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

[SoulSeeker]

oh dene.. as far as i can tell you think of it as: "oh come on it's crystal clear - we have a competition with a very simple goal. solve the cube in the shortest time possible and if u fail succeeding in completely solving the cube you are out. your time oviously should not count. that's it"
but dude we're not a high class sponsored whatever community. the aim for most of us is having fun and not getting an average because of 2 dnfs just su**s. especially if you know that your cube was solved and only off by some degrees of one single layer. maybe you feel treated unfair because you always make sure that your cube is perfectly aligned and you dont get +2's but people are different you know? just like in other things, school for example. you like to be perfect, being on time, sharpened pencils for geometry and stuff - other people dont. just because they are different in their habits doesn't make them any worse.

and back to the "correctness in competition" think about showjumping as an example. the goal is to get over the obstacles -> as simple as speedcubing. but if you knock down some of them you are assessed with additional time and not just being disqualified.

just take it a tiny bit less serious and relax or do you want competitions with maybe 4-5 events left, with very strict timings and every competitor has its own booth because otherwise the danger of cheating is too high. talking is strictly forbidden because it could disturb the competitors etc.
i prefer competitions as they are, where you are able to meet persons, talk and have fun and not being punished for every false step (of course this may sound far fetched but i hope you get what i wanna say)

p.s. sorry for any mistakes and unclarity its kinda hard for me to express myself in english the proper way

 

[Stefan]

And what about the poor person that missed the third to last turn of their Y perm?

Actually he made wrong turns. Those last two when he shouldn't. His mistake is strictly inside his solve attempt and 100% his own fault, whereas an incomplete or too far turn at the end due to having to stop the timer isn't.

 

[SoulSeeker]

Actually he made wrong turns. Those last two when he shouldn't. His mistake is strictly inside his solve attempt and 100% his own fault, whereas an incomplete or too far turn at the end due to having to stop the timer isn't.

well it might be.. it could either be bad luck (turned after dropping the cube) or just sloppy turning which is in fact 100% your own fault

 

[Stefan]

well it might be.. it could either be bad luck (turned after dropping the cube) or just sloppy turning which is in fact 100% your own fault

No. That's not "strictly inside his solve attempt". And I specifically said "due to having to stop the timer", so it's not "just sloppy turning" but at least "sloppy turning due to having to stop the timer", so at least a small part of the fault is from that flawed procedure, so it's not 100% from the cuber. Unlike Dene's other scenario, which has nothing to do with the procedure and is 100% the cuber's fault.

 

[Godmil]

Godmil: Using a 6x6 to argue a +2s penalty is pretty silly.

Actually it's a very good example. 6x6 is done by mean of 3, so if in one solve one face is off by 50 degrees then the whole mean is DNF. How does that not sound too harsh?

 

[BadMeetsEvil]

There are chances a layer would be less than 45 degrees away in the cuber's hands but get misaligned when its dropped onto the stackmat. or something similar. I do think the 2 second penalty is a good enough one for misalignment, it isn't something a cuber can take advantage of, since the AUF hardly takes half a second.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Actually it's a very good example. 6x6 is done by mean of 3, so if in one solve one face is off by 50 degrees then the whole mean is DNF. How does that not sound too harsh?

I missed that, good point.

 

[Dene]

No, it is not an arbitrary choice. And no, this was not our only justification. The first justification was made by Stefan earlier in this post and was about how difficult it would be to judge a one-turn mistake earlier in the solve. You, who always complain how hard it is to get enough judges and so on, I am surprised you are ignoring this argument.

When we treat both cases the same and DNF them, where does the problem occur? Less training for the judges as far as I can tell.

I have added another argument which was that it can be less than one complete false turn at the end (50 degrees for example).

qqwref already provided a nice argument for why we should use 45 degrees. If you're too lazy to get it that close to solved it's your own fault.

ok, maybe I was exaggerating a little with my last examples. But the inconsitency argument you're using now is over the top. Give a cube to a random person... if it's a PLL away, they're unanimously going to say that it's not solved. Now give them one that is just 50 degrees away on one layer, you're not going to find many people who say this isn't a solved cube.

They'd say "it's pretty much solved" just like the person who runs 99.5 metres pretty much ran 100 metres, but they still didn't finish.

stuff

You're forgetting that we are talking about competitions. Have as much fun as you like and use whatever rules you like at home with your friends, but at competitions we should set a higher standard. Otherwise you are actually reducing a competition to a social gathering, in which case what's the point? Why should we put hours and hours of effort into organising venues, paying for timers and displays, paying for certificates and prizes, etc. etc. etc. just for a bunch of kids that want to chill? I don't see why it's so hard to treat a competition as a competition. For most people a competition is a rare occasion anyway, so why is it a big deal for there to be stricter rules imposed on you just once in a while?

Actually he made wrong turns. Those last two when he shouldn't. His mistake is strictly inside his solve attempt and 100% his own fault, whereas an incomplete or too far turn at the end due to having to stop the timer isn't.

Ok but you've backed yourself into the same corner that aronpm has. What about the person that makes the exact same mistake as the person who does the wrong AUF at the end of the solve, by doing the wrong AUF before the PLL? Maybe you can do one better than aronpm, and rather than avoiding the issue I bring up, actually address it. Why should we arbitrarily distinguish between people who make the exact same error at different times? Just saying "oh well this one looks better at the end" should not be good enough. Both made the same mistake, both had unsolved cubes.

Also, it is the competitors fault. How could it not be? Did a magic fairy fly along and use a mind control device to force the competitor to stop the timer with an unfinished solve?

Actually it's a very good example. 6x6 is done by mean of 3, so if in one solve one face is off by 50 degrees then the whole mean is DNF. How does that not sound too harsh?

I missed that, good point.

But what you failed to acknowledge is my point that the time it takes for Kevin Hays to be careful at the very end of his PLL after around 2 minutes of solving, just to ensure that the cube is properly solved, is almost nothing in comparison.

 

[Pedro]

Ok but you've backed yourself into the same corner that aronpm has. What about the person that makes the exact same mistake as the person who does the wrong AUF at the end of the solve, by doing the wrong AUF before the PLL? Maybe you can do one better than aronpm, and rather than avoiding the issue I bring up, actually address it. Why should we arbitrarily distinguish between people who make the exact same error at different times? Just saying "oh well this one looks better at the end" should not be good enough. Both made the same mistake, both had unsolved cubes.

Because it is not the exact same mistake. Sure, both are a one-move-mistake, but done at different points of the solve, wich give completely different results.
Consider this:
Person A does a 90 degrees turn in the wrong direction before PLL. Results in a scrambled cube

Person B does a 44 degrees turn in the right direction after PLL. Results in a cube with one layer 46 degrees off.

Is it the exact same mistake?


What I think is that noone is going to convince the other here. People have different opinions and reasons for them. Wouldn't it be better if we tried to take votes from the biggest possible number of cubers? I know that's hard, but it has more of a point than 4 or 5 arguing here, trying to convince eachother.

 

[Dene]

Person A does a 90 degrees turn in the wrong direction before PLL. Results in a scrambled cube

Person B does a 44 degrees turn in the right direction after PLL. Results in a cube with one layer 46 degrees off.

Person A does a 90 degree turn in the wrong direction before PLL. Results in an unsolved cube. Receives a DNF
Person B does a 90 degree turn in the wrong direction after PLL. Results in an unsolved cube. Receives a +2

What have we learnt from all this? You can make as many uncomparable cases as you like, there are still plenty of comparable ones that point out the absurdity of the situation.

What I think is that noone is going to convince the other here. People have different opinions and reasons for them. Wouldn't it be better if we tried to take votes from the biggest possible number of cubers? I know that's hard, but it has more of a point than 4 or 5 arguing here, trying to convince eachother.

That is a bad idea. The WCA should not be governed by a popularity contest, it should be governed by what is in the best interests of competitive speedcubing.

 

[Stefan]

What about the person that makes the exact same mistake as the person who does the wrong AUF at the end of the solve, by doing the wrong AUF before the PLL?

The mistake might be the same, but like it or not, the result isn't. One leaves a clearly almost solved cube, the other doesn't. One has demonstrated that he can solve it, the other hasn't. Except for H-perm and N-perm, where your mid-solve-wrong-AUF guy also leaves an almost solved cube, which is why he gets it accepted.

Also, it is the competitors fault. How could it not be?

If he made the mistake because he had to let go off the puzzle after the actual solve, then he wouldn't have made it if he hadn't had to do that. Again, in that case it's at least partially the fault of the procedure and the penalty makes up for the flaw in the procedure, not for the mistake of the cuber.

Person A does a 90 degree turn in the wrong direction before PLL. Doesn't result in an almost solved cube. Receives a DNF
Person B does a 90 degree turn in the wrong direction after PLL. Does result in an almost solved cube. Receives a +2

Fixed that for you (by not ignoring the obvious difference in result).

6x6 is done by mean of 3, so if in one solve one face is off by 50 degrees then the whole mean is DNF.

Hmm, are there other sports where you get several independently judged attempts and a mistake in one/some can similarly nullify your results in the others?

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

Here's my take on the difference between the different AUF mistakes. I would say they are not the same, since although they both involve one incorrect/missed move and leave the cube unsolved, one leaves the cube trivially unsolved and can happen due to bad luck resulting from stopping the timer (it has been pointed out before that stopping the timer is an artificial construct which is undesirable - out hobby is speedsolving, not speedsolving and speedstarting and speedstopping timers), while the other leaves the cube non-trivially unsolved and cannot be caused by stopping the timer.

Also, why do all mistakes need to be punished equally? Yes, in both situations you have an unsolved cube, but one trivially so, and one non-trivially so. There are many different severities of punishment for breaking the law, but you can't feasibly argue that everyone who breaks the law should be punished identically as some crimes are more serious than others. Similarly, I would say that mistakes in competition should be punished according to how severe they are. If a cube is trivially unsolved and is potentially not entirely the cuber's fault (I maintain that stopping the timer in the way we do is not an integral part of solving, it is an unfortunate side-effect of technological limitations), it should be a penalty which isn't too severe, but which will still encourages people to be careful. I'd say a +2 is a good balance.

 

[Dene]

So ultimately what you guys are saying, and what I've been trying to illustrate in the most negative way possible, is that it is the WCAs responsibility to decide at which point during a solve it is ok to make a mistake, leaving the puzzle unsolved (whether trivial or not; to me leaving a cube 3 moves from solved is still trivial, why shouldn't that be a +2?). I think this is absolutely absurd. I would like to hear a very good reason why it should the the WCAs responsibility to determine when it is ok to make a mistake. In no other sport that I am aware of is it ok to get close to finishing the race then stop just before the finish line. I cannot see any good reason why our sport should be any different.

Also, sure starting and stopping the timer is an artifact of technological shortcomings, and not actually part of solving the puzzle itself, but everyone is aware of that and everyone knows the correct procedures and they should just have to deal with that appropriately. I can't think of a good analogy from other sports, but say for example someone in a running race does not know how to use the blocks properly, and at the start of the race they trip up. They don't get any bonus points for that, nor should they.

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

... is that it is the WCAs responsibility to decide at which point during a solve it is ok to make a mistake, leaving the puzzle unsolved (whether trivial or not ...

They set the regulations, who else would decide? That said, I do disagree with the consensus on other issues, but those belong in a different thread and have been discussed before.

And who said anything about bonus points? We are adding 2 seconds to a time as a penalty for the cube being trivially unsolved, I'd say that's the opposite of giving someone bonus points.

The best analogy I have been able to think of is golf, it's not perfect but it will do for now. You are supposed to hit the ball towards the hole and land on a part of the course after every shot. Do they get disqualified for landing in a pond instead of on the course? No, they get a small penalty on their score, and carry on. Why shouldn't they get disqualified for a small mistake and not putting the ball on the course during one shot? It would be overly harsh, that's why. Like I said, not a perfect analogy, but not too far off either I think.

 

[tim]

And who said anything about bonus points? We are adding 2 seconds to a time as a penalty for the cube being trivially unsolved, I'd say that's the opposite of giving someone bonus points.

Compared to a DNF +2 seconds are indeed "bonus points".

 

[Stefan]

WCAs responsibility to decide at which point during a solve it is ok to make a mistake

Now that's a strange backwards perspective. This is SpeedSolving, not SpeedNotMakingMistakes. I'd fix that to it's the WCAs responsibility to determine whether and how fast you can solve. The wrong-AUF-mistake-after-PLL guy clearly showed that he can solve and about how fast, whereas your wrong-AUF-before-PLL guy didn't.

 

[jonlin]

Now that's a strange backwards perspective. This is SpeedSolving, not SpeedNotMakingMistakes. I'd fix that to it's the WCAs responsibility to determine whether and how fast you can solve. The wrong-AUF-mistake-after-PLL guy clearly showed that he can solve and about how fast, whereas your wrong-AUF-before-PLL guy didn't.

I agree with this statement. Let's say in a race, two people are racing with strict WCA regulations. And the example above happens where AUF before PLL happens. and now the other guy does the same. Wouldn't that mean you would obviously see that the second guy did better, although since they were cubing with misaligned layer=DNF, they would consider each other no better than the other?

 

[SoulSeeker]

stuff

i think u didnt get what i meant to tell you. im not talking about a huffy fluffy sit in with friends where u are just joking around.

i just want a FRIENDLY environment at competitions and not a military like:
"what's you name? ok sit down there and stay quiet"
"it's your turn, go into the waiting area without talking to anyone"
"hey you come"
1)"nope thats a dnf u had your hands 2 mm too far of the timer"
2)"ah nope thats 46 degrees.. clearly dnf"
3)"it popped as it fell onto the timer? well not my problem dnf"
4)"yeah maybe it was a timer malfuction none of my business dnf"
5)"i saw u watching other competitors solving.. you are clearly trying to cheat - disqualified"

"magic, clock, 2x2 etc are u crazy? thats kids stuff.. thats not even puzzles its just a joke we are not cometing in useless stuff and we dont care if people like it or not"

and btw u asked for other sports and i mentioned showjumping in my post but maybe thats no sport to you.. whatever

 

[samchoochiu]

why change the rule just to **** people off?
most people are fine with it, in fact everyone I meet at a competition is fine with it.
I lost first place due to a +2 at a an event that takes 1 sec (magic) and im fine with it.
The judge told me they should change the +2 rule to +X depending on the puzzle. I dont agree with that, it just makes things complicated. Maybe I'm just biased towards things remaining the same but I feel the regulations are fine as it is. Anymore or less will make competing/judging too complicated or too simple(if thats the right word)

But come on, this topic has already been discussed many times years ago and it is still clear that more people want to keep the +2 rule. Why keep bringing back this stupid topic again?
If you think +2 is too forgiving then you're wrong because the wca used to let you do another solve for pops.

 

[The Bloody Talon]

^we have these rules not just because of people want these rules