Should +2s count as world records?

mDiPalma said:
Should solves with +2's count in general? No, of course not. But we are too far along now to fix it.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's too late. :-)

In any case, official results are calculated per the Regulations, and the best official result is the world record.

If you feel that +2 for misalignments should not count as a valid result, then you should argue to DNF all such solves. ;-)
 
MentosCubing said:
Okay. I guess most people disagree with me, and that's fine. You missed my point a little bit, and generalized my question a bit further than I intended, but for entirely different reasons (that sounds so mature) I have come to a realization that you are right, but not necessarily for these reasons.
I have been thinking about this more, and not getting emails whenever someone posted to this thread for some reason, and I have realized that if the WCA can decide how much inspection you can get and how you and the cube must be positioned to start and what timers you can use and everyone totally accepted that because those are genuinely good regulations, then they can decide that +2s should count just as much as a normal solve, even if that should make or break a world record.
This is not to say that your reasoning has not helped me come to this conclusion. In fact, as I wrote that, I realized that you are entirely correct (well, most of you). Yes, if that is their solve time, and it is below the world record, it is a world record. I feel so stupid now, but that's okay because I know I'm actually not stupid because I had to look at the problem at a different angle before I realized that I was incorrect. Even so, looking back at my original posts above, now I do feel stupid because I wrote those less than two days ago and they would be great "Reacting To My Old Posts" content if that was a thing.
Just a lesson to people out there, it's okay to be incorrect. (Not very fun that way though.)
Click to expand...

Don't feel bad, you were correct in your way of seeing it but in reality it's really that wca just gets the final result with penalties or without. I found your thread to think differently at penalties and records and it seemed pretty interesting too.
 
The ethereal clearly a problem with +2s because it's not going to take 2 seconds to turn a layer once there should be different penalties for different cubes like for a 7x7 you should get like a +8 or something and for 2x2 you should get like a +1
 
A1d3n.f0rd said:
The ethereal clearly a problem with +2s because it's not going to take 2 seconds to turn a layer once there should be different penalties for different cubes like for a 7x7 you should get like a +8 or something and for 2x2 you should get like a +1
Click to expand...
Yes, the +2 seconds is completely arbitrary. But if you pick different arbitrary numbers then they are not any better.
 
A1d3n.f0rd said:
But it would clearly be better then having a +2 for literally every single event
Click to expand...
I don't think it's clearly better. How would you choose the penalties? You can't base it on TPS, because top 7x7 solvers are only around 30% or so slower for TPS than on 3x3. You can't base it on average move count because that is very highly dependent on method. You can't base it on the proportion of the total solve time because there's usually a massive variance in 2x2 solves, but 7x7 times are usually way more consistent.

Basically, there's no fair way to come up with a penalty that's not just making it up. And if you're just going to make it up anyway, why not keep it consistent and easy for judges to apply.

Personally, like many others in this thread, I feel any discussion about changing the way we apply +2s just lands up being a bunch of good reasons for scrapping them altogether.
 
AlphaSheep said:
I don't think it's clearly better. How would you choose the penalties? You can't base it on TPS, because top 7x7 solvers are only around 30% or so slower for TPS than on 3x3. You can't base it on average move count because that is very highly dependent on method. You can't base it on the proportion of the total solve time because there's usually a massive variance in 2x2 solves, but 7x7 times are usually way more consistent.

Basically, there's no fair way to come up with a penalty that's not just making it up. And if you're just going to make it up anyway, why not keep it consistent and easy for judges to apply.

Personally, like many others in this thread, I feel any discussion about changing the way we apply +2s just lands up being a bunch of good reasons for scrapping them altogether.
Click to expand...
That's fair but then let's say ur doing a u perm and you don't do the R2 at the end and that could cut like .25 off ur time so there should be some sort of penalty that's why I belive that there should be different time penalties for different cubes and it shouldn't be based on tps
 
A1d3n.f0rd said:
Yeah but I don't think that's a fair penalty for being one move off and I think a lot of the community would agree with me
Click to expand...

I believe it's fair to DNF it for being one move off. You should have to consistently solve it completely, not nearly solve it.
 
guysensei1 said:
Agreed. You either solved it completely, or you did not finish (DNF).
Click to expand...

Another thing that should be mentioned is the appearance of the cube not being solved for people like non-cubers.

Say someone gets a 4.61 with a +2 to make it 6.61 which ends up counting to help get WR average. This would get viewed by a lot of non-cubers and they would become extremely confused why the time is still allowed. I personally don't believe having the +2 rule will help promote speedcubing to a wider audience.
 
CubingGenius said:
Another thing that should be mentioned is the appearance of the cube not being solved for people like non-cubers.

Say someone gets a 4.61 with a +2 to make it 6.61 which ends up counting to help get WR average. This would get viewed by a lot of non-cubers and they would become extremely confused why the time is still allowed. I personally don't believe having the +2 rule will help promote speedcubing to a wider audience.
Click to expand...

The idea that we should get rid of the +2 rule based on the opinions of non-cubers annoys me. It's almost like we think as a community that they are incapable of understanding.

When those who I have brought to competitions, or those who have asked me questions by watching cubing videos, have asked about the +2 rule I have always been able to explain in two lines what it is there for and everyone has understood. In some cases, they have even made their own comparisons, for example considering the solve as technically not being finished. But they are completely capable of understanding that a +2 penalty is a fair replacement for DNF, considering it doesn't take long to do the final move.

Also, there's no basis that a +2 would put off potential new members anyway. They are excited by the colours, dexterity, the community aspect, the chance to improve personal bests and gain a sense of accomplishment by learning new puzzles and learning new methods.
 
Last edited:
Ollie said:
The idea that we should get rid of the +2 rule based on the opinions of non-cubers annoys me. It's almost like we think as a community that they are incapable of understanding.

When those who I have brought to competitions, or those who have asked me questions by watching cubing videos, have asked about the +2 rule I have always been able to explain in two lines what it is there for and everyone has understood. In some cases, they have even made their own comparisons, for example considering the solve as technically not being finished. But they are completely capable of understanding that a +2 penalty is a fair replacement for DNF, considering it doesn't take long to do the final move.

Also, there's no basis that a +2 would put off potential new members anyway. They are excited by the colours, dexterity, the community aspect, the chance to improve personal bests and gain a sense of accomplishment by learning new puzzles and learning new methods.
Click to expand...

But that's not the main reason. That's only a small add-on. My main argument is that +2 doesn't make any sense because you should be showing your ability to consistently solve the cube COMPLETELY. I do agree that my last point was not that good, but it was more of an add-on to a very good argument.
 
CubingGenius said:
But that's not the main reason. That's only a small add-on. My main argument is that +2 doesn't make any sense because you should be showing your ability to consistently solve the cube COMPLETELY. I do agree that my last point was not that good, but it was more of an add-on to a very good argument.
Click to expand...

I can't think of any changes or implementations to the WCA rules that were influenced predominantly by non-cubers' attitudes. I could be wrong - feel free to point me to something that was. :)

And while I agree that +2s should probably become DNFs one day, your "very good argument" is subjective. There isn't really much solid evidence that either side can bring to this debate without carrying out a large scale poll of competitors. We tend to rely on analogies from other sports (i.e. running 100m can't be considered complete if someone runs 99m +2s) but these don't necessarily transfer - it's up to us how we govern our own sport.

We actually need a proper survey of the community to see the difference in opinion and then build some solid cases for keeping/replacing +2s. I doubt much has changed since this initial discussion:

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=922

Or this:

https://github.com/thewca/wca-regulations/issues/145

Or this (the most in depth discussion I can find that does not contain a poll):

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...-remove-2-penalty-for-misaligned-sides.34096/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CubeLite
  • Poll Poll
Should I count 3x3 PBs if they were with One Handed scrambles?
2
Replies
20
Views
2,633
Spencer131
Spencer131
precompsubwr
Should you count a PB if it's a misscramble?
Replies
2
Views
589
bldcuber314
bldcuber314
cube100
What should be the average move count of a sub 12 cuber?
Replies
6
Views
2,466
Coolster01
Coolster01
C
Should methods actually be disciplines?
Replies
6
Views
406
Cassiopaia
C
iguana
What skewb should I buy?
Replies
11
Views
573
Puzzle Maniac
Puzzle Maniac
Back
Top