M slice +2 Poll
- Thread starter yjyulong
- Start date
mjm
Regular
I'm curious as to what those who voted No's reasoning is. I feel like I know why those who voted Yes did so, that's why I'm not as interested.
penguinz7
Veteran
Ranzha
Friendly, Neighbourhoodly
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2009
- Messages
- 2,551
- Location
- Reno, Nevada, United States
- WCA ID
- 2009HARN01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
I voted no.
I'm in the group of people who wants to remove the misalignment penalty altogether.
I'm in the group of people who wants to remove the misalignment penalty altogether.
Lucas Garron
Premium Member
As am I.
I think extending the penalty to slice moves is a bad idea. It just complicates what counts as (almost) solved, which is going to lead to more confusion and misjudgment in practice.
It's also not as natural to define. Does R L2 count? What if it's R L2 but *almost* R2 L2? I don't think we should go back to allowing a penalty for arbitrary slice misalignments on a single axis, so this is still going to result in rulings that some people will find disappointing or awkward.
Not relevant to the exact question at hand, but:
Although adding a definition of slice moves for speedsolve misalignments is not extremely hard, I worry that it would be used to push for allowing slice moves in FMC. FMC has been using OBTM for a long time, and starting to allow slice moves would make new results unfairly incomparable to past results. I think we should avoid trying to deal with slice moves in the WCA at all.
Kit Clement
Premium Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,626
- Location
- Champaign, IL, USA
- WCA ID
- 2008CLEM01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Under "slices are +2s" rules, someone tell me what the penalty is for this, and explain why.
http://i.imgur.com/v6ax7m1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/v6ax7m1.jpg
Genius4Jesus
Veteran
^This sort of issue is exactly why we should not make slice moves +2.
I am in agreement that we should just get rid of misalignment +2s. Is the cube solved or not? Simple.
EDIT: If the Roux solvers (and other people) want to make things more "fair" by making slice moves +2, having no misalignment penalties would make it "fair" across the board.
I am in agreement that we should just get rid of misalignment +2s. Is the cube solved or not? Simple.
EDIT: If the Roux solvers (and other people) want to make things more "fair" by making slice moves +2, having no misalignment penalties would make it "fair" across the board.
Dene
Premium Member
Indeed, and it looks like this idea is getting more support than it did in the past too. Just need Chris Krueger to join the discussion to lend a supporting voice
penguinz7
Veteran
I made a poll on facebook (Cyoubx' friends). It's been an hour and 21 people have voted against +2's and 2 people have voted for them.
OLLiver
Veteran
- Joined
- May 9, 2015
- Messages
- 912
- Location
- Christchurch, New Zealand
- WCA ID
- 2015JENK02
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
I consider M moves 'one' move as everyone can do them with one finger flick. I found the whole DNF thing for M moves really weird when I started cubing
Cale S
Veteran
I also voted 'no'
Is there a reason for wanting to change it other than "I'll get less DNF's?"
Is there a reason for wanting to change it other than "I'll get less DNF's?"
adimare
Veteran
Voted no, but I wish there were no +2s at all.
I had an idea awhile ago to replace this, but it's unrealistic since it'd require changes in the way stackmats work: it'd be cool if the timer kept running internally for a couple of seconds after you place your hands on it. If you keep them on the timer for 2 seconds the time you got when you placed your hands on it is locked in, but if you release the timer the clock starts running again picking up at the time you'd have if you'd never placed your hands on the timer at all.
So let's say you solve your cube and place your hands to stop the timer at 10.00 sec, the timer displays 10.00 but it's still running internally. It takes you 0.7 seconds to notice you're actually an M2 away from solving the cube. You release the timer to grab the cube. The timer starts running again, starting at 10.7 seconds. It takes you 0.8 more seconds to solve the cube and place your hands on the timer again. The clock stops at 11.5 sec, you maintain your hands on the timer to lock in that time and your final time for the solve is 11.5 seconds. If you lock in a time and the cube is not fully solved, you get a DNF.
I had an idea awhile ago to replace this, but it's unrealistic since it'd require changes in the way stackmats work: it'd be cool if the timer kept running internally for a couple of seconds after you place your hands on it. If you keep them on the timer for 2 seconds the time you got when you placed your hands on it is locked in, but if you release the timer the clock starts running again picking up at the time you'd have if you'd never placed your hands on the timer at all.
So let's say you solve your cube and place your hands to stop the timer at 10.00 sec, the timer displays 10.00 but it's still running internally. It takes you 0.7 seconds to notice you're actually an M2 away from solving the cube. You release the timer to grab the cube. The timer starts running again, starting at 10.7 seconds. It takes you 0.8 more seconds to solve the cube and place your hands on the timer again. The clock stops at 11.5 sec, you maintain your hands on the timer to lock in that time and your final time for the solve is 11.5 seconds. If you lock in a time and the cube is not fully solved, you get a DNF.
muchacho
Veteran
Cool unrealistic idea.
At least for me it feels no that different of a U move. I voted yes, but I'd prefer more DNFs, it would make more sense that +2 misalignment penalties were DNFs instead.
It would be a DNF. You evaluate if after a 90 degrees M/M' move (or simply a 90 degrees move of any layer) the cube would be in a position that would warrant no more penalties.
Kit Clement
Premium Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,626
- Location
- Champaign, IL, USA
- WCA ID
- 2008CLEM01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Thanks for making my point, as by your reasoning, that should actually be a +2, as it is possible to bring this cube to a solved position by applying a move to the slice. Trying to come up with rules that are easy to understand and will be applied the same across the world for the slice is incredibly difficult.
muchacho
Veteran
A 90 degrees move to one layer puts that cube in a solved position?
Kit Clement
Premium Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,626
- Location
- Champaign, IL, USA
- WCA ID
- 2008CLEM01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
The same cube after applying a 90 degree turn to a slice, which is now in a solved state: http://i.imgur.com/EWj1ssB.jpg
Dene
Premium Member
Nope. This is the exact same thing I noticed when I was pushing to get +2 for misalignment removed. All of the arguments were "but but but but I want +2". Not a single real reason for keeping +2 was given.
muchacho
Veteran
Ah ok, I was assuming more than 45 degrees between one layer and any of the others meant a non solved state (that would be difficult to judge?), sorry about that. +2 then.
gyroninja
Regular
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2015
- Messages
- 139
A M off should be a DNF. The +2 for an obtm off is also kind of silly. We give out official times when people don't even finish solving the cube.
Sajwo
Veteran
Are there any arguments besides "it's not solved, so it should be a DNF"? Do you even imagine how bad it would ruin people's results? Do you even know how easy it is to get a cube 46 degrees off the solved state? It's an accident, not competitor's fault. And you want to punish them because they had a bad luck. I would be surprised if a ton of people would quit after these pointless regulations about removing feet and +2 rule.
To be honest, you sound like a noob, who doesn't even know what the reality on competition is (even if you are an organiser..)
Similar threads
- Locked
