[WCA Regulations 2012] Remove +2 penalty for misaligned sides

[Kirjava]

HTM is method neutral.

An example of somthing that is /not/ method neutral would be filtering easy crosses.

 

[Cubenovice]

I'm pretty sure Okayama woudn't mind switching to STM

I would like to see the +2 rule removed and wouldn't mind switching to STM at the same time.
Time to brush of the HTA skills...

 

[macky]

(I bet Stefan has this answer...)

Does anyone remember where the discussion regarding removing the POP solves took place? I feel like it's a lot of the same argument, and we got rid of POPs.

I see arguments about POPs going back to 2004

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/message/10301

from Lucas's post

Macky provided a good argument for removing pops in a Dec. 2005 post. After the initial regulation change, there was a thread about whether competitors could intentionally pop a cube. After Ron's announcement of the 2006v2 (draft) regulations, there was another discussion about pops and the UWRs.

 

[gogozerg]

As you have said yourself a zillion times, rules should be method neutral. And HTM is not. This is a perfectly valid reason.

So, a method neutral rule is a rule that makes all methods equal, the good and the crap methods?

A rule may have different results depending on the method you're using. The point is, it must not be decided to benefit a particular method.

From a megaminx (a puzzle without parallel cut planes) solver point of vue, STM would be an aberration, favoring some cubic puzzle solvers.

 

[TMOY]

A megaminx does have parallel cut planes. I remember very well that you pointed it out yourself in an old discussion on the WCA forum

 

[gogozerg]

Oh yes sorry, my mistake, it has some.