[WCA Regulations 2014] DNF for 1/2 multi BLD

[Lucas Garron]

Sure, people who do a single 1/2 multi waste the competition's time... so do people who do an average of 5 in 3x3x3 and average 3+ minutes. Should we put a low cutoff in the regulations for the whole world, to prevent such people from taking time from the competition?

But really, I think as long as you try at least 2 cubes, you are doing multi. Allowing someone to DNF a cube is just a bit of leeway to let more people get non-DNF results. Why should the leeway only exist for the people with *more* skill?

Because people who are averaging 3+ in 3x3x3 are probably not doing anything else, so we want to encourage them (WCA mission). Someone who is doing 2 cubes for multi is basically just trying stuff because they can. They are probably doing quite a few other events, so this would not be taking anything significant away from them.

 

[Jaysammey777]

Because people who are averaging 3+ in 3x3x3 are probably not doing anything else, so we want to encourage them (WCA mission). Someone who is doing 2 cubes for multi is basically just trying stuff because they can. They are probably doing quite a few other events, so this would not be taking anything significant away from them.

I disagree. I actually practice multi bld and am still terrible at it. And I would say that this change would "take away from me"

 

[uvafan]

I disagree. I actually practice multi bld and am still terrible at it. And I would say that this change would "take away from me"

Dude, I'm sorry if you can't get a 2/2 in competition. But there's a basic argument here - if you don't solve multiple cubes blindfolded, then it's not a successful Multiple Blindfold solve. Whether or not people who this regulation affects actually practice MBLD is irrelevant at the fundamental level.

 

[Kit Clement]

What I like about this: It makes a clear distinction between 3BLD and MBLD. This event should be about solving multiple cubes blindfolded, and this update removes the only non-DNF result for 1 cube only.

What I don't like: Inconsistency in results. If we are to make 1/2 illegal now, I don't think it should be a valid result, even in the past. I know it's a minor change, but it's truly a new event with 1/2 not counting, and I feel like we should make all old results match up to our new standard. Otherwise, maybe there should be a distinction like we did for old MBLD results? (I think we should have done this when we started filtering scrambles for quick events too, but that's neither here nor there)

Overall: I'm for the change, but not as strongly for the change if we keep the results as-is.

 

[uberCuber]

I disagree. I actually practice multi bld and am still terrible at it. And I would say that this change would "take away from me"

I don't mean to be rude, but if you actually practice multibld and can't attempt 3 cubes in half an hour, you need to seriously think about improving your memory method.

 

[Sebastien]

What I like about this: It makes a clear distinction between 3BLD and MBLD. This event should be about solving multiple cubes blindfolded, and this update removes the only non-DNF result for 1 cube only.

This. 1/2 creates the weird corner case that getting a valid result for MBF can be easier than getting a result for 3BLD. That doesn't seem to be desirable to me.

 

[szalejot]

In my opinion every MBLD solve which is not n/n (for example 1/2, 5/7, 10/13) should be DNF.
You can solve certain number of cubes blindfolded or you can not. Without middle states.

 

[CyanSandwich]

In my opinion every MBLD solve which is not n/n (for example 1/2, 5/7, 10/13) should be DNF.
You can solve certain number of cubes blindfolded or you can not. Without middle states.

That's way too harsh. 49/50 is obviously more worthy of recognition than 2/2. The points system should be enough. 4/7 is already ranked lower than 2/2

 

[~Adam~]

I am happy with the decision to make 1/2 DNF but I think it should go one step further and make 0 points a DNF.
Just my opinion.

 

[Pedro]

I also agree that 0 points should be DNF too, but making 1/2 = DNF is fine for me, at least for now.

I've seen many people memorise just one cube of the 2, and that's not the intent of the event.

Sure, people who do a single 1/2 multi waste the competition's time... so do people who do an average of 5 in 3x3x3 and average 3+ minutes. Should we put a low cutoff in the regulations for the whole world, to prevent such people from taking time from the competition? My point is that in all speed events we currently let the organizer decide whether they want to let less skilled people take time from the competition, using combined finals and cutoffs. Let's instead do this for multi too - if organizers are really concerned about less-skilled people doing the event, they can require e.g. all competitors must try at least 5 cubes.

Right, great idea...so now everybody would take up to 50 minutes instead of less time...

The main point here is not the time, but the possibility of cheating the event (for whatever reason).

 

[bryson azzopard]

alright I love blindfold and I see this at comps all the time and I was thinking about posting about this people I know how many people would be for and against this topic so I didn't worry about it. I 100% agree with this I think its stupid to get 1/2 worth 0 points and get podium (maybe) in "multiple" event so if the rule stays it won't bug me at all but I would be more happy so see it get removed then though I only like 3BLD and 4BLD mainly, I think it will be a good foot forward to improving multi-blind in my opinion

 

[qqwref]

Right, great idea...so now everybody would take up to 50 minutes instead of less time...

You could do this already. Nothing's stopping any random cuber from deciding to try 6 cubes, sitting there for an hour staring at them, and then DNFing. The idea is that if people think there's no chance of them getting a non-DNF result they will generally not bother (and the same logic works with hard cutoffs).

 

[Lucas Garron]

You could do this already. Nothing's stopping any random cuber from deciding to try 6 cubes, sitting there for an hour staring at them, and then DNFing.

A1c:

A1c) A competitor participating in an event must be able to fulfill the event's requirements (e.g. know how to solve the puzzle). A competitor competing with expectation of a DNF result may be disqualified from the event, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.

 

[qqwref]

A1c) A competitor participating in an event must be able to fulfill the event's requirements (e.g. know how to solve the puzzle). A competitor competing with expectation of a DNF result may be disqualified from the event, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.

Sorry, I missed this when it was first posted. What's stopping us from doing something like this for multiBLD? We could add a note that a competitor participating in multiBLD must compete with the expectation of solving at least one cube, and that if they do not they may be disqualified from the event at the discretion of the WCA delegate. Simple, easy, gets rid of people who take advantage of 1/2 not being DNF.

 

[DrKorbin]

expectation of solving at least one cube ... Simple, easy, gets rid of people who take advantage of 1/2 not being DNF.

:-/
1/2 is solving at least one cube. Or did you mean 1 point?
Besides, how can you know before event starts that this guy will race for 1/2?

 

[ThomasJE]

1/2 is solving at least one cube. Or did you mean 1 point?

And one cube is not Multi-BLD. You did not solve multiple cubes.

Besides, how can you know before event starts that this guy will race for 1/2?

You don't. But 1/2 would be DNF, and 2/2 would be 2 points.

 

[qqwref]

:-/
1/2 is solving at least one cube. Or did you mean 1 point?
Besides, how can you know before event starts that this guy will race for 1/2?

Sorry, that should be "expectation of solving more than one cube". And just like if someone gets DNF on purpose, you would only know after. The judge could report something like a very fast 1/2 where the competitor did not memo (or did not exec) the second cube, and the delegate could disqualify that person if they want. But if someone really tries and gets 1/2, I don't see why they should get a DNF when a 2/4 or 3/6 doesn't get DNFed.

 

[Stefan]

if someone really tries and gets 1/2, I don't see why they should get a DNF when a 2/4 or 3/6 doesn't get DNFed.

Because they literally did not finish multiple cubes while the 2/4 or 3/6 did.

 

[TDM]

Because they literally did not finish multiple cubes while the 2/4 or 3/6 did.

This. I disagreed with the idea of this at first, but eventually, I realised that you shouldn't think of it as DNF for 1/2: think of it as DNF for not solving more than 1.

 

[Dene]

Because they literally did not finish multiple cubes while the 2/4 or 3/6 did.

Actually, someone who gets 2/4 or 3/6 etc. also did not finish multiple cubes.

I have almost been convinced that any score of 0 should also count as a DNF.