• 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 40,000+ 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: 12 8.8%
  • No

    Votes: 125 91.2%

  • Total voters
    137

PetrusQuber

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
3,460
Location
my house, cubing.
YouTube
Visit Channel
5/7 of my solves finish with M moves, I think we just need to be a bit more careful, I’ve only ever DNFed when I either get a bad solve and rage, or got too excited with a solve and missed out on doing a move. I think this rule is just a con of a method/last layer system, and there isn’t really any point getting the WCA to change their regulations to fit a certain method/system.
 

Kit Clement

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,631
Location
Aurora, IL
WCA
2008CLEM01
YouTube
Visit Channel
If we want to be "method neutral" for penalties, I've advocated for eliminating misalignment +2s entirely for a long time. I don't feel particularly strongly about this as I used to, as people have convinced me that there are a couple good reasons for allowing them:
  • Dropping the cube is part of stopping the timer, which involves some risk but the time saved by doing this is worth the risk. We shouldn't drastically change how people stop the timer by making this even riskier.
  • Somewhat related, in MBLD, it is very common to place cubes as solved, then have them stack on top of each other and potentially fall, causing misalignments. It seems really harsh to DNF cubes for this reason.
Any misalignment rules for slice moves are very difficult to rule, for reasons I don't feel like reposting a fourth time. A new, higher time penalty for two moves along the same axis is actually easy to adjudicate while still using OBTM and not STM. However, from what I understand, the primary motivation for misalignments is not to help people who did not solve the cube, but to give leniency to the cases I've mentioned above. It has a side effect of helping people who struggle to AUF in CFOP, but personally, this is an unfortunate consequence of the way the penalty works. This is why I've advocated for getting rid of these arbitrary penalties, but I know it will never happen. I don't think it's a good thing to introduce even more arbitrary penalties than we already have.
 

carcass

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2020
Messages
395
Location
Eating some delicious pineapple pizza
WCA
2018HANC03
Tbh i recon +2s should be dnfs so it forces us to make sure the cube is solved completely. (My opinion stands out)
I see where you are coming from. I just thought it might be a good idea, and Kit Clement also has a very good point. So another thought is that time penalties can be different for some events, maybe +1 on 2x2, +2 on 3x3, and so on. Another thing about time penalties is that any mistake on clock is a DNF, and that could be changed, but it would be hard to judge.
 
Top