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

[FatBoyXPC]

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?

Two videos come to mind: Rowe Hessler 2x2 solve where when he drops the cube and stops the timer, his 2x2 misaligned (he had an eastsheen I believe). It's been awhile since I've seen this video, I'll go looking for it, but I'm requesting the help from other cubers. I really hope that I'm remembering this clearly, and not that since it was an eastsheen he just overturned or something.

Sarah Strong drops the cube (I believe this was an official solve) and one edge piece in the U layer pops out, causing a DNF.

 

[teller]

+2 is murder and can ruin an average. This does not need to be even more draconian by kicking the cuber when he or she is down with a DNF to the stomach.

If it takes you longer than +2 to turn a side, as in feet, I don't think you'll be breaking any records today and I won't lose any sleep over the fact that you might have gamed the system.

 

[qqwref]

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 don't think I've ever seen someone have a heart attack. The suggestion that this happens is absurd.

If we're trying to eliminate such 'bad luck',

Ridiculous. Nobody's trying to "eliminate" bad luck. People are just saying that, since bad luck does happen, we should avoid penalizing it harshly if possible. Properly analyzing cases such as "cube is solved, but pops when it hits the table" or "cube is solved, but falls off table and many caps come off" is not possible with the current style of judging, but if it was, I'd suggest they get lenient penalties too.

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

Actually, I don't see it as "take 1/2 of 90 degrees", but rather as "round the current cube position to the nearest unmisaligned position". If the rounded position is solved then there are no penalties. Looking at it this way removes the number entirely, and the only arbitrary thing is what we do at exactly 45 degrees.

Two videos come to mind: Rowe Hessler 2x2 solve where when he drops the cube and stops the timer, his 2x2 misaligned (he had an eastsheen I believe).

This has happened several times to me, too, before better cubes were available. I think at one Nationals round it happened three times (unfortunately, I couldn't find a better cube in time to replace the one I was using). To anyone who still thinks DNFing a misalignment is reasonable: the fact that the cube even drops and hits the mat is an artifact of the way we have chosen to time things; the best possible solution IMO would be that the cube's state *when the timer is stopped* is the only state that matters, but since we can't do this right now, we have to have the +2 rule to prevent against unfair DNF situations like this.

 

[Micael]

As pointed out by Stefan, the boundary between solved and unsolved is not cristal clear. I think that judging would be less fun if DNF is to be enforced. In a not very clear situation, competitor may argue more if he/she faces a DNF instead of a +2.

For feet, maybe the penalty can be higher?

 

[liljthedude]

Oh and I correct myself, in the regulations in Article 10, 10f, it says =<45 counts as a solved state. So my statement about it having to be 44 degrees would actually be having to be 45 degrees according to the regulations.

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

1/2 is not an arbitrary number. 45 degrees is already the standard that's used to determine +2s. A fair one at that. Furthermore, when dividing a square into four parts (how many positions a layer can turn) the central angle is 90 therefore 30 degrees is disregarded. Take this picture for example.

Here we see 2 dots, a green dot and a red dot. Now if I were to ask you what quadrant the green dot is in you would say the 2nd quadrant. If I were to ask you what quadrant the red dot is in it'd be more difficult, as the red dot is exactly on the dividing line. Would you say it's in both quadrant 1 and 4? Would you say it's not in any of the quadrants? Translate this over to misalignments on the cube, (the dot representing the center of the UF edge) the red dot would be counted as solved. By eliminating the +2 penalty and replacing it with a DNF, the already established rule of defining a +2 would still stand.
One cannot truly know in the picture which quadrant the dot is suppose to be in, but after a solve on a cube it is clear. Giving the cuber the benefit of the doubt that the 45 degree misalignment is solved is ridiculous. Anything below 45 degrees should be counted as solved. Which would be =<44 degrees.

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.

Perfect example of the rule. In a perfect world, if the cube was pushed up against a table and it was misaligned by 45 degrees the layer would not turn either way. =<44 would be the fairest rule.

 

[Lucas Garron]

45 degrees good for a cube because it's the boundary at which a cube is closer to solved than to an unsolved position. If we want to allow exactly 45 degrees, we could phrase this guideline as "the puzzle must not be closer to an unsolved state than to a solved state". This helps justify the angles for most other twisty puzzles.

 

[Dene]

To everyone that is saying "a layer turned when my cube hit the stackmat, which is just bad luck", I respond: It's your own fault for using a cube that is loose enough to turn by itself! I would never be a victim of such bad luck because I don't use obscenely loose cubes (except for my square-1, for which I accept the risk of my layers turning accidentally). It's your own fault, not the fault of the stackmat or the judge or just plain bad luck. Accept the fact that you are in the wrong and take the DNF like a man.

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.

The main judge or delegate should be called over and their ruling should be final. If you do not wish to properly align the cube before stopping the timer it's the risk you run. If the delegate decides it is a DNF then it is once again your own fault.

 

[Stefan]

It's your own fault, not the fault of the stackmat or the judge or just plain bad luck.

It's partly the fault of the flawed procedure that forces me to put down the puzzle in the first place.

If the delegate decides it is a DNF then it is once again your own fault.

A delegate can be wrong.

 

[Dene]

It's partly the fault of the flawed procedure that forces me to put down the puzzle in the first place.

Ok but we have limits. Everyone knows that putting down the cube before stopping the timer is part of speedcubing, it's your choice if you wish to just drop it and skip the placing procedure, therefore you run the risks involved. The WCA should not have to account for your risk-taking.

A delegate can be wrong.

So bring a protractor. It's still your fault for running the risk. Again, the WCA should not have to account for your risk-taking.

 

[aronpm]

1/2 is not an arbitrary number. 45 degrees is already the standard that's used to determine +2s.

Just because something has always been the standard doesn't mean it isn't arbitrary or is correct.

A fair one at that.

If you consider it fair, then why are you advocating that the +2 rule be removed? Are you maliciously trying to impart an unfair change onto the speedcubing community?

Furthermore, when dividing a square into four parts (how many positions a layer can turn) the central angle is 90 therefore 30 degrees is disregarded.

That doesn't even make sense. On what regard is 30 degrees being disregarded? If you mean 45 because it's half of 90, then you're relying on your first assumption, and then 30 degrees is cool because it's a third of 90.

Look, I can make a quick diagram too:

Also I think that you think that I am advocating +2 be changes to 30 degrees. I am not. I support the current +2 regulations and I do not think that it should be removed or changed.

 

[liljthedude]

If you consider it fair, then why are you advocating that the +2 rule be removed? Are you maliciously trying to impart an unfair change onto the speedcubing community?

I was using the way +2s are defined in the sense that they use the 45 degree rule being fair.

That doesn't even make sense. On what regard is 30 degrees being disregarded? If you mean 45 because it's half of 90, then you're relying on your first assumption, and then 30 degrees is cool because it's a third of 90.

I never understood why you suggested a 30 degree rule. I realize now it 90 degrees divided by how many pieces in the row. I think that 30 is still too low.

Are you maliciously trying to impart an unfair change onto the speedcubing community?

No I'm just giving my opinion on the topic at hand. You act as if I have the power to change it. I think it's fair. Especially in a competition setting.

Also I think that you think that I am advocating +2 be changes to 30 degrees. I am not. I support the current +2 regulations and I do not think that it should be removed or changed.

I understand this. I thought you were just throwing out an arbitrary number.

 

[qqwref]

Everyone knows that putting down the cube before stopping the timer is part of speedcubing,

Nope, that isn't a part of speedcubing at all. When I solve in practice I don't drop the cube every solve, or even put it down; I know my time is accurate because I make sure to finish my turns before I stop the timer (and if I don't, I apply a +2 or DNF). And even if I did drop the cube, it wouldn't be onto a stackmat, since I cube on my computer. So it would not be unreasonable for me to come to a competition with no idea that my cube had this issue. As I've said before, a DNF is far too harsh for such a trivial problem.

It's your own fault for using a cube that is loose enough to turn by itself! I would never be a victim of such bad luck because I don't use obscenely loose cubes

It seems less and less likely that you are campaigning for a ruling that you think is reasonable, as opposed to a ruling that you think is in your personal best interest. The whole point of discussions like this is to determine what is best for the community, and if you honestly don't care about that, I recommend not continuing to post. Anyway, to illustrate why this is flawed to everyone else reading this: many people with loose cubes do not have another, less loose cube that they can get decent times on. It's easy to say "pah, I would never use such a loose cube!" when you have the choice not to. But this is not the kind of regulation where we can use a one-size-fits-all approach.

 

[Stefan]

So bring a protractor.

Wouldn't eliminate the problem.

the WCA should not have to account for your risk-taking.

It accounts for ambiguities inherent in the cube and error on part of the judge/delegate.

 

[Dene]

Nope, that isn't a part of speedcubing at all. When I solve in practice I don't drop the cube every solve, or even put it down; I know my time is accurate because I make sure to finish my turns before I stop the timer (and if I don't, I apply a +2 or DNF). And even if I did drop the cube, it wouldn't be onto a stackmat, since I cube on my computer. So it would not be unreasonable for me to come to a competition with no idea that my cube had this issue. As I've said before, a DNF is far too harsh for such a trivial problem.

Sorry, I meant official speedcubing at WCA competitions (how was this not clear?). If you are not aware of the official procedures that is your own problem - ignorance is not an excuse.

It seems less and less likely that you are campaigning for a ruling that you think is reasonable, as opposed to a ruling that you think is in your personal best interest. The whole point of discussions like this is to determine what is best for the community, and if you honestly don't care about that, I recommend not continuing to post. Anyway, to illustrate why this is flawed to everyone else reading this: many people with loose cubes do not have another, less loose cube that they can get decent times on. It's easy to say "pah, I would never use such a loose cube!" when you have the choice not to. But this is not the kind of regulation where we can use a one-size-fits-all approach.

No, I am campaigning for what I, as a delegate and co-organiser, think is the best solution to all the problems I have to deal with in my experience at competitions. So many people say "oh I should get a resolve" or "it wasn't my fault" etc. etc. and my defense of the regulations that I enforce is always "it's your responsibility, and your own fault". This has nothing to do with benefiting myself in terms of my times, which are clearly slow and never going to be worth worrying about.

As for the cube, again that is the competitors responsibility. If their cube is crappy and loose and there is nothing they can do to fix it they should purchase a new cube or else face the consequences that they have to place the cube down more carefully before stopping the timer.

It accounts for ambiguities inherent in the cube and error on part of the judge/delegate.

Yup, by having a standard, not by giving you a cushion of error for your own risk-taking / puzzle limitations.



To Stefan and qqwref and anyone else defending the +2: give me one good reason why it shouldn't be the responsibility of the competitor. It is very easy to properly align all of the faces of the cube and place it down before stopping the timer in a still reasonable speed. There is no excuse, and the WCA should not have to account for it.

 

[Stefan]

Dene: From the mindset where +2 is available (as it currently is and has been in my recent incidence I mentioned), I'd find DNF unreasonable for a case where I think the puzzle is solved. However, truly imagining a mindset where I know in advance that there's no +2 waiting but only a DNF, I guess I'd apply the same reasoning as for the +2 before - that it's reasonable to get punished for being so far off that it's difficult to decide.

You should have read my mind and pointed out this mindset-thing earlier, so I could have agreed sooner than now.

 

[Dene]

To be honest I think you've only confused me now >.<

What exactly are you saying? XD

 

[Specs112]

To be honest I think you've only confused me now >.<

What exactly are you saying? XD

He's saying that if it were the case that +2 didn't exist, then we'd probably agree that DNFing is reasonable for a borderline case, just because that would be the cubing mindset ingrained in us from the rules.

I interpret that as "both are valid ways to do it, but people don't like to change things."

 

[keyan]

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.

Cool, there's one. Is this the only time in your personal cubing history? So would you say it's a rare event? Or, as some are describing, a terrible menace that will ruin averages left and right if this were ruled unsolved?

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.

My ruling is always, if it's unclear, defer to solved.

Two videos come to mind: Rowe Hessler 2x2 solve where when he drops the cube and stops the timer, his 2x2 misaligned (he had an eastsheen I believe). It's been awhile since I've seen this video, I'll go looking for it, but I'm requesting the help from other cubers. I really hope that I'm remembering this clearly, and not that since it was an eastsheen he just overturned or something.

Sarah Strong drops the cube (I believe this was an official solve) and one edge piece in the U layer pops out, causing a DNF.

Cool, two more. So, that makes three. Out of the hundreds of thousands of solves in competitions. Doesn't seem to be nearly as common as people are suggesting.

+2 is murder and can ruin an average. This does not need to be even more draconian by kicking the cuber when he or she is down with a DNF to the stomach.

So again it's an emotional argument? "A +2 and a DNF would both influence the average, but a DNF hurts my feelings."

I don't think I've ever seen someone have a heart attack. The suggestion that this happens is absurd.

Ridiculous. Nobody's trying to "eliminate" bad luck. People are just saying that, since bad luck does happen, we should avoid penalizing it harshly if possible. Properly analyzing cases such as "cube is solved, but pops when it hits the table" or "cube is solved, but falls off table and many caps come off" is not possible with the current style of judging, but if it was, I'd suggest they get lenient penalties too.

This has happened several times to me, too, before better cubes were available. I think at one Nationals round it happened three times (unfortunately, I couldn't find a better cube in time to replace the one I was using). To anyone who still thinks DNFing a misalignment is reasonable: the fact that the cube even drops and hits the mat is an artifact of the way we have chosen to time things; the best possible solution IMO would be that the cube's state *when the timer is stopped* is the only state that matters, but since we can't do this right now, we have to have the +2 rule to prevent against unfair DNF situations like this.

Never claimed that heart attacks don't happen. Rather that, since I don't see people dropping dead in the street every day, the people here saying they're a constant threat are being pretty dishonest.

I actually am unsure about how to deal with bad luck. Honest bad luck, like in Lucas's case. However, the majority of cases have nothing to do with luck. A competitor who chooses to not do the final turn of a solve can't blame luck. You didn't finish your solve, why should you get pampered?

The cube dropping is not caused by competitions, it's caused by your solving style. It's very easy to simply release the puzzle closer to the table. A competitor who smashes the stackmat hard enough to knock the battery loose, or who hits the reset button when stopping, are similarly the fault of a competitor who in a rush chose to be sloppy.

And this multi-quote thing is weird, was supposed to have Thom up at the top there. In response to his post about 2x2 CLL: One might say that that is a risk you're choosing to take, knowing you might not actually solve the puzzle. Or one might say that I have less experience with high level 2x2 solving, and was only thinking of 3x3 when I posted.

 

[Stefan]

He's saying that if it were the case that +2 didn't exist, then we'd probably agree that DNFing is reasonable for a borderline case, just because that would be the cubing mindset ingrained in us from the rules.

Pretty much that, yes. It just took me a while (and Dene repeating his point a few times) to realize I wasn't actually imagining that mindset.

Now I'm undecided, ok with both having and not having +2. Though I feel in favor of not changing it (because I favor neither by itself, and then rule consistency wins).

My ruling is always, if it's unclear, defer to solved.

What if you think it's clear enough to rule DNF but the competitor disagrees?

 

[Dene]

Ok but I have provided several reasons, mainly the fact that the competitor should be responsible for their actions, to change it to a DNF.