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

[Dene]

@aronpm: I'll take you're constantly avoiding my points/questions as you have run out of any sort of defense of your point of view and are simply resorting back to your "but it will hurt me " argument, which is really what it comes down to for the people defending the +2 rule.

@Robocopter87: I would tell the person in your hypothetical scenario to pick their nuts up off the ground and take the DNF like a man. They'll have other chances. We aren't here to determine who can and cannot solve a cube based on their history, we are here to judge whether or not they solved the cube given to them at this exact point in time, and if so, how fast they solved it.

Basically it comes back to what Stefan said here, where he proposed the only really good reason for keeping the rule - because people are used to it. But if we changed the rule the mindset would change too. Therefore your hypothetical scenario is invalid.

 

[Robocopter87]

Do you at least understand where we are coming from? You show no sign of moving but do you at least understand why we want to keep it? And whats so bad about the current mindset? Is it really that bad?

I personally will stop fighting for it and just stop posting in here. I've stated all I wish to say. My opinion is against removing the +2. Thats my opinion. I gave my reasons. Others can continue with their opinions. I don't wish to clog the thread.

 

[SoulSeeker]

Do you at least understand where we are coming from? You show no sign of moving but do you at least understand why we want to keep it? And whats so bad about the current mindset? Is it really that bad?

I personally will stop fighting for it and just stop posting in here. I've stated all I wish to say. My opinion is against removing the +2. Thats my opinion. I gave my reasons. Others can continue with their opinions. I don't wish to clog the thread.

+1

in your previous post you expressed exactly what i thought about the matter

 

[David Zemdegs]

I think it is entirely irrelevant comparing cubing to any other "sport" (Apologies to Tim Major who thinks cubing should not be called a sport). You can refer to other sports based on your bias for or against this suggested change. It should be about what the cubing community decides is relevant for itself. For me, I like simplicity and in a regulated competition, its important to minimise any ambiguity. So from my perspective, a puzzle is either solved or not. If we give +2 for one turn then why not +4 for two or +6 for three? Im all for keeping it simple and would endorse this change IMHO.

 

[Pedro]

I agree with fazdad in the point that

it is entirely irrelevant comparing cubing to any other "sport"

Solving a cube is not a linear race, as the 100m. You have many possible paths to reach the same goal. In the 100m race, you simply cross the line or you don't. With cubing you can make a turn some degrees to much or too few, but that doesn't mean you can't solve the cube.

And in your experiment, if we consider the solver to be consistant, he/she would have the same number of +2/DNFs in each 50 solves. Let's say it is 5 (10%).
Assuming the time to do a PLL is pretty short, suppose the average is about 1.5 seconds. Adding a +2 more than doubles the time. So you have 45 * 1.5 + 5 * 3.5 = 85 / 50 = 1.7 global average. That is 13% more. In a full solve of 10 seconds, the average would be 10.2 with the penalties, which is just 2% added time.

Your experiment makes no sense, because PLL is too short to give any relevant comparison. One should do full solves applying each rule and that would have some meaning.

Oh, and yeah, "bonus points" for a +2 is just...well...

Edit:

Another thing I just thought.
So you're basically saying that we should treat someone who grabs the scrambled cube, applies no moves and stops the timer the same way as someone who did the solve, but dropped the cube a bit too fast/clumsy/not properly that one layer turned to 46 degrees?
That doens't sound good at all to me...

 

[jonlin]

@aronpm: I'll take you're constantly avoiding my points/questions as you have run out of any sort of defense of your point of view and are simply resorting back to your "but it will hurt me " argument, which is really what it comes down to for the people defending the +2 rule.

@Robocopter87: I would tell the person in your hypothetical scenario to pick their nuts up off the ground and take the DNF like a man. They'll have other chances. We aren't here to determine who can and cannot solve a cube based on their history, we are here to judge whether or not they solved the cube given to them at this exact point in time, and if so, how fast they solved it.

Basically it comes back to what Stefan said here, where he proposed the only really good reason for keeping the rule - because people are used to it. But if we changed the rule the mindset would change too. Therefore your hypothetical scenario is invalid.

Dene, people are not going to be that great against the not keeping +2 argument. In fact, you're the only one in favor of removing it.
Stop arguing now. Dene is obviously not going to budge, because he can find a loophole in every statement you guys make.
Yet I support the plus 2 rule. The +2 is like a punishment already. Why change that? Dene, I give you a challenge. Give me a specific reason why you don't give a really logical reason why you support the DNF misaligned statement. You just say why, because people are lazy or risk taking. People have accidents sometimes. But all you do now is contradict other people's statements. Give me a reason why DNF is better than +2. Because people make mistakes. Can you not accept that? Thrawst said:

You should use mistakes to reflect on what you should do in future competitions.

Nullifying solves won't help that. Give it up. Explain.

 

[Jaycee]

You just say why, because people are lazy or risk taking. People have accidents sometimes.

"But they have accidents because they were taking a risk"

 

[jonlin]

"But they have accidents because they were taking a risk"

Sometimes people aren't rushing or lazy and they still accidentally stop the timer. Then +2.

 

[reThinking the Cube]

People can train themselves to stop having accidents once they realize their +2 diaper has been removed.

 

[Jaycee]

Sometimes people aren't rushing or lazy and they still accidentally stop the timer. Then +2.

I agree with you. I just think that would be the kind of response Dene would make.

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

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.

Are you really so arrogant to suggest that people should be infallible? They aren't, and neither are you, so maybe you should act a little more sympathetically and cut them some slack. Mistakes are inevitable, and it makes for a much better atmosphere at competitions if people know they won't be punished too harshly for small errors.

 

[Cheese11]

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.

So say one is doing a math question. And they get it wrong. Does that mean they were taking a risk? Does that mean their lazy? Not at all, it means they made a mistake.

 

[adragast]

For me, the reasons to keep the +2s are:
- consistency with what has been done (difficult/impossible to change all the times to now, unfair to compete against averages set with "milder" rules)
- historical reason: the community being a bit indulgent towards competitors to compensate for the fact that we should measure how long it takes to the competitors to solve the cube and not to "start the timer, take the cube off the mat, solve the cube, let the cube go and stop the timer"
- to many +2s seems big enough a "punishment"

Reasons to remove the +2s are:
- simplicity (cube either solved or not, we don't need a third state "almost solved")
- removal of an arbitrary number (why 2s ? why the same number for 2 hands, one-hand and feet ? why the same number for a 10s solve and a 10min solve ?)
- removal of the HTM choice in those events (cube off by M is unsolved, cube off by R2 is "almost solved")

I personally don't believe in the "bad luck" argument: rules should not account for that. If someone finishes his solve, let the cube go and stop the timer but his cube completely explodes when hitting the mat, he will get a DNF. This is also bad luck. That does not mean we should change the rules so that he gets a +2 instead of a dnf. And if this rule existed, I hope many would be in favour to remove it.
On the contrary, I personally don't believe in the "what about the guy who was off one turn before pll" argument either and I explained why earlier.

I know some people try to avoid comparing speedcubing to other sports but just if some would accept a small example:
If someone in soccer shoots and the ball hits the bar and goes away, it is not a goal. It was pretty close. The one shooting may have scored many many times before, it may have been bad luck (some scratch on the bar, some wind, some grass on the shoe, ...) but still, the team of the player gets nothing. Not a goal, not half a goal, not a bonus in case of a draw, nothing.

So say one is doing a math question. And they get it wrong. Does that mean they were taking a risk? Does that mean their lazy? Not at all, it means they made a mistake.

Then they should not be said to have finished the math problem in [time they used for it] + 2s.

Another thing I just thought.
So you're basically saying that we should treat someone who grabs the scrambled cube, applies no moves and stops the timer the same way as someone who did the solve, but dropped the cube a bit too fast/clumsy/not properly that one layer turned to 46 degrees?
That doens't sound good at all to me...

I agree it does not sound good to me. But if you apply this reasoning what about the guy who solved the cube, dropped it a bit too fast/clumsy/... and the cube pops. He is treated the same way as you first guy. It does not seem right either. In my example above, the guy shooting and hitting the bar should also get something better than a guy not touching the ball at all but it is not the case.

Dene, [...] you're the only one in favor of removing it.

No, he is not.

Give me a specific reason why you don't give a really logical reason why you support the DNF misaligned statement.

I don't like to reply on his behalf, but I wrote 3 reasons up there.

 

[Dene]

Give me a specific reason why you don't give a really logical reason why you support the DNF misaligned statement.

I have provide many many reasons throughout this thread. I think they would number at least 5, possibly up to 10. I have thought I will, at some stage, come up with an "official proposal" to the WRC, summarising all of the arguments for both sides of the debate, and of course arguing in favour of the DNF rule. If I get around to that then you will have a summary of all of my arguments, but otherwise feel free to read back and check out all of the reasons I have provided (or else I probably support all the reasons given by other people).

Are you really so arrogant to suggest that people should be infallible? They aren't, and neither are you, so maybe you should act a little more sympathetically and cut them some slack. Mistakes are inevitable, and it makes for a much better atmosphere at competitions if people know they won't be punished too harshly for small errors.

They won't be punished too harshly for small errors. There are many instances where people are penalised for small errors without complete disqualification. But they should not be rewarded for not solving the cube. Yes people are infallible, errors happen throughout the world every second of every day, but that's why you accept the consequences of your actions and learn from your mistakes.

 

[TimMc]

Mistakes are inevitable, and it makes for a much better atmosphere at competitions if people know they won't be punished too harshly for small errors.

Isn't this the current atmosphere in which blindfolded solvers have to compete? I.e. DNF for a small error.

Simply showing +2's in the WCA database, highlighted as red, may change the way that competitors finish their solves. Would you prefer a fast average recorded with 2-3 +2's against it or a clean fast average with no +2's?

Tim.

 

[keyan]

Too much to respond to everything.

Consistency? Because 1 event of 18 (excluding FMC) doesn't have a +2 penalty, the other 17 events should have their +2 penalty removed? What is this I don't even.

Yes, consistency. As in, the rules would be consistent across all the puzzles. Plenty of ways you could have chosen to respond. Perhaps going the other direction, consistency by adding a +2 to clock, as someone else suggested (though that has its own problems). Perhaps you could have explained why consistency isn't necessary. You could have even explained why consistency would be detrimental. But instead you chose gibberish lolspeak. Thanks for your contribution?

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.

If we had a way to time only the turning portion of a solve, self-timing cubes, would you consider it acceptable to do a U4 after PLL and claim the cube solved, regardless of the final state?

Dene, people are not going to be that great against the not keeping +2 argument. In fact, you're the only one in favor of removing it.

No. Just that some of us have jobs, and can't be posting here every day when the majority of arguments brought against are about hurt feelings. In fact, based on the number of people replying here, I could argue that the majority of cubers don't care one way or the other.

Dene, I give you a challenge. Give me a specific reason why you don't give a really logical reason why you support the DNF misaligned statement.

Well, aside from the fact that you are ignoring all the reasons Dene has given, how's my little list here?

Simplicity - only two solve classifications, rather than three now, makes juding easier
Consistency - clock
Simplicity - weird cases in the rules like multiBLD
Fairness - slice turns

Can anyone say why these are wrong? Or unnecessary? Is there any argument that having the current +2 rule increases simplicity, consistency or fairness?

I think there's a problem of people using loaded language here. "Punish" "reward" and "teach a lesson" are totally unnecessary. This is simply about when a cube is considered solved or not. As Tim said, a non-cuber wouldn't consider a cube off by one turn (much less U2 R44degrees L44degrees) as solved. I don't think that we need to try to accommodate non-cubers, but I do think they provide a useful perspective. Lots of people here are arguing simply becuse they have become accustomed to seeing a cube as solved where most people wouldn't.

Proposal:
A cuber gets to PLL, with a clockwise U. They accidentally do a counter-clockwise U and DNF. A friend was filming, and has a very good view with high definition video. Can this cuber petition the board for the solve to count, saying that they "obviously know how to solve"? How about, in the video the counter-clockwise U takes exactly one second. With the 4:1 ratio previously mentioned, could they petition for the solve to count with a four second penalty?

As I said, we use scorecards that record the different type of +2s given. Of 1780 non-clock, non-magic, non-BLD solves last weekend, there were a total of 35 +2s. Less than two percent. Of those, only two would have resulted in a competitor's average becoming DNF. Just over half of a percent of the 371 competitor-averages. Not nearly as terrible a problem, I think, than some are suggesting. This is with the current rules, where cubers are supposedly not worried about unsolved cubes because the "punishment" isn't so bad, leading to lots of +2s.

This really is a flashback to the removal of the POP rule and the lowering of inspection time. At the time there were people afraid of the changes, saying that it would make cubing "less fun". Same argument here. Inspection had a lot more added benefit, but with the POP rule, it's nearly the same. Similarly, should this rule change, I imagine no one would be bothered about it after a year, or just a few competitions.

Edit: I have scorecards from other previous competitions if anyone is interested in more numbers.

 

[Godmil]

Well, I'm not Dene, so do the four I brought up not count?

Not if your going to ignore the existing criticisms of them.

 

[keyan]

Could you point me to which posts? You already addressed consistency, I know. Not so much a criticism as a perfectly legitimate alternative proposal. But that still requires you to give a good +2 definition for clock. Someone else mentioned slice turns, and of course it's not a 'method bias' as some have claimed in the past, but it's still two very similar cases being treated very differently. What about the other two?

 

[PhillipEspinoza]

So Dene and others would consider the 1-turn scramble to be a completely acceptable "scrambled" state just like any other unsolved position? If it came up on an official scramble you would look at it and say, "Well, technically it IS unsolved". You would count the noob turning one face as actually bring the cube from an unsolved position to a solved position, and count it the same as someone who actually knows how to solve the cube? This would be my only problem I guess.

Also, this black/white type thinking is kind of annoying. It'd be tantamount to a teacher saying "YOU EITHER KNOW SOMETHING OR YOU DON'T. YOU MISS A QUESTION ON A TEST YOU FAIL. DOESN'T COUNT".

ALSO, imagine if when you popped a piece because you were being too rough with it (or for whatever reason) that your solve was automatically disqualified (because you are not allowed to take the cube apart and put it back together, kinda like you can't take off the stickers). Don't you think that would be a little harsh?

 

[keyan]

So Dene and others would consider the 1-turn scramble to be a completely acceptable "scrambled" state just like any other unsolved position? If it came up on an official scramble you would look at it and say, "Well, technically it IS unsolved".

A single turn scramble is acceptable under current rules, no? I would accept it with the resignation that, yes, single solve rankings never meant much, but unfortunately most people that complain about lucky solves only acknowledge that after they get one themselves.

Stefan recently suggested dropping scrambles of less than or equal to three moves, because they can be considered trivially solvable. Lots of people seemed to agree with this. I suggest that, in light of this, all cubes three turns or less from solved be considered "solved with penalty".

You would count the noob turning one face as actually bring the cube from an unsolved position to a solved position, and count it the same as someone who actually knows how to solve the cube?

Just as much as I count the noob who gets a ten second LL skip, knowing they're not on the same level as someone that averages ten seconds. Competition results will never be an accurate picture of overall level. Sometimes you do better than average in competition. Sometimes you do worse. People shouldn't invest so much emotion in rankings.

Also, this black/white type thinking is kind of annoying. It'd be tantamount to a teacher saying "YOU EITHER KNOW SOMETHING OR YOU DON'T. YOU MISS A QUESTION ON A TEST YOU FAIL. DOESN'T COUNT".

No. It's like a teacher saying "If you answer incorrectly you don't get partial credit." Which shouldn't cause argument.

ALSO, imagine if when you popped a piece because you were being too rough with it (or for whatever reason) that your solve was automatically disqualified (because you are not allowed to take the cube apart and put it back together, kinda like you can't take off the stickers). Don't you think that would be a little harsh?

How is that related?