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

[Godmil]

I'm totally on the fence on this subject now.

Why is simplification and standardisation of rules bad?

Simplification in itself isn't necessarily good. The WCA could have like 5 rules total, and that would be very simple and easy for people to learn... but would inevitably fail to cover all the needed issues and wouldn't be clear enough on common misinterpretations, etc.
When you say Simplicity is good, I have to assume you mean simplicity without loosing clarity or failing to cover all eventualities.
But then that's all about how you define simple... simple could be fewer rules, or it could be lots of rules that leave nothing ambiguous etc... either way it's easy to see how one person can say simplicity is best and another can question if that's the case.

 

[Goosly]

Judges can forget to add the +2 penality because when, for example, you solve the cube in 10.00 and there is a penality, a judge can write:
a. 10.00+2
b. 12.00+
c. 12.00

The regulations state that the judge should write: 10.00 +2 = 12.00
If you see a judge writing anything else, just inform him/her about the correct way.

 

[Kirjava]

I'm saying that simplification in this context is good, not in every single case.

 

[gogozerg]

Keep in mind there are 5 other kinds of 2 second penalties (rarely applied).
Should they be changed to DNF too, to make rules more simple?

 

[Dene]

I was about to say this myself.

Please everyone bear in mind that this is only talking about misaligned slices.

(Maybe I should keep my mouth shut because I want to remove +2 for misaligned slice ).

 

[speedcubingman]

i think a +2 penalty should be changed to a dnf, because it is clearly not finished with a 45 degree turn or more. i don't like dnf's but it makes sense

 

[DrKorbin]

Because you no longer have to check if the cube is either no moves away or one move away or more, you're just checking if it's solved or not. There are other differences.

That's what I told before, read my post carefully. And the situation when a cube is one certain and one uncertain move away is infrequent. Commonly a cube (if +2) is one move away.

Why is simplification and standardisation of rules bad?

Let's get rid of preinspection. It will simplify the rules - a judge must not start his timer and tell "8 sec" and "12 sec".
Let's get rid of every discipline except 3x3 - it will simplify the rules much more.
Simplification is not good in all cases.

I'm saying that simplification in this context is good, not in every single case.

And that is subjective.

 

[Kirjava]

That's what I told before, read my post carefully. And the situation when a cube is one certain and one uncertain move away is infrequent. Commonly a cube (if +2) is one move away.

I just didn't feel like your cumbersome wording succinctly described how there will be a reduction from three states to two.

In this instance, the simplification of the rules is a good thing, as interpreting the results will be clearer, amoungst other things.

Let's get rid of preinspection. It will simplify the rules - a judge must not start his timer and tell "8 sec" and "12 sec".
Let's get rid of every discipline except 3x3 - it will simplify the rules much more.
Simplification is not good in all cases.

There's no such thing as 'preinspection'. Also, see my post about context.

And that is subjective.

I don't think so. Rule changes are usually either a Good Thing(tm) or not.

 

[Ranzha]

DrKorbin, you're taking things way out of proportion. Remember what this thread is meant for.

I'm on the fence about this, too. It seems like it's too easy to DNF if the penalty is removed. And it is. But I'm not keen to keeping it as a crutch.

 

[Tyson]

(I bet Stefan has this answer...)

Does anyone remember where the discussion regarding removing the POP solves took place? I feel like it's a lot of the same argument, and we got rid of POPs.

 

[Bob]

I see arguments about POPs going back to 2004

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/message/10301

 

[Daniel Wu]

DrKorbin, you're taking things way out of proportion. Remember what this thread is meant for.

I'm on the fence about this, too. It seems like it's too easy to DNF if the penalty is removed. And it is. But I'm not keen to keeping it as a crutch.

This basically sums up what I'm thinking as well.

The POP thing seems to differ from +2 in that POP could be taken advantage of if a competitor was having a bad solve in order to get a new solve, whereas +2 can't really be taken advantage of (except for a few cases like M2 BLD solves by doing R2 at the end etc etc).

 

[ThtDarnNeighbor]

i feel that they need to change the +2 rule to include a misalligned slice because the current rule favours cfop and petrus over methods like roux, in which the m move is one of the, if not the last move before finishing the cube

 

[Bob]

i feel that they need to change the +2 rule to include a misalligned slice because the current rule favours cfop and petrus over methods like roux, in which the m move is one of the, if not the last move before finishing the cube

But the +2 rule was there before Roux. People who learned and adopted the Roux method did so knowing that a misaligned M slice is a DNF.

 

[Ranzha]

i feel that they need to change the +2 rule to include a misalligned slice because the current rule favours cfop and petrus over methods like roux, in which the m move is one of the, if not the last move before finishing the cube

Going off of what Bob said, it puts Rouxers at a higher risk, but that's the nature of the method. When the reg was put into place, it wasn't set to cater to any existing method, or likewise. It was method-neutral.
But I dunno these days if removing the penalty is beneficial to the cubing community or not. I feel like there will be a tonne more DNFs, and a good number of them will be because of flukes.

 

[TMOY]

But the +2 rule was there before Roux. People who learned and adopted the Roux method did so knowing that a misaligned M slice is a DNF.

Maybe the Roux method didn't exist yet, but corners first methods already did, so your argument doesn't hold. And the fact that we have to comply to a stupid rule in order to compete in WCA events doesn't make the rule less stupid.

 

[5BLD]

i feel that they need to change the +2 rule to include a misalligned slice because the current rule favours cfop and petrus over methods like roux, in which the m move is one of the, if not the last move before finishing the cube

Then you could argue, what if someone accidentally solved, did U and then D' then stopped the timer?

No one's going to change M/S/E to +2.

 

[TMOY]

And what if we replace U and D' with L and L again ? Should we swith to QTM because of that ?

It's truly sad to see Roux users shoot themselves in the foot like that.

 

[Kirjava]

I find your tirade against HTM tiring TMOY.

There's literally no reason why STM should be 'more valid' than HTM. We have to use one of them and HTM is the one we use.

It's time you got over it.

 

[TMOY]

As you have said yourself a zillion times, rules should be method neutral. And HTM is not. This is a perfectly valid reason.