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

[Dene]

your wrong-AUF-before-PLL guy didn't.

But he clearly did, to anyone that does know how to solve. As a judge, after OLL I could tell what PLL he had, and I could tell that he did the wrong AUF but the correct PLL algorithm, therefore I can tell that he knows how to solve the cube.

Also, it's nice that you put an emphasis on the solving part of speedsolving, because I'm pretty sure we all agree that a cube that is one turn off is not solved. It's very close, but it's not solved.

moar stuff

That is nothing like what I am suggesting.

As for showjumping, sorry I actually had to look up what that was (I knew immediately once I saw, I just never knew the proper name of the sport). I don't think it's a comparable sport though, and if you were to compare it, then, as far as I'm aware, in showjumping points are taken off throughout the entire course for mistakes. So using your sport as a comparison you will have to accept that a mistake at any point during the solve is ok as long as the competitor shows that they know how to solve the cube. I love it when people come up with analogies that fail to support their position.

If you think +2 is too forgiving then you're wrong because the wca used to let you do another solve for pops.

And that rule was scrapped. What's your point?

 

[aronpm]

But he clearly did, to anyone that does know how to solve. As a judge, after OLL I could tell what PLL he had, and I could tell that he did the wrong AUF but the correct PLL algorithm, therefore I can tell that he knows how to solve the cube.

TIL every judge is an experienced cuber

 

[Dene]

TIL every judge is an experienced cuber

Hence why we should simplify the rule to something clearcut. It is definitely not fair if one judge knows what they're doing and another doesn't, which just gives more reason to apply the same rule in every case.

 

[Dene]

I thought up a nice experiment that will help to provide further evidence for my side of the argument that the +2 rule should be removed in favour of a DNF rule.

I challenge anyone that is interested to do two averages of 50 on their 3x3 cube just by setting up a random PLL+AUF, then solving it and stopping using a speedstacks timer. In the first average of 50, apply the current rules, with a +2 for being one turn off and a DNF for being two or more turns off. In the second group apply my proposed DNF rule. Hypothetically, or at least what people seem convinced of, is that in the first group people will go much harder and faster, accepting the risk of getting a +2. In the second group people will be a bit more cautious and slower, with much less risk.

What are the possible results?
1. Too many DNFs; can't make anything of the results. In this case, one suggested rule is for every DNF, take off the fastest time, then the next fastest time etc. But if there are too many DNFs this would really invalidate the results. For the sake of argument we will hope there aren't many DNFs overall. (I should point out quickly that there is no reason to assume that either group will have considerably more DNFs than the other, if in fact care is taken in group 2 to ensure the cube is properly solved before stopping the timer; in fact if either group were to have more DNFs it should be group 1).
2. Group 1 is faster. That is, when you go hard out, knowing the risk of +2 is higher, overall you're still faster. This should only happen if very few +2 penalties are incurred.
3. Group 2 is faster. That is, when you go more carefully, overall you perform better. This should only occur if group 1 gets too many +2s and it ruins the average.

What do these results mean?
Well actually, the beauty of this experiment is that both case 2 and case 3 support my argument in favour of removing the +2 rule and replacing it with a DNF rule! If the result is that of case 2, then the number of penalties that are incurred is so negligible that there is no reason to worry about whether that penalty is a +2 or a DNF, as both should have a similar result on an overall average. If the result is that of case 3, then clearly you are better off taking that extra care with the knowledge that a penalty for not properly solving the cube is a DNF.


EDIT: A range of reasons for why this favours my rule rather than just keeping the +2 is that, firstly, it nullifies the reasons provided for keeping the +2, and secondly no good argument has been provided against my reasons for favouring a DNF rule.

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

If the result is that of case 2, then the number of penalties that are incurred is so negligible that there is no reason to worry about whether that penalty is a +2 or a DNF, as both should have a similar result on an overall average.

I disagree with this conclusion. Just because they don't happen often doesn't mean that we can disregard how it is punished. Your idea for testing is good in theory, but not so good in practice, as we would need a lot of people to do it and post their results honestly to derive meaningful results.

Also, we cannot let the judge decide if the solver made an incorrect AUF before the last algorithm for various reasons:
1. The judge may not be a speedcuber, so will not know which case came up and if the solver did an incorrect AUF
2. The judge may be a speedcuber, but is not familiar with the method used by the solver
3. The judge maybe a speedcuber who uses the same method as the solver, but uses a different alg for the last step case which came up and so cannot recognise what the solver did.
4. The judge may be a speedcuber who uses the same method as the solver, but the solver recognised and executed the alg for the last case faster than the judge could recognise it.
etc., I have more examples but they are not needed.

In short, the judge cannot be relied upon to decide if there was an incorrect AUF before the last alg performed, but it is easy to check in hindsight if the solver made an incorrect twist at the end of the solve and is only one move away from the solved position. Both situations are off by one twist, but only one can be consistently and readily verified. Since the one twist off at the end can be due to technological limitations, it seems reasonable to give the solver the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure it is fairly common in sports for a minor transgression to be treated leniently if there is some doubt about what caused it, while still giving a small penalty. It is unfortunate if you made the same mistake earlier in the solve, because it cannot be generally proven to have happened.

 

[Stefan]

do two averages of 50 on their 3x3 cube just by setting up a random PLL+AUF, then solving it and stopping using a speedstacks timer. In the first average of 50, apply the current rules, with a +2 for being one turn off and a DNF for being two or more turns off. In the second group apply my proposed DNF rule.

If someone does it, I suggest to alternate between the two rather than first doing all of the first and then all of the second. I imagine I'm not the only one going through stages, I usually get considerably faster after the first 30-40 solves. Also, it might be more meaningful to judge it as ten averages-of-5 (and then average those).

If the result is that of case 2, then the number of penalties that are incurred is so negligible that there is no reason to worry about whether that penalty is a +2 or a DNF, as both should have a similar result on an overall average.

You can't infer a negligible number of penalties from the time. I could gain 0.41 seconds in raw solving time compared to group 2 but get a +2 in every fifth solve. I wouldn't call 20% negligible and I certainly would worry about 20% DNFs - enough to make me go even slower after the first in an average-of-5, fearing to lose my average. And in mean-of-3 it's even more significant, there I'd worry even more about even fewer penalties and right from the start.

In your experiment, you have group 1 solves judged by group 1 rules and you have group 2 solves judged by group 2 rules. You don't have group 1 solves judged by group 2 rules, but you're trying to argue with that as if you had. Also, judging group 1 solves by group 2 rules doesn't make sense - when you're going to get judged by group 2 rules, you'll do group 2 solves, not group 1 solves. Plus there's no need to somehow try to infer what would happen if group 2 rules were applied - you've just actually done that in the experiment, in group 2! And in that case 2, it was slower. Which reasons provided for keeping the +2 does that nullify?

 

[Dene]

@bobthegiraffemonkey: I'm glad you agree with me; we should most certainly not let a judge determine whether the competitor can or cannot solve the cube based on when the error was made.

You can't infer a negligible number of penalties from the time. I could gain 0.41 seconds in raw solving time compared to group 2 but get a +2 in every fifth solve. I wouldn't call 20% negligible and I certainly would worry about 20% DNFs - enough to make me go even slower after the first in an average-of-5, fearing to lose my average. And in mean-of-3 it's even more significant, there I'd worry even more about even fewer penalties and right from the start.

I see you didn't take the time to think about my thought experiment as much as I would have liked. Had you done so, you would have realised that the time difference between the two groups, assuming no penalties at all, would be minimal, if any at all.

In your experiment, you have group 1 solves judged by group 1 rules and you have group 2 solves judged by group 2 rules. You don't have group 1 solves judged by group 2 rules, but you're trying to argue with that as if you had.

Noooo, what I'm arguing is that if we compare the current rules to the proposed DNF rule the result does not matter. I think the problem you have is that it looks like I am requesting group 1 and group 2 to solve in different ways, but that is not the case. Both groups start on equal footing but have different rules applied to them after each solve. So essentially we start with one group of 100, and split it into two groups of 50.

The experiment could be performed differently, where group 1 and group 2 are asked to solve differently, with the same rule applied, which would have to be that of the +2 rule (as applying the DNF rule to group 1 would be a circular argument, as you pointed out), but the result would be the same.

Which reasons provided for keeping the +2 does that nullify?

Overall, assuming the average times in both groups are essentially the same, as I predict (with minimal penalties applied and the general solve time being very similar), this experiment shows that it makes no difference whether people solve with the mentality of the +2 rule or the DNF rule. This first nullifies the reason of "it will hurt people more" and "it will remove the fun" (those two go together), as it shows that people would not overall be affected. It nullifies "it will ruin my average", as the experiment shows that being careful will have minimal effect on their average. It indirectly nullifies the reason of "what about a +2 that isn't my fault" (ignoring the fact that it is their fault) because it shows that being more careful essentially gives the same result. It also indirectly nullifies the "DNF is a large penalty" claim for the same reason.

The only other argument I've seen is the best Feliks could come up with: "but, but, but I'M SCARED "

 

[Robocopter87]

Well I read the thread with a starting mind on the side of the turning it into the DNF. I mean, jeez, is it really that hard to turn the last piece? A single flick of a finger? The cuber ought set the puzzle down properly oriented, otherwise he didn't even really solve it.

However, aronpm won me over to the other side of the argument. Plus 2 is a harsh penalty for what would've taken less than a second, it doesn't really make sense to put the super harsh enforcement of a DNF on it as well. Then its ruining Ao5 and such.

The whole thing with DNF is putting a punishment on unaligned end turns. But... they already did that! Thats why the +2 is in there in the first place!

Now, I'm not going to get into how this is for U slices and not M slices because I don't really know what to say for that. Seems kinda unjust to me but I don't really use any M slice heavy method so I don't know how bad it really is.

 

[Dene]

However, aronpm won me over to the other side of the argument. Plus 2 is a harsh penalty for what would've taken less than a second, it doesn't really make sense to put the super harsh enforcement of a DNF on it as well. Then its ruining Ao5 and such.

So the big question is, why didn't they take that extra second to fix the last turn? The correct answer is risk/laziness, for which the WCA should not accommodate. Yesterday at the cubing meetup in Melbourne, because it was a hot topic of conversation, I was openly enforcing the DNF rule, and two or three times (in a 4 hour period) I dropped my cube with a layer not solved, and before stopping the timer quickly went to fix it, and each time it cost me about 1 second. This just provides more reason to favour the DNF rule, punishing people for being lazy or taking a risk, and rewarding those that do things properly.

 

[aronpm]

This just provides more reason to favour the DNF rule, punishing people for being lazy or taking a risk, and rewarding those that do things properly.

Adding 2 seconds is already a penalty that "punishes people for being lazy or taking a risk, and rewards those that do things properly."

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

@bobthegiraffemonkey: I'm glad you agree with me; we should most certainly not let a judge determine whether the competitor can or cannot solve the cube based on when the error was made.

You misunderstood my point. We cannot let the judge determine a missed/incorrect AUF (or other twist) at an arbitrary point during the solve, it can only feasibly be done in hindsight for the last twist of the solve. The two situations are therefore different, and should be treated differently. Ideally it might be nice for a +2 to be awarded for eg. a wrong AUF before PLL (in my opinion, although there are other subjective issues with this which are moot anyway), but it cannot be objectively determined in hindsight in general, and when it can it would involve having the entire solve filmed in high enough quality for a reconstruction and be analysed, and this is far too impractical to do. A wrong AUF at the end of the solve can be seen after the solve has finished and the puzzle is at rest, so we have the ability to give benefit of the doubt. Also, the last twist of the solve is the only one affected by having to drop the puzzle and stop the timer, which again makes it a special case. I fail to see why you continue to treat these situations (missing AUF at the end versus missing AUF before last alg) as being equivalent - they simply aren't in practice.

 

[aronpm]

I fail to see why you continue to treat these situations (missing AUF at the end versus missing AUF before last alg) as being equivalent - they simply aren't in practice.

Also, when the last AUF is missed, the F2L is still solved and the LL is still solved.

 

[Robocopter87]

As aronpm said, the +2 is punishing people for this.

I'm glad you fixed your layers, and your reward for properly solving was not having an extra second or two added on.

Dene, I totally understand where you are coming from. It is super annoying to me to know that people get off the hook when the cube is clearly not solved. That's just plain not right. However, I think +2 is a fitting punishment for this. It adds more time than it would've taken to do it right. That's the punishment for taking the risk/being lazy. If I were to make the punishment any more punishing, I would make it more seconds added, not make it a DNF.

And I was brutally honest about the not solved thing, I hate it so much. (And Deja Vu for arguing with Dene. At least I get to debate with someone with some intelligence for once)

 

[reThinking the Cube]

Obviously, the majority of the +2 are caused by the requirement of having to let go of the cube while stopping the timer as fast as possible.

Doing this procedure correctly is the responsibility of the competitor, and not the WCA, but it will be flawed when competitors:

(1) [Me2MindlessWithLOLHurry4WR]
mindlessly let go of their cubes to stop the timer (defacto declaring (falsely) to have solved the cube at the time of letting go) without first ensuring that it is actually solved - and then a judge must determine whether it qualifies as an "almost" solve psuedo enough to get a +2 psuedo-time.

(2) [Me2CarelessWithLOLCube2Loose]
carelessly allow their cubes to drop in such a way as to cause substantive changes to occur, oftentimes after the timer has already been stopped.

In either of those cases, the current +2 rule gives some license to be irresponsible with the procedure (AND PROBABLY WHY IT FINDS FAVOR WITH SO MANY), but it would be wholly appropriate to just DNF them all.

A DNF is NOT too harsh. It is what it says it is - DID NOT FINISH. And if competitors don't want to receive a DNF for what was once a +2, then they should be more responsible and FINISH their solves correctly.

No more psuedo-times for psuedo-solves.

Spoiler

Abolish the +2 diaper FTW.

 

[Robocopter87]

The +2 isn't a diaper. The +2 isn't looking after lazy/risky people. The +2 is a punishment. And a good one.

Normally a turn of the cube is pretty quick (less than a second).
If the person fails to make that last turn, they receive a +2.
This is x4 the time it would've taken them to turn it originally. (Generalizing a flick as .5 of a second.)
I don't know about you but thats punishment enough. If Feliks Zemdegs would've dropped the cube with a misaligned face he would've gotten 7.66.
That would be quite the punishment to know you just got world record and failed to make that final turn. Making it a DNF would suck all the more.

+2 is punishment enough, don't you think? Its not really a diaper. Because when it comes down to it, even though it isn't technically solved, they obviously would've been able to solve it. So they add two seconds and the person walks away punished but not decimated.

It really is too harsh to be a DNF.

 

[Dene]

I believe any case of a mistake would fall under either laziness or risk taking. I challenge you to come up with one example that isn't.

If you can manage to come up with a case, the extreme rarity of such a case compared to cases that are just lazy or risk taking is not enough to give everyone a +2, in my opinion. Mistakes happen, you should learn from it by not making the mistake again. Giving people bonus points for making mistakes is not going to help them learn.

 

[Robocopter87]

What are you talking about? Bonus points? That doesn't even make sense. They aren't being rewarded for making the error.

 

[Dene]

Yes they are. The error they make is not solving the cube. Instead of treating them thus, we give them the time they stopped the timer at plus an arbitrary additional number. That seems like a big bonus to me.

 

[Robocopter87]

I understand where you are coming from. Except you are being too strict. Look, lets think about this differently. You got a guy. This guy can solve a Rubiks cube in 10 seconds. This guy has been cubing for years, solved the cube thousands of times. Hes finally gonna get a sub 10 avg at a comp or at least his best average yet.

Its his last solve. He races to solve, at 9 Seconds he gets that rush and quickly finishes his PLL. Boom. 9.86. Not Bad.

However, when he looks at the cube one face is misaligned. Its in the 65 degree off range.

So, we got this guy who finally has a sub 10 avg (Not counting penalties). But hes got a misaligned face. This guy has solved thousands of cubes.

We know and the judge knows and the guy knows and everybody who is watching knows that this guy is capable of solving a Cube. Its pretty darn strict to say, "You didn't solve the cube technically." I mean cmon. Be more realistic. He knows what hes doing. But yes, he does deserve punishment.

Now Under the current system: He is given a +2, bumping his average over 10. Sucks. He was so close. (This is obviously enough to teach this guy a lesson about making sure its aligned before hitting the timer.) But he still walks away with a nice average.
With a DNF: He gets the worst time. Bringing his average to a bad place. Now he has been taught a lesson, but hes offended that it all was wrecked. Now he walks away hurt and punished.

Same lesson taught, but not so strict. Still punished. Not destroyed.

He gets an OK average, was his fault, he understands that. Instead of him getting a terrible average and hating the system.

I like to think of it as a nicer atmosphere. If I had gotten a DNF for that I would be so mad. I might not even compete anymore.

The DNF would work. Yes, it definitely would teach the lesson. But so does the +2. Except it isn't super harsh.

When put into a real situation, the plus 2 is obviously the better choice. A DNF is just a slap to the face.

 

[aronpm]

Giving people bonus points for making mistakes is not going to help them learn.

"Bonus points" implies that the people making the mistake are being rewarded for the mistake, and gaining an advantage over the other people. They are not, they are being punished. Please stop using the term "bonus".