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

Dene said:

I'm pretty sure many judges do not know the correct procedure for writing up a +2, and instead don't bother to write it out properly they would just add the 2 seconds in their head and write down the appropriate time straight away.

Click to expand...

TIL that there's a correct procedure for writing out a +2.

This proves your point, doesn't it.

qqwref said:

I think we've seen that the community is divided, with staunch people on both sides, and no really convincing arguments.

Click to expand...

I don't think that is the case. Please don't try to kill the debate prematurely.

Arguments in favor of eliminating a +2 allowance for unsolved cubes:

Consistency - clock
Fairness - some cubers say the current rule has a method bias when a cube unsolved by an M turn is DNF while a cube unsolved by a U turn isn't
Simplicity - only two classifications, solved and unsolved, simplifies judging
Simplicity - eliminates the awkward situations in FMC and multiBLD

This is aside from the basic argument that competitive cube solving should require solving a cube.

If you say that we've argued to a standstill, could you point out the arguments for the status quo?

Dene said:

If the competitor drops the puzzle in a rush to stop the timer, causing the cube to land in such a way as for a piece to pop or a layer to turn, then we have no choice. It is impossible for us to accurately regulate on whether something has happened before or after the timer is stopped unless intensive video evidence was used, which, as discussed in another thread, is not going to happen in speedcubing any time soon. It is unfortunately impossible to obediently abide to principles when we have technological limitations. The best thing we can do is have a clear rule that decides what to do in situations, and to apply that rule consistently and fairly so that everyone is on equal footing.

Click to expand...

I believe there already is one.
10b) Only the resting state of a puzzle is considered, when the timer has stopped.

I think this is clear enough. Some may say it means only the resting state of the puzzle at the moment of stopping the timer, but I've always interpreted as meaning the resting state of the puzzle after the timer has stopped. So when someone finishes his solve correctly, drops it, stops the timer and the cube bumps away of the table and rolls on for a couple seconds and stops, I have always considered the state of the puzzle at the moment it stopped. (Okay, I only had to do that once, and in that case, everything was okay)

Dene said:

Uh, how is it not your fault that there was a +2? Take the extra time to place the puzzle down carefully or face the consequences.

Click to expand...

Thats not the point. The point is that the penalty proposed is too harsh.

hcfong said:

I believe there already is one.
10b) Only the resting state of a puzzle is considered, when the timer has stopped.

Click to expand...

Yes you are exactly right, I was just talking about the hypothetical, not the way things already are .

keyan said:

Consistency - clock

Click to expand...

Good argument for changing clock.

keyan said:

Fairness - some cubers say the current rule has a method bias when a cube unsolved by an M turn is DNF while a cube unsolved by a U turn isn't

Click to expand...

That's not really a big deal, lots of Roux solves end in Us and every EPLL can end in Ms

keyan said:

Simplicity - only two classifications, solved and unsolved, simplifies judging

Click to expand...

It's hardly rocket science as it is though.

For Dene's points. Naturally if you don't align the cube properly it is your fault... nobody can really doubt that. But what is the effect on speedcubing overall if +2s were removed? Two mistakes in an Ao5 will knock you out of the competition. There is currently a high risk game played by some people.. they can go balls out for the last step and potentially get really fast times... but sometimes they misjudge it and incur a penalty. If the penalty is 'your out of the competition' then it stands to reason people are going to be a lot more careful and slow down. I think it would definitely make people a lot more hesitant during their solves, and I just can't see that as being a good thing overall for speedcubing. It's really exciting when someone like Hays breaks the 6x6 WR; it could have been the case that his solves might have been slower overall if he was aware that having a misalignment on the final turn would have nullified his average.

I don't think there is a good argument for any benefit of removing +2s that outweigh the negative impact it will have overall.

Dene said:

You mean, telling someone that they haven't completed the puzzle when they haven't completed the puzzle? Seems fair to me.

Click to expand...

I think telling the competitor that 2 seconds for missing a turn (which would have taken less than 0.5 seconds) is added to their solve time is a harsh enough penalty.

aronpm said:

I think telling the competitor that 2 seconds for missing a turn (which would have taken less than 0.5 seconds) is added to their solve time is a harsh enough penalty.

Click to expand...

I agree

aronpm said:

I think telling the competitor that 2 seconds for missing a turn (which would have taken less than 0.5 seconds) is added to their solve time is a harsh enough penalty.

Click to expand...

And what about the poor person that missed the third to last turn of their Y perm?

Godmil said:

There is currently a high risk game played by some people.. they can go balls out for the last step and potentially get really fast times... but sometimes they misjudge it and incur a penalty. If the penalty is 'your out of the competition' then it stands to reason people are going to be a lot more careful and slow down. I think it would definitely make people a lot more hesitant during their solves, and I just can't see that as being a good thing overall for speedcubing.

Click to expand...

You are greatly exaggerating the effect that this would have. Why don't you yourself try doing an average of maybe 20 or 30 3x3 solves now and make sure to DNF yourself every time you would normally +2. In this case, go into it with the mindset that you need to be extra careful when finishing your solves to solve the cube properly. I bet your overall average will be exactly the same as your normal average.

People seem to have this mindset that DNFs are the devil and will spawn trouble everywhere for speedcubing, but it really won't make any difference other than ensuring that people that do not solve their cube get no credit for it, and people that do solve their cube get their due credit.

Godmil said:

It's really exciting when someone like Hays breaks the 6x6 WR; it could have been the case that his solves might have been slower overall if he was aware that having a misalignment on the final turn would have nullified his average.

Click to expand...

Oh come on, you're just trolling me right? Just in case you're not, I'm pretty sure Kevin Hays would not be worried about adding an extra 0.5s to every solve to ensure the cube is properly solved and he places it down so that it doesn't misalign at the end. The total time added to his mean? Barely anything at all, certainly less than a +2 would add.

Dene said:

And what about the poor person that missed the third to last turn of their Y perm?

Click to expand...

I cannot understand why you and others keep bringing this example of missing a turn in a solve up. Mis-performing AUF at the end (which is not part of an algorithm) and missing part of an algorithm are very, very different things.

aronpm said:

I cannot understand why you and others keep bringing this example of missing a turn in a solve up. Mis-performing AUF at the end (which is not part of an algorithm) and missing part of an algorithm are very, very different things.

Click to expand...

Ok then, I'll use a different example. Someone attempts to do AUF before PLL, but does the turn the wrong way, thus doing the PLL from the wrong angle and leaving the cube in an unsolved state (i.e. with a new PLL) and stops the timer.

Dene said:

Ok then, I'll use a different example. Someone attempts to do AUF before PLL, but does the turn the wrong way, thus doing the PLL from the wrong angle and leaving the cube in an unsolved state (i.e. with a new PLL) and stops the timer.

You've really backed yourself into a corner now.

Click to expand...

Come on, Dene, at one point you say only the final state of the cube matters and now you are trying to say being off 1 turn at the final state or being completely off because one turn was missed earlier in the solve should be considered the same ? And it is clear that the solve is off by 1 turn or less (50 degrees for example) but not clear if someone missed one turn (and it would clearly not be 50 degres but a whole turn.

I agree with qqwref that most has already been said about it and the discussion does not seem to evolve.

That said, I am still not sure if adding the same amount of time for every events make sense (2s is a huge percentage of a 2x2 solve and a small percentage of a 7x7 solve; it does not take the same amount of time to auf with two hands, one hand or feet, ...).

Dene said:

Ok then, I'll use a different example. Someone attempts to do AUF before PLL, but does the turn the wrong way, thus doing the PLL from the wrong angle and leaving the cube in an unsolved state (i.e. with a new PLL) and stops the timer.

Click to expand...

Still not the same. In one case, the cube is 1 turn away from solved, and in the other it's not even close.

In both cases the cube is unsolved. In both cases it is because the AUF was done incorrectly. You are arbitrarily choosing when in a solve a mistake can be made with no justification other than "in one case it was earlier in the solve and in the other case it was at the end of the solve". How is that fair? As the person that messed up AUF before PLL I think that is horribly unfair. Everyone should be treated equal for their errors.

@adragast Sure why not? My view is consistent yes?

Dene said:

You are arbitrarily choosing when in a solve a mistake can be made

Click to expand...

No, it is not an arbitrary choice. And no, this was not our only justification. The first justification was made by Stefan earlier in this post and was about how difficult it would be to judge a one-turn mistake earlier in the solve. You, who always complain how hard it is to get enough judges and so on, I am surprised you are ignoring this argument.
I have added another argument which was that it can be less than one complete false turn at the end (50 degrees for example).

Dene said:

Everyone should be treated equal for their errors.

Click to expand...

They are. Everyone messing up early in the solve get a DNF, everyone getting one wrong turn at the end gets a +2.

Please, don't try too hard, you are only making the idea look worse and worse.

ok, maybe I was exaggerating a little with my last examples. But the inconsitency argument you're using now is over the top. Give a cube to a random person... if it's a PLL away, they're unanimously going to say that it's not solved. Now give them one that is just 50 degrees away on one layer, you're not going to find many people who say this isn't a solved cube.

Dene said:

In both cases the cube is unsolved. In both cases it is because the AUF was done incorrectly. You are arbitrarily choosing when in a solve a mistake can be made with no justification other than "in one case it was earlier in the solve and in the other case it was at the end of the solve". How is that fair? As the person that messed up AUF before PLL I think that is horribly unfair. Everyone should be treated equal for their errors.

Click to expand...

It's not arbitrary to say that 1 move off is "almost solved, with a penalty" and a layer off is not.

Godmil said:

Give a cube to a random person... if it's a PLL away, they're unanimously going to say that it's not solved. Now give them one that is just 50 degrees away on one layer, you're not going to find many people who say this isn't a solved cube.

Click to expand...

If you give a cube that's one move away from being solved to a random person then they'll probably perform the final move and say "AH HAH! I'VE SOLVED IT! LESS THAN FIVE SECONDS! YEAHAW!"... Why? Because even they can acknowledge that it's not in a solved state when there's one move left.

Tim.

Some people may do that just to be a dick. But if someone saw it was half a turn away from being solved do you think they'd seriously be like: "you'll never be able to solve that."

Godmil: Using a 6x6 to argue a +2s penalty is pretty silly. The longer a solve takes, the less significant 2 seconds becomes. You should have been arguing +2 for the sub1 2x2 WR. A +2 in that case would have shattered the chance at a WR, and wouldn't even have you close at it.

Now let's put this situation into perspective: You perform a 0.69 solve on 2x2, drop it, and stop the timer. Let's go ahead and say through a simple cell phone camera you can clearly see the cube was solved before it hits the table but not after. This takes a new WR and moves it to a time that's not even in the top 100 (according to the WCA database). Now this is a case where setting it down carefully could have made this solve not a WR solve had he carefully placed the cube down first.

Dene: An incorrect AUF before performing PLL cannot be "proven" as to what happened. You would agree that some people know PLL algs for (at least some cases) all angles, while some people only know one alg per case. You cannot ask a competitor which alg he performed and which AUF he went to perform, otherwise you might as well ask them if they received a +2 or DNF (except in this case much less ability to discern the truth from fiction). An incorrect post-PLL AUF can be proven.

That being said, I do tend to agree with Ryan Reese about removing the +2 misalignment rule from BLD events and changing it to DNF, unless we change an inner slice (so M for 3x3 and all inner slices on higher order cubes) realignments (universally) to being a +2 instead of DNF.