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

[Kirjava]

Can you stop using the 'risk' argument Dene? You could make a much better case for the removal of +2 by choosing something else to focus on.

Also your childish name calling does really well to discredit what you're saying.

 

[Pedro]

I agree with Aaron about Dene's points.

+2 is not beneficial, it is a penalty. Do you think the same result should be awarded to someone who starts and stops the timer without even touching the cube and someone else who solves it but is risky/lazy/whatever and the cube ends up misaligned by 46 degrees?

And this is not treating people like babies. It would if we counted that as solved with no penalty. It's more like saying "hey kid, you didn't do exactly what we want and were very close to having a DNF. Be careful next time"

 

[Sebastien]

We record results as just numbers. What is differentiating the person that (feet) solves in 1:18 and intentionally skips the last move and the person that solves in 1:20?

A solve with penalty is just equivalent to a 2 seconds slower solve (without parity). I see no problem with that.

-I get the impression you didn't read my post. No offense taken, I know my writing isn't very concise, but I specifically addressed what you say here. Changes that simplify the process without changing fairness or the inherent nature of solving are very different from removing the scrambling procedure. Can you clarify exactly what are the worse conditions you see from the proposed rule change? Is treating unsolved cubes as unsolved specifically unfair?

I did read your post, but I agree that I did not address that specific part too well.

I'm still convinced that the +2 penalty is the natural way of handling the kind of minor mistakes which happen in the hurry that results from the stopping procedure we use in competition. This is by far the reason why I am for keeping the rule (I would absolutely support DNF for >90° by the way).

-You think that someone that made ten mistakes performed better than someone that made two? Narrowing it down a little, two multiBLD solvers both attempt 20 cubes and finish in exactly the same time. The competitor who made twenty mistakes gets a better result than the person that made two. That's not even a little weird?

No, this is not weird at all. The better result is the better result. period. Instead of weird you could argue that this is unfair. I might agree with that in the case you describe, but you have to admit that this case is ver constructed and (as I claim) is never going to happen in competition. Also such unfair situations are absolutely not "+2 penalty"-specific. Please take a look at DrKorbins example which is (at least to me) way more plausible.

 

[Dene]

Can you stop using the 'risk' argument Dene? You could make a much better case for the removal of +2 by choosing something else to focus on.

I have no need, other people are making other arguments. I'm more interested in breaking down counterarguments, but people insist on me putting forward my own position, and I do it over and over and everyone ignores it or makes feeble attempts at trying to counter it. Why can't someone just put forward a nice strong argument for a statement along the lines of "the WCA should accommodate risk takers", because only then would someone bother to challenge my position.

Also your childish name calling does really well to discredit what you're saying.

I wasn't really name calling, but don't go taking the fun out of this, it's providing way too much juicy entertainment for me.

+2 is not beneficial, it is a penalty.

If we are judging people on whether or not they solved a cube in this instance, and the person failed to completely solve the cube by leaving it with a misaligned slice, and we give the person a +2 instead of actually saying they did not finish (NOTE: DNF) the cube, then they are indeed benefiting, by still getting a time rather than a DNF (which would seem the logical option, as far as I can tell).

Do you think the same result should be awarded to someone who starts and stops the timer without even touching the cube and someone else who solves it but is risky/lazy/whatever and the cube ends up misaligned by 46 degrees?

In short: yes. But I should say more to give justice to that response by saying this: the current rule still gives the same DNF result to the person that starts and stops the timer without doing anything to their cube, and the person that solves the whole thing except by one turn plus another layer off by 46 degrees, or off by an M slice, for example. Do you think these people should be given the same result? Considering how damn close the person off by barely two moves is to solved. Really, it's only applying a DNF to a slightly adjusted range. Even though the case you presented and the one I presented aren't identical, they are very similar, and I think it greatly weakens your reasoning to something we can dismiss. If you disagree, and feel that extra move at the end of the solve is so much more important to whether someone deserves a time or not, then please say so.

And this is not treating people like babies. It would if we counted that as solved with no penalty. It's more like saying "hey kid, you didn't do exactly what we want and were very close to having a DNF. Be careful next time"

Ok then, we're treating competitors like toddlers (we'll ignore the possibility of toddlers actually competing >.< ).

And what harm in giving the competitor a DNF? "hey kid, you need to make sure you finish that last turn like you did for the other 60+ you did during the solve, it's not so much to ask is it? Just be a bit more careful at the end and you'll still get a full average so don't worry about it".

 

[Kirjava]

Why can't someone just put forward a nice strong argument for a statement along the lines of "the WCA should accommodate risk takers", because only then would someone bother to challenge my position.

I don't believe risk taking has any real bearing on this issue - please find something of more substance to argue with. "The WCA shouldn't accommodate risk takers" isn't a strong argument in the first place.

I wasn't really name calling, but don't go taking the fun out of this, it's providing way too much juicy entertainment for me.

I wouldn't mind, but you're really not helping +2 get removed.

The more fuss, the less likely we are to get anywhere - and the less likely that anything will be done. You're just causing fuss.

 

[Pedro]

In short: yes. But I should say more to give justice to that response by saying this: the current rule still gives the same DNF result to the person that starts and stops the timer without doing anything to their cube, and the person that solves the whole thing except by one turn plus another layer off by 46 degrees, or off by an M slice, for example. Do you think these people should be given the same result? Considering how damn close the person off by barely two moves is to solved. Really, it's only applying a DNF to a slightly adjusted range. Even though the case you presented and the one I presented aren't identical, they are very similar, and I think it greatly weakens your reasoning to something we can dismiss. If you disagree, and feel that extra move at the end of the solve is so much more important to whether someone deserves a time or not, then please say so.

Well, one move and two moves are different. And 3 and 4 and so on. So where do we draw the line? I think one move is acceptable because of loose cubes and the timing procedure. Two moves away (even if it's one by 46 degrees) is a result of not making one turn at all (the second to last).

And no, I don't think this people should get the same result, specifically the M slice one, but that's another issue...

Ok then, we're treating competitors like toddlers (we'll ignore the possibility of toddlers actually competing >.< ).

And what harm in giving the competitor a DNF? "hey kid, you need to make sure you finish that last turn like you did for the other 60+ you did during the solve, it's not so much to ask is it? Just be a bit more careful at the end and you'll still get a full average so don't worry about it".

Well, some random kid going to his first competition ever and not getting a valid average because he was 1 degree away would be really sad, I think.

 

[Dene]

"The WCA shouldn't accommodate risk takers" isn't a strong argument in the first place.

In combination with the rest of my case, I think it is. I certainly don't see anyone coming up with any real disagreement.

I think one move is acceptable because of loose cubes and the timing procedure. Two moves away (even if it's one by 46 degrees) is a result of not making one turn at all (the second to last).

You're kidding about the loose cubes thing right? You seriously think that we should give cubers bonus points (i.e. a time rather than a DNF) for using obscenely loose cubes on purpose?

As for the timing procedure, I once again refer to Lars Vandenbergh's video, which demonstrates the minimal cost. Furthermore, the fact that there are seemingly very very few cases in the entire database of cubing solves at competitions where the cube has turned "by itself" as a consequence of the timing procedure (and in these cases the cubes would have been too loose, so we bring it back to the first point).

What it comes back to, as I've said many times, is the cuber taking a risk by using a loose cube and throwing it down. So, now we come to the point where you have to justify why we should accommodate risk takers, as opposed to requiring people to present a fully solved cube upon the stopping of the timer. Otherwise your argument is finished.

Well, some random kid going to his first competition ever and not getting a valid average because he was 1 degree away would be really sad, I think.

First of all, I think this is very rare. In my experience, which to be fair is not that great, most newbie cubers at competitions are slower, and deliberately make each turn right to the end, and usually have their cubes fully solved and almost perfectly cubic upon the stopping of the timer. It is almost always the fast cubers that get a +2, as a result of going insanely fast at the end and throwing the cube down without taking care to ensure it's fully solved.

Secondly, even if one solve was off by 46 degrees, it would only take a simple explanation to let them know the rule, that in this case they will get a DNF, but if they ensure they're careful for the rest of their solves they'll still get an average. keyan's data backs up my scenario better than yours:

GuangzhouSCUT results: There were 28 unsolved cubes judged +2, 3.1% of the 900 non-BLD non-magic solves at the competition. Of these, however, 12 were already the slowest solve of the average. That is, changing the result from "close enough" to DNF would have had no impact on the average result. A further 10 would have given a small increase in the average result. Only 6 of the 180 averages recorded at the competition, or 3.3%, would have changed from a valid average to DNF.

Only 6 averages out of 180 would have been a DNF average. I would be really interested to find out whether it was fast or slow cubers that would have been affected the most by getting a DNF rather than +2. If my theory is correct, it would have been faster cubers more affected by this.

EDIT: Incidentally, I would like to get confirmation from keyan that all of the +2's he used in his analysis were all in fact penalties for misaligned slices, and not penalties for other reasons. He did say "28 unsolved cubes", but I doubt he observed every one of those, and usually there wouldn't be any way to distinguish between a +2 for a misaligned slice as opposed to a +2 for some other penalty (unless they deliberately keep track of that somehow). This is important, because it would only be the penalties for misaligned slices that would go to DNF, and not other penalties, which I think are far more common among newbies (such as not stopping the timer correctly, etc.)

 

[Kirjava]

I certainly don't see anyone coming up with any real disagreement.

"WCA shouldn't eat children"

I don't see good disagreement, so it must be a good argument against +2.

 

[antoineccantin]

Furthermore, the fact that there are seemingly very very few cases in the entire database of cubing solves at competitions where the cube has turned "by itself" as a consequence of the timing procedure (and in these cases the cubes would have been too loose, so we bring it back to the first point).

This happens relatively often in Magics.

 

[qqwref]

My perspective is basically one of justice/fairness. Mistakes happen. Sometimes it's someone forgetting to concentrate because they've finished the hard part of the solve, sometimes it's someone not being completely used to dropping the cube after every solve, sometimes it's a loose cube hitting the mat the wrong way. Yeah, sometimes it's someone leaving an unsolved cube on purpose, but I've never seen anyone with a huge number of +2s in practice so I really doubt this is a common scenario. And I don't think it's fair or reasonable to give a DNF for a fraction-of-a-second mistake that leaves the cube so close to solved.

In the end, isn't the WCA about fun? It's not fun to have to worry that at any point a random fluctuation could ruin your average, especially if the only alternative is to delicately put the cube down and waste a significant amount of time (yes, .2 seconds can matter a lot in 3x3!). And what's so bad about the current rules, anyway? No fast solvers are being pushed down in the rankings because an objectively slower cuber is taking a "risky" AUF approach. All it does is provide an incentive to be accurate while still letting people compete if they make small errors.

That's never made sense to me (I have seen it before), so I don't agree. Yes, I'm aware that I'm in the minority because I disagree.

There's no disagreement to be made here. It comes down to understanding how the real numbers are constructed (that is: what makes two real numbers distinct). The place value notation is useful but that's not actually how numbers are defined, and there's nothing that says there has to be a one-to-one mapping between numbers and place-value equivalents. Do some research and you'll see what I mean.

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.

I can agree with this. Most of the things said in this thread are either trivial arguments over details or people refusing to seriously consider someone else's situation.

 

[Dene]

WARNING: I am aware of the fact that this post has ended up very long (over 1700 words apparently), so bear with me if you can be bothered. Hopefully there are no errors, and if you notice something wrong politely point it out and I will fix it.

"WCA shouldn't eat children"

I don't see good disagreement, so it must be a good argument against +2.

Ok sure, but my argument is relevant to the discussion and eating children is not, and there is more to my argument than one irrelevant sentence, and if you go way back in the thread people have actually attempted to counter my argument and failed, so I guess people have seen it as relevant.


I want to clarify this whole situation to make my argument clearer:
A cube is either solved or not solved. There are states that are close to solved, but they are still not solved. The important question is whether these close-to-solved states should be allowed.

So what we have is a situation where someone can only argue about one of two positions: for giving close-to-solved states a +2, or for giving close-to-solved states a DNF.

In forming an argument for one's position, there are two variations on how it can be approached. One can either argue in favour of their position, or against the other position.

This leaves us with four ways overall to argue:
1) Argue in favour of giving close-to-solved states a +2
2) Argue against giving close-to-solved states a DNF
3) Argue in favour of giving close-to-solved states a DNF
4) Argue against giving close-to-solved states a +2

In looking at all of these positions, it will become clearer where my own argument sits. So let us look at the arguments presented for each position. Some things to note first though:
- I will try my best to get in all the arguments, but there’s no way I’m going back through this entire thread to find everything.
- I will give one reference for each argument, although many people may have said the same thing.
- Bear in mind that in a lot of cases the argument could be rephrased and put into the other section (i.e. 1 & 2 the same, 3&4 the same), so I just pick one or the other with whatever I think sounds better.
- I have not looked at any posts since keyan bumped the thread three weeks ago, as I can’t recall anything new being added.
- There may be a bias towards my own position, although I have tried to keep things neutral as much as possible.
- This is a bit of a mess, and I have decided I can’t be bothered to organise everything in some way, so I have mainly left things in chronological order (this may also help to not bias things).

1) Argue in favour of giving close-to-solved states a +2
blade740:
- +2 is enough to penalise sloppy cubers; it is a harsh enough penalty

Radu:
- It gives a safety barrier for the limitations of our timing procedure, whereby a cube is dropped and turns by itself

Kian:
- +2 is severe enough to be useful but not so severe as to be ridiculous and capricious

Zane Carney:
- Anyone who can get a puzzle one move from solved has clearly demonstrated they know how to solve it. A small error shouldn't prevent someone from getting that recognised

Michael Gottlieb:
- Starting and stopping the timer is not part of solving the cube, therefore a protective buffer is necessary for unlucky situations

BlueDevil:
- +2 is already more time than it would take to make the final move, so it’s enough of a penalty

Stefan:
- It is the status quo


2) Argue against giving close-to-solved states a DNF
Sebastien Auroux:
- The community is not ready for this change

MadsMohr:
- Judge rulings could be harder to make with more on the line

blade740:
- This would hurt inexperienced cubers but won't help anyone
- It could potentially invalidate hundreds of results

Radu:
- It will be a disadvantage for the good cubers who might miss an average and not get in to the next round, just because of a rush or unluckiness

emolover:
- Many people would DNF way too often

Michael Gottlieb:
- Having no leniency is frustrating, and would end up making it easier to mess up
- If you get an early DNF it’s just luck whether you will get an average or not
- There is an intuitive fairness aspect: if you get a misalignment that isn't your fault, and are given a +2, that's acceptable, but a DNF would make competitors feel like it’s way more unfair and frustrating

Stefan:
- It would make tough decisions on the 45° cut-off much tougher, with more on the line, and competitors may not find decisions as reasonable with the harsher penalty

fatboyxpc:
- Knowing that there is a threat of a DNF will affect the meta of competitors, causing them to take more care at the end of their solves, resulting in slower times (this is particularly significant with regards to single WRs)

Florian:
- Competitions should be about fun, and giving competitors a DNF for a simple mistake, potentially taking them out of future rounds, would take that fun away


3) Argue in favour of giving close-to-solved states a DNF
Olivér Perge:
- Dropping the cube as opposed to placing it down does not save much time (refer Lars Vandenbergh’s video)
- A safety net of 45° is enough
- It would solve the problem of having the same penalty for magic and 7x7x7

MadsMohr:
- This gives our sport a more mature and professional/serious image.

Olivér Perge:
- It removes the problem with slice turns counting as two moves, even if executed as one
- The actual solve process and required final position are the same, so nothing about what the competitor should be doing is changing
- There is more consistency with errors within the same solve. If an error of one move is made earlier in the solve (e.g. wrong AUF before executing PLL) it is punished equally to a one move error made at the end of the solve. Put another way: there is no fundamental distinction between any given move during a solve, but two moves could be treated differently
- Finishing the puzzle properly is the part of the whole solve

Olivér Perge:
- Getting more than one solve with a misaligned slice in an average is not that common, therefore DNF is not too harsh a penalty
- People would get used to finishing their solves properly quickly enough

Clement Gallet:
- Brings about consistency between events, as there is no alternative for a misaligned slice on clock
- Removes weird cases, such as on Square-1, where (0,-1)/(1,1) is counted as solved with penalty, when it looks like a DNF

Dan Cohen:
- Even though it may be frustrating, having no leniency already works on clock, and therefore it would work on other puzzles too

liljthedude:
- A puzzle is either solved or not solved; there is no grey area, so there shouldn’t be grey are in how we judge it

keyan:
- Fairness in “luck” (or “bad luck”): If a cube drops onto the table and turns by itself, this is treated less harshly than a cube that drops onto the table and pops
- Fairness between “chance”: If during a BLD solve one move is done incorrectly, by chance it ends up with one layer misaligned, but one move done incorrectly and any other point in the solve could leave it off by three pieces. In this case, chance is determining how much “luck” or “bad luck” that we allow

Gilles Roux:
- Luck has nothing to do with it; cubers can perform optimally hundreds of move sequences, so it is not a lot to expect that they perform their last move correctly

keyan:
- This brings about simplicity, by only having two classifications: solved and not solved

reThinking the Cube:
- A DNF is an appropriate ruling for a puzzle that has not been finished; pseudo-times should not be given for pseudo-solves


Lastly for this section, in response to the meta-argument, this post and the following discussion are of interest. What people make of it is up to them.


4) Argue against giving close-to-solved states a +2
Olivér Perge:
- It creates the issue of trying to explain to non-cubers and the media why a cube with a misaligned slice is valid

MadsMohr:
- If you can't complete the task more than three times out of five then you don't deserve a result

Olivér Perge:
- Getting a +2 is largely a result of rushing at the end of a solve and is a bad habit which is not hard to change

Olivér Perge:
- Unfairness, in that the same penalty of +2 is given, for example, for touching the puzzle before starting the timer, which is much harsher

Dene:
- It is the competitors fault if there is a misaligned slice, therefore they should be prepared for the consequences of it occurring

Zane Carney:
- The +2 rule could be used deliberately to one’s advantage (although this would most likely only apply to feet or BLD)

keyan:
- The only reason people want to keep the +2 rule is because they are scared

Dene and Dene
- The WCA should not have to account for the risks that competitors take, nor their laziness. Starting and stopping the timer correctly is part of the procedure and everyone has that knowledge before going into a solve, therefore the decision to drop the cube rather than place it down, is a conscious risk taken by the competitor. Also, leaving a cube in a state that is around about 45° is the risk competitors take by not ensuring that the finish each turn properly, therefore the delegates ruling on difficult cases should be final

END OF ARGUMENTS

So what can we make of all of this giant mess? Well, there are a lot of arguments for each position, although the most have been given in favour of the DNF rule, so hopefully that will satisfy Sebastien. But which stance has the strongest arguments? I guess that is up to the WRC. I would give my own analysis but I'm pooped. This post took me all day to make (on and off) and I just can't be bothered. I'll wait for feedback and respond to that >.<



Special mention to Robocopter87

 

[Kirjava]

Ok sure, but my argument is relevant to the discussion

This rule is nothing to do with risk.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

So I've been looking back over the discussions from the last couple of days, and I think there are a couple of points that have been overlooked, so I'll just put them down here:

And what harm in giving the competitor a DNF? "hey kid, you need to make sure you finish that last turn like you did for the other 60+ you did during the solve, it's not so much to ask is it? Just be a bit more careful at the end and you'll still get a full average so don't worry about it".

A large part of getting good times (at least in my opinion) is your mindset. If you get a really fast solve, but mess up the ending (last move) you would currently get a +2 penalty, and be more careful next solve. If this was changed to DNF, then after making that one mistake, you are not only worrying about what times you get, because your average now is all counting, you also become 'paranoid' that you'll make this mistake again, and your times will suffer from the pressure. (This happens to me in clock, I mess up one solve and there goes the average because I lose focus so much).

Well, one move and two moves are different. And 3 and 4 and so on. So where do we draw the line? I think one move is acceptable because of loose cubes and the timing procedure. Two moves away (even if it's one by 46 degrees) is a result of not making one turn at all (the second to last).

I agree a lot with this, the current +2 situation actually implies that you attempted to make the last move, but made a small mistake and get penalised, whereas if you got a DNF from misalignment, this shows you haven't attempted the last move. However, I think the last bit of that quote should read "...at all (the last)".

...And I don't think it's fair or reasonable to give a DNF for a fraction-of-a-second mistake that leaves the cube so close to solved.


In the end, isn't the WCA about fun? It's not fun to have to worry that at any point a random fluctuation could ruin your average, especially if the only alternative is to delicately put the cube down and waste a significant amount of time (yes, .2 seconds can matter a lot in 3x3!). And what's so bad about the current rules, anyway? No fast solvers are being pushed down in the rankings because an objectively slower cuber is taking a "risky" AUF approach. All it does is provide an incentive to be accurate while still letting people compete if they make small errors.

I very much agree with this.

Also in response to this:

...but I've never seen anyone with a huge number of +2s in practice so I really doubt this is a common scenario.

Actually, I can think of one person who gets many +2's and DNF's in competitions in one event especially:

...I just know that the day +2 turns into DNF I will never ever have a non-DNF pyra avg :3

One last thing.

Spoiler

(Spoilered because it isnt entirely relevant to the discussion, just the quality of it.) From reading this thread it seems to me that the quality of discussion is starting to slip, from one member in particular, and I will ask that we keep the discussions civil, so that we can come to a unified opinion, instead of lowering to this sort of posting, which I find non-constructive to the discussion:

Oooh some fun!

Congratulations for noticing that, Captain Obvious.

 

[Pedro]

I think it's clear that people have different views on this, and it's not likely we're going to convince each other.
The best way would be to have everyone vote, but that's not really possible. So basically we're here trying to conving the WRC about one position or the other, but I'm not sure it's constructive discussion...

Perhaps we should make some kind of standard procedure to submit a rule change proposal and stop arguing forever and going nowhere

 

[ThomasJE]

I think it's clear that people have different views on this, and it's not likely we're going to convince each other.
The best way would be to have everyone vote, but that's not really possible. So basically we're here trying to conving the WRC about one position or the other, but I'm not sure it's constructive discussion...

Perhaps we should make some kind of standard procedure to submit a rule change proposal and stop arguing forever and going nowhere

But then people will argue over whether a rule change should be made or not. No matter what procedure there is, you will always get discussions.

 

[Pedro]

I wasn't very clear.

We should have a form where you fill in your position (against or in favor) and your reasoning, and submit it to the WRC.

 

[jonlin]

Whether a cube is solved or not is not subjective at all, or at least until you get to defining the arbitrary point at which we will determine it is definitely solved, or definitely not, but the half-hearted disagreement to 45 degrees seems to have faded away a long time ago.

Also, if "the competitor took a risk" and "competitor is lazy" are subjective, then you must have another explanation for why a cube would end up misaligned upon stopping the timer (other than doing so deliberately). I would like to hear it, because no one has managed to come up with an alternative explanation as of yet.

When you fail to come up with another reason, I would like you to give your subjective opinion as to why the WCA should cradle competitors like a baby rather than treating them as adults with the mental capacity to understand the difference between solved and not solved, therefore giving them the cushion of a +2 penalty rather than DNFing them.

At Harvard Open 2012, I was doing the 2x2 final, using Ortega, and my 3.55+2 was because of a lockup that sprang the cube back about 60 degrees. It would have been a fast solve.
The PBL was R2 F2 R2.

 

[Dene]

At Harvard Open 2012, I was doing the 2x2 final, using Ortega, and my 3.55+2 was because of a lockup that sprang the cube back about 60 degrees. It would have been a fast solve.
The PBL was R2 F2 R2.

Ok good. In my response, first it is important to note that by choice you were using a puzzle that had this particular functional limitation, that occasionally it can lock up in a weird way that causes layers to turn "by theirself".

Now it is easy enough for me to say that the competitor was risk taking, by using a puzzle that has this functional limitation.

However you might respond that you had absolutely no knowledge of this functional limitation beforehand, and fair enough, it's probably a rare occurrence. In this case you could make an appeal to innocent ignorance.

So congratulations to you, you have found another category in which a competitor might be left with a misaligned slice.

However, there are things to note:
Firstly, this occurrence must be extremely rare. I justify this in two ways. The first is the inherent nature of the ignorance, in that, for you to claim innocent ignorance it can't have happened to you before, and therefore it must be a rare occurrence by nature of the problem. The second is the fact that I've been around for a fair while now and never noticed complaints about this happening before.

Secondly, it is very very important that the appeal to innocent ignorance can only be made once ever for the same problem. As soon as the problem has occurred to you, or someone else that makes you aware of it, you immediately have knowledge of the problem. Therefore any future attempts made with the same brand of puzzle are taken as a risk, with the knowledge of the functional limitation.

So when we put these two together it is fairly safe to say that the appeal to innocent ignorance could only be made once in blue moon. And I think a very strong case can be made that the impact of it is so minute that there is no justification whatsoever for the +2 rule. After all, it would only be that one solve in an average that would be a DNF due to innocent ignorance, so the competitor still has every chance to get a full average, and from then on they no longer have an excuse.

To conclude: The occurrence of this would be insanely rare, and it would have only a small impact on that person at the time, and never again in the future, therefore giving a +2 for all misaligned slice cases is not justified.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

Ok good. In my response, first it is important to note that by choice you were using a puzzle that had this particular functional limitation, that occasionally it can lock up in a weird way that causes layers to turn "by theirself".

Now it is easy enough for me to say that the competitor was risk taking, by using a puzzle that has this functional limitation.

However you might respond that you had absolutely no knowledge of this functional limitation beforehand, and fair enough, it's probably a rare occurrence. In this case you could make an appeal to innocent ignorance.

So congratulations to you, you have found another category in which a competitor might be left with a misaligned slice.

However, there are things to note:
Firstly, this occurrence must be extremely rare. I justify this in two ways. The first is the inherent nature of the ignorance, in that, for you to claim innocent ignorance it can't have happened to you before, and therefore it must be a rare occurrence by nature of the problem. The second is the fact that I've been around for a fair while now and never noticed complaints about this happening before.

Secondly, it is very very important that the appeal to innocent ignorance can only be made once ever for the same problem. As soon as the problem has occurred to you, or someone else that makes you aware of it, you immediately have knowledge of the problem. Therefore any future attempts made with the same brand of puzzle are taken as a risk, with the knowledge of the functional limitation.

So when we put these two together it is fairly safe to say that the appeal to innocent ignorance could only be made once in blue moon. And I think a very strong case can be made that the impact of it is so minute that there is no justification whatsoever for the +2 rule. After all, it would only be that one solve in an average that would be a DNF due to innocent ignorance, so the competitor still has every chance to get a full average, and from then on they no longer have an excuse.

To conclude: The occurrence of this would be insanely rare, and it would have only a small impact on that person at the time, and never again in the future, therefore giving a +2 for all misaligned slice cases is not justified.

I think there is one inherent problem with this argument. The lockup in this case was not directly a fault of the cuber. The blame lies in the hardware. I personally think that your argument that the WCA should not allow risks is quite frankly unsupportable. Also there is no way that you can claim that the impact was minor. If this solve had been a DNF, that could have afectd the mindset of the competitor and causes them to lose focus because of something that was not directly under their control.Although I agree that in most cases the fault lies with the competitor, sometimes the cube is at fault, and losing your chance at an average because of your cube is more unfair than giving them time penalties.
Also, I note that you are using the same argument over and over again, without any extension or support of it. Is this really the only reason that you suggest the removal of +2 over?

 

[Kirjava]

Try to think of it from this perspective;

Imagine no +2 rule existed up to this point for WCA competitions.

If someone suggested it as a new rule, can you think of the responses it would face? It would mostly be ignored, or shown the list of problems it faces before being dismissed.

I do think going from solved to DNF with no buffer zone is harsh, but preferable to the +2 copout.