Proposal: allow a move limit for FMC

[AvGalen]

Since when do we have to take events seriously to be allowed to compete? I thought we did this for fun!
Move limits don't make any sense to me. They wouldn't make the competition go any better and they would prevent people from getting interested in an event. I did a 2/2 multiblind in 26 minutes and it was a national record at that time. I had never done a succesful single blind. I have never gotten another NR.
If you want to make cutoffs more regulated you should do something like "not worse than 3 times the WR average". So you couldn't do a 4x4x4 solve if you aren't under 1:30 or a multiblind if you didn't try at least 10 cubes. And still that would allow for 60 moves for FMC and only save a couple of minutes for checking on a timeframe of > 1 hour!
During the first competition that I organised I did all events (except fmc and big/multi-blind) on 1 day with multiple rounds for 2,3,4,5 (75% continued), no timelimit and we had time for a mystery event. You can see for yourself how slow several people were and still it didn't hold up the competition: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?allResults=All+Results&competitionId=1AVG2013

I would hate cut-offs for FMC, because it would mean that if I wrote an ' wrong on a 60 minute attempt I wouldn't get to do the other 2 attempts, just to save the one who checks my result. If you would allow people with a DNF first attempt to do another attempt, but not somebody with a valid 41 moves solution something would be even more messed up.

 

[cubizh]

I don't think this is a fair analogy. The 15 second inspection and 1 hour FMC time are a fundamental part of these events as laid out by the guidelines. The length of solution and time taken for solving are both results, which makes them comparable. Your point would be more analogous to allowing organizers to reduce the FMC time given from 1 hour to 45 minutes or less, which is not the request here.

Spoiler: Relevant Regulations to this reply

- A3a1) The competitor is allotted a maximum of 15 seconds to inspect the puzzle and start the solve.

- E2b) All competitors have a total time limit of 60 minutes to devise a solution.

- E2b1) The judge should call "5 MINUTES REMAINING" at 55 minutes, and must call "STOP" at 60 minutes.

- E2c) At 60 minutes, each competitor must give the judge a legibly written solution with the competitor's name, using the notation defined for Outer Block Turn Metric (described in Regulation 12a). Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).

- E2d1) The competitor is permitted a maximum solution length of 80 (moves and rotations).

Since all regulations have equal importance, they all represent a fundamental part of these events, regardless of what they say. The point of having regulations is to have a common set of rules that should always be followed everywhere.

In essence, setting arbitrary FMC limits with the current way the regulation is written would conflict with E2d1) and would ultimately be saying "E2d1) no longer applies and organizer should do what they want", hence my analogy that it would be like proposing an inspection time limit, like saying "A3a1) no longer applies and organizer should do what they want", etc. I didn't go as far as as reducing FMC time in the example, as it would touch three regulations.

I feel the introduction of conflict-inducing regulations to be a path that one should not take.

There are other reasons that I disagree with this, but this was just a reply to what qqwref said.

 

[dlo]

During the first competition that I organised I did all events (except fmc and big/multi-blind) on 1 day with multiple rounds for 2,3,4,5 (75% continued), no timelimit and we had time for a mystery event. You can see for yourself how slow several people were and still it didn't hold up the competition: https://www.worldcubeassociation.or... size and time of the competition manageable.

 

[Dene]

How does doing FMC at a low skill level make a mockery of FMC?

It doesn't. Refer to my next comment about people that "do" the event.

Enough of the hostility between countries please Time to find solutions, not to blame each other for being rubbish

There was only one person accusing others of being rubbish. (although I appreciate you trying do defuse the situation)

I think there must be better solutions to this problem for Australia.

If Dene and Tim are really snowed under with work, I would humbly suggest that you should find organisers who actually organise

There isn't a problem. I've been very clear about this, so I'm not sure why you still think this way. Me and Tim are happy to do all the work, it's basically our whole lives so we may as well keep busy with it. I just find it weird that we allow people who really aren't actually interested in FMC to compete in it simply because they know the notation.

Ok, now I believe you are just trying to make useless jabs at people without saying anything useful. "All these American kids"? How about you avoid inconsiderate generalizations that make no forward progress in this thread.

I've been around for years and I've seen many instances of this sort of behaviour. I might be biased because this forum is dominated by American kids though... But still, most of the attitude problems come from this group of people. NOTE: I am not saying every American kid has a sense of self-righteousness.

Quit acting so high-and-mighty. You think you're better than everyone else, don't you?

No I don't, but I'm not going to tolerate people calling me lazy when I contribute years of hard work, long hours, and loads of money to building the cubing community in Australasia, just so others can have a great experience.

 

[Mollerz]

No I don't, but I'm not going to tolerate people calling me lazy when I contribute years of hard work, long hours, and loads of money to building the cubing community in Australasia, just so others can have a great experience.

Obviously I was not calling you lazy for this, how could you ever infer that? I am clearly aware of all you have done for the Oceanic cubing community and I know for a fact that a lot of people respect you for that, myself included. I called you lazy for not wanting to spend the extra 5-10 minutes for checking "non-FMC" solutions.

 

[Noahaha]

I just find it weird that we allow people who really aren't actually interested in FMC to compete in it simply because they know the notation.

Whenever a competition holds pyraminx, I sign up for it. I am terrible at pyraminx since I only know three algorithms for it. I am not interested in the event, but I still have fun competing in it. I think a lot of people feel the same way about FMC. Just because you're not good or serious doesn't mean you can't have fun doing it and try to get a good result for you.

I've been around for years and I've seen many instances of this sort of behaviour. I might be biased because this forum is dominated by American kids though... But still, most of the attitude problems come from this group of people. NOTE: I am not saying every American kid has a sense of self-righteousness.

I think this is it. I've interacted with younger cubers from many different countries through FB, YT, RL, and I don't see any difference in maturity between the American ones and the others.

That being said, it's always a mixed bag. Plenty of times I've been impressed with the maturity of a younger cuber or disappointed in the childishness of an older one.

 

[AvGalen]

There were only 32 competitors at this event. I wouldn't expect limits (such as the existing time ones and the proposed FMC move limit) to be used at small competitions. It's great that there are many small competitions where everyone gets to compete, regardless of skill level. However for large national and world competitions, limits are a useful option in order to keep the size and time of the competition manageable.

Actually, 32 is a fairly normal size competition in Oceania. Only a few competitions (all in the last year) have been bigger. Only 7 competitions in Oceania had FMC and only the last one had a substantial amount of competitors. a 40 move cutoff would not be a good idea (https://www.worldcubeassociation.or...ults&competitionId=MelbourneCubeDay2011#333fm)

 

[ryanj92]

I agree that changing the move limit should be allowed - 80 as a maximum seems a bit arbitrary to me anyway

Obviously it's looking like not many people would use it, which is fine, but I can't see any reason why the move limit should not be changed if it is deemed necessary to. I think the initial mention of a 40 move limit has been the unintentional downfall of this thread, which is pretty sad to me. If organisers think that they could save a noticeable amount of time by just DNFing all solutions above some movecount, then so be it, I guess.

 

[ottozing]

Sorry to add to the pile of posts that are irrelevant to the discussion at hand regarding FMC move cutoffs, but I was told to post my point of view in the thread because apparently its important so whatever. Hopefully this won't be too off topic by the end of it.

For running the show at least, I recommend you start trusting your organisers and give them a go at running the show.

I understand that Dene and Tim have been running basically everything for a very long time, and as far as I can tell they're doing a good job, but I think it's probably time to start letting other people (Not necessarily me) do more work for you guys. As far as "other organizers" go, I can't really speak for everyone who's listed as an organizer for a comp, but from my experience, I haven't had to do anything beyond getting a venue, and I honestly think it's stupid that I'm listed as the "organizer for Australian Nationals 2013" when Dene and Tim did everything else.

I'm too lazy to get the posts about how quickly Dene and Tim check FMC solutions, but from what I can tell, me/Faz/Tim Major would be faster (no offense) at checking solutions, and I think all 3 of us are trustworthy enough to be given that duty. In fact, even if they don't consider us trustworthy for whatever reason, then they could always just give us all the long solutions that won't be good enough to either podium or beat our comp PB's so you don't have to worry about us messing with good solutions due to bias. That way, Dene and Tim don't have to check the solutions of "competitors who don't take the event seriously who just want a result". For extra accuracy, Dene and/or Tim could double check any solution that me/Faz/Tim Major DNF'd incase there's still some sort of trust issue with one of us DNFing a solve because we don't like someone or something.

Again, I don't have a problem with a cutoff being implemented, but it seems like no one else aside from Australia would use it, and as far as I'm concerned, I think I just proposed a much much more effective way of dealing with our current "problem". Dene and Tim may be good at running the show, but it seems there's at least one case where getting other's involved would make it better.

 

[AvGalen]

I agree that changing the move limit should be allowed - 80 as a maximum seems a bit arbitrary to me anyway

Obviously it's looking like not many people would use it, which is fine, but I can't see any reason why the move limit should not be changed if it is deemed necessary to. I think the initial mention of a 40 move limit has been the unintentional downfall of this thread, which is pretty sad to me. If organisers think that they could save a noticeable amount of time by just DNFing all solutions above some movecount, then so be it, I guess.

The point is that it doesn't save time for the competition but only for the organisors to check. The event will still take 60 minutes so a cut-off would not make the event shorter but would make "writing down the scores" shorter. In all other events a cut-off is used to make sure the event itself will not take too long because of a few excessive solvers.

Would anyone be in favor of having a 10 second cut-off for 333 finals? Clearly a sup 10 solve is not worth scoring and it would save time for the competition. How much time? Just a few seconds? So only a few percent of the total time for that round would be saved? Not worth it you say? Don't be stupid you say? I feel exactly the same about having a cut-off for fmc

 

[Kirjava]

It doesn't. Refer to my next comment about people that "do" the event.

I don't "do" FMC. Should I not compete in it?

 

[IRNjuggle28]

Whenever a competition holds pyraminx, I sign up for it. I am terrible at pyraminx since I only know three algorithms for it. I am not interested in the event, but I still have fun competing in it. I think a lot of people feel the same way about FMC. Just because you're not good or serious doesn't mean you can't have fun doing it and try to get a good result for you.

There is no comparison between you sucking at pyraminx (averaging 15 seconds per solve) and someone sucking at FMC and taking an hour to do nothing. It's not obvious where to draw the line on just how indifferent is too indifferent to compete, but I think it's obvious that a 15 second pyra average is not past that invisible line, and an hour on a crappy FMC is past it.

 

[AvGalen]

People don't take an hour to do nothing at FMC. They either write down a 10 minute solution and leave or keep trying to get a skip

 

[Dene]

Obviously I was not calling you lazy for this, how could you ever infer that? I am clearly aware of all you have done for the Oceanic cubing community and I know for a fact that a lot of people respect you for that, myself included. I called you lazy for not wanting to spend the extra 5-10 minutes for checking "non-FMC" solutions.

An unfortunate misunderstanding (not that I would take nicely to being called lazy in any case in general anyway ).

The thing is, and what I have been trying to stress, is that, at the time when we got around to marking (not exactly looking forward to it but prepared to do the job anyway) it got steadily more frustrating as we came across what can only be described as really stupid stuff (someone naively doing L' L', and that sort of thing). It's the same as when you see someone in 3x3 doing Dan Brown method, but without exactly knowing which algorithms to use at which time, therefore repeating themselves a lot and screwing up etc. We accept it because it's 3x3 and we want everyone to compete, but it's painful to watch regardless.

The way I look at things in general, and how I tend to structure competitions and cut-offs, is that there are the "core" events, or "beginner" events of 2x2, 3x3, and OH (and magic in the past). Then there are intermediate events like bld, 4x4 and 5x5. Then there are more advanced events, like multibld, 6x6/7x7, and FMC. (Obviously not a complete list).

For beginner events we would usually have the most rounds, the most competitors, and no cut-offs. Intermediate events usually get 2 rounds, moderate cut-offs (depending on time available), and will be hosted based on community popularity. Advanced events will only get hosted at one or two competitions a year (based on popularity), will usually only get one round, and will have the strictest cut-offs (where applicable).

And in my opinion, the more advanced events should really only be for people that genuinely "do" those events, or are at least capable enough to do well anyway. (this answers Kir's question too).


I guess not many people see things the same way I do.

I just think it's a shame this thread got sidetracked so much from the original purpose, and people got so distracted by things completely irrelevant. Can't some people that disagree with me actually give a few reasons against my proposal, rather than everyone being all "why are you hating so much? why are you such an elitist? are you really that slow?" because none of this is contributing at all.

 

[Mollerz]

The thing is, and what I have been trying to stress, is that, at the time when we got around to marking (not exactly looking forward to it but prepared to do the job anyway) it got steadily more frustrating as we came across what can only be described as really stupid stuff (someone naively doing L' L', and that sort of thing). It's the same as when you see someone in 3x3 doing Dan Brown method, but without exactly knowing which algorithms to use at which time, therefore repeating themselves a lot and screwing up etc. We accept it because it's 3x3 and we want everyone to compete, but it's painful to watch regardless.

I'd say I'm reasonably decent at FMC, I usually average low 30. Even I have done things like R2 R' in my solution in the past. I know plenty of other people who have done that too who I would consider decent at FMC.

It seems like after a full day of organising and sorting out competition you just want to relax in the evening instead of having to check FMC results, some of which are obviously not well versed in how to do FMC well. Just get a few people to help out straight after the round, get it done quickly, then it is out the way and you don't have to worry about it for later!

 

[AvGalen]

And in my opinion, the more advanced events should really only be for people that genuinely "do" those events, or are at least capable enough to do well anyway. (this answers Kir's question too).

I guess not many people see things the same way I do.

I think this sums it up nicely. You have categorised things in a certain way that doesn't really fit with the way competitors behave so you want to adjust the rules. I cringe when I see an <RU> U-Perm during FMC, but I also do that when I see somebody flip 2 edges in blind with a buffer-method or when I see somebody do several parity algs on 5x5x5 or....none of that is my business and those people are sometimes faster than me anyway. They are not holding up the competition, they are having fun, and they will later learn (or not) how they could have done something better and improve their result the next competition.

 

[Kirjava]

And in my opinion, the more advanced events should really only be for people that genuinely "do" those events, or are at least capable enough to do well anyway. (this answers Kir's question too).

"Don't compete unless you're able to do well" seems like a very alienating concept.

 

[megaminxwin]

It is clear that competitors doing this simply want a result in the database. While that may be nice for them, I consider it a waste of my time. I want to hold FMC for the few people that actually take it somewhat seriously, but I can't avoid all these tag-alongs just wanting a solve in the database. If I could enforce a move limit, perhaps I would host FMC more often.

Sorry.

 

[Pedro]

I think this sums it up nicely. You have categorised things in a certain way that doesn't really fit with the way competitors behave so you want to adjust the rules. I cringe when I see an <RU> U-Perm during FMC, but I also do that when I see somebody flip 2 edges in blind with a buffer-method or when I see somebody do several parity algs on 5x5x5 or....none of that is my business and those people are sometimes faster than me anyway. They are not holding up the competition, they are having fun, and they will later learn (or not) how they could have done something better and improve their result the next competition.

"Don't compete unless you're able to do well" seems like a very alienating concept.

Totally agreed here.

I don't think any event should be treated as "advanced" or something, and people should be deprived of the opportunity to even try it for a first time.
Of course a 20-min solve is probably not gonna be accepted for 4x4 (or even 7x7), because we have a schedule to follow, but, given the different nature of FM, and given the fact that everybody competes at the same time and it will last for an hour, no matter how good people are, we should not have a move-cutoff.

I believe it's not up to us to say "your solution is too long, I think you're a noob, so your result is not gonna count". (please keep in mind the difference from timed events here -> solution being too long = too much time spent = probably not fit in the schedule)

 

[acohen527]

As long as past results aren't deleted
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2012COHE01