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

[Kian]

Your puzzle is either solved, or not solved. Black or white, there is no grey area. Remove the +2 penalty altogether.

There is still gray area. Are you against the 45 degree rule?

 

[liljthedude]

There is still gray area. Are you against the 45 degree rule?

No. If the side is less than 45 degrees from the solve state then yes it is solved. But anything large than 45 is not solved.

 

[Kian]

No. If the side is less than 45 degrees from the solve state then yes it is solved. But anything large than 45 is not solved.

Well that's just an arbitrary number, just like the 1 move rule. I'm trying to point out how it's not any different.

 

[The Bloody Talon]

Good point. Would someone have to go through all the past solves that had +2's and change them?

and history of world records will be changed.
and I don't think it is good idea to make the past records not affected by this possible changes.

but other than this issues, I agree with removing the penalties.

 

[TimMc]

I'm in favour for replacing it. I've always walked away feeling guilty that I've received a +2 penalty when I know in my heart that it's not truly solved.

I don't think there'd be any advantages in terms of saving time during judging. A competitor would be more likely to get into a heated dispute over a DNF than a +2 penalty.

Is +2 seconds enough incentive to get competitors to complete the solver properly?

Would including +2 penalties in the database for everyone to see, discouraging competitors from being lazy/hasty with finishing their solve? Is this how people view DNF's against their name?

Tim.

 

[Laura O]

I think most DNFs are a result of an err on the back of the puzzle.

That's true for slower clock solvers I assume. Approximately 95% of my DNFs are those cases where I hurried to do the last move and the clocks are at 11 or 1.

Nevertheless when doing the Pochmann method or variations the last step solves all the clocks on the current side and the corner clocks on the back side. So the +2-rule would not be "all clocks are at 11 or 1" but "all clocks on one side and all corner clocks on the other side are on 11 or 1". This would make it quite hard to judge for a lot of people and would lead to further discoussions.

 

[Erik]

Like all years I'm strongly against it.

I hope next year people will give up on pushing this through...

 

[Kirjava]

Roux user = Moar slices = Moar DNF for misaligns. Probably wouldn't affect you all that much.

I get more +2 than DNF.

 

[mrCage]

Like all years I'm strongly against it.

I hope next year people will give up on pushing this through...

I second that. Especially because it is also impossible to change the old results currently in the WCA database.

On a second note let us start to record all those +2 into the database, together with the original result.

We should always record raw data and what we have done to it

Per

 

[Zane_C]

I don't see this as being anything major, but with the current +2 penalty there is the possibility of someone deliberately using it to their advantage.
For instance, if someone is a really slow turner or has a terrible cube, the +2 penalty could be less than the time to make that final turn.

To be realistic though, feet is the only event where I can see this regulation being abused often. (On a side note; I remember talking to someone at worlds who said if he participated in feet, he would +2 every solve. ) However, if someone is slow enough to deliberately +2 to gain an advantage, I don't see why many people will care.

Even though the above argument supports the abolishment of the +2 penalty. I am in favour of the +2 penalty remaining.
Anyone who can manage to get a puzzle 1 move away from being solved clearly knows what they're doing. A slight finger slip shouldn't prevent someone from getting recognition of their attempt.

 

[Dene]

I didn't actually do it, although one time I did a feet solve I should have as it took me at least 10 seconds to do the last turn. But yes, the problem definitely can occur in feet solving. Nowadays it might not be as valuable to take the +2 instead of doing the last turn for the fastest people, but I'm not too sure.

 

[Escher]

The fact that I have had many occasions over my past few competitions where new judges have assigned +2s without properly (actually) assessing the puzzle makes me feel that they would do exactly the same for DNFs.

I like qqwref's intuitive fairness argument. I also think that removing it would change the meta negatively, for the sake of what gain exactly? That puzzles are unambiguously solved as opposed to solvable by a shrimp?

Edit: That shrimp actually does two moves so maybe we should consider changing the rule to be even more flexible.

 

[liljthedude]

Well that's just an arbitrary number, just like the 1 move rule. I'm trying to point out how it's not any different.

But it is different, being less than 45 degrees still allows it to be solved. It's not an arbitrary number. Because it's a square, 90 degrees is a quarter turn, 45 is half of that. The puzzle being define as solved with less than 45 degrees of misalignment is perfectly reasonable.
We all have a cushion of 44 degrees each way to align the layer for it to be counted as solved.

 

[keyan]

Over the years, every argument I've seen for keeping this silly tradition boil down to "I'm afraid".

The suggestion of 'bad luck' is absurd. I don't think I've ever seen a cube solved, that ended unsolved after being dropped onto the stackmat. I would like to know if anyone can find a competition video showing a cube doing this. If we're trying to eliminate such 'bad luck', what about a cube that pops when it's dropped? Should that be considered solved? What if I drop my cube half way through solving? Same bad luck, right?

What about the example given by Zane, I believe, where in a blind solve, a missed setup during the solve left him one turn off when finished? By chance, at the point where he was in the solve a missed turn left him just unlucky enough to get a +2 'buffer', but any other random point in the solve would have him off by three pieces, too unlucky. Chance is determining how much bad luck is the right amount that we want to coddle?

Those worried about removing the +2, I think your fear is biasing your recollection. I'm curious to know how many +2s you and others actually have. Given that currently, by your reasoning, competitors aren't in such a grave danger of DNFing out of averages, and aren't 'forced' to slow down, while if we were to change +2 to DNF there would suddenly be so many people not getting averages, there should be a large amount of +2s happening currently. I don't think there actually are that many. Here we keep track of the type of penalty on our scorecards, solve start solve finish or solved state. Of the hundreds of solves we had last weekend, I wonder how many were because of this 'bad luck'. I'll check when I have time. Not nearly as many as some people here are suggesting should be the case, I bet.

One turn that I fail to do at the end of the solve? Bad luck, we'll cover you for it. One turn that I fail to do in the middle of the solve? Why is that different? Why is a lazy last turn more acceptable than a lazy first turn? Why can't I call a mulligan for a screwed up cross?

The +2 also causes too many weird situations. Already mentioned was clock. What about a FMC solve off by one last turn? Or a missing prime on the final turn? And in multiBLD, how is it that 20 cubes solved, each off by one turn, is better than 21 cubes with 20 solved and one off by two moves? Or the weird ruling of 3/3 in 29:59 with a +2 becoming 2/3.

And for all that I find feetsolving disgusting, when non-cubers watch us, the two primary comments are "why does he get to look at it before he starts" and "hey that one wasn't finished". While eliminating inspection would actually significantly change the way we do things, removing this silly relic won't, and allows us to be more professional. The cube is either solved or it isn't. No "solved", "not solved" and "almost, whatever, close enough is good enough".

And finally, I hope someone can think of a better analogy for this situation, (or perhaps we just stop with the dumb comparisons and actually discuss what's at hand), as some people are using some pretty ridiculous ones. Me not completing my solve because I was sloppy is nothing at all like me breaking someone else's property.

</sleep deprived stream of conciousness>

 

[aronpm]

But it is different, being less than 45 degrees still allows it to be solved. It's not an arbitrary number. Because it's a square, 90 degrees is a quarter turn, 45 is half of that. The puzzle being define as solved with less than 45 degrees of misalignment is perfectly reasonable.
We all have a cushion of 44 degrees each way to align the layer for it to be counted as solved.

Isn't 1/2 an arbitrary number? What about 1/3 - 30 degrees?

 

[keyan]

Isn't 1/2 an arbitrary number? What about 1/3 - 30 degrees?

An arbitrary number separating two classes, solved and not solved. Rather than an arbitrary number separating solved, not solved, and "I didn't actually do what I was expected to do, but I feel entitled anyway".

And 45 degrees is very reasonable. Take a cube misaligned by 44 degrees and press it against a flat surface. it ends up solved. Do the same with a cube misaligned 46 degrees, and it'll end up obviously unsolved. A very reasonable choice for what is obviously an arbitrary number.

 

[Kirjava]

Those worried about removing the +2, I think your fear is biasing your recollection. I'm curious to know how many +2s you and others actually have.

It happens a lot more in 2x2x2 where AUF is usually recognised before CLL is executed. There is no AUF recog, which leads to more +2. (I know this happens for me at least)

 

[Lucas Garron]

The suggestion of 'bad luck' is absurd. I don't think I've ever seen a cube solved, that ended unsolved after being dropped onto the stackmat. I would like to know if anyone can find a competition video showing a cube doing this.

From Nationals 2008: http://archive.garron.us/vid/2008/4_02_plus.mov
If you scrobble around, you can see that I drop the cube perfectly aligned, and end up with a very clear +2.

 

[RyanReese09]

I think this should be enforced for BLD...but otherwise no.

 

[Stefan]

The fact that I have had many occasions over my past few competitions where new judges have assigned +2s without properly (actually) assessing the puzzle makes me feel that they would do exactly the same for DNFs.

Right, especially when it's very close to 45 degrees it's hard to decide. Might even look different from different angles, as not all layers are perfectly square and not all stickers are perfectly centered. Last competition I got a +2 for such a case where I disagreed, but I accepted it without much arguing. Essentially I found it reasonable to get a little penalty for being so far off that it's difficult to decide, even though I thought it was solved. I wouldn't find it reasonable to get a DNF for what I think is solved.