Proposal: allow a move limit for FMC

[TMOY]

They aren't:

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2007JIPT01#333fm
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2007DUSS01#333fm

For those wo weren't competing in 2009 yet, FMC originally had no move limit at all, and people submitting such absurdly long solutions were the reason why one was finally set.

 

[Noahaha]

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.

I don't think this is true. In FMC it doesn't make a difference how many people compete. It takes an hour whether you have 5 competitors or 50. The only difference is in how long it takes to judge. When someone does an FMC attempt, they are not taking up an hour of the competition's time, just the amount of time it takes to check their solution.

 

[Sebastien]

Well, at some occasions competition space might be limited. But that's again a completely different point.

 

[Ranzha]

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

What about setting a limit as a motivational practice?
"Don't sign up unless you want to do better than n moves."

From setting ridiculous cutoffs in the past, I know that people actually try to get beneath cut-offs so that they can not only compete, but improve.

 

[Dene]

Sorry.

Tomas you absolutely don't have to apologise for anything (although I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or serious). I'm thinking about the future here, and you did nothing wrong.

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

It's a harsh way of putting it, but for the most part this is exactly what is done for most other events in the name of "saving time" and "reducing wasted resources" or whatever. Unless someone can genuinely justify using cut-offs in other events with a reason other than "you're wasting too much time", I fail to see why this should be any different.

long post

Hi Jay, I'm not really sure exactly what you're getting at? I mean, anyone can put their hand up to take full control of hosting a competition, and me and Tim wouldn't stand in the way of someone doing that. In fact, it would suit me just fine, and I'm pretty sure Tim would be glad to not have to do all the logistical work behind-the-scenes. I'm not sure if anyone has ever actually asked to do such a thing because people mostly e-mail Tim about that, but to my knowledge no one ever has.

As for the FMC marking thing, I think this is only the first or second time me and Tim have done all the work ourselves. I can explicitly recall a couple of other times when other people have done it (AvG, Brest, Major etc.). So it's not as if this isn't already being done. To be honest I'm confused as to where exactly you're coming from and what exactly you're getting at when referring to the "problem" we have here. My only problem is allowing people that don't really know how to do FMC doing FMC. Much in the same way it would be a problem if people that don't really know how to do 6x6 do 6x6. I mean, if you know how to solve a 5x5 you can pretty much guess your way through a 6x6 solve. If you know notation, you can easily write down a solution. But we don't generally allow people to sit there and muck about with a 6x6 for 10 minutes, so why do we allow it for FMC?

In my head, this doesn't make any sense at all. This is my only problem.

 

[kcl]

Tomas you absolutely don't have to apologise for anything (although I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or serious). I'm thinking about the future here, and you did nothing wrong.



It's a harsh way of putting it, but for the most part this is exactly what is done for most other events in the name of "saving time" and "reducing wasted resources" or whatever. Unless someone can genuinely justify using cut-offs in other events with a reason other than "you're wasting too much time", I fail to see why this should be any different.

Look. I'm not exactly an FMC pro, but if there is a full hour allotted for finding solutions, you aren't saving any time by restricting the movecount, because some people will always use the full hour. I know you think you're saving time with this, but being perfectly honest, all I'm hearing from your argument is that you're too slow in checking solutions and you don't want to have to put in that effort for the extra 20 moves. (I could very easily check a 60 mover in 2 minutes) You have had multiple competitors who are extremely reliable members of this community volunteer to help with checking solutions, and yet you turn them down?

Sounds like your issue is yourself.

 

[Dene]

Look. I'm not exactly an FMC pro, but if there is a full hour allotted for finding solutions, you aren't saving any time by restricting the movecount, because some people will always use the full hour. I know you think you're saving time with this, but being perfectly honest, all I'm hearing from your argument is that you're too slow in checking solutions and you don't want to have to put in that effort for the extra 20 moves. (I could very easily check a 60 mover in 2 minutes) You have had multiple competitors who are extremely reliable members of this community volunteer to help with checking solutions, and yet you turn them down?

Sounds like your issue is yourself.

It sounds like your issue is you don't know how to read, because I never complained once about the time it takes to do it.

 

[kcl]

It sounds like your issue is you don't know how to read, because I never complained once about the time it takes to do it.

I'm not sure why you think I can't read. Honestly I'm too lazy to waste my time reading through this crap again, but if I'm interpreting this correctly your entire argument is based around the fact that you waste too much time grading solutions. You have no argument if you're claiming that isn't your issue.

 

[Dene]

I'm not sure why you think I can't read. Honestly I'm too lazy to waste my time reading through this crap again, but if I'm interpreting this correctly your entire argument is based around the fact that you waste too much time grading solutions. You have no argument if you're claiming that isn't your issue.

You are not interpreting this correctly at all. Everybody else seems to have made this implication, then responded as such, but I never made any claim of the sort. I have repeatedly stated my argument. In the post just above, in response to jay, I again stated my perspective, so you don't have to go far to find it.

 

[kcl]

You are not interpreting this correctly at all. Everybody else seems to have made this implication, then responded as such, but I never made any claim of the sort. I have repeatedly stated my argument. In the post just above, in response to jay, I again stated my perspective, so you don't have to go far to find it.

Case and point, if you didn't say it directly it was heavily implied here.

I know Tim was only checking solutions once, but I was checking every attempt at least twice, if not three or four times. Honestly I don't see why anyone would do less than this, as a lot is riding on getting it right.
obviously this takes longer than normal.
Ultimately I would say Tim and myself spent at least an hour checking through solutions on Saturday night. This isn't exactly the most enjoyable task in the world, and it's made a lot worse going through long solutions by people that obviously don't practise FMC.
complaining about time spent

My general mentality towards setting time cut-offs in competition is "if this person takes this event seriously, and has put dedicated practise towards it, they'll be able to reach the cut-off".
If you would listen to us, you would understand that not everybody has the skills to meet this. FMC always takes an hour, and grading always takes the same amount of time unless some kind of record solve, so I honestly don't see the issue here. The entire proposal seems redundant.

 

[Jimmy Liu]

But we don't generally allow people to sit there and muck about with a 6x6 for 10 minutes, so why do we allow it for FMC?

I don't get this. Solving 6x6 for 10 minutes may delay the schedule, that's why we apply cutoffs. But doing a 60 moves FMC won't take more than an hour, the waste of time is checking the solutions, which might waste the delegates' time. So, long FMC solutions is not a problem for schedule. Since you don't bother checking the solutions for a long time, why not letting not pro FMCer have their results?

 

[TimMc]

Off-topic:

Scramble: L2 R2 F' R2 F D2 R2 D2 U2 B2 D B D U R2 D2 L' D B D'

Solution: http://alg.cubing.net/?setup=L2R2F-...-R-U-Ry-RUR-y-Rw-U2RUR-URwUR-UR-U-R-U-R-URUR2

Tim.

 

[AvGalen]

Off-topic:

Scramble: L2 R2 F' R2 F D2 R2 D2 U2 B2 D B D U R2 D2 L' D B D'

Solution: http://alg.cubing.net/?setup=L2R2F-...-R-U-Ry-RUR-y-Rw-U2RUR-URwUR-UR-U-R-U-R-URUR2

Tim.

When you have to type capitals and small letters it is too complicated! Basically this would make data-entry another problem-vector. It has some advantages, some disadvantages and should be discussed, but not in this topic

 

[Sebastien]

But we don't generally allow people to sit there and muck about with a 6x6 for 10 minutes, so why do we allow it for FMC?

In my head, this doesn't make any sense at all. This is my only problem.

Completely neutral statement as an observer:

The facts from our current system: Organisers can set time limits for all speed solving events.

You do apparently think that this does (at least partially) originate from the fact, that we want to require people to have at least a decent level in an event, or in other words are somewhat dedicated dedidated to an event. From this perspective, it is completely reasonable to extent the concept of a time limit in speedsolviing events to a move limit for FMC.

Meanwhile many others, and it seems to me that this is the vast majority, understands the concept of time limits as something that solely has the purpose to control the competition flow and to prevent delays because of extremely slow solvers. From this perspective, it is completely unreasonable to extent this concept to a move limit in FMC, as everyone is allowed 60 minutes anyway and as no competition time can be gained.

 

[Dene]

Yes I think that is basically what it boils down to. Thank goodness someone can see my reasoning. Now it's up to others to decide whether it's acceptable or not. I'm happy to accept whatever decision the WRC/Board comes to.

Despite what a lot of people might think, it was simply just an idea that came to my mind. I'm not trying to cause a huge kerfuffle over the whole thing. Somehow it got completely blown out of the water...

 

[kcl]

So my claims about grading FMC had no backup before. I graded nearly all of the solutions at Indiana. I checked each one multiple times, and the longest I ever took was 55 seconds. Brandon's 69 mover that you claim is an immature waste of time took 35 seconds.

 

[AvGalen]

Yes I think that is basically what it boils down to. Thank goodness someone can see my reasoning. Now it's up to others to decide whether it's acceptable or not. I'm happy to accept whatever decision the WRC/Board comes to.

Despite what a lot of people might think, it was simply just an idea that came to my mind. I'm not trying to cause a huge kerfuffle over the whole thing. Somehow it got completely blown out of the water...

Your reasoning was entirely clear from the beginning. But nobody seems to agree with it so it got blown out of the water. You just didn't seem to understand that all other cutoffs are used to limit competitor time to keep the competition on track. Your proposal only limited judging time so it doesn't compare with the current limitations that you DID compare it with. Many other people explained how you could speed up checking the results but you weren't open to those tips. That is why there are now 139 posts in this topic

 

[Dene]

Your reasoning was entirely clear from the beginning. But nobody seems to agree with it so it got blown out of the water. You just didn't seem to understand that all other cutoffs are used to limit competitor time to keep the competition on track. Your proposal only limited judging time so it doesn't compare with the current limitations that you DID compare it with. Many other people explained how you could speed up checking the results but you weren't open to those tips. That is why there are now 139 posts in this topic

Well I'm glad you also thought my reasoning was clear. The only reason this thread got so derailed is because everyone assumed I'm just horribly slow at marking solutions, which simply isn't true and has nothing to do with it.

But I ask of you: Why have cut-offs for any other event? Is it really to keep a competition on track? It would be simple enough to allot more time to each event and let everyone get a full average.

The way I see it, everyone else just has a double standard but they don't want to admit it so they ignore my points and harp on about irrelevant stuff.

 

[AvGalen]

Yes, it is purely to keep a competition on track. So for example somebody who needs 30 minutes for a 6x6x6 solve will not spend 90 minutes on the podium, occupying a judge and timer.
Instead, a timelimit of 10 minutes (default) or for example 5 minutes means that his solve will be interupted and written down as a DNF
Combined with the combined rounds rule, that means that such a person will not get a 2nd and 3rd solve. This can save a lot of time in such an extreme situation. But my experience is that people like this would only like to do 1 solve to get an official ranking, and will then take DNS for the other solves, so I don't have Combined/Cut-Off rounds at my competitions. "Everybody that wants to gets an average"

This has nothing to do with double standards. It is all about keeping the competition on track by putting limits on the competitor solving time

 

[Erik]

The only reason this thread got so derailed is because everyone assumed I'm just horribly slow at marking solutions, which simply isn't true and has nothing to do with it.

While you may have changed your reasoning to "consistency of the regs" and "motivating cubers to up their FMC level", this was not the case from the beginning (and if you say: "but it is what I ment", then it was just not clear enough).

Let me quote yourself from your first post.

It is clear that competitors doing this simply want a result in the database.

Which is a false assumption. Because of this, this part of your reasoning is not in line with "I want to motivate cubers to up their level of FMC", which it became later on.

While that may be nice for them, I consider it a waste of my time.

This was the start of the discussion about your 'solution checking approach'. As we have showed, this is only because of the way you work. Later on you claimed you did not see this as a problem (nor do you admit you are slower than others), although it sure sounds like it here.

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.

Not that it matters much, but I just wanted to point that your reasoning is not very consistent throughout this thread. I don't say this to bash you (at all), but maybe try to be clearer in the 'what' and 'why' of a proposal next time.

But I ask of you: Why have cut-offs for any other event? Is it really to keep a competition on track? It would be simple enough to allot more time to each event and let everyone get a full average.

Yes it is. IF there was enough time to let everyone get a full average for all events, I'm sure any organizer would allow it. This reasoning is also in line with the WCA's "more people and more fun" goal, since a time limit with the goal of not letting low-skilled cubers compete (at all) would mean 'less people' and 'less fun'.

Edit: partly Ninja'd by AvG