WCA rules for DNFs?

[rowan]

Are the delegates/organizers/judges who seem opposed to DNF-ing on purpose against it simply for personal preference? Does it inconvenience the judge in some way?

I'm just trying to understand if there's a pragmatic reason not to do this. I haven't competed before so I am not as familiar with the procedures, (there's only so much I can glean from the regulations) but it appears to be the same amount of work for the involved regardless of outcome.

 

[Coolster01]

Well yeah that's the exception. If it's the last solve and definitely the worst, you could DNF it.

Stefan, if you're failing a solve and you already have a DNF average then obviously another DNF wouldn't do anything.

I wouldnt DNF my last solve ever. If I end up uploading the video of it, some other solve mgiht get DNFed -__-

 

[kcl]

I wouldnt DNF my last solve ever. If I end up uploading the video of it, some other solve mgiht get DNFed -__-

nah it's if you already have two DNF's before the last solve.

 

[Noahaha]

A bad average is better than no average at all.

This is only true if you care!

 

[maps600]

Well, thanks.

I prefer a DNF average than a bad average for personal reasons, but I hope I'm not encouraging it for the wrong reasons.


On topic: There's no regulation preventing you from finishing your solve in any case, but it's encouraged that you finish your solve anyway.

Oh... sorry if that came off sounding a bit rude

 

[maps600]

Are the delegates/organizers/judges who seem opposed to DNF-ing on purpose against it simply for personal preference? Does it inconvenience the judge in some way?

I'm just trying to understand if there's a pragmatic reason not to do this. I haven't competed before so I am not as familiar with the procedures, (there's only so much I can glean from the regulations) but it appears to be the same amount of work for the involved regardless of outcome.

I guess its mainly the fact that competitions are actually twisty puzzle solving competitions.

 

[FJT97]

I thought, its maybe good for the schedule, if you dnf a screwed up pll or something. If there are many of those in the competition, it would make a difference...

 

[Kirjava]

I'm more with Sarah.

It's interesting, because deliberately DNFing was brought up recently (I'm pretty sure it was only amongst the delegates, can't remember), and Lucas Garron seemed extremely opposed to it, almost to the point where he was thinking of changing the regulations to prevent it..

ahaha what

what is going to be the punishment for DNFing

 

[qqwref]

ahaha what

what is going to be the punishment for DNFing

If there IS a punishment for deliberately wasting the competition's time, it should be not being allowed to finish the round. But I think they were considering disqualifying you from the round or event entirely.

 

[TMOY]

If you decide to DNF a bad solve instead of completing it, you are not wasting any competition time. It's not as if you had planned to DNF from the start.

 

[Kirjava]

(The premise in the discussion (if I'm guessing the right one) was people competing with expectation of a DNF, like trying BLD without knowing how to do it)

thanks for the context

 

[Stefan]

Darn, Thom ninja'd my rewrite...

deliberately DNFing was brought up recently (I'm pretty sure it was only amongst the delegates, can't remember), and Lucas Garron seemed extremely opposed to it, almost to the point where he was thinking of changing the regulations to prevent it.

The premise in the discussion (if I'm guessing the right one) was people competing with expectation of a DNF, like trying BLD without knowing how to do it. Regulation A1c already talks about disqualification for that, and the discussion was about *weakening* its phrasing and recording every such disqualification in order to prevent abuse.

 

[Dene]

That's not the discussion I'm talking about.

After much effort, I found the github issue here.

I assume most people can't see the delegate discussion, so I'll just quote a bit here.

The discussion centred around a competitor that wasn't happy with their time, and thus requested to have a DNF rather than the real time written down. Obviously this can't be done, but I made another suggestion:

If they want to DNF they just have to reset the timer before the time is written down. Simplest thing ever.

I think we should *not* tolerate that. If people (purposefully) turn off the timer, I would go so far as to say that they should be disqualified form the rest of the event immediately.

That's interesting. Why would you find this any different from someone turning off the timer before stopping it, because it's a bad solve? Or stopping the timer before they're finished? There are lots of ways one can deliberately DNF. Personally I don't necessarily find much to be concerned about. I am genuinely interested in why you feel strongly about this?

Lucas never responded, but instead created the github issue.

 

[Stefan]

Ah, sorry I guessed the wrong one and thanks for the clarification. I hadn't seen that one.

I don't see Lucas talking about the case this thread is about, though. Only about competitors trying to get a DNF after a perfectly valid solve, particularly by asking their judge to lie. But I'd be interested in answers to your questions as well. Maybe the difference is the "they shouldn’t be able to change results" said beforehand. If you create a DNF before completing the solve, then that DNF is the only result. If you complete the solve, getting a valid time, and then (intentionally) create a DNF, you're (intentionally) changing the result.

 

[Dene]

Well, the discussion in the Iran Summer thread did start off being about changing a valid solve to a DNF, and obviously that is not allowed. But then I derailed the thread and that's what Lucas was responding to.

Ultimately, there are many options available to someone wishing to DNF an otherwise perfectly valid solve. There is no fundamental distinction between them, thus no difference between the example I gave in the Iran Summer thread, and in this speedsolving thread. So Lucas' opinion is surely the same, whether one stops the timer before finishing the solve, or after (before the judge can write it down).

Anyway, in my opinion, every attempt should be considered a "valid solve". I mean, unless one actually doesn't know how to solve the puzzle, every attempt should eventuate into a valid solve, right?

 

[Stefan]

Well, the discussion in the Iran Summer thread did start off being about changing a valid solve to a DNF, and obviously that is not allowed. But then I derailed the thread and that's what Lucas was responding to.

Where? I still only see him responding to and talking about changing a valid solve to a DNF. You said yourself that he didn't respond to your actual derailment from that.

So Lucas' opinion is surely the same, whether one stops the timer before finishing the solve, or after (before the judge can write it down).

As pointed out in my previous post (I edited that in, maybe you missed it), Lucas seems to be talking solely about changing results (his github issue btw suggests the same). I can't tell what his opinion is about DNFing before stopping the timer, but I suspect it differs or else he wouldn't make that distinction.

Anyway, in my opinion, every attempt should be considered a "valid solve".

But an attempt can fail and not be a solve.

 

[Dene]

I think you're confused. He was responding to me. "If people turn off the timer..." In the original case in the Iran thread, the competitor didn't turn off the timer. I was the person to bring that up.

EDIT: Also how can an attempt fail? Unless one screws up so badly they go over 10 minutes (or the cutoff).

 

[tseitsei]

EDIT: Also how can an attempt fail? Unless one screws up so badly they go over 10 minutes (or the cutoff).

One can recognize and execute wrong PLL and stop the timer before realizing his mistake for example. Has happened to me sometimes (not officially tough).
Or in bigger cubes you can have massive pops that just take too long to fix.

 

[goodatthis]

EDIT: Also how can an attempt fail? Unless one screws up so badly they go over 10 minutes (or the cutoff).

You could:
get a nearly unfixable pop
get adj PLL parity in the back and not realize it
think you had a Pll skip when it was really a j perm

 

[EMI]

EDIT: Also how can an attempt fail? Unless one screws up so badly they go over 10 minutes (or the cutoff).

Explosion during feet solving