Probably because most of your point seem to be arbitrary, very subjective and in no way more valuable then the counter-argument "But it's clear that it is almost solved."
This thread is actually really annoying. You and Dene are stuck with arguing against arguments against a change instead of finding overwhelming arguments for a change.
As long as there are no arguments for changing the penalty to DNF that are more valuable than I think a move away is not solved and should be DNF! I don't see why a change should be even considered.
Arguments in favor of removing the rule:
Simplify the regulations. This is a big one. For someone that has only been to, say, Southern California competitions they may not understand, but hosting competitions in a new area, spreading cubing to new communities, one of the biggest hurdles is training judges. Some have said that the regulations are already simple enough, but that just isn't true. People regularly complain about bad judges. Adding a category between "solved" and "unsolved" makes the work of a new judge harder. Everything that we can do that makes judging simpler while still maintaining fairness helps to increase the number of competitions that are held and spread cubing to more people. "More competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair conditions". The proposed rule change adds to the first three of those.
Create consistency across the speedsolving events. Clock doesn't have an unsolved but close enough state. The proposed rule change would make all speedsolving events consistent in this regard. Another alternative is to define a penalty state for clock, but no one has suggested a good one. Given that the solve state can't be observed without influencing the puzzle, I don't think it's possible to define a penalty state for clock. (The paper inserts for the clocks can move slightly. How do you determine if the puzzle is half way between 11 and 12, or just that the inserts moved? Hard to do without dissecting the puzzle.) Another suggestion was that consistency isn't worthwhile, that we shouldn't bother with this. I don't think that's a very strong argument. Consistency is easily attainable, I think we can work toward it.
Remove weird cases from the rules. I already mentioned multiBLD, 20 cubes each off by one turn versus 21 cubes with 20 solved and one off by two turns. One person made ten times as many mistakes as the other, and yet we consider him to have performed better.
Make competitions appear more professional. The two comments I hear most often from non-cubers observing competitions are "Why does he get to look at it first? That's cheating!" and "That wasn't solved!". Counting unsolved cubes as solved makes cubing look bad in the eyes of the general public. That, in itself, isn't necessarily a problem. However, that can still have an impact. Making cubing appear more professional might make finding sponsorship easier. Asian Championship 2010 and World Championship 2011, we were very lucky to have the help of the Baiyoke Hotel. I can imagine a scenario where the president of Baiyoke was initially interested, but then saw an unsolved cube and asked why it was counted, and ended up choosing not to offer sponsorship. I can't see the opposite being the case. Increasing the standing of cubing in the eye of the general public would also allow more people to become interested in cubing and join the community.
You complain that not enough has been done to show why a change would be beneficial. Here are four arguments in favor of changing the rule. Among these, only the point about consistency has been addressed by people against a change, though I feel that argument fell short. These arguments haven't been significantly rebutted, yet more are needed? What are the arguments that show the benefit of keeping the rule change, rather than appeal to tradition and talk of hurt feelings? The only argument I can think of is Stefan's point that it might cause some people to argue more about rulings. Unfortunately, probably true.
You state "But it's clear that it is almost solved." Almost solved is, inherently, unsolved. Can you explain why a cube that is unsolevd should count as solved? Do you think that the competitor has shown their intent to solve? In that case, could you address the Olympic shooting thing I mentioned? Or do you think that the competitor has shown their ability to solve, regardless of whether they actually solved or not? In that case, could you address the incorrect PLL thing I mentioned?
You complain about my arguments, the PLL thing was brushed off as absurd, but that's the point. It's supposed to be absurd. Recasting the arguments of those wanting to keep the rule in a more extreme example shows the failings of their arguments. You can complain about the style, but please acknowledge the actual points.
Seriously though, why are we thinking of changing a rule that will then hinder us rather than help us. Virtually every speedcuber has been affected and taken advantage of this rule. So why should we change it?
Can you explain what is hindered? Ignoring everything I said above about how a rule change would help, can you explain how the proposed rule change would make anything more difficult?
