Radu wrote:For the M moves, it should stay how it is and I agree that M is 2 moves, not 1. It's not WCA's business what method the competitors use. Everyone uses what he wants and the rules should be made regardless what the solving method is.
BryanLogan wrote:Dene wrote:So what you're saying is that the best way to measure things is the same way that it has been done for thousands of years? Could you please justify this because personally I see no problem with being modern and up to date with technology. Perhaps I am just too young and hip.
Go ahead and put together a quote on how much a self-timing could would cost? It's a cost issue and a simplicity issue.
And what's to say the person actually solves it? What if they never made the final turn? Then we're giving them credit for solving when they actually didn't solve.
SebastienAuroux wrote:+2 seconds is already a very harsh penalty, already for me as ~15 cuber, and even more for world's top speedcubers. Where is the sense of judging DNF instead of +2? Do we want to be that perfectionist that we want to cause DNF averages instead of severe worsening of it as we already have?
SebastienAuroux wrote:Also I cannot hear anymore about that "looks more professional" argument. The WCA is a non-profit organisation! It is about fun for the participants and not about attractiveness for outsiders. So why would we care if anyone isn't able to accept what an "almost solved cube" is and why we judge it with a penalty of 2 seconds?
Gilles wrote:WCA should get rid of this bad bad idea, just like they killed the old "pop rule".
Clement Gallet wrote:I would also like to remove the +2, which will remove some actual issues like clock being the only speedsolving event with no penalties, or people asking for a penalty dependent on the type of puzzle.
Also, it bothers me that this square-1 configuration is still considered as solved (scramble : (0,-1) (1,1) (0,0) )
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest