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

[cubenut99]

Don't remove the +2 penalty
If you dont solve the cube by misalined layar it should be a +2 any thing over a 90 degree turn away from being solved sould and is a dnf

 

[BlueDevil]

Don't remove the +2 penalty
If you dont solve the cube by misalined layar it should be a +2 any thing over a 90 degree turn away from being solved sould and is a dnf

Actually, one layer being 180 degrees off is still a +2. The WCA used half-turn metric, so a U2 (for example) counts as one move, so a cube being off by U2 would be a +2 with the current regulations.

 

[qqwref]

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?

What? That's like saying "Well hey, your solve would have been faster if you used this optimal xcross, so why didn't you do that?" What happens happens, and it's silly to deny someone a WR on a technicality just because they *could* have avoided it if they somehow knew that error would occur.

 

[Dene]

But a +2 isn't an "error", it is either laziness or risk taking.

 

[pi.cubed]

But a +2 isn't an "error", it is either laziness or risk taking.

How do you classify it if the the cube turns when it hits the table?

 

[aronpm]

How do you classify it if the the cube turns when it hits the table?

Obviously if you drop the cube, you're being lazy and taking a risk so if an accident happens it's completely your fault and the solve should be DNF.

 

[Dene]

And if you don't read Aron's post in a sarcastic tone, that is exactly the correct answer.

EDIT: Oh and there is also an element of risk in using a cube that is loose enough to turn "by itself".

 

[Notan]

It's just ridiculous for this to have gotten this far. A cubing competition isn't around to punish laziness or taking risks or like that, it's to judge ability. Yes, it wouldn't be a giant deal if the rule was changed to DNF, but two extra seconds are more than enough to compensate for a single turn, except for something like BLD.

 

[Dene]

It's just ridiculous for this to have gotten this far. A cubing competition isn't around to punish laziness or taking risks or like that, it's to judge ability. Yes, it wouldn't be a giant deal if the rule was changed to DNF, but two extra seconds are more than enough to compensate for a single turn, except for something like BLD.

It's not about punishing someone. It's about determining whether or not they solved a puzzle.

You might counter "but it should be about whether or not they can solve the puzzle, and if they were close enough that should be ok". I have provided responses to this argument throughout this thread (and I think others have too). Refer to those responses for yourself, but essentially, it's a poor argument.

 

[RaresB]

It's not about punishing someone. It's about determining whether or not they solved a puzzle.

You might counter "but it should be about whether or not they can solve the puzzle, and if they were close enough that should be ok". I have provided responses to this argument throughout this thread (and I think others have too). Refer to those responses for yourself, but essentially, it's a poor argument.

Yup i agree with this, its like any sport, you can probably score but if you hit the goal post no matter how close, its not in, i dont see why this is not applied to cubing and was wondering if there are any sports which take a similar approach of penalizing you minimally for being close to a sucess

 

[cubernya]

Yup i agree with this, its like any sport, you can probably score but if you hit the goal post no matter how close, its not in, i dont see why this is not applied to cubing and was wondering if there are any sports which take a similar approach of penalizing you minimally for being close to a sucess

"Almost only counts in horseshoes"
Just sayin

 

[RaresB]

"Almost only counts in horseshoes"
Just sayin

I do not know anything about horseshoes but im assuming you mean the tossing game, correct me if im wrong but the objective is to get as close as possible to the stake on the ground, thats like golf you need to get as close to the whole as possible, cubing however is not a as close as possible approach it should be yes or no

 

[RNewms27]

I do not know anything about horseshoes but im assuming you mean the tossing game, correct me if im wrong but the objective is to get as close as possible to the stake on the ground, thats like golf you need to get as close to the whole as possible, cubing however is not a as close as possible approach it should be yes or no

No. Golf is like FMC. I do prefer DNF over +2. It would help me practice the finish of the solve.

 

[BlueDevil]

I do not know anything about horseshoes but im assuming you mean the tossing game, correct me if im wrong but the objective is to get as close as possible to the stake on the ground, thats like golf you need to get as close to the whole as possible, cubing however is not a as close as possible approach it should be yes or no

In horseshoes, you throw a U shaped metal object (horseshoe) at a stake in the ground. You get 1 point for being close to the stake, 2 points for leaning on the stake, and 3 for having the horseshoe around the stake.

So if you do well, you get 3, but you still get some points for being close. This is the only sport I can think of with a rule similar to +2. But it is much harder to get a ringer (3 points) in horseshoes, than it is to make sure a rubik's cube does not have a layer off by a turn.

You can still use your own opinion on whether the +2 penalty is good or bad.

 

[cubernya]

For the record: I believe that we shouldn't completely eliminate it yet. I believe we should make it a quarter turn, not half, for now. In a year or two we could make the full switch to DNF. Of course, this is just an idea, but I think it's a good idea.

 

[MattMcConaha]

I think the +2 rule should stay. By dropping the cube (especially 2x2 for me) sometimes the cube will turn itself. It doesn't happen that often, but it does happen.

As for the black or white/solved or not solved thing, I believe there is a 'pretty much solved' region. If you get a +2, ANYONE could finish that solve in less than 2 seconds. Even someone who has never heard of a Rubik's Cube before. If you are only one turn away (excluding BLD) then it is fairly obvious that you could have finished and had an unfortunate and possibly unavoidable accident at the end. No one uses this rule as a way to improve times, and if it is suspected that someone is doing so then that individual can be given DNFs, but not everyone.

Basically, I don't see the reason for removing the rule. It has been there for a long time and I don't know of any real problems that have been caused by it. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

And one last thing, why are we comparing speedsolving to other sports? Are we trying to turn speedsolving into horseshoes and diving? NO, it's speedsolving. There's no reason for us to piggyback off of these other, completely unrelated sports. Football doesn't have a hockey style punishment system because football isn't hockey. Speedsolving doesn't have the same timing policy as 100m dash because speedsolving isn't the 100m dash.

 

[RaresB]

I think the +2 rule should stay. By dropping the cube (especially 2x2 for me) sometimes the cube will turn itself. It doesn't happen that often, but it does happen.

As for the black or white/solved or not solved thing, I believe there is a 'pretty much solved' region. If you get a +2, ANYONE could finish that solve in less than 2 seconds. Even someone who has never heard of a Rubik's Cube before. If you are only one turn away (excluding BLD) then it is fairly obvious that you could have finished and had an unfortunate and possibly unavoidable accident at the end. No one uses this rule as a way to improve times, and if it is suspected that someone is doing so then that individual can be given DNFs, but not everyone.

Basically, I don't see the reason for removing the rule. It has been there for a long time and I don't know of any real problems that have been caused by it. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

And one last thing, why are we comparing speedsolving to other sports? Are we trying to turn speedsolving into horseshoes and diving? NO, it's speedsolving. There's no reason for us to piggyback off of these other, completely unrelated sports. Football doesn't have a hockey style punishment system because football isn't hockey. Speedsolving doesn't have the same timing policy as 100m dash because speedsolving isn't the 100m dash.

Life's hard sometimes we just have to deal with accidents and errors and move on. I feel that making +2's, DNF makes cubing more official. I reread the horseshoe example and it seems as if you are trying to get as close to the horseshoe as possible similar to darts IIRC. The purpose in cubing is clearly not to get close, therefore all non solved attempts should be DNF

 

[Dene]

I think the +2 rule should stay. By dropping the cube (especially 2x2 for me) sometimes the cube will turn itself. It doesn't happen that often, but it does happen.

This has already been addressed many times. There are two problems with your argument:
1) If the cube can turn "by itself" then it is your own fault for having a cube too loose. The only puzzle of mine that turns "by itself" is my square-1, and if a layer happens to turn while dropping that is the risk I take. (Again I emphasise the WCA is not here to accommodate risk takers and lazy people; if you disagree with this statement I would like to see you provide an argument, because so far everyone on the pro +2 rule side has either avoided it or essentially said "but I'm scared", which is not a valid reason).
2) It does not take long to place the cube down rather than dropping it. I will once again refer to this video. And again, the WCA is not here to accommodate risk takers and lazy people.

As for the black or white/solved or not solved thing, I believe there is a 'pretty much solved' region. If you get a +2, ANYONE could finish that solve in less than 2 seconds. Even someone who has never heard of a Rubik's Cube before. If you are only one turn away (excluding BLD) then it is fairly obvious that you could have finished and had an unfortunate and possibly unavoidable accident at the end. No one uses this rule as a way to improve times, and if it is suspected that someone is doing so then that individual can be given DNFs, but not everyone.

The "appeal to triviality" claim has already been addressed. Where do you draw the line? I'm willing to bet that 99.9999% of people that can figure out how to solve one layer could also figure out how to solve two, so why stop at one? Long story short, there is no need for us to come up with such a boundary, and we can avoid a lot of other difficult cases, by keeping it simple and actually requiring people to solve the cube.

Basically, I don't see the reason for removing the rule. It has been there for a long time and I don't know of any real problems that have been caused by it. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

People don't even have to solve the cube to get credit for solving it! It's a joke, really. The rule is broken and it needs to be fixed.

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

In snooker, if one player is snookered and trying to hit a certain ball, the referee has the power to decide that they were 'close enough' to the ball they were trying to hit, in certain circumstances, and not call a miss. They are treating it as if they hit the ball, even when they didn't. This happened recently in the World Championships (I forget who).

 

[Godmil]

it's been a while, but I'm sure in Golf if you go wildly out of bounds, you can take a penalty stroke and play the shot again. So in a sport where the aim is to get a ball from the one place to another, there is still the room to actually swap to a new ball with a penalty. Not quite as nice and bob's Snooker analogy, but it shows how penalties can be applied and the process of play is changed to accommodate (in golf's case it's more fair than making someone play from the sea).