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

[Kirjava]

can you explain how the proposed rule change would make competitions more difficult to run in any way?

can you show where he said it would?

 

[Vincents]

I'm glad this discussion is continuing. I'm even more glad that multiple WRC members are monitoring and sometimes weighing in. Carry on.

 

[Mike Hughey]

Sometimes I think keyan is adding more than necessary to the discussion, but:

Arguments in favor of removing the rule:

• Simplify the regulations.
• Create consistency across the speedsolving events.
• Remove weird cases from the rules.
• Make competitions appear more professional.

I agree with all 4 of these arguments. I definitely favor removing the rule, for those reasons.

 

[Bob]

Arguments in favor of removing the rule:
Simplify the regulations. This is a big one. For someone that has only been to, say, Southern California competitions they may not understand, but hosting competitions in a new area, spreading cubing to new communities, one of the biggest hurdles is training judges. Some have said that the regulations are already simple enough, but that just isn't true. People regularly complain about bad judges. Adding a category between "solved" and "unsolved" makes the work of a new judge harder. Everything that we can do that makes judging simpler while still maintaining fairness helps to increase the number of competitions that are held and spread cubing to more people. "More competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair conditions". The proposed rule change adds to the first three of those.

Removing the +2 changes it to a DNF. The category between "solved" and "unsolved" is still there. We still have to analyze the same solves. The only thing simpler about it is that we would be that if the puzzle is more than one move away, we do not need to analyze if the second turn is 45 degrees away.

Create consistency across the speedsolving events. Clock doesn't have an unsolved but close enough state. The proposed rule change would make all speedsolving events consistent in this regard. Another alternative is to define a penalty state for clock, but no one has suggested a good one. Given that the solve state can't be observed without influencing the puzzle, I don't think it's possible to define a penalty state for clock. (The paper inserts for the clocks can move slightly. How do you determine if the puzzle is half way between 11 and 12, or just that the inserts moved? Hard to do without dissecting the puzzle.) Another suggestion was that consistency isn't worthwhile, that we shouldn't bother with this. I don't think that's a very strong argument. Consistency is easily attainable, I think we can work toward it.

A penalty on clock would not have anything to do with being part way between hours, but instead being able to solve the clock in "one move." Let's consider one move to mean that you may put the pins in whatever position you like and turn any one dial to solve the clock. The inserts do not have anything to do with the solved state, as the clocks click into place. Boom, consistency attained across puzzles.

Remove weird cases from the rules. I already mentioned multiBLD, 20 cubes each off by one turn versus 21 cubes with 20 solved and one off by two turns. One person made ten times as many mistakes as the other, and yet we consider him to have performed better.

And I think he did. In the regulations, a puzzle off by 1 move is still considered solved, but there is a penalty attached. So we are comparing somebody who solved 20 out of 20 cubes with somebody who solved 20 out of 21.

Make competitions appear more professional. The two comments I hear most often from non-cubers observing competitions are "Why does he get to look at it first? That's cheating!" and "That wasn't solved!". Counting unsolved cubes as solved makes cubing look bad in the eyes of the general public. That, in itself, isn't necessarily a problem. However, that can still have an impact. Making cubing appear more professional might make finding sponsorship easier. Asian Championship 2010 and World Championship 2011, we were very lucky to have the help of the Baiyoke Hotel. I can imagine a scenario where the president of Baiyoke was initially interested, but then saw an unsolved cube and asked why it was counted, and ended up choosing not to offer sponsorship. I can't see the opposite being the case. Increasing the standing of cubing in the eye of the general public would also allow more people to become interested in cubing and join the community.

If we want to look more professional, let's get rid of feet solving. IMO feet solving poses more of a threat of looking goofy and unprofessional than does having cubes misaligned by 1 turn receiving penalties. Are you also proposing that we eliminate inspection before the solve? It sounds like you are.

You complain that not enough has been done to show why a change would be beneficial. Here are four arguments in favor of changing the rule. Among these, only the point about consistency has been addressed by people against a change, though I feel that argument fell short. These arguments haven't been significantly rebutted, yet more are needed? What are the arguments that show the benefit of keeping the rule change, rather than appeal to tradition and talk of hurt feelings? The only argument I can think of is Stefan's point that it might cause some people to argue more about rulings. Unfortunately, probably true.

You state "But it's clear that it is almost solved." Almost solved is, inherently, unsolved.

So why accept cubes that are off by 44 degrees as solved? You can see rather clearly that the sides are not completely aligned. How about 30 degrees? 10 degrees?

Can you explain why a cube that is unsolevd should count as solved? Do you think that the competitor has shown their intent to solve? In that case, could you address the Olympic shooting thing I mentioned? Or do you think that the competitor has shown their ability to solve, regardless of whether they actually solved or not? In that case, could you address the incorrect PLL thing I mentioned?

You complain about my arguments, the PLL thing was brushed off as absurd, but that's the point. It's supposed to be absurd. Recasting the arguments of those wanting to keep the rule in a more extreme example shows the failings of their arguments. You can complain about the style, but please acknowledge the actual points.


Can you explain what is hindered? Ignoring everything I said above about how a rule change would help, can you explain how the proposed rule change would make competitions more difficult to run in any way?

I also don't see how the rule change makes competitions easier to run in any way. You mentioned that it would be easier for judges, but honestly, it won't. They still need to check for 45 degrees. The only thing that changes is that they would write "DNF" instead of 12.11 + 2 = 14.11. Except now, if an inexperienced judge unknowingly accepts a result that was off by 45 degrees or more without knowing any better, we've now given somebody credit for a solve instead of giving them a free 2 second bonus.

 

[DrKorbin]

Simplify the regulations. ... Adding a category between "solved" and "unsolved" makes the work of a new judge harder. Everything that we can do that makes judging simpler while still maintaining fairness helps to increase the number of competitions...

I think that determination of the angle of misalign and comparsion it with 45 degrees angle won't blow judge's brain. If it blows, he can always ask more experienced judge. If you (as organizer) have troubles with explanation of this rule to your judges, you can get competitors involved.
And how exactly simplification of the rules will increase the number of competitions?
"Oh, I want to organize a competition, but I have no room".
"Oh, I want to organize a competition, but I have no money or sponsorship".
"Oh, I want to organize a competition, but this +2 penalty rule is so complex".

Create consistency across the speedsolving events.

And why do we need to create consistency across the different speedsolving events?

Remove weird cases from the rules. I already mentioned multiBLD, 20 cubes each off by one turn versus 21 cubes with 20 solved and one off by two turns. One person made ten times as many mistakes as the other, and yet we consider him to have performed better.

Here is another example: two persons, A and B, try 20 cubes in multi-bld. A forgets to undo a setup move in first two cubes, messes them and gets 18/20. B forgets to undo every setup move after every algorithm, but only in the 1st cube, and he gets 19/20. B made ten times as many mistakes as A, and yet we consider him to have performed better.
Regarding your argument, I don't see anything bad in this situation.

Make competitions appear more professional. The two comments I hear most often from non-cubers observing competitions are "Why does he get to look at it first? That's cheating!" and "That wasn't solved!". ... I can imagine a scenario where the president of Baiyoke was initially interested, but then saw an unsolved cube and asked why it was counted, and ended up choosing not to offer sponsorship. ... would also allow more people to become interested in cubing and join the community.

Oh yeah, and if that president said "Why does he get to look at it first? That's cheating! I won't give you a sponsorship!" then you would propose a prohibition of preinspection?
As it was said before, we should never listen to what non-speedcubers say. There are rules in sports that seem weird to neophytes, and yet they exists.
And I hardly imagine a person that shows some interest in cubing, but when he knows about +2 penalty, he gives up speedcubing. This person was never interested really.

You state "But it's clear that it is almost solved." Almost solved is, inherently, unsolved. Can you explain why a cube that is unsolevd should count as solved?

It is counted as solved with penalty :fp, not solved and not unsolved.

Do you think that the competitor has shown their intent to solve?

Probably he had shown it when he started the timer. But intention has nothing to do with it. He either solved it or solved it with penalty or didn't solve it.

 

[Dene]

This thread is actually really annoying. You and Dene are stuck with arguing against arguments against a change instead of finding overwhelming arguments for a change.

I've stated my main argument over and over and over again, but one more time just for you: There are only two reasons why a cube would be left with a misaligned slice upon stopping the timer: 1) because the competitor took a risk; 2) because the competitor is lazy. The WCA, in my opinion, should not be here to accommodate lazy people and risk takers. The task of the competitor is to solve the cube, not "almost solve" the cube. As far as I'm concerned it's a simple issue, black and white, with a simple solution. The cube is either solved or not solved.

And I think he did. In the regulations, a puzzle off by 1 move is still considered solved, but there is a penalty attached. So we are comparing somebody who solved 20 out of 20 cubes with somebody who solved 20 out of 21.

Sure, the way the rules are currently written. But to an outside observer, one person fully solved 20 out of 21 cubes, the other fell just short on all 20 of their cubes. You can't respond to his problem by reference to the way the regulations are currently stated, because that would be a horribly circular argument and a logical fallacy.

Here is another example: two persons, A and B, try 20 cubes in multi-bld. A forgets to undo a setup move in first two cubes, messes them and gets 18/20. B forgets to undo every setup move after every algorithm, but only in the 1st cube, and he gets 19/20. B made ten times as many mistakes as A, and yet we consider him to have performed better.
Regarding your argument, I don't see anything bad in this situation.

I don't want to respond on behalf of keyan, but my own response to your argument, the big difference is that in keyan's scenario one person made 10 defining errors, spread over their entire solve, whereas in your situation B made 10 errors, 9 of which don't really matter as just the one was a defining error in the context of the solve.

It is counted as solved with penalty :fp, not solved and not unsolved.

Solved with penalty is still solved. It shouldn't be, because it isn't solved.

 

[Sebastien]

Arguments in favor of removing the rule:

- Simplify the regulations.
- Create consistency across the speedsolving events.
- Remove weird cases from the rules.
- Make competitions appear more professional.

Thank you for summarizing his point Mike!

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with any of these points to be an argument for changing this rule.

- Simplification is generally a good point, but not always a good idea. There are many regulations whose removal would bring simplicity, but would would have fatal impact on our sport. Imagine we would get rid of almost all juding and scrambling procedures. Or get rid of WCA Delegates. This would as well create simplicity. I'm not saying the removal of this rule would have such an fatal influence, but I still think that removing the rule would create worse conditions for all competitors.
- The current official events are partwise very different from each other. I think we already have consistency around all events where wimilar measurement is possible.
- You didn't bring any case that I would consider as weird.
- My personal point of view: I don't care at all (and this is nicely said) about what some kind of general public thinks. I refuse in general to even notice comments from people about any kind of matter the are not informed about. Furthermore I don't accept any of your supposed sport analogies, as this is Speedcubing, which is just different from other sports.

[...]

VERY good post in my opinion.

 

[Sebastien]

I've stated my main argument over and over and over again, but one more time just for you: There are only two reasons why a cube would be left with a misaligned slice upon stopping the timer: 1) because the competitor took a risk; 2) because the competitor is lazy. The WCA, in my opinion, should not be here to accommodate lazy people and risk takers. The task of the competitor is to solve the cube, not "almost solve" the cube. As far as I'm concerned it's a simple issue, black and white, with a simple solution. The cube is either solved or not solved.

I'm aware that you stated this over and over again. I just don't consider this an overwhelming argument but just as some subjective point of view.

 

[Dene]

I'm aware that you stated this over and over again. I just don't consider this an overwhelming argument but just as some subjective point of view.

Whether a cube is solved or not is not subjective at all, or at least until you get to defining the arbitrary point at which we will determine it is definitely solved, or definitely not, but the half-hearted disagreement to 45 degrees seems to have faded away a long time ago.

Also, if "the competitor took a risk" and "competitor is lazy" are subjective, then you must have another explanation for why a cube would end up misaligned upon stopping the timer (other than doing so deliberately). I would like to hear it, because no one has managed to come up with an alternative explanation as of yet.

When you fail to come up with another reason, I would like you to give your subjective opinion as to why the WCA should cradle competitors like a baby rather than treating them as adults with the mental capacity to understand the difference between solved and not solved, therefore giving them the cushion of a +2 penalty rather than DNFing them.

 

[aronpm]

I think Dene's entire argument sums up to an appeal to ridicule.

1) Competitors who get +2 are taking a risk!
You're using the term "risk" here to add the implication that the solver is doing something bad.
2) Competitors who get +2 are being lazy!
By "being lazy" (a term which you're using to ridicule the opposition) they are already adding 2 seconds on to their time. If a competitor cares about their time, they don't want to have a +2. However, mistakes happen. I think you should realise this fact.
3) The WCA shouldn't cradle competitors like babies!
This isn't even an argument, it's just something you're saying to ridicule the opposing argument and make yourself sound right. Which is, as I mentioned, just an appeal to ridicule.

 

[Bob]

When you fail to come up with another reason, I would like you to give your subjective opinion as to why the WCA should cradle competitors like a baby rather than treating them as adults with the mental capacity to understand the difference between solved and not solved, therefore giving them the cushion of a +2 penalty rather than DNFing them.

You do realize that most of the competitors in our sport are not adults, right?

 

[gogozerg]

but I still think that removing the rule would create worse conditions for all competitors.

Asking for people to solve puzzles makes their life harder.
More seriously, removing the "pop" rule created worse conditions.

 

[Julian]

Asking for people to solve puzzles makes their life harder.
More seriously, removing the "pop" rule created worse conditions.

Another solve for a POP? Couldn't competitors force a POP to get another solve? Or is this why the rule was removed in the first place?

 

[Stefan]

You do realize that most of the competitors in our sport are not adults, right?

Fun fact:

mysql> select sum( if( year*10000+100*month+day <= 19940606, 1, 0 )) atleast18,
    ->        sum( if( year*10000+100*month+day >  19940606, 1, 0 )) under18
    -> from Persons, (select distinct personId from Results, Competitions where Competitions.id=competitionId and year>=2012) tmp
    -> where personId=Persons.id and year and month and day;
+-----------+---------+
| atleast18 | under18 |
+-----------+---------+
|      1936 |    1935 |
+-----------+---------+

mysql> select sum( if( year*10000+100*month+day <= 19940605, 1, 0 )) atleast18,
    ->        sum( if( year*10000+100*month+day >  19940605, 1, 0 )) under18
    -> from Persons, (select distinct personId from Results, Competitions where Competitions.id=competitionId and year>=2012) tmp
    -> where personId=Persons.id and year and month and day;
+-----------+---------+
| atleast18 | under18 |
+-----------+---------+
|      1935 |    1936 |
+-----------+---------+

Of all the competitors this year where we have the birth date, the "majority" is now 18 or older.

Oh wait, the scale-tipping guy born 18 years ago on June 6 is Mexican, and in Mexico it's still June 5 right now.

 

[Dene]

Oooh some fun!

You're using the term "risk" here to add the implication that the solver is doing something bad.

Not at all. I've said before, and I'll repeat again, the aim is not to stop or prevent people taking risks, and I do not think it is a bad thing. I take risks when solving almost every time. The point is that taking a risk is taking a risk, and it should not be the position of the WCA to give people taking risks some protective padding in case their risk doesn't pay off (or else it isn't really much of a risk at all).

By "being lazy" (a term which you're using to ridicule the opposition) they are already adding 2 seconds on to their time. If a competitor cares about their time, they don't want to have a +2.

I only use the laziness one for the few rare cases that might occur where someone isn't taking a risk but still has a misaligned slice (without deliberately doing it). I certainly think that 99.9% of misaligned slices are caused by risk taking, and that is where the emphasis should lie.

However, mistakes happen. I think you should realise this fact.

Of course I realise mistakes happen. They happen in every day life all the time. Often, people suffer the consequences of making mistakes. Rarely do mistakes end up benefiting the person. In sport, this is certainly even rarer. The WCA shouldn't be here to cover people that make mistakes, it should be here to determine whether, in this instance, a competitor has solved the cube or not. They can make a million mistakes if they like, as long as it is solved at the end.

3) The WCA shouldn't cradle competitors like babies!
This isn't even an argument, it's just something you're saying to ridicule the opposing argument and make yourself sound right.

Congratulations for noticing that, Captain Obvious. But I notice you point that out while not actually addressing the point I made. In fact, you haven't addressed any of the points I made. You've really convinced me now...

 

[aronpm]

it should not be the position of the WCA to give people taking risks some protective padding in case their risk doesn't pay off (or else it isn't really much of a risk at all).

It is still a risk; they have the risk of 2 seconds being added to their solve.

The WCA shouldn't be here to cover people that make mistakes, it should be here to determine whether, in this instance, a competitor has solved the cube or not. They can make a million mistakes if they like, as long as it is solved at the end.

+2 is not beneficial. It is a penalty.

Congratulations for noticing that, Captain Obvious. But I notice you point that out while not actually addressing the point I made. In fact, you haven't addressed any of the points I made. You've really convinced me now...

You have no points. keyan is the only person making any decent argument against +2. Sorry about that.

 

[Lucas Garron]

I'm glad this discussion is continuing. I'm even more glad that multiple WRC members are monitoring and sometimes weighing in. Carry on.

I'm also still here. I'm trying not to get too involved, but I'm glad Chris (keyan) is making all his points. If he's sounding desperate, it's because he has to argue almost on his own, in a field of terrible rhetoric.

I'm starting to think we should have criteria for WCA Regulation changes. Right now, I have in mind:

1) When adding/changing rules, the primary consideration should be whether it would make for objectively better regulations.
2) If it is objectively better, and significantly conflicts with past regulations, *then* we should consider whether it is worth the cost of switching.


Personally, the argument in this thread is convincing me that with regard to criterion 1, removing +2's is better: it would have been better not to have had the penalty in the regulations, ever (there are some valid arguments to the contrary, but I haven't seen them argued well enough, and this post is not intended to address them).

This is being heavily conflated with criterion 2. Yes, the problem of switching is a big concern, but it should be done if we can decide whether the change is better. To this regard, I would appreciate it if people spent more time addressing criterion 1 (unless they have a sane argument that we should not follow the criteria like this). Unfortunately, it seems that this is extremely difficult for the "nocebo" sort of reasons Chris mentioned.

As I think I've said before, what I expect will happen is that the change will not be made *simply* because it is controversial, and there are many more uncontroversial rules to fix first.
(If this comes up for discussion in 2013, and somebody tries to use the argument that we shouldn't switch because the current discussion didn't lead to a switch, they'll be lucky if I don't do more than let out a sigh and ignore them.)

 

[Nico1]

In baseball, if you miss the sweet spot by less than 1/16 of an inch, your walk-off grand slam could turn into a game ending ground ball double play. However, we all know that you COULD have hit a home run... but you didn't.

 

[Dene]

It is still a risk; they have the risk of 2 seconds being added to their solve.

So what purpose does the +2 serve other than to give credit where it isn't due?

+2 is not beneficial. It is a penalty.

Again, what purpose does it serve?

You have no points. keyan is the only person making any decent argument against +2. Sorry about that.

And yet, you have failed, time and time again, to come up with any argument against my own (and I do have points, if you fail to see them I can't help you). If it isn't decent, one would have thought it would have crumbled by now.

 

[keyan]

can you show where he said it would?

That was my interpretation of his usage of "hinder" in the context of a discussion about competition regulations. However, acknowledged, post edited.

Removing the +2 changes it to a DNF. The category between "solved" and "unsolved" is still there. We still have to analyze the same solves. The only thing simpler about it is that we would be that if the puzzle is more than one move away, we do not need to analyze if the second turn is 45 degrees away.

Sorry, I don't see where removing one of the judging classifications is equally complicated. Can you explain what is the category between solved and unsolved that is still there? I honestly don't understand your second sentence.
Edit: Reading again, I think I understand what you're saying. Currently, the rules have two points of distinction between three different categories: solved, unsolved but close, unsolved. The proposed change would have one point of distinction between two categories. That's simpler.

A penalty on clock would not have anything to do with being part way between hours, but instead being able to solve the clock in "one move." Let's consider one move to mean that you may put the pins in whatever position you like and turn any one dial to solve the clock. The inserts do not have anything to do with the solved state, as the clocks click into place. Boom, consistency attained across puzzles.

Yeah, this is how I treat unclear clocks in competition. However, this really isn't a good procedure. The only way to check the state of the puzzle is to manipulate the puzzle. What if the competitor disagrees? "No, it didn't click!" With a cube you observe, whereas clock you have to manipulate.

And I think he did. In the regulations, a puzzle off by 1 move is still considered solved, but there is a penalty attached. So we are comparing somebody who solved 20 out of 20 cubes with somebody who solved 20 out of 21.

Here you're saying a puzzle off by one turn is solved. Putting aside the way the current regulations treat cubes, can you say what is the difference between a solved cube and an unsolved cube?

If we want to look more professional, let's get rid of feet solving. IMO feet solving poses more of a threat of looking goofy and unprofessional than does having cubes misaligned by 1 turn receiving penalties. Are you also proposing that we eliminate inspection before the solve? It sounds like you are.

Feet and inspection are separate issues deserving other threads. But no, I'm not. Sorry, forgot to mention that yesterday. Late night. See my post just now in the stickerless cube thread. Removing inspection would change part of how we actually solve, whereas this change deals not with solving, but how we treat unsolved cubes. I see these as different.

So why accept cubes that are off by 44 degrees as solved? You can see rather clearly that the sides are not completely aligned. How about 30 degrees? 10 degrees?

This has already been discussed. Less than 45 degrees is closer to solved than unsolved. Greater than 45 is closer to unsolved than solved. Exactly 45 tie goes to the runner. So far, no one has seemed to disagree with this.

I also don't see how the rule change makes competitions easier to run in any way. You mentioned that it would be easier for judges, but honestly, it won't. They still need to check for 45 degrees. The only thing that changes is that they would write "DNF" instead of 12.11 + 2 = 14.11. Except now, if an inexperienced judge unknowingly accepts a result that was off by 45 degrees or more without knowing any better, we've now given somebody credit for a solve instead of giving them a free 2 second bonus.

Currently judges are told that if a cube looks to be unsolved, it might mean something more than record the score, risne and repeat. So now they have to write out 12.11+2=14.11. They have to remember not to just write 12.11+2, or even more bothersome 14.11+2. But then they also learn that there's another step, where it's off by even more. So that cube that's off by 90 degrees is +2, so 180 must be unsolved, right? What about this one, the top is turned some, but so is the bottom. This 4 layer one has two layers turned, that's not solved, right? Reducing the amount of stuff that new judges need to learn and keep in mind during a competition makes the training process easier, allows them to focus on other stuff (not starting the solve with cube in hand, not twisting corners in place, etc.) and helps the competition run better.
Anecdotally, I don't think it's likely for a judge to unknowingly accept a cube over 45 degrees. More common that they think a cube off by only a small amount should be considered unsolved.

I think that determination of the angle of misalign and comparsion it with 45 degrees angle won't blow judge's brain. If it blows, he can always ask more experienced judge. If you (as organizer) have troubles with explanation of this rule to your judges, you can get competitors involved.
And how exactly simplification of the rules will increase the number of competitions?
"Oh, I want to organize a competition, but I have no room".
"Oh, I want to organize a competition, but I have no money or sponsorship".
"Oh, I want to organize a competition, but this +2 penalty rule is so complex".

Venue and sponsorship are unrelated issues.
I've seen plenty of people that have trouble learning this alongside all the other stuff that a judge is supposed to learn. Reducing the amount of learning and work that judges have to do means that less time can be spent before the competition on training, means that more people might be willing to help judge, means that judges might not get as tired and want/need to take a break during the competition. Have you ever seen a competition fall apart because the judges got tired and just left? Yeah, that there reduces the number of competitions that can be held. Everything that makes the process simpler without impacting fairness or changing the inherent nature of solving are beneficial. Don't just brush it off as something small, it still adds up.

It is counted as solved with penalty, not solved and not unsolved.

We record results as just numbers. What is differentiating the person that (feet) solves in 1:18 and intentionally skips the last move and the person that solves in 1:20?

Thank you for summarizing his point Mike!

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with any of these points to be an argument for changing this rule.

- Simplification is generally a good point, but not always a good idea. There are many regulations whose removal would bring simplicity, but would would have fatal impact on our sport. Imagine we would get rid of almost all juding and scrambling procedures. Or get rid of WCA Delegates. This would as well create simplicity. I'm not saying the removal of this rule would have such an fatal influence, but I still think that removing the rule would create worse conditions for all competitors.
- The current official events are partwise very different from each other. I think we already have consistency around all events where wimilar measurement is possible.
- You didn't bring any case that I would consider as weird.
- My personal point of view: I don't care at all (and this is nicely said) about what some kind of general public thinks. I refuse in general to even notice comments from people about any kind of matter the are not informed about. Furthermore I don't accept any of your supposed sport analogies, as this is Speedcubing, which is just different from other sports.

-I get the impression you didn't read my post. No offense taken, I know my writing isn't very concise, but I specifically addressed what you say here. Changes that simplify the process without changing fairness or the inherent nature of solving are very different from removing the scrambling procedure. Can you clarify exactly what are the worse conditions you see from the proposed rule change? Is treating unsolved cubes as unsolved specifically unfair?
-The speedsolving events are all very similar, in that they all are basically defined by Article A of the WCA regulations. The speedsolving events are basically all the same, but we added this extra classification and realized that it doesn't work for one of the puzzles.
-You think that someone that made ten mistakes performed better than someone that made two? Narrowing it down a little, two multiBLD solvers both attempt 20 cubes and finish in exactly the same time. The competitor who made twenty mistakes gets a better result than the person that made two. That's not even a little weird?
-Changing the basic nature of speedsolving to please outsiders is totally unnecessary, I agree. But the proposed change has nothing to do with the basic nature of speedsolving. The objective is still to solve the cube with speed. The change is not proposed because of how outsiders see it, but that is still one of the benefits that may be had.

Lucas, thanks, well said and I hope people try to make their points as you said.