• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Should +2's be switched to DNF's officially?

Should +2's be switched to DNF's?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 7.2%
  • No

    Votes: 77 92.8%

  • Total voters
    83

cubeshepherd

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Messages
2,037
WCA
2016STEE01
I am not certain how to start this thread (as in what I should say) but lets see if I can find a start.

As I was watching the US Nationals 2019 live stream a few weeks back I heard someone say that there has been talk among people (Kit Clement and according to Kit it probably was Dene Beardsley) that came up with the idea that +2's in competitions should be changed to DNF's as the puzzle is not perfectly solved (My phrase "just as you need all the pieces of a 100 piece puzzle to say that it is perfectly complete and not 99 out of 100").

After hearing about that idea I began to think about it more and thought that it would be a pretty good idea to think about implementing in the WCA regulations, especially since it would avoid (and stop) a lot of people purposely +2'ing there solves (especially in feet, at least among slow'ish people and other events if that happens as much). This would of course be a little harder to accept into BLD event's (especially MBLD) and it would change a lot of the old results (IF the old results were touched, but if they were left alone then forget that), but even then it would be hard to think of what to do.

I on the other hand like the +2's as they are since there are times that you stop the timer and forget to turn a side or something akin, so I do have sympathy for that, but out of the two options I think the +2's becoming DNF's would again prevent a lot of solves purposely not being completely solved and stop people not caring to much about +2's versus if they knew that there cube was going to be a DNF (that would change the mindset).

With that all being said, I am sure there are some things that I am forgetting to add, but I will be adding them later in the thread if I remember.

Lastly, I am very interested in seeing everyone's thoughts, ideas, suggestions etc. but please only do so in a civil and kind fashion and PLEASE keep this thread on topic. I do not mind if you bring in other regulations or whatever but only if it is prevalent to this thread and is helpful. Additionally, if you do or do not agree with the idea and say so then PLEASE provide a valid reason (rather then just "I do not agree that is should be changed because") which is not helpful.
 
Last edited:

Iwannaganx

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
465
Location
Victoria, Australia
What if the judge for that solve got to judge if it was deliberate and could make it a DNF for that solve? Would that fix the deliberate +2s? Personally I think one turn off completely screwing your solve is a bit harsh. +2s are good for this reason and can still be a huge punishment for people with a chance of winning (sub7ish).
 

cuber314159

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2016
Messages
1,601
Location
location is not displayed due to character limit
WCA
2016EVAN06
I think it should be left the way it is, especially for events where MO3 format is used as one turn can not only wreck the whole solve but the average as well. I also think that people will continue to do things like your feet example. Like when I saw Daniel Sheppard (I think it was him) stopping the timer after OLL on his last solve (PLL skip) and I asked him if he knew he would get one because he did it so fast and he said that he thought it would be and it would be the worst solve of the average anyway so it would not matter.

Note that Daniel Sheppard is a WCA delegate.
 

OreKehStrah

Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
134
I really don’t think this would be good. Roux/ M move EPLL users are already at a disadvantage since M moves don’t count as one move and are easier to mess up. Although I do understand the logic, I still think something that drastic shouldn’t be implemented as a +2 is a pretty good penalty for one move off.
 

pglewis

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
1,221
Location
Cincinnati
WCA
2016LEWI07
It would be worth discussion if we were talking about setting the rules today but we have nearly 2 decades of data with the +2 rule already. Slow feet solvers is the only example I can think of where it might possibly be an actual advantage vs. a nasty penalty and feet is slated to die.
 

Grr Parity

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
56
What if the judge for that solve got to judge if it was deliberate and could make it a DNF for that solve? Would that fix the deliberate +2s? Personally I think one turn off completely screwing your solve is a bit harsh. +2s are good for this reason and can still be a huge punishment for people with a chance of winning (sub7ish).
That sounds a lot better
 

cubeshepherd

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Messages
2,037
WCA
2016STEE01
I think it should be left the way it is, especially for events where MO3 format is used as one turn can not only wreck the whole solve but the average as well. I also think that people will continue to do things like your feet example. Like when I saw Daniel Sheppard (I think it was him) stopping the timer after OLL on his last solve (PLL skip) and I asked him if he knew he would get one because he did it so fast and he said that he thought it would be and it would be the worst solve of the average anyway so it would not matter.

Note that Daniel Sheppard is a WCA delegate.
I really don’t think this would be good. Roux/ M move EPLL users are already at a disadvantage since M moves don’t count as one move and are easier to mess up. Although I do understand the logic, I still think something that drastic shouldn’t be implemented as a +2 is a pretty good penalty for one move off.
Both of those are great points and that I did not think about, so thank you for bringing them up.

In regards to your point @cuber314159 I do not mind to much with people doing that for 1 solve (especially if it is worst solve), but on the other hand I am not a positive on how I feel about people purposely doing on all 5 solve since they say/think that it is better (or might be less time) then it would take to complete the last turn.

Is not there a section on the regulations page that says something a kin to "everyone should attempt to solve the cube to the best they can" or "to keep the spirit of the WCA by doing the whole solve"? The WCA page is down at the moment, but I want to say that I thought I remember reading something a kin to that not to long ago. If that is not the case then never mind.

Without video evidence, there'd be no way to retrospectively change old +2s to DNFs since +2 is not recorded in the database. So if a change were to be made, it would have to exclude all results before the change.
That is a valid point, and I am not certain how that would be addressed, but maybe they would just leave it as it is and start a new...although I am not sure if that would work either.

It would be worth discussion if we were talking about setting the rules today but we have nearly 2 decades of data with the +2 rule already. Slow feet solvers is the only example I can think of where it might possibly be an actual advantage vs. a nasty penalty and feet is slated to die.
I completely agree with you on that and see the point of what you are saying. That point though could be argued to the fact that new rules and regulations still come into affect (and old rules get changed/modified, like the whole headphone regulation and logos on cubes for BLD) several years after they were instituted, so that could apply to most any regulation...kind of;)

Also, For everyone: I am not completely for or against my original post asking the questions, but rather since I thought it was a interesting point I wanted to see what others thought of it as well. Thank you all so far for your input and thoughts.
 

pglewis

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
1,221
Location
Cincinnati
WCA
2016LEWI07
That point though could be argued to the fact that new rules and regulations still come into affect (and old rules get changed/modified, like the whole headphone regulation and logos on cubes for BLD) several years after they were instituted, so that could apply to most any regulation...kind of
Agreed, but changing established rules should be limited to dealing with a problem and I just don't see a real problem with +2 penalties as they hurt bad... even for someone slow like me averaging over :20.
 

Aerma

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
1,242
Location
Galar Region
WCA
2015MANN01
YouTube
Aerma
I don't think this could be changed because the people who would intentionally get a +2 in feet, etc. aren't anywhere near good enough to get WR's or high rankings anyway, and for intermediate/expert solvers it's nice to know that if we make that little mistake then it won't destroy the solve and be a detriment to the average.
 

BMcD308

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
22
<< he said that he thought it would be and it would be the worst solve of the average anyway so it would not matter >>

Is there something wrong with this? That sounds more like the kind of risk people take because they are in a competition rather than doing something against the spirit of the competition.

I bet even guys like Feliks will admit that sometimes they turn faster than they think is reliable because they are "going for it" on a solve. Even when practicing at home I have "gone for it" on a solve and wound up stopping the timer with an unsolved cube because I did the wrong PLL and was going too fast to realize that I had not correctly solved the cube. Sure, that's a DNF, not a plus 2, but if it had been my fifth solve in a competition would you think I had done something unethical or unsportsmanlike by going so fast and stopping the timer so fast that I didn't even realize I was triumphantly slamming down an unsolved cube?

And hey - I will take no offense if you do think I did / would be doing something unethical or unsportsmanlike. The reason I'm here is to learn, and part of what I need to learn is the unwritten rules of the game.
 

Mike Hughey

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
9,956
Location
Indianapolis
WCA
2007HUGH01
YouTube
MikeHughey1
Just wanted to agree with Aerma that anyone who takes a +2 intentionally with feet is not very good at the event and probably won't make a lot of the cutoffs anyway. Even when I averaged well over 2 minutes, I never took a +2 intentionally; it's not that hard to make even the most inconvenient turn with feet in less than 2 seconds. The only time it's worth it is if the cube accidentally slides away from your feet when you're only 1 turn from solved, which is an extremely rare occurrence in the middle of a PLL. So a +2 is plenty enough penalty to discourage leaving it unturned in all events, including feet.

That being said, I do like the purity of requiring the puzzle to be completely solved. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think I would prefer a world where the cube is either solved or unsolved, without a penalty. And I think if we went to that rule, the only reasonable way forward is to allow current results to stand and count, with +2s before the rule change simply being allowed to stand as if they didn't happen, since we never recorded them in the database anyway. It's not like that will have any effect on world records - world records will continue to improve at essentially the same pace even without the +2 rule.
 

cubeshepherd

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Messages
2,037
WCA
2016STEE01
Just wanted to agree with Aerma that anyone who takes a +2 intentionally with feet is not very good at the event and probably won't make a lot of the cutoffs anyway. Even when I averaged well over 2 minutes, I never took a +2 intentionally; it's not that hard to make even the most inconvenient turn with feet in less than 2 seconds. The only time it's worth it is if the cube accidentally slides away from your feet when you're only 1 turn from solved, which is an extremely rare occurrence in the middle of a PLL. So a +2 is plenty enough penalty to discourage leaving it unturned in all events, including feet.
I don't think this could be changed because the people who would intentionally get a +2 in feet, etc. aren't anywhere near good enough to get WR's or high rankings anyway, and for intermediate/expert solvers it's nice to know that if we make that little mistake then it won't destroy the solve and be a detriment to the average.
I agree with that as well and that is why I am not completely for or against it, but the bigger issue that I see from this all is from the stand point of right-wrong, what is sportsmanship vs. not, and the people that intentionally exploit that to there advantage, because by doing so they tend to keep trying different ways of that, which can lead to other issues, (especially having personally seen people do that with feet).

Now that does not all mean that the change is needed to fix that (especially since the regs have been around for so long already, but I also (as you said @Mike Hughey ) would like to see the puzzle completely solved and not have people (especially slower people) take advantage of the regs and try to bend the rules to get a slight advantage (although in anything in life there is always some of that and people trying to do it...not that, that is right).

In the end I am fine (and always have been fine) with the +2's as they are (especially with regards to Mo3's, and BLD events) but I also like the idea of making sure that people do not try to bend the rules to there advantage.
 

Iwannaganx

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
465
Location
Victoria, Australia
Yeah and even people who won't win in 3x3 can still have a hard time with plus two. Sub 20 and you get a plus two and that's one solve out-of-the-window. DNF is a a strict punishment, but it's fair. I think people who complain that it's 'not solved' are right but its one turn and a plus 2 sucks for anyone.
 

efattah

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
522
I think the opposite is true. I think M-slice out by 50 degrees should not be DNF but should be a +2. As I have said before, the rule that M-slice counts as 2 is ridiculous, because it implies that a Roux solver doing E/M/E/M or E2/M2/E2 is getting 30+ TPS which is impossible. To count M or M2 as 1 move when calculating TPS, but then to count it as 2 moves for FMC and +2 is inconsistent.
 

Iwannaganx

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
465
Location
Victoria, Australia
I think the opposite is true. I think M-slice out by 50 degrees should not be DNF but should be a +2. As I have said before, the rule that M-slice counts as 2 is ridiculous, because it implies that a Roux solver doing E/M/E/M or E2/M2/E2 is getting 30+ TPS which is impossible. To count M or M2 as 1 move when calculating TPS, but then to count it as 2 moves for FMC and +2 is inconsistent.
this is a good point but slice turns do have 2 turns in them. really if you think about it, it cant be counted as one move otherwise, yes tps would be insane but in +2 it has to be 2 turns. although you can do it in one flick its like turning two layers on a 4x4. that would be a dnf because even though you turn both at once its two turns.
 

Aerma

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
1,242
Location
Galar Region
WCA
2015MANN01
YouTube
Aerma
this is a good point but slice turns do have 2 turns in them. really if you think about it, it cant be counted as one move otherwise, yes tps would be insane but in +2 it has to be 2 turns. although you can do it in one flick its like turning two layers on a 4x4. that would be a dnf because even though you turn both at once its two turns.
In HTM and QTM it's multiple turns, but in STM it's only one because you can think of it as one layer being twisted.
 
Top