[2011] ideas: Remove +2 penalty for misalligned sides

[Radu]

Sorry, Olivér, but I'm not convinced by your arguments.

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.

Imagine what if we had +2s for every first 2 or 3 off moves. Like, 2 off-moves, being +4s. Would it be unfair? Personally I think not, because everyone sees how to solve a puzzle within 2 moves (the same argument goes also for the current regulations), but it would be very impractical to have such a rule. The current regulations with +2s for 1 off move, is a decent solution I think and not exaggerated.

I think you brought the best arguments with Breandan's example, for keeping this rule. It's obvious that +2 doesn't worth the rush, so every competitor will try to finish the solve properly. So, I don't see anyone having an advantage from it. Changing it to DNF will be just a disadvantage for the good cubers, who might miss an average and not get in to the next round, just because of a rush or unluck. If I remember right, it happened to Yumu Tabuchi at WC2009. He got a DNF in the first 2 solves and unfortunately a POP in the last solve, so he missed the final. He might have won at that time the 1st place. Changing +2s to DNF will just increase the number of cases like this and I see no benefit from it.

What about the cases when a move is made when the cube drops on the surface? I think we all passed through this with an Eastsheen 2x2.
I totally agree that for feet, BLD and maybe even bigger cubes, it should be reconsidered.

As I am not a very good cuber, I have no personal interest in this. I am no fanatic of this rule at all and I am open to change it as soon as I see a more convincing argument.

PS - I would agree to change a U2 (a double move) to DNF though - or more precise an over 90 degrees move. I'm ok with that.

[TMOY]

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.

It's not a question of method but a question of common sense. A M move is just moving one conncted part of the cube in a given direction, it can bedone with only 1 finger, so it's definitely 1 move not 2.
I know that most cubers view it as 2 moves because they have been taught that 3^3 centers are fixed and thus that M is equivalent to L R'. But if it's not WCA business to take into account what method competitors use, it's not its business either to investigate how they have been taught to cube, sorry.

[Dene]

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.

All I'm saying is that we should not punish people because we lack the technological sophistication. It may have a negative side-effect as you pointed out, but let's be honest a +2 is a bad thing no matter what happens.

[Sebastien]

I still adhere to my statement about feet and BLD, but after re-reading last years discussion, which is actually just the same as this year's discussion, I'm again totally against abolishing the +2 rule for misalignments in general.

+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?

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?

[Olivér Perge]

+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?

In my opinion letting everyone not to care about the finishing of the solve and do not forcing them to do a solve properly is not harsh at all. Giving +2 for touching the puzzle while starting the timer is a lot more harsh than that. I clearly don't see why it would result a lot more DNF averages. Does getting more than one +2 in one average that common? And knowing that you will penalized even harder would make you get even less penalty. All in all it would cause better averages, because we would have a lot less +2 situations and many of the solves would end just normally.

That is just my opinion. I tried it at home, I did a couple of average of 12s and when I knew I was getting a DNF for a misalignement, I ended up with averages with no penalties at all. Maybe it is just me but I don't get all nervous when it comes to solved or DNF. Once again, I think the community would get used to it pretty fast.

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?

WCA is a growing association. The number of speedcubers is getting almost doubled in each year. The World Championship will be a competition for the best competitors only, in like 2-4 years. The big competitions are already sponsored by companies such as 7towns and others. Sure, WCA is a non-profit organisation (For the record, FIFA is a non-profit organisation and earned millions of euros on the 2006 World Cup.) but the idea is not to get profit but to get support from big companies. (In other words: we spend all the money we get from them on the competitions, nobody is getting richer by them.)

I don't want speedcubing to become a circus where top cubers are treated as celebritites, but I do want it to become a well recognised, proffesional sport sometime. Of course having fun is really important, but in the future, that I see for this hobby, the top level will have to become much more proffesional than the level right now. Getting rid of the +2 would be a milestone to that, in my opinion.

[Gilles]

Oh, +2 penalty coming back?

You know my opinion, I'm not going to explain the 15 or so good/logical reasons why it should not exist.

WCA should get rid of this bad bad idea, just like they killed the old "pop rule".

[Olivér Perge]

WCA should get rid of this bad bad idea, just like they killed the old "pop rule".

Great example! It was the same idea: make it easier to the competitors. There were hundreds of cubers when these regulations were created, now we have tens of thousands. We need better filters.

[Clement Gallet]

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) )

[Pedro_S]

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) )

Is it? Solved with +2, you mean?

I agree that people sometimes don't care enough about the last move, but there are cases where the cube will turn when hitting the table, and that is not enough to be a DNF, in my opinion.

"Well, it's actually the competitor's fault, because he dropped the cube that way..."

Let's use the Rubik's timer then...