Results are in! Method Development Competition August 2021 - Create the best 4x4 method! - $10 gift card prize! - Sponsored by SpeedCubeShop.com

[ruffleduck]

Just when I was starting to change my opinion on you...

This is quite literally the single worst argument I have ever heard on the forums and in real life. (@BenChristman1 if you're working on forum awards this year I'd like to nominate this for Worst Arguing and Dumbest Post of the Year. No offence Lukas). You start off in a way that suggests you wrote this spontaneously. "You know what" is a horrible as to start a post, you also didn't capitalize the first "i" but did for the second. You than say you "feel" that he is correct which is fine. But it makes sense to be skeptical given that he didn't provide good evidence or a confident tone.

Let's assume he has a family of cubers like you said, the chances of that are extremely low but let's just pretend. If his family were all cubers are we also assuming they have a very good understanding of big cubes, theory, ergonomics, lookahead, and so on? If so can we also agree that they all discussed each method in great detail not knowing which was there relatives method as to prevent possible bias? And what are the chances of agreeing that the one was best in terms of all three categories? On top of that how was it that it was also xtreme cuber2007's method? It does not even make sense for all to put his method as most original since that is very, very debatable.

How do you explain the the second string of votes like @Athefre pointed out. Now that we mentioned Athefre let's discuss your next point. You quote his post replying that it's "fine" if he even did cheat and that it is "not a big deal". You then go on to tell this whiny Athefre fellow who's been creating methods since before you were even born that he needs to "deal with it" I mean c'mon Athefre it's not the "end of the world" for crying out loud.

You seem to contradict yourself when you go from saying that he did not cheat to even if he did it's not a big deal to it's none of our business if he cheats to stuff like this "just happens". Whether this is purposeful, the fault of bad writing and grammar, or just a poor understanding of arguments I don't know. But what I do know is that it is everyone's business on the forums, especially Atherfre and xtreme cuber2007's fellow competitors who, if I may add, seemed to put a lot more thought and time into this than xtreme. This isn't some card game your playing with your chums, this is a contest that is requiring hard work and thought. Not just anyone could enter. You needed to know what you're doing and how to win. Not only is this a contest that can contribute greatly to the cubing community, but, there is a prize at stake. To cheat someone out of an otherwise rightful prize is extremely dirty and does not belong anywhere, especially in a small community like this.

You act as though your decision is the deciding factor of determining quite possibly the winner of this important event. Excuse me if I sound rude but you aren't exactly the best decision maker on this forum. You tend to create lazy posts that don't really make a point and you never use a professional tone of voice no matter the topic or length. You've been known to not think things through into detail such as your 5x5 method which you cling to despite multiple experienced cubers and method creators telling you it's no good.

Moving on. You give no reason on why you think the defendant wins. You simply say we shouldn't accuse people of "crap" (real mature btw). This kind of stuff doesn't "just happen". @xtreme cuber2007 decided (unless he can provide some stone hard evidence) to make that decision. It was no by chance. A couple posts is not a big deal everybody has actually been surprisingly quiet about this. The things we "accuse" of not being happen much less than 95% of the time. Having a whole family cube is much greater than a 95% chance, same with when we questioned you about your PB. It was very suspicious and you did not even have the scramble again, something that happens less than 95% of the time.


In summary: 1. Telling the creator of the contest it's not a big deal is ridicules. 2. We have all the right to be suspicious. 3. You can have opinions but don't expect us to agree especially if you sound like a toxic inept internet kid.

 

[cuberswoop]

You know what ,i agree with @xtreme cuber2007 here I feel like he is correct and his family did vote. It's fine just deal with it, it's not a big deal. He may just have a family of cubers, who knows its not your business. You can just deal with it, it's not the end of the world. Apparently to yall if something happens less than 95% of the time, its fake. I do see yalls argument but I think the defendant here wins. Just don't accuse people of crap like this. It just happens.

I second this.

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

View attachment 16909

Thanks for the new profile picture!

 

[LukasCubes]

(@BenChristman1 if you're working on forum awards this year I'd like to nominate this for Worst Arguing and Dumbest Post of the Year. No offence Lukas).

I would like to nominate myself for this award too.

 

[EvanCuber]

Look, typically you can rely on the parents to be trustworthy, so just have ExtremeCuber2007 set up a video call between Athefre and ExtremeCuber 2007. Athefre can interrogate his mother and see if she really did vote. If ExtremeCuber2007 refuses, he is likely guilty. I think it suspicious that all the emails end in 2007 when I can guarantee the rest of his family was not born in 2007

 

[ruffleduck]

If ExtremeCuber2007 refuses, he is likely guilty.

There could be many other reasons to refuse, besides being guilty. (He almost certainly is, but putting the social pressure on him probably isn't a great idea.)

 

[LukasCubes]

he dont need to prove anything, yall just dont trust anyone

 

[V Achyuthan]

How do you explain the other strings of votes that look the same? The first string of 4-5 people all discussed together and agreed upon almost exactly the same thing? Then the second string of 3 people all discussed together and agreed upon almost exactly the same thing? For the lolcuber2007 and lmaocuber2007 votes, your mom and dad are deep enough into cubing that they understand the nuances of big cube solving well enough to vote? It's kind of an advanced subject within method development.

My parents have a good understanding of cube theory even talk they are not involved in cubing. They know what ergonomics, original method etc. mean. I don't know the first string of 5 people. Maybe they were my friends. I will confirm and tell you. Also a note, my dad and mom knows a lot about events upto 4x4. And yes I made their accounts because they didn't want to vote from their personal account. Can you give the e-mail of the first string of votes for checking, they maybe my uncle, aunt and my cousin's vote and yeah they also know some things about cubing, but I have no idea what they voted, so please give their email for confirmation.

Thank you

 

[Athefre]

You know what ,i agree with @xtreme cuber2007 here I feel like he is correct and his family did vote. It's fine just deal with it, it's not a big deal. He may just have a family of cubers, who knows its not your business. You can just deal with it, it's not the end of the world. Apparently to yall if something happens less than 95% of the time, its fake. I do see yalls argument but I think the defendant here wins. Just don't accuse people of crap like this. It just happens.

You know I have been very nice to you. We have talked about how I used to live very close to where you live. I have ignored the many times that you have purposefully misspelled my username because I know you aren't serious. I'm not the type to immediately choose a side because unexpected things happen. But if you look at my post, all of the evidence lines up. That would be such a ridiculous coincidence for 8 people to have voted almost exactly the same. For these votes to have occurred in a series of strings just minutes apart in a competition that typically gets few votes. And for these 8 votes to also be the same as the last three that I brought up which currently have the claim of being by the method creator's mom, dad, and brother.

 

[xyzzy]

(I haven't voted yet; will vote after reading through all five methods and understanding how they work. Meanwhile, here's some blogging about my thoughts on the methods. If you intend to vote, you probably shouldn't be reading this first. If you're one of the method designers, please don't reply until voting has closed, unless you think something I said is egregiously wrong and must be corrected.)

Side note: good lord, is Google Docs stripping out %0A from links in their redirector or something; all the a.c.n and CubeDB links don't work if directly clicked.

Spoiler: TSSH

Seems just like a rearranged Yau.

There's little actual blockbuilding, and efficiency-wise it's worse(?) than Yau, since post-centres, there are four dedges that are formed one at a time, rather than two (or more) at a time. In contrast, Yau only has one dedge that's paired by itself post-centres, namely, the last cross dedge. This is an easily fixable flaw, but without fixing it, it adds like 5-10 moves to the average move count.

The example solves given don't have especially good move count; just for context, I have Yau (slow but linear) solves in the range of 120-140 moves, including parities.

Pairing the last layer edges separately is original, I guess, but it's also a pretty awkward step. Also, even worse efficiency.

Spoiler: Triforce

This seems really cool. (And weird.)

5e5x looks kinda gross. I used to do something like [M' U2 M, 2U] back when I maining sandwich (or rather, [S R2 S', 2R]), so I'm familiar with the concept, but it just doesn't seem fast. At the same time, it also seems possible to combine solving the 5 edges with influencing the centres to get better cases.

 

[Athefre]

(I haven't voted yet; will vote after reading through all five methods and understanding how they work. Meanwhile, here's some blogging about my thoughts on the methods. If you intend to vote, you probably shouldn't be reading this first. If you're one of the method designers, please don't reply until voting has closed, unless you think something I said is egregiously wrong and must be corrected.)

Side note: good lord, is Google Docs stripping out %0A from links in their redirector or something; all the a.c.n and CubeDB links don't work if directly clicked.

Spoiler: TSSH

Seems just like a rearranged Yau.

There's little actual blockbuilding, and efficiency-wise it's worse(?) than Yau, since post-centres, there are four dedges that are formed one at a time, rather than two (or more) at a time. In contrast, Yau only has one dedge that's paired by itself post-centres, namely, the last cross dedge. This is an easily fixable flaw, but without fixing it, it adds like 5-10 moves to the average move count.

The example solves given don't have especially good move count; just for context, I have Yau (slow but linear) solves in the range of 120-140 moves, including parities.

Pairing the last layer edges separately is original, I guess, but it's also a pretty awkward step. Also, even worse efficiency.

Spoiler: Triforce

This seems really cool. (And weird.)

5e5x looks kinda gross. I used to do something like [M' U2 M, 2U] back when I maining sandwich (or rather, [S R2 S', 2R]), so I'm familiar with the concept, but it just doesn't seem fast. At the same time, it also seems possible to combine solving the 5 edges with influencing the centres to get better cases.

Send me your votes in a private message instead. I have closed the poll to prevent anything else like what happened before.

 

[Athefre]

My parents have a good understanding of cube theory even talk they are not involved in cubing. They know what ergonomics, original method etc. mean. I don't know the first string of 5 people. Maybe they were my friends. I will confirm and tell you. Also a note, my dad and mom knows a lot about events upto 4x4. And yes I made their accounts because they didn't want to vote from their personal account. Can you give the e-mail of the first string of votes for checking, they maybe my uncle, aunt and my cousin's vote and yeah they also know some things about cubing, but I have no idea what they voted, so please give their email for confirmation.

Thank you

I would like to see the development conversations among you and your friends. Their usernames and the start of development up until the document being finished.

 

[Cubing Forever]

Seems just like a rearranged Yau.

More like Yau but you force an xcross(or Yau5 but you only solve 1 pair)

 

[V Achyuthan]

I would like to see the development conversations among you and your friends. Their usernames and the start of development up until the document being finished.

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discord.gg

please join this link quick. the invite ends in 24 hours. this is where me and my friends had conversations about the method (and some other stuff).
And for the doc I individually wrote it. nobody else did.

 

[Athefre]

The results are in! The winner is...

Triforce!

This method was created by trangium. Congratulations trangium! I will inform SpeedCubeShop and they will send you your gift card.

Spoiler: Details

Round #1:

5 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 11
Triforce: 11
Bar4E: 1
SCR: 5
234: 2

2 candidates have the highest number of votes with 11 votes (36.67%)
Bar4E has the lowest number of votes with 1 votes (3.33%)

Round #2:

4 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 11
Triforce: 12
SCR: 5
234: 2

Triforce has the highest number of votes with 12 votes (40.00%)
234 has the lowest number of votes with 2 votes (6.67%)

Round #3:

3 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 11
Triforce: 13
SCR: 6

Triforce has the highest number of votes with 13 votes (43.33%)
SCR has the lowest number of votes with 6 votes (20.00%)

Round #4:

2 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 13
Triforce: 17

Triforce has the highest number of votes with 17 votes (56.67%)
TSSH has the lowest number of votes with 13 votes (43.33%)

Triforce won!

The winner of most original is Triforce.

Spoiler: Details

Round #1:

5 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 11
Triforce: 14
Bar4E: 1
SCR: 1
234: 3

Triforce has the highest number of votes with 14 votes (46.67%)
2 candidates have the lowest number of votes with 1 votes (3.33%)

Tiebreaker: SCR was randomly selected as the loser of the round.

Round #2:

4 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 11
Triforce: 15
Bar4E: 1
234: 3

Triforce has the highest number of votes with 15 votes (50.00%)
Bar4E has the lowest number of votes with 1 votes (3.33%)

Round #3:

3 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 12
Triforce: 15
234: 3

Triforce has the highest number of votes with 15 votes (50.00%)
234 has the lowest number of votes with 3 votes (10.00%)

Round #4:

2 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 12
Triforce: 18

Triforce has the highest number of votes with 18 votes (60.00%)
TSSH has the lowest number of votes with 12 votes (40.00%)

Triforce won!

The winner of Most Ergonomic is TSSH.

Spoiler: Details

Round #1:

5 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 12
Triforce: 8
Bar4E: 5
SCR: 5
234: 0

TSSH has the highest number of votes with 12 votes (40.00%)
234 has the lowest number of votes with 0 votes (0.00%)

Round #2:

4 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 12
Triforce: 8
Bar4E: 5
SCR: 5

TSSH has the highest number of votes with 12 votes (40.00%)
2 candidates have the lowest number of votes with 5 votes (16.67%)

Tiebreaker: SCR was randomly selected as the loser of the round.

Round #3:

3 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 14
Triforce: 10
Bar4E: 6

TSSH has the highest number of votes with 14 votes (46.67%)
Bar4E has the lowest number of votes with 6 votes (20.00%)

Round #4:

2 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 17
Triforce: 13

TSSH has the highest number of votes with 17 votes (56.67%)
Triforce has the lowest number of votes with 13 votes (43.33%)

TSSH won!

As with the last competition, instant-runoff voting was used. So while there was a "tie" for the number of votes for best overall method, the other votes for Triforce pushed it above the rest.

Click to view individual votes (Emails removed for privacy)

 

[V Achyuthan]

The results are in! The winner is...

Triforce!

This method was created by trangium. Congratulations trangium! I will inform SpeedCubeShop and they will send you your gift card.

Spoiler: Details

Round #1:

5 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 11
Triforce: 11
Bar4E: 1
SCR: 5
234: 2

2 candidates have the highest number of votes with 11 votes (36.67%)
Bar4E has the lowest number of votes with 1 votes (3.33%)

Round #2:

4 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 11
Triforce: 12
SCR: 5
234: 2

Triforce has the highest number of votes with 12 votes (40.00%)
234 has the lowest number of votes with 2 votes (6.67%)

Round #3:

3 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 11
Triforce: 13
SCR: 6

Triforce has the highest number of votes with 13 votes (43.33%)
SCR has the lowest number of votes with 6 votes (20.00%)

Round #4:

2 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 13
Triforce: 17

Triforce has the highest number of votes with 17 votes (56.67%)
TSSH has the lowest number of votes with 13 votes (43.33%)

Triforce won!

View attachment 16872


The winner of most original is Triforce.

Spoiler: Details

Round #1:

5 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 11
Triforce: 14
Bar4E: 1
SCR: 1
234: 3

Triforce has the highest number of votes with 14 votes (46.67%)
2 candidates have the lowest number of votes with 1 votes (3.33%)

Tiebreaker: SCR was randomly selected as the loser of the round.

Round #2:

4 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 11
Triforce: 15
Bar4E: 1
234: 3

Triforce has the highest number of votes with 15 votes (50.00%)
Bar4E has the lowest number of votes with 1 votes (3.33%)

Round #3:

3 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 12
Triforce: 15
234: 3

Triforce has the highest number of votes with 15 votes (50.00%)
234 has the lowest number of votes with 3 votes (10.00%)

Round #4:

2 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 12
Triforce: 18

Triforce has the highest number of votes with 18 votes (60.00%)
TSSH has the lowest number of votes with 12 votes (40.00%)

Triforce won!

View attachment 16873

The winner of Most Ergonomic is TSSH.

Spoiler: Details

Round #1:

5 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 12
Triforce: 8
Bar4E: 5
SCR: 5
234: 0

TSSH has the highest number of votes with 12 votes (40.00%)
234 has the lowest number of votes with 0 votes (0.00%)

Round #2:

4 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 12
Triforce: 8
Bar4E: 5
SCR: 5

TSSH has the highest number of votes with 12 votes (40.00%)
2 candidates have the lowest number of votes with 5 votes (16.67%)

Tiebreaker: SCR was randomly selected as the loser of the round.

Round #3:

3 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 14
Triforce: 10
Bar4E: 6

TSSH has the highest number of votes with 14 votes (46.67%)
Bar4E has the lowest number of votes with 6 votes (20.00%)

Round #4:

2 candidates and 30 ballots.

Number of first votes per candidate:
TSSH: 17
Triforce: 13

TSSH has the highest number of votes with 17 votes (56.67%)
Triforce has the lowest number of votes with 13 votes (43.33%)

TSSH won!

View attachment 16874

As with the last competition, instant-runoff voting was used. So while there was a "tie" for the number of votes for best overall method, the other votes for Triforce pushed it above the rest.

Click to view individual votes (Emails removed for privacy)

everyone or single who invented triforce congrats

 

[xyzzy]

Send me your votes in a private message instead. I have closed the poll to prevent anything else like what happened before.

Ah, shame I didn't get the chance to read all five entries before voting. Oh well. Guess I'll update the post above with my other thoughts on the remaining three methods in a couple of hours.

 

[Athefre]

Ah, shame I didn't get the chance to read all five entries before voting. Oh well. Guess I'll update the post above with my other thoughts on the remaining three methods in a couple of hours.

Sorry about that. It had been a couple of hours without your vote. So I decided to just go ahead and release the votes. The whole voting situation this time was frustrating.

I'm sure the competitors would like to see your comments about each method.

 

[xyzzy]

Sorry about that. It had been a couple of hours without your vote. So I decided to just go ahead and release the votes. The whole voting situation this time was frustrating.

I'm sure the competitors would like to see your comments about each method.

It's all cool; I was just afk for a bit longer than I'd expected to be. Appreciate that the contest was held at all (despite the voting anomalies) and spawned some interesting new methods!

 

[StrategySam]

Hm there must be some mistake here, the purple bar is really high on 234 all 3 times.