adimare
Veteran
You gotta admit that's a pretty good argument tho. DNF stands for "did not finish", and a cube that's even one move away from being solved seems to fit that description perfectly.
M slice +2 Poll
- Thread starter yjyulong
- Start date
You gotta admit that's a pretty good argument tho. DNF stands for "did not finish", and a cube that's even one move away from being solved seems to fit that description perfectly.
Reinier Schippers
Veteran
- Joined
- May 3, 2010
- Messages
- 348
- Location
- Utrecht, The Netherlands
- WCA ID
- 2010SCHI01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
What about the S And E moves 
jk
M slices shouldn't be +2d since you make a double mistake in my opinion. Also I don't like the fact that M U perm are faster which I can't execute
So keep it at the dnf
jk M slices shouldn't be +2d since you make a double mistake in my opinion. Also I don't like the fact that M U perm are faster which I can't execute
So keep it at the dnf
TheNewbCuber
Regular
I'm all for M slice getting a +2(fair for Roux users)simply because I'm against changing +2 to DNF(Retroactive effects)
+2 replacement with DNF would require either
a) change of past results (important ones like the current multiBLD WR) and
b) invalidation of all past solves with +2.
If +2 changes to DNF and you don't enact the two things I mentioned above, it's unfair to other competitors. If you do enact them, it's unfair to the solver/record holder.
If you hate +2, you're probably in the league where +2 affects an average, and in that case, it puts you at an advantage if another competitor gets a +2 anyway.
EDIT: I just realized that M slices could create confusion as to what a single move consists of, someone will have to work that out. What else is the WCA there for?
+2 replacement with DNF would require either
a) change of past results (important ones like the current multiBLD WR) and
b) invalidation of all past solves with +2.
If +2 changes to DNF and you don't enact the two things I mentioned above, it's unfair to other competitors. If you do enact them, it's unfair to the solver/record holder.
If you hate +2, you're probably in the league where +2 affects an average, and in that case, it puts you at an advantage if another competitor gets a +2 anyway.
EDIT: I just realized that M slices could create confusion as to what a single move consists of, someone will have to work that out. What else is the WCA there for?
Z
ZeshaaK
Guest
This is my current opinion on the +2 penalty we have now.
I do not think the +2 penalty should exist to help competitors that either, (a) forgot to do the last move or (b) if they failed at doing their last move properly.
I think the +2 penalty should exist because as you drop the cube there is a small chance of a layer to be misaligned as a result of just bad luck (I believe at Worlds 2015 Feliks had a +2 solve which, if you look at in slow motion, you can see that the cube is solved in the air).
That being said, the chance of dropping a solved cube and having the layers misalign to be an M slice off is extremely low. So in conclusion, there should be no reason for a cube to be considered solved if its off by an M slice. However I do believe that the current +2 penalty should remain.
EDIT: Ok so I just realised that the current +2 penalty gives CFOP users an advantage over ROUX in terms of being able to fail their last move. But M slice moves still should not be considered solved with penalty because of what I mentioned earlier. However due to this advantage I would be open to the possibility of removing penalties altogether.
I do not think the +2 penalty should exist to help competitors that either, (a) forgot to do the last move or (b) if they failed at doing their last move properly.
I think the +2 penalty should exist because as you drop the cube there is a small chance of a layer to be misaligned as a result of just bad luck (I believe at Worlds 2015 Feliks had a +2 solve which, if you look at in slow motion, you can see that the cube is solved in the air).
That being said, the chance of dropping a solved cube and having the layers misalign to be an M slice off is extremely low. So in conclusion, there should be no reason for a cube to be considered solved if its off by an M slice. However I do believe that the current +2 penalty should remain.
EDIT: Ok so I just realised that the current +2 penalty gives CFOP users an advantage over ROUX in terms of being able to fail their last move. But M slice moves still should not be considered solved with penalty because of what I mentioned earlier. However due to this advantage I would be open to the possibility of removing penalties altogether.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheCoolMinxer
Veteran
I voted no because,
if I get a +2 it would most likely be my worst solve anyway, changing it to a DNF doesn't matter than.
Also how can you transfer this rule to big cubes, having M, r or r' for example (or am I just stupid?
)
For me a m or m2 just isn't solved an it'll never be
if I get a +2 it would most likely be my worst solve anyway, changing it to a DNF doesn't matter than.
Also how can you transfer this rule to big cubes, having M, r or r' for example (or am I just stupid?
)For me a m or m2 just isn't solved an it'll never be
ryanj92
Veteran
gonna copy my post from an earlier thread here -
people who think that a slice move away should be +2: do you think inner slices (a single slice, or multiple adjacent slices) on 4-7 should be +2 also? and also for OH and feet, where a slice move no longer 'feels' like a single move? i'm curious
(also, imagine the implications of a cube off by an M2 now being valid for BLD)
people who think that a slice move away should be +2: do you think inner slices (a single slice, or multiple adjacent slices) on 4-7 should be +2 also? and also for OH and feet, where a slice move no longer 'feels' like a single move? i'm curious
(also, imagine the implications of a cube off by an M2 now being valid for BLD
)Goosly
Veteran
It is the competitor's fault. The competitor is supposed to solve the cube, not solve it with one layer 46 degrees (or more) off.
I've never had a +2 because of bad luck, all of them was just me doing the wrong AUF.
PenguinsDontFly
Legend
I voted no because,
if I get a +2 it would most likely be my worst solve anyway, changing it to a DNF doesn't matter than.
Also how can you transfer this rule to big cubes, having M, r or r' for example (or am I just stupid?
For me a m or m2 just isn't solved an it'll never be
my thoughts exactly! also, I'm cool with getting rid of misalignment penalties.
mark49152
Premium Member
AFAIK +2s are not on record with WCA so any retroactive changes to DNFs would be impossible, as well as contentious. Yes the +2 rule is questionable but it's no less arbitrary than allowing 15 seconds of inspection. At least the penalty is harsh enough to wreck a result at top levels. I vote to leave it unchanged but not make it worse by extending to slices.
sqAree
Veteran
I DNFed my first OH solve ever in a comp.
I dropped the cube and the U layer got misaligned cause of collision with the table (D layer was still misaligned at that point).
So yep, it's possible to be an accident.
I dropped the cube and the U layer got misaligned cause of collision with the table (D layer was still misaligned at that point).
So yep, it's possible to be an accident.
Goosly
Veteran
That's not an accident. Dropping your cube is your fault. Do not drop your cube.
A few competitions ago, my cube fell of the table after I did a very bad timer stop, 2 center caps fell off, which is a DNF. That too was totally my fault, not an accident.
newtonbase
Premium Member
+2 for M slice could get messy. When I started cubing I was surprised to find out about the penalty for an unsolved cube. I'd make all misalignments DNFs.
AlexMaass
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 1,547
- Location
- America, New York, Long Island
- WCA ID
- 2011MAAS01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
I would like to make slice moves +2, but as Kit Clement pointed out, "Trying to come up with rules that are easy to understand and will be applied the same across the world for the slice is incredibly difficult." (as pointed out with this image: http://i.imgur.com/v6ax7m1.jpg)
I'm strongly against just getting rid of misalignments all together, people would be more nervous in comps, because if they just drop the cube wrong or make 1 small error at the end of the solve, it would ruin their average. That goes against the mission of WCA for people to have "more fun".
I'm strongly against just getting rid of misalignments all together, people would be more nervous in comps, because if they just drop the cube wrong or make 1 small error at the end of the solve, it would ruin their average. That goes against the mission of WCA for people to have "more fun".
penguinz7
Veteran
This is now at 53/8
Skullush
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 677
- Location
- Severna Park, Maryland, USA
- WCA ID
- 2011SAKO01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
I didn't read every post in this thread super carefully, but these are my thoughts:
M, M', and M2 are theoretical moves, according to the half-turn metric that the WCA uses. It would be inconsistent to have the fewest moves challenge go by half-turn metric, and have +2 misalignment penalties go by slice-turn metric. If you're going to change the metric for one thing, it should be consistent throughout the WCA. But I don't think that's worth the trouble. Also, I realize there's a method neutrality argument for M slice +2s (CFOP and Roux), but really, having this new penalty is no more method neutral than not having this penalty. If you're a CFOP solver and you didn't use an H-perm at the end or anything of that sort, and your cube is off by an R and an L', then you made two moves. With this new rule, you would get a +2 penalty for that, which I don't think is a good thing.
Then there's the opposite side of the spectrum; I realize some people think that there shouldn't be a +2 penalty at all. I mean I guess that's worth discussing but... It's just a little harsh. +2 misalignment penalties aren't exactly a terrible rule; obviously it takes less than 2 seconds to make one move so it is a penalty, and it gives a little leniency that might be necessary when solvers can't afford to double check the puzzle before stopping the timer. I'd be more on board with removing +2s entirely if there weren't mean of 3 events like 6x6, 7x7, and feet, where a DNF would ruin the entire average. But then there's people who want to remove all three of those events anyway. I don't know. I'm not really prepared to take a firm stance on whether to remove +2s. But I do think it's a better idea than the M slice +2 proposal.
M, M', and M2 are theoretical moves, according to the half-turn metric that the WCA uses. It would be inconsistent to have the fewest moves challenge go by half-turn metric, and have +2 misalignment penalties go by slice-turn metric. If you're going to change the metric for one thing, it should be consistent throughout the WCA. But I don't think that's worth the trouble. Also, I realize there's a method neutrality argument for M slice +2s (CFOP and Roux), but really, having this new penalty is no more method neutral than not having this penalty. If you're a CFOP solver and you didn't use an H-perm at the end or anything of that sort, and your cube is off by an R and an L', then you made two moves. With this new rule, you would get a +2 penalty for that, which I don't think is a good thing.
Then there's the opposite side of the spectrum; I realize some people think that there shouldn't be a +2 penalty at all. I mean I guess that's worth discussing but... It's just a little harsh. +2 misalignment penalties aren't exactly a terrible rule; obviously it takes less than 2 seconds to make one move so it is a penalty, and it gives a little leniency that might be necessary when solvers can't afford to double check the puzzle before stopping the timer. I'd be more on board with removing +2s entirely if there weren't mean of 3 events like 6x6, 7x7, and feet, where a DNF would ruin the entire average. But then there's people who want to remove all three of those events anyway. I don't know. I'm not really prepared to take a firm stance on whether to remove +2s. But I do think it's a better idea than the M slice +2 proposal.
AlphaSheep
Veteran
The WCA Regulations Committee could easily come up with a nice complete set of rules which covers each and every difficult case. That's the easy part. The really, really hard part is to get every single inexperienced judge at every competition to be familiar enough with those rules to apply them exactly the same way as the next inexperienced judge. The example that Kit posted is just one case that many judges would likely get wrong, were a rule added to allow M slice misalignments.
Sajwo
Veteran
That is a point. If they want to remove +2 rule, I think it would be compulsory to change the format of WF, 6x6 and 7x7 into avg5. DNFing the whole average just because somebody had a bad luck with the layer missaligned by a 46 degrees is too harsh
+2 rule is already too harsh
AlexMaass
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 1,547
- Location
- America, New York, Long Island
- WCA ID
- 2011MAAS01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
How so?
Sajwo
Veteran
2 seconds is very much
AlexMaass
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 1,547
- Location
- America, New York, Long Island
- WCA ID
- 2011MAAS01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
It is not that much imo, it is reasonable. You want +1? people would get +1 all the time in feet lol.
Similar threads
- Locked
