Eazoon
Regular
I think its a good idea to change it. It may be hard at first with all the old solves, but its like when freezers were invented. All the icemen lost there jobs,but it was for the best.
[WCA Regulations 2012] Remove +2 penalty for misaligned sides
- Thread starter anders
- Start date
RNewms27
Veteran
Why should the regulations depend on what method you use? Roux users chose to practice a 2-move flick and therefore take the risk. If you do not want to DNF because you are off by a slice move, I suggest you switch to a safer method. It isn't hard to avoid misalignment with roux anyway.
TMOY
Veteran
Because my opinion on the subject won't change anytime soon either.
And I consider FMC as a broken event (mainly for that reason, but not only).
Kirjava
Colourful
This seems like a big deal for you. Maybe you should make a topic for us to discuss it in? WCA based threads are all the rage these days.
bobthegiraffemonkey
Veteran
I know someone who is interested in athletics and coaches at a local club, and I haven't personally heard anyone who doesn't think the rules on false starts are overly harsh and badly designed, not that it really makes any difference to this thread.
Dene
Premium Member
Oh jolly good keyan. I've been thinking about reviving this thread for a long time, but I couldn't think of anything new to add. I'll just make my main point here:
The only reason someone would ever +2 at the end of the solve is because of laziness or risk taking. Neither of these are good reasons to maintain the +2 rule. The WCA is not a mother to the babies that compete in it. It's time to cut the umbilical cord and remove this joke of a rule.
The only reason someone would ever +2 at the end of the solve is because of laziness or risk taking. Neither of these are good reasons to maintain the +2 rule. The WCA is not a mother to the babies that compete in it. It's time to cut the umbilical cord and remove this joke of a rule.
BlueDevil
Veteran
I've +2'd only twice. Once it was just because of carelessness with the solve, and the other time because I released the puzzle with some misalignment, and when it landed, it fully misaligned to give me a +2. I've also +2'd in magic, but at that point, one's average is bad no matter if it is a DNF or a +2.
Basically, I agree that it is an unnecessary rule. If it's over 45 degrees, the solver was too careless and should just get DNF'd. Maybe a rule change would help people to become more accurate...
Basically, I agree that it is an unnecessary rule. If it's over 45 degrees, the solver was too careless and should just get DNF'd. Maybe a rule change would help people to become more accurate...
Nice analogy – and I totally agree
qqwref
Legend
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 7,834
- Location
- a <script> tag near you
- WCA ID
- 2006GOTT01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Psh, fine, change it. I don't even go to competitions anymore, why should I care about fairness?
Care to explain what exactly about the proposed change is unfair?
Last edited:
Hays
Veteran
The only reason I would be against this rule change is because of the mean of 3 format for 6x6 and 7x7. If I were to get finish one of my solves with a larger than 45 degree misalignment I would get a DNF for the entire average.
On smaller cubes this wouldn't matter considering I could get one +2/DNF and still get an acceptable average, giving me the security needed to be able to finish my solves at full speed.
This might be a more anti-MO3 argument rather than against changing the +2 regulation to a DNF. I definitely agree that getting rid of the +2 is fair and maybe needed, but I wouldn't want it to happen simply because of the higher DNF average risk on 6x6.
On smaller cubes this wouldn't matter considering I could get one +2/DNF and still get an acceptable average, giving me the security needed to be able to finish my solves at full speed.
This might be a more anti-MO3 argument rather than against changing the +2 regulation to a DNF. I definitely agree that getting rid of the +2 is fair and maybe needed, but I wouldn't want it to happen simply because of the higher DNF average risk on 6x6.
ben1996123
Banned
I see no valid reason to change it.
ThomasJE
Premium Member
Agreed. Hays' reason is the main argument, and as many 6x6/7x7 solvers like their cubes loose (as far as I know), the change would have the most impact on them. Some would say to tighten their cubes, but would we then be able to break the WR's again and be stuck with an 'unbeatable time'? 2x2 is another event where +2's are common (I used to +2 quite a bit); and a +2 has more effect on 2x2 then 3x3/4x4 because of the much shorter times and 'more rush' to complete the solve. A poll should be added to this thread.
Dene
Premium Member
And so you should, assuming we maintain the MO3. If you can't solve one cube properly that's your own fault.
I would like you to go back through this thread and provide responses to every argument I have made. You do not have to come up with original answers. Until you do this, you have absolutely no say on this topic.
I have already responded to this argument, but to refresh your memory:
Basically, there is already an element of risk to people that want to solve really fast and get WRs. First of all, there is almost always the risk of a pop, secondly usually the end part is done extremely fast at the risk of a +2 or even potentially screwing up the end and getting a DNF, thirdly there is a risk in the dropping of the puzzle and stopping the timer, where a loose cube could turn "by itself". If the rule changed from +2 to DNF, none of these risks would change; no more, no less.
Now think about it, in the future, is it going to be even close to possible for a +2ed solve to end up the WR? Of course not, because the closer we get to the "human limit" the harder that will get. So essentially changing the rule to DNF will have no impact whatsoever on the potential to get a WR or not. Your argument is complete hogwash, basically. The argument about "meta" is the only one that could be impacted by the change of the rule, but all it means is the current top cubers will have to get over it, or the newgen will come through and take over. It should not affect the question of whether or not the rule needs to be changed.
100% absolutely not.
Kirjava
Colourful
This is quite a lot to ask of someone considering that you often refuse to give evidence and claim you can't be bothered to continue a discussion.
Dene
Premium Member
When have I done that? Seeing as it happens "often", I should expect you to come up with at least a few examples.
Kirjava
Colourful
Can't be bothered.
Hays
Veteran
True. This isn't the most concerning argument against a potential rule change. However, a rule change would definitely cause more grief who participate in the mean of 3 events than in the average of 5 events.
How far into the future are we talking about? Maybe for smaller cubes this is already happening, but for bigger cubes, especially 6x6 and 7x7 it is definitely possible to get single world records, and easily average world records with a counting plus two solve, and I don't see this changing within upcoming years. A +2 in a mean of 3 is only a .67 difference. And for example, if the 7x7 average were to get down to even 2:00, counting a plus 2 would certainly not stop a world record from being attainable.
While the original post was obviously lacking some background reading and consideration of the opposing side. This is a mean overstated retort. I have not read every single argument you have made in this thread, and I doubt more than a couple people have. This does not completely rule out the opinions of everyone else.
Dene
Premium Member
:tu
Perhaps, but an average with no +2 is always going to be better than the same average with a +2, so just finish the solve and you're always better off, right?
It rules out the opinion of anyone that fails to provide absolutely any reasoning behind it. Obviously my response was disproportional, but that's how I work, deal with it
CubingGenius97
Member
Why exactly do you suggest that, do you feel that it is better to just scrap the solve instead of adding two seconds or is it a completely different reason.
Dene
Premium Member
Who suggest what?
Similar threads
