then we should give them the proper ruling for an unfinished cube, i.e. DNF.

Also there is no way that you can claim that the impact was minor. If this solve had been a DNF, that could have afectd the mindset of the competitor and causes them to lose focus because of something that was not directly under their control.

First of all, please be careful with wording, as it can be a bit misleading. Normally I wouldn't care, but in my opinion this discussion is absolutely critical and I want everything to be completely clear so as not to mislead people by accident. Just remember, we are talking about hypotheticals here. "... the impact would have been minor" and "... could have affected the mindset of the competitor and caused them to lose focus..."

As for the point you bring up, perhaps it could affect the mindset of the competitor, but if it does that is tough luck. There will always be more opportunities for them to get over it, bring it back and perform to their top potential again. Personally, I can really not genuinely see this sort of thing throwing someone off so much that they break down entirely, quit cubing, and never compete again (NOTE: exaggerated case). And if someone did react such a way, to be honest I don't really think I'd be disappointed to see them leave.

But even if we do make a mountain out of a molehill in this situation, I still think my argument is too strong, i.e. this would be such a rare occurrence and could never be repeated with the same competitor, therefore it doesn't justify a blanket +2 rule for every other case where it is the competitors fault. It's a matter of balance, and the balance is significantly against this very rare occurrence.

Although I agree that in most cases the fault lies with the competitor, sometimes the cube is at fault, and losing your chance at an average because of your cube is more unfair than giving them time penalties.

What exactly do you mean by "sometimes"? If you mean "every now and then" I think that would be way too generous an assumption. At the very least, you need to pitch an argument against my claim that this occurrence would be very rare, because I cannot see it happening very much at all.

And I don't think it's a fair statement to make that the person is likely to miss out on a chance at an average because of the DNF. For the average they are currently in they still have four other opportunities to solve the cube and get an average. Alternatively, if there is a chance that the DNF is so costly to their average in terms of raw times that they miss out on the next round, to be fair they probably didn't deserve to get to the next round anyway. I justify this statement by making these points:
- A person gets five solves in an average, so it is not fair to pinpoint the blame on one of those solves. To put this another way: each solve in an average only comprises a 20% contribution to that average (and that includes the best and worst solves which are eliminated; they still play their part).
- If the competitor's times are so borderline to the cutoff needed to get to the next round then you can hardly say they were genuinely disadvantaged by that one solve, as their times can't have generally been good enough regardless.
- If a competitor has a solve that has 2 seconds added to it, and that solve is still not the worst solve in their average, and therefore contributes positively to their average, I believe we are left with four possible situations (not exclusive in all cases). In my opinion, in none of these situations is that one solve which hypothetically receives a DNF so devastating that it is solely to blame, or even largely to blame, for the competitor missing out on the next round. I will illustrate these situations with slightly exaggerated examples to make the points clearer:
If a solve with a +2 is still counting then either:
1) The solve itself was probably not reflective of the competitors real times, e.g. (15.00), (16.50), 15.50, 15.50, 13.01+2=15.01
OR
2) They had another solve which was very poor, e.g. (15.00), (20.00), 15.50, 15.50, 15.50+2=17.50
OR
3) There would have been little difference between their worst times anyway, e.g. (15.00), (17.51), 15.50, 15.50, 15.50+2=17.50
OR
4) The competitor has generally inconsistent times, e.g. (13.00), (20.00), 15.00, 18.00, 14.50+2=16.50

Now let us consider these situations in regards to the potential to ruin the average if those +2's had instead been DNFs.

In situation 4 it is impossible to say the competitor deserved to get to the next round, given their times are all over the place, and seemingly in any given situation could pull out an average anywhere between 13 and 20. Even though changing the +2 to a DNF would negatively impact their average, the negative impact is a result of their general inconsistency, and not because of that one solve which is only contributing 20%.

Situation 3 can be dismissed outright; if the +2 had instead been given a DNF it would not affect their average very much at all.

Situation 2 would definitely affect their average, but at the same time the competitor has had four other attempts, and like situation 4, their lack of consistency is the main reason for their receiving a poor average.

In situation 1 we have to assume that the competitor has generally consistent times (otherwise refer situation 2 or 4). If their times are generally consistent, then although their average is negatively impacted, it would still be reflective of their abilities. If they miss out on the next round with an average that is still reflective of their abilities it would be a stretch to say that they genuinely deserved to get to the next round. It would certainly be false to say that a DNF for that one solve was the reason they missed out on the next round.

To conclude this long point: The DNF in any of the cases cannot reasonably be said to be the reason the competitor missed out on an average. At most one could only claim it contributed to several reasons that, when combined, become the cause of the competitor missing out on the average.

At the beginning of this response to your point I italicised the phrase "in terms of raw times". If you were wondering exactly what I meant by that, hopefully it is now clearer: I don't genuinely think that the DNF is ever that costly to an average, as it could only be a contributing factor to a range of causes. It is only if you ignore all of the factors and look at the raw times in themselves does it appear as if a DNF is so costly (in some cases).

Also, I note that you are using the same argument over and over again, without any extension or support of it. Is this really the only reason that you suggest the removal of +2 over?

If you look back in the thread I'm fairly sure there were discussions of my argument, and it was fleshed out somewhat. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by supporting it. In what way exactly? I've challenged people to come up with alternatives to a misaligned slice being the result of either risk taking or laziness, and thus far I have found one example, and we are discussing it right now. But if that's not what you're getting at please elaborate, as I'm interested in any way to strengthen my argument as it can only help me. Just a note: to be fair the vast majority of what I have done in this thread is rebut other arguments, and really my own argument is just one big rebuttal for a lot of the pro +2 arguments out there.

And of course this is not the only reason I suggest the removal of the +2, but other people are arguing other points. I don't see any need to join in to a large extent, unless I see somewhere I feel I can contribute. Again, refer to my giant post above to see some of the other arguments that have been put forward.

[jonlin]

Ok good. In my response, first it is important to note that by choice you were using a puzzle that had this particular functional limitation, that occasionally it can lock up in a weird way that causes layers to turn "by theirself".

This is an extremely rude comment, as it contradicts what you have said later in the post.

I think there is one inherent problem with this argument. The lockup in this case was not directly a fault of the cuber. The blame lies in the hardware. I personally think that your argument that the WCA should not allow risks is quite frankly unsupportable. Also there is no way that you can claim that the impact was minor. If this solve had been a DNF, that could have afectd the mindset of the competitor and causes them to lose focus because of something that was not directly under their control.Although I agree that in most cases the fault lies with the competitor, sometimes the cube is at fault, and losing your chance at an average because of your cube is more unfair than giving them time penalties.
Also, I note that you are using the same argument over and over again, without any extension or support of it. Is this really the only reason that you suggest the removal of +2 over?

Yes, my solve Would have been affected by a DNF, because the counting 7 second solve would have lifted my average to 6 seconds, rather than 5.41. That would have affected my ranking by 4 places.

EDIT: The DNF would have actually rose my average to 6.00 seconds.

[Dene]

This is an extremely rude comment, as it contradicts what you have said later in the post.

Whoa back up the bus. Where did I contradict myself?

[jonlin]

Whoa back up the bus. Where did I contradict myself?

When you said that I was risk taking when I used a 2x2 that cough cough accidentally cough cough locked up and sprang back, you said it was risky for to bring a puzzle that had this limitation. First of all, this never happened anywhere but now. Second of all,:

To conclude: The occurrence of this would be insanely rare, and it would have only a small impact on that person at the time, and never again in the future, therefore giving a +2 for all misaligned slice cases is not justified.

Which contradicts what you said in the first paragraph of the post.
Which, if I understand correctly, is that not all +2's are risk taking or lazy.

[Dene]

I get the impression that you're misreading me, although I might be misreading you so I'm a little confused. I'll respond to what I think you're trying to say. My guess is that it's just a misunderstanding. (NOTE: I correct some of your grammar to how I am reading it; if I have corrected it wrong then please point it out).

When you said that I was risk taking when I used a 2x2 that accidentally locked up and sprang back, you said it was risky to bring a puzzle that had this limitation.

If you are aware of this limitation then proceed to use this puzzle in competition, while not taking the appropriate precaution before stopping the timer (i.e. making sure it isn't locked up and about to spring back), then it is taking a risk. However if you don't know about this limitation, it is a case of innocent ignorance, which I described.

Second of all:

To conclude: The occurrence of this would be insanely rare, and it would have only a small impact on that person at the time, and never again in the future, therefore giving a +2 for all misaligned slice cases is not justified.

This paragraph contradicts what you said in the first paragraph of the post.

To make things easier, here is the first (trimmed) paragraph from my post:

First it is important to note that by choice you were using a puzzle that had this particular functional limitation, that occasionally it can lock up in a weird way that causes layers to turn "by theirself".

I cannot for the life of me see any contradiction in these two sentences of mine. They aren't even talking about the same thing in particular. In the first paragraph of my post I said that you chose to use the puzzle, and I later clarified that you may or may not have known about the functional limitation. In the conclusion I say that the occurrence of the "innocent ignorance" case, i.e. unknowingly using a puzzle that had this limitation, is rare and doesn't justify giving a +2 for all possible misaligned slice cases, just as a precaution in case innocent ignorance does occur.

Just to note, because there is an ambiguous word in my sentence. I said "therefore giving a +2 for all misaligned slice cases is not justified". This could be read in two ways:
1) There are no occurrences of a misaligned slice in which a +2 is justified.
2) There is not enough justification to give a +2 for every occurrence of a misaligned slice, because the vast majority are the fault of the competitor (i.e. risk taking or laziness).

The second version is what I meant to say, although I could understand why you might be confused if you read it in the first way.

I may as well take this time to give another reason why it isn't justified: Ignorance is no excuse. This is only my opinion, but I'm not the only one that takes this approach. As far as I'm aware, in most sports, as well as other avenues such as law enforcement, ignorance is not an excuse.

Which, if I understand correctly, is that not all +2's are risk taking or lazy.

This sentence has me most confused. Neither the first paragraph of my post, nor the last, is making that statement. I mean, yes I do concede that during the post, but rather in the fourth paragraph ("So congratulations to you, you have found another category in which a competitor might be left with a misaligned slice").

Have I cleared things up, or do you still think I've contradicted myself?

[jonlin]

Thank you.
Bye now.

[keyan]

Sad to see this thread dead again.

Lucas has made two good posts, here
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/sh...l=1#post686723
and here
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/sh...l=1#post750300
explaining how well-reasoned argumments about this topic could be made. So far, no one has bothered to do so. So far I've given four points showing the benefits of removing this rule, and no one has given a good argument against them. As it stands, those arguing for the rule are holding to two points, "meta" and "fun".

The "meta" argument falls, in that a competitor is responsible for their own solving. Anyone intentionally performing worse shouldn't be a consideration in the regulations. Should the rule be removed, most people wouldn't need to change anything about their solving. Some people would adapt. (I don't think Doug Li ever had to worry about cubes turning "on their own".) If someone refuses to adapt and holds their results hostage, they're only hurting themselves and we shouldn't have to consider them.

The "fun" argument falls to previous statements to the contrary
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/sh...o-competitions
Or are people acknowledging that they don't really believe what they tell beginners?

With no solid arguments in favor of keeping it, I hope that we can now move forward and remove this unnecessary regulation.

[Sebastien]

Thanks for the ~100th repetition of your very subjective point of view ~50th post without bringing in something new.

This rule is not going to change quicker just because you are bringing the same stuff again every 2 weeks.

[Kirjava]

So instead of posting a riposte, you'll complain that he's using the same arguments?

You're both being inane.

[Sebastien]

True, and thanks for joining the club