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

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

• ### No

• Total voters
117

#### ProStar

##### Member
Turn U 30 degrees one way and E 30 degrees the other way. Congratulations, you now have a position that is literally impossible to judge the penalty on assuming we use STM.
? That's just ~1/2 an E turn away.

#### xyzzy

##### Member
? That's just ~1/2 an E turn away.
Half an E turn away from a state that isn't fully solved either. That might not have been the best example, anyhow—what about Kit's example from page 2 of this thread?

The problem isn't just about coming up with a rule; the problem is coming up with a simple rule (a complicated rule is likely to be misapplied/misunderstood) that captures what we intuitively think of being one turn off in STM when partial layer turns are allowed. In an ideal world where everything is an exact multiple of 90 degrees, it's very straightforward to change the rules to use STM for penalties. (*) In reality, there are weird in-between cases (like the linked example) where different people could have different intuitive expectations of whether it should be no-penalty versus +2 versus DNF.

#### Ronxu

##### Member
Half an E turn away from a state that isn't fully solved either. That might not have been the best example, anyhow—what about Kit's example from page 2 of this thread?

The problem isn't just about coming up with a rule; the problem is coming up with a simple rule (a complicated rule is likely to be misapplied/misunderstood) that captures what we intuitively think of being one turn off in STM when partial layer turns are allowed. In an ideal world where everything is an exact multiple of 90 degrees, it's very straightforward to change the rules to use STM for penalties. (*) In reality, there are weird in-between cases (like the linked example) where different people could have different intuitive expectations of whether it should be no-penalty versus +2 versus DNF.

It's a great example. It perfectly captures the mindset of anyone suggesting STM. Literally too lazy to pick up a cube to try and figure out what's wrong.

#### Kit Clement

It's a great example. It perfectly captures the mindset of anyone suggesting STM. Literally too lazy to pick up a cube to try and figure out what's wrong.
Agreed - the middle slice is now 30 degrees from the outside layer that we did not adjust, but 60 degrees from the other. What do we use as a reference point in this case to determine how far the slice is misaligned? One says solved, the other says +2.

#### brododragon

##### Member
False. It requires one slice move of 90 degrees to bring it to a solved position (as well as other adjustments <45 degrees not shown below). Only +2.

Did this exact same question in 2016, and another person fell for the trap. Judging these misalignments would become incredibly painful, and there's no good way to come up with easily understood and easily applied rules for allowing slice misalignments. Our rules work well because they use the next innermost slice as a guideline for whether it is misaligned or not. Slices on a 3x3x3 have no other place to look to, and you get weird crap like this.
I know this is old but can you stop posting that? The 45 degree rule is only for how the cube was dropped. For the judging, you think of the cube as if it where perfectly cube. Your the one giving us weird crap.

#### weatherman223

##### Member
I know this is old but can you stop posting that? The 45 degree rule is only for how the cube was dropped. For the judging, you think of the cube as if it where perfectly cube. Your the one giving us weird crap.
Mate, what are you smoking? I can’t even understand a single word of your sentence

(P.S:Oh also Kit is a senior delegate so he probably knows what he’s talking about)

#### brododragon

##### Member
Mate, what are you smoking? I can’t even understand a single word of your sentence

(P.S:Oh also Kit is a senior delegate so he probably knows what he’s talking about)
I have no idea what I was saying. Sometimes, my brain just doesn’t work (Also I have ADHD which can make words hard to form and string together).

#### weatherman223

##### Member
I have no idea what I was saying. Sometimes, my brain just doesn’t work (Also I have ADHD which can make words hard to form and string together).
I completely understand your perspective, but there’s something really cool called proofreading, please try to use it in the future.

#### brododragon

##### Member
I completely understand your perspective, but there’s something really cool called proofreading, please try to use it in the future.
Ya I often times act without thinking. I think I was just trying to say that the 45 degree thing (in my opinion) only applies to determining the cube state.

#### Kit Clement

Ya I often times act without thinking. I think I was just trying to say that the 45 degree thing (in my opinion) only applies to determining the cube state.
Are we not trying to determine the state of the cube?

#### brododragon

##### Member
Are we not trying to determine the state of the cube?
We’re trying to determine how many moves away the current state is from solved.

#### DerpBoiMoon

##### Member
Are we not trying to determine the state of the cube?
Well instead of just laughing at us behind a screen what would say?

#### cubeshepherd

##### Member
We’re trying to determine how many moves away the current state is from solved.
In all fairness there is no "amount of moves" that should be allowed for it to be in a solved state. Either it is solved (where each color it where is should be) or it is not.

Last edited:

#### brododragon

##### Member
In all fairness there is no "amount of moves" that should be allowed for it to be in a solved state. Either it is solved (where each color is where is should be) or it is not.
Your forgetting about +2’s, where it matters what how many moves it is away.

#### Kit Clement

Well instead of just laughing at us behind a screen what would say?
Your supersonic hearing must be faulty, I don't find any of this humorous.

We’re trying to determine how many moves away the current state is from solved.
Sure, but in order to determine that, we need to define what a move is, and what an acceptable misalignment is. In the image of mine that you quoted, you have to perform 1 slice move and two acceptable misalignments in order to bring the puzzle to solved. So in a world where we accept slice moves as recognized by WCA for determining the solved state, you would call this a +2, but in my experience, this is not how one would intuitively interpret the state of that puzzle.

These complications are why you'll never see the WCA accept slice moves as +2, and why I'd honestly prefer removing all misalignment +2s entirely if we want to have a level playing field regardless of method used. I'm okay with the current rules to allow for cases where the puzzle is misaligned once dropped due to impact, especially for events like MBLD where cubes often turn due to the way they pile up in large attempts.

Last edited:

#### brododragon

##### Member
Sure, but in order to determine that, we need to define what a move is, and what an acceptable misalignment is. In the image of mine that you quoted, you have to perform 1 slice move and two acceptable misalignments in order to bring the puzzle to solved. So in a world where we accept slice moves as recognized by WCA for determining the solved state, you would call this a +2, but in my experience, this is not how one would intuitively interpret the state of that puzzle.

These complications are why you'll never see the WCA accept slice moves as +2, and why I'd honestly prefer removing all misalignment +2s entirely if we want to have a level playing field regardless of method used. I'm okay with the current rules to allow for cases where the puzzle is misaligned once dropped due to impact, especially for events like MBLD where cubes often turn due to the way they pile up in large attempts.
I think a with a bit of brain work it could be made simple.

Your example could quite easily be broken if the WCA defined “1 move away” as “One 90 degree move”.

Last edited:

#### xyzzy

##### Member
the WCA defined “1 move away” as “One 90 degree move”.
Avoid using quotation marks if you're not making a direct quote, especially considering the regulations don't define this.

#### brododragon

##### Member
Avoid using quotation marks if you're not making a direct quote, especially considering the regulations don't define this.
I meant ‘if’, not is. Dumb auto correct.

#### Ronxu

##### Member
I think a with a bit of brain work it could be made simple.

Your example could quite easily be broken if the WCA defined “1 move away” as “One 90 degree move”.
Sounds arbitary, but ok. Still doesn't solve my example. Go ahead and define which layer should be used as the point of reference for misalignments.

Want to hide this ad and support the community?