• 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

Duncan Bannon

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
1,780
Location
Here
Lots of super good points for both sides in this thread.

At the highest level of cubing, the difference between a +2 and a DNF are minimal. If you get a +2, its almost guaranteed to be your worst solve, and thus be taken out. (If you have examples of times where a record was set with a +2 not being the slowest solve, show me, I'm curious to see). Personally I feel keeping the highest end cubers happy is the most important, and looking through their eyes (which is hard for a slow person like me :0 ) I don't see them minding a change that much.

As for middle "class" cubers, most of them would prefer it stay the way it is, simply because DNF averages really suck. As well as the fact that getting a +2 doesn't ruin their averages most often.

For slower cubers, I really don't think they would care too much.


As for the running of comps, making it a DNF would make comps easier to run (slightly). Its easier to explain to first time cubers that anything over 45 degrees is a DNF. Also, for parents that judge, figuring out how to properly write a +2 can be tricky, besides the fact that often you have to write tiny to fit all the info in, making it harder for the people to input times.

As for purposely +2ing for feet, I'm with Aerma, the people who do this aren't fast enough to set a significant record, and so I don't really see a problem with it. In fact, there are regs saying that it is illegal to slow down your solve on purpose, so if a +2 is faster than making that turn. it would technically against the regs not to get the +2. Weird point, but not an awful one to make.

For blind, personally getting a +2 in blind would make me feel like I cheated, as I feel like I didn't really solve it blindfolded.

From the non cuber perspective, a solved cube or a not solved cube is easier to understand, and as/if cubing becomes more of a spectator sport, having this distinction could be important. However, really, we should be focused on whats best for our community.

A follow up question comes after this. Should anything after 15 seconds of inspection become a DNF then?

Would love some feedback on my points!
 
Joined
Dec 8, 2017
Messages
38
Lots of super good points for both sides in this thread.

At the highest level of cubing, the difference between a +2 and a DNF are minimal. If you get a +2, its almost guaranteed to be your worst solve, and thus be taken out. (If you have examples of times where a record was set with a +2 not being the slowest solve, show me, I'm curious to see). Personally I feel keeping the highest end cubers happy is the most important, and looking through their eyes (which is hard for a slow person like me :0 ) I don't see them minding a change that much.

As for middle "class" cubers, most of them would prefer it stay the way it is, simply because DNF averages really suck. As well as the fact that getting a +2 doesn't ruin their averages most often.

For slower cubers, I really don't think they would care too much.
I absolutely agree with these points, except the difference between a +2 and a DNF can matter a lot at the highest level of cubing with certain events. If you +2 a 1:59 7x7 solve, it's going to hurt, but not as much as a DNF for that solve. Same goes for Megaminx. The previous WR average by Yu Da Hyun had a counting 31.90 +2, and it was still the WR average. Wouldn't have been as good if that was DNFed.


For blind, personally getting a +2 in blind would make me feel like I cheated, as I feel like I didn't really solve it blindfolded.
I agree in a perfect world, but there are many instances where the +2 is caused not by the cuber not knowing which move to make, but by the table. Many blindsolvers have gotten good solves +2ed because the cube hit the table in the wrong way.

For BigBLD, I would feel the same way, that I cheated because it wasn't really solved, but I think the instances where this would happen are both minimal and negligible.

A follow up question comes after this. Should anything after 15 seconds of inspection become a DNF then?
I think the instances where one is +2ed because of 16/17 secs of inspection are once again, very rare, and whatever answer is given to the question is not going to have that great of an impact. I think most cubers try to shy away from the 15 second mark anyway to avoid being given a penalty before they even start the solve, so DNFing those overinspected solves would not change a whole lot of how people perform.
 

mark49152

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
4,687
Location
UK
WCA
2015RIVE05
YouTube
mark49152
The main tl;dr I get from your post is that you like the rules to be forgiving to make up for your shortcomings. Maybe you should just not mess up.
Agreed. Scanning the thread, most objections to +2 seem to be the "but it's not completely solved" variety. IMHO that misses the point. The penalty exists to provide leniency in the case where the cube gets accidentally misaligned when it hits the table, so as to not discourage fast timer stops. We give the benefit of doubt and assume the cube was completely solved when it left the cuber's hand.

Unfortunately, we can't practically and objectively tell the difference between accidental misalignment and a minor or deliberate mistake or omission in the final move - but that is OK, because +2 is still a penalty, and there is very rarely any advantage in exploiting it.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
421
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
I think that as things stand, +2 is a pretty good compromise between being kind and punishing. It punishes those people who make the mistake in the last turn while it is kind to those who drop the cube and it accidentally misaligns. The whole "roux is at a disadvantage by HTM instead of STM" is a very bad argument. IMO, HTM is "more pure" as the 3x3 is a face turning puzzle, and when you're turning a slice you're actually turning 2 faces. It's all about perspective (the same with wide turns). Also, Rouxers have the choice to not use Roux if M misalignment was an actual disadvantage, plus the cube doesn't have preferred ways to be solved just as the WCA doesn't have bias against methods. In fact, allowing table for OH gives Roux a massive advantage. So no, Roux isn't disadvantaged by the regs.
(One thing from me being a bit of a grammar nazi, so ignore at your will, but please don't use apostrophes for plurals.:D)
 

Kit Clement

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,303
Location
Portland, OR
WCA
2008CLEM01
YouTube
KitClement
Wow, this argument is all over the place.

The whole "roux is at a disadvantage by HTM instead of STM" is a very bad argument. IMO, HTM is "more pure" as the 3x3 is a face turning puzzle, and when you're turning a slice you're actually turning 2 faces. It's all about perspective (the same with wide turns).
"More pure" is an incredibly subjective opinion, and doesn't make it a bad argument. I agree that 15 years ago that M moves weren't even really a feasible idea for speed, but today they're the cornerstone of Roux and 3style edge execution. To ignore that is naive. Conveniently, 15 years ago is also around the time that misalignment +2 penalties were encoded, so it's easy to imagine that methods of the time influenced this somewhat arbitrary penalty.

Also, Rouxers have the choice to not use Roux if M misalignment was an actual disadvantage, plus the cube doesn't have preferred ways to be solved just as the WCA doesn't have bias against methods.
When your argument is to stop using Roux if the regulations are disadvantaging you, you're not making a good argument for misalignment +2s being method neutral.

The cube's lack of "preferences" for how it wants to be solved has nothing to do with how regulations are written.

In fact, allowing table for OH gives Roux a massive advantage. So no, Roux isn't disadvantaged by the regs.
Citing a single regulation that applies to one event =/=> one method is not disadvantaged. That aside, table abuse can be used regardless of method, and whether it helps certain methods or others is a moot point. In a world where table abuse were not allowed, you could make the argument that Roux is disadvantaged because you can't use the table -- but it's not a matter of advantage or disadvantage, it's a characteristic of the event.

Misalignment penalties, on the other hand, clearly give an advantage to methods whose final move is (more commonly) an outer layer turn rather than a slice turn. This isn't a characteristic of the event (or all events), but an arbitrary penalty that was created to apply to all events.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
421
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
"More pure" is an incredibly subjective opinion, and doesn't make it a bad argument. I agree that 15 years ago that M moves weren't even really a feasible idea for speed, but today they're the cornerstone of Roux and 3style edge execution. To ignore that is naive. Conveniently, 15 years ago is also around the time that misalignment +2 penalties were encoded, so it's easy to imagine that methods of the time influenced this somewhat arbitrary penalty.
I don't think it is subjective as reasons cited above as by definition the 3x3 is a face turning puzzle and a slice turn===2 face turns which is how the cube functions.

When your argument is to stop using Roux if the regulations are disadvantaging you, you're not making a good argument for misalignment +2s being method neutral.

The cube's lack of "preferences" for how it wants to be solved has nothing to do with how regulations are written.
I see where you're coming from, as the cube itself isn't against Rouxers, but the regs are. Yet they're not. It also brings up a whole load of complications if you say "10e4) If more than one move is required, the puzzle is considered unsolved (DNF). Exception: Roux users or people who finished with a slice move are allowed to count this in STM instead of HTM and see 10e3 instead." That's a lot more subjective, and as I think that a) misalignment penalties work b) it would cause a lot of disruption to change how they function or remove them and make them a DNF, it would be a lot simpler to keep them how they are and let people who think that the only good reason to not use Roux is because of the regs think that. I still don't think that the regs are against Roux at all.

Citing a single regulation that applies to one event =/=> one method is not disadvantaged. That aside, table abuse can be used regardless of method, and whether it helps certain methods or others is a moot point. In a world where table abuse were not allowed, you could make the argument that Roux is disadvantaged because you can't use the table -- but it's not a matter of advantage or disadvantage, it's a characteristic of the event.

Misalignment penalties, on the other hand, clearly give an advantage to methods whose final move is (more commonly) an outer layer turn rather than a slice turn. This isn't a characteristic of the event (or all events), but an arbitrary penalty that was created to apply to all events.
I'm only giving a counter example. I, for one, wouldn't mind if table abuse was disallowed as it would remake ZZ the best OH method and Rouxers wouldn't mind if the WCA used STM instead, similarly for FMCers. And I agree, it is characeristic to the event. But the +2 penalty is characteristic to WCA competition, so if you wanted a comp without these rules, you're going to have to look somewhere else but those who come know the (minimal) risk and because misalignment penalties are so effective, the good solvers will avoid them just as much as a DNF. So yeah, it's arbitrary, but it's effective and, as I said in my first message, is a good compromise. I just don't see the point of changing something that works well.
 

White KB

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2017
Messages
197
Location
3141 Rubik's Cube Ave., Somewhere on E_rth
WCA
2019BRUC01
YouTube
WhoCube
Agreed. +2s are a vital part of cubing and help make it interesting. If you have 99 out of 100 pieces in a real puzzle, it may be a manufacturing defect so that example is not really relevant, and +2s make it better for things like BLD and 6x6, 7x7, FMC, etc. because it would just add 2 seconds to your solve instead of ruining your whole average.
 

cubeshepherd

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Messages
1,988
WCA
2016STEE01
Agreed. +2s are a vital part of cubing and help make it interesting. If you have 99 out of 100 pieces in a real puzzle, it may be a manufacturing defect so that example is not really relevant, and +2s make it better for things like BLD and 6x6, 7x7, FMC, etc. because it would just add 2 seconds to your solve instead of ruining your whole average.
Uhhh, not sure where to start or what to say...such a random post to say the least, and not even quite on what was said.

My analogy of the complete puzzle is not referring to buying it new and missing a piece, but rather if you have all the pieces and do not place the last one, then you can not say that it is fully "solved" or complete, just like in 3x3 (or any event) if you are off by a move then it is not fully complete (which I hope makes sense to you).

The only reason for the +2's is for errors when the competitor drops the cube to stop the timer and something happens in between that moment (because the judge/delegate or whoever) is giving the competitor the benefit of the doubt that the cube was fully solved when he/she went to stop the timer. Not that the competitor says to itself that "I am turning to fast and if it not fully solved in the end it is just a +2". That in my mind is something that is not the best sportsmanship or right way to go about solving a cube, but since there is the +2's I feel like some people take advantage of that and try to read between the lines in that (which morally speaking is not right) let alone a whole host of other reasons.

+2s are a vital part of cubing and help make it interesting.
Please explain what you mean by that? How is it a vital part of cubing of people are not trying there best? And how does it make it "interesting"? Again +2's are not vital in anyway (I think) and again the only reason they are there is for the benifit of the doubt, and not for people to take advantage of.

If you had really fast TPS and a really easy scramble that you could possibly get a record on (WR, CR, etc) would you just turn fast and hope that it is fully solved in the end? No, you would not, you would make sure that you apply the correct moves and that it is solved, otherwise you would get a penalty and the record would not count. This in no way forgoes the fact that we are all but human and make mistakes at times (even world class cubers have made mistakes that have cost records), but my point is that if people knew that there solve would not count if it were not fully solved, it would give them a completely different view on cubing and would make them try even harder to complete the solve (like if +2's were to be changed to DNF's, your whole practice sequence would be different, because you would make sure to always solve the cube and not have a error in the end). Please tell me if I am wrong in that.

The only valid reasons I see so far are for 6x6-7x7, and BLD. FMC does not have +2's so your mention of that is irrelevant and nonsensical, and if you know anything about FMC, you would recognize that it is the only event that requires everything to be solved or it is a DNF.

In the end I am fine either way what happens, and I would be just as happy if by just talking about this it gets people to start to pay more attention to fully completing there solve, and caring a bit more about +2's/DNF's.
 

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
1,584
if you know anything about FMC, you would recognize that it is the only event that requires everything to be solved or it is a DNF.
Clock too, actually.

That in my mind is something that is not the best sportsmanship or right way to go about solving a cube, but since there is the +2's I feel like some people take advantage of that and try to read between the lines in that (which morally speaking is not right) let alone a whole host of other reasons.
Reminds me of this: Introducing… the Scrub.

What's sportsmanship? If the rules allow you to do something and that something gives you an advantage (this is very rarely the case for +2s, actually), arguably, not doing it constitutes poor sportsmanship. You're not getting the best results you can under the given rules. We're not even talking about strange edge cases within the regulations, but something that has been a standard component of competitive speedcubing pretty much forever. (I guess another example in the same vein would be table abuse for OH: I personally think it's disgusting/cheating/blahblahblah and won't do it (… although I recently timed my Z perms and found MU table abuse to be slightly faster), but I also don't really begrudge people who table-abuse all the way because the regs allow it. This is a thing you're allowed to do. Do it if it gives you better times.)
 

White KB

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2017
Messages
197
Location
3141 Rubik's Cube Ave., Somewhere on E_rth
WCA
2019BRUC01
YouTube
WhoCube
Uhhh, not sure where to start or what to say...such a random post to say the least, and not even quite on what was said.

My analogy of the complete puzzle is not referring to buying it new and missing a piece, but rather if you have all the pieces and do not place the last one, then you can not say that it is fully "solved" or complete, just like in 3x3 (or any event) if you are off by a move then it is not fully complete (which I hope makes sense to you).

The only reason for the +2's is for errors when the competitor drops the cube to stop the timer and something happens in between that moment (because the judge/delegate or whoever) is giving the competitor the benefit of the doubt that the cube was fully solved when he/she went to stop the timer. Not that the competitor says to itself that "I am turning to fast and if it not fully solved in the end it is just a +2". That in my mind is something that is not the best sportsmanship or right way to go about solving a cube, but since there is the +2's I feel like some people take advantage of that and try to read between the lines in that (which morally speaking is not right) let alone a whole host of other reasons.


Please explain what you mean by that? How is it a vital part of cubing of people are not trying there best? And how does it make it "interesting"? Again +2's are not vital in anyway (I think) and again the only reason they are there is for the benifit of the doubt, and not for people to take advantage of.

If you had really fast TPS and a really easy scramble that you could possibly get a record on (WR, CR, etc) would you just turn fast and hope that it is fully solved in the end? No, you would not, you would make sure that you apply the correct moves and that it is solved, otherwise you would get a penalty and the record would not count. This in no way forgoes the fact that we are all but human and make mistakes at times (even world class cubers have made mistakes that have cost records), but my point is that if people knew that there solve would not count if it were not fully solved, it would give them a completely different view on cubing and would make them try even harder to complete the solve (like if +2's were to be changed to DNF's, your whole practice sequence would be different, because you would make sure to always solve the cube and not have a error in the end). Please tell me if I am wrong in that.

The only valid reasons I see so far are for 6x6-7x7, and BLD. FMC does not have +2's so your mention of that is irrelevant and nonsensical, and if you know anything about FMC, you would recognize that it is the only event that requires everything to be solved or it is a DNF.

In the end I am fine either way what happens, and I would be just as happy if by just talking about this it gets people to start to pay more attention to fully completing there solve, and caring a bit more about +2's/DNF's.
Uhhh, not sure where to start or what to say...such a random post to say the least, and not even quite on what was said.

My analogy of the complete puzzle is not referring to buying it new and missing a piece, but rather if you have all the pieces and do not place the last one, then you can not say that it is fully "solved" or complete, just like in 3x3 (or any event) if you are off by a move then it is not fully complete (which I hope makes sense to you).

The only reason for the +2's is for errors when the competitor drops the cube to stop the timer and something happens in between that moment (because the judge/delegate or whoever) is giving the competitor the benefit of the doubt that the cube was fully solved when he/she went to stop the timer. Not that the competitor says to itself that "I am turning to fast and if it not fully solved in the end it is just a +2". That in my mind is something that is not the best sportsmanship or right way to go about solving a cube, but since there is the +2's I feel like some people take advantage of that and try to read between the lines in that (which morally speaking is not right) let alone a whole host of other reasons.


Please explain what you mean by that? How is it a vital part of cubing of people are not trying there best? And how does it make it "interesting"? Again +2's are not vital in anyway (I think) and again the only reason they are there is for the benifit of the doubt, and not for people to take advantage of.

If you had really fast TPS and a really easy scramble that you could possibly get a record on (WR, CR, etc) would you just turn fast and hope that it is fully solved in the end? No, you would not, you would make sure that you apply the correct moves and that it is solved, otherwise you would get a penalty and the record would not count. This in no way forgoes the fact that we are all but human and make mistakes at times (even world class cubers have made mistakes that have cost records), but my point is that if people knew that there solve would not count if it were not fully solved, it would give them a completely different view on cubing and would make them try even harder to complete the solve (like if +2's were to be changed to DNF's, your whole practice sequence would be different, because you would make sure to always solve the cube and not have a error in the end). Please tell me if I am wrong in that.

The only valid reasons I see so far are for 6x6-7x7, and BLD. FMC does not have +2's so your mention of that is irrelevant and nonsensical, and if you know anything about FMC, you would recognize that it is the only event that requires everything to be solved or it is a DNF.

In the end I am fine either way what happens, and I would be just as happy if by just talking about this it gets people to start to pay more attention to fully completing there solve, and caring a bit more about +2's/DNF's.
You do have a valid point in saying that FMC doesn't apply, but I was thinking of events with mo3s and got a bit off topic there.
Also, for your original point, you said that a lot of people were "taking advantage of" +2s when this really isn't the case. To show you one example, I was going to make a YouTube series called "Useless Tips in Cubing" because it's things that are kind of funny and don't usually help. Actually, the biggest episode I was going to make was "When +2s can be good for You" because it might be good in a solve if your TPS is less than 0.5. However, I found, this usually isn't the case: Most people, even ones who average over 90 seconds in 3x3, don't have a TPS that low. I ended up calling off the series because of lack of videos, and because there wasn't enough basis for the one video. Also, if you think people with higher TPS are either far and few between or have some advantage from +2s, you may need to back it up. Also if someone fast, like, say, Feliks Zemdegs (sorry for picking on ya, 2009ZEMD01) were to intentionally get a +2, that's their problem and is not going to help their average.
In any case, I think we should keep +2s because the people who get +2s intentionally are a minority at best, so there's no real problem.
It would make sense to have it raised slightly though. (e.g. +2.5, +3, etc.)
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2019
Messages
79
Location
Nashville TN
WCA
2017MORR05
the main problem with +2's being DNF's is that sometimes the cube hitting the table in a certain way can influence whether it's one turn off or not. Say in a 7x7 solve you're in a rush to stop the timer and on the last move you slightly underturn the side but still it's less than 45 degrees from being solved. Let's say that in your rush to stop the timer you slam down the cube a bit too hard, causing the last face that you turned to be more than 45 degrees from being solved. Guess what, if that's a DNF, then a cube slamming on the table just ruined your ENTIRE average. And the WCA is DEFINITELY not going to make 6x6 and 7x7 an average of 5 event.
 

tx789

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Messages
1,872
Location
New Zealand
WCA
2010HUNT02
YouTube
thetx789
It is such a big change causing DNF rates to go up. The issue of deciding if it is a +2 will still exist if +2 a DNFs but the judge will feel added pressure. I get a some what frequent amount of +2s which would be horrible if they were DNFs especially if you got 2. This change isn't really that unfair apart from in MBLD it could be very unfair if a cube had a misalignment of say 23 degrees and end up a DNF since the layer turns to be one move off during the attempt. Missing a record because the cube turns when placed or when cubes are place on it isn't something the competitor sees and wasn't the cube turning as you stop the timer the reason for the addition of +2s in the first place obivisioly hard ware is better. Also magnets don't help to avoid +2s that much. And asking non-cubers is a bad idea since that would say 10 degrees is unsolved.
 
Top