The Fairness of the +2 penalty

[Bob]

Suppose you forget to do AUF and you are exactly a U or a U' off. Then if you are a fraction of a degree away from solved it's DNF, but if you are a fraction of a degree towards solved it's +2? That's silly.

Then you should get DNF. You "forgot" to finish the puzzle!

If cubing goes professional, and we had video replays of all solves, we could check this very easily to give penalties completely fairly (i.e. only when the error is the solver's fault). We could also check for cheating on Magic, but that's another issue completely.

Okay, but only if this isn't taken too seriously. When there are 12 solves competing at once, we will have 12 cameras on each of their fingers? I don't think this is ever in the future of cubing.

An alternate idea for the future would be to try to modify the equipment itself so that we don't get misalignments. Suppose you had a thick surface similar to a mattress. Even if a puzzle falls on a corner on a surface like that, it probably won't misalign, so maybe that would fix the accidental +2s, and then you could just award DNFs for misalignments of over 45 degrees. Ideally you'd also never have the situation where dropping the cube causes a pop, because the landing would be so soft that the puzzle would not have enough force subjected to it to pop a piece out, even if it was very loose. This idea wouldn't be suitable for magic-type puzzles, but it might help reduce +2 issues for anything where you do your solve in the air.

I don't think this is practical, especially in the organizer's point of view. I store my timers in my hallway and my mom yells at me for the space they take up. You are talking about adding a significant amount of storage space to what is already quite a bit....even still, though, is this practical?

[StefanPochmann]

I still like the 135 degree idea because 90 degrees is too unreliable.

Suppose you forget to do AUF and you are exactly a U or a U' off. Then if you are a fraction of a degree away from solved it's DNF, but if you are a fraction of a degree towards solved it's +2? That's silly.

Suppose you screw up your final U2 by locking up after 45 degrees so you are exactly 135 degrees off. Then if you are a fraction of a degree away from solved it's DNF, but if you are a fraction of a degree towards solved it's +2? That's silly.

In other words: We have to draw the line *somewhere*, so we'll *always* have this issue (namely at that somewhere).

And like Bob said, if you "forget" that AUF, you really ought to get a DNF. You're just lucky if your cube accidentally twists towards solved enough for you to get a +2 only. But this, too, is a general issue. Think about forgetting the last U turn and then that U turn accidentally happening when you drop the cube, so that it's *perfectly* solved and you get away without any penalty despite clearly not having solved the cube.

An alternate idea for the future would be to try to modify the equipment itself so that we don't get misalignments. Suppose you had a thick surface similar to a mattress.

I'd vote for these solutions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3asSdngzLs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAsOfqCy4A0

[Gilles]

We're speedsolvers, not speedreleasers. Ideally we'd measure the solve and nothing else.

Good point, I agree. Ideally.
And I could add that picking up the cube from starting position makes me waste more time than stopping carefully the timer after cleanly finishing the solve (that's a reason why I would prefer a photocell timer triggered by the cube).

Nevertheless, given the timing device used, I still think making the cuber fully responsible of releasing the puzzle correctly is the best way, for the reasons I explained above. Making the rules even more complicated with strange angles and having neverending talks about arbitrary criteria won't help.

[Gilles]

I can't read the proposal for getting rid of this +2 penalty in the draft. Could WCA explain why it has been rejected?

Could you at least post a comment?
Thanks.

[Ron]

Hi Gilles,

I was extremely busy recently so the first draft actually came too late, too short time before the official release.
Therefore there has not been a good discussion on this subject.
Changing it now would be too short notice.

I propose too seriously look into this for version 2010.

Thanks,

Ron

[Gilles]

Up

[Olivér Perge]

Up

If that means that we should get rid of the +2 penalty, then i totally agree! We should remove it at all.

[Gilles]

Yes.

10e) A puzzle is solved when all face colours are reconstructed and all the parts are aligned within certain limits.

10e1) For each two adjacent parts (for example two parallel adjacent slices of a cube) of the puzzle that are misaligned more than the limit described in Article 10f, these two parts are considered to need one move to be solved (Half Turn Metric).
10e2) If the puzzle is not solved, the solve is ruled DNF.

Maybe there's no need to mention the distance to solved state in 10e1), but it makes rules more consistent, since HTM is defined in another paragraph and used for FM.
(btw, the problem with penalty "fairness" for inner slice misalignement disappears)

[qqwref]

I still disagree; to me it is neither more fair nor more fun to DNF a solve when it has been misaligned by the table/mat and not the competitor. It is holding competitors accountable for a random event, which is not only impossible to affect without wasting time, but which is also biased towards competitors using certain cubes or brands of cubes. It isn't fair to force some competitors to carefully place their cube down while allowing others to drop it as normal; even for me, there are some events on which I often get +2 (such as 2x2, because of the brand of cube I use) and some on which I never accidentally get +2. Even though the worst solve of every average is discarded, I still and always feel like a DNF is far too harsh of a penalty for something that not the fault of the competitor.

The argument of "+2 already makes something the worst solve, so it might as well be DNF" does not work either. I have seen people get multiple +2s in a 2x2 round, and yes, that might raise their average by up to 2 seconds, but if it is in a first round that is still not bad enough to prevent a faster competitor from making the finals. However, what if they were DNFs? How light or loose someone's cube is should not make the difference between a 5-second average and a DNF (last place), if the competitor can still solve it every time.

Besides, I've just been talking about +2 as a misalignment penalty, but what about the penalties for (say) starting the timer with the wrong part of the hand? It's completely ridiculous to turn that into a DNF, especially since there are many young and new competitors who either have not read and understood the regulations in full or who simply do not remember that the timer must be started a particular way. Personally I think the +2 penalty is a great one: it is clearly enough time for someone who realizes the mistake to fix it and continue on, but it does not completely ruin the solve for someone who does not realize the mistake. To me it is a very reasonable amount of time to penalize someone with, whereas a DNF is not reasonable.

[Clement Gallet]

I also agree with removing the +2.

I still disagree; to me it is neither more fair nor more fun to DNF a solve when it has been misaligned by the table/mat and not the competitor.

The table doesn't make a move, you are making it by throwing it onto the table, so you are responsible.

I'm convinced that the puzzle can always be put down slowly without losing time.

[Lucas]

I'm convinced that the puzzle can always be put down slowly without losing time.

I'm sorry, I will have to disagree with you there.

[Olivér Perge]

I'm convinced that the puzzle can always be put down slowly without losing time.

I'm sorry, I will have to disagree with you there.

Technically you are right, but the point is that you are responsible for stopping the timer correctly with the puzzle solved.

A bad puzzle or the surface is not an excuse in my opinion.

[Clement Gallet]

I'm convinced that the puzzle can always be put down slowly without losing time.

I'm sorry, I will have to disagree with you there.

I can start to put it down while still solving it.

[MadsMohr]

Lars has made a video showing the difference in time between dropping the cube and putting it down.

[deadalnix]

Édouard is a good exemple. He's putting the cube on the table during the end of the solve.

[TimS]

Édouard is a good exemple. He's putting the cube on the table during the end of the solve.

Really? According to Rowe he has a tendency of "karate-chopping" his endings.

[Sebastien]

I'm stronlgy against abolishing the +2 penalty. With that rule we have found a good way to penalize little inattentivenesses at the beginning or during the end of a solve. Ruling such a solve DNF seems very exaggerated and not fair to me.

[anders]

I second the suggestion of replacing the +2 s penalty for misalinged cube with dnf. Earlier we had an extra attempt if we popped the cube, and there were quite a lot of popped cubes. Today we do not get an extra attempt and there are fewer pops. We have learned not to pop. We can also learn to end the properly.

[Olivér Perge]

I second the suggestion of replacing the +2 s penalty for misalinged cube with dnf. Earlier we had an extra attempt if we popped the cube, and there were quite a lot of popped cubes. Today we do not get an extra attempt and there are fewer pops. We have learned not to pop. We can also learn to end the properly.

Very good example! I really think it would help the cubers to learn to finish the solves.

[Erik]

I strongly vote AGAINST making +2 solves DNF. The punishment is too hard for something the competitor is not to blame for. With the rules now it's ok to quickly slam the timer and the cube coming along, otherwise you have to pay too much attention on how to place a cube on the table. Speedcubing is not 'place-your-cube-on-the-table-as-quick-and-careful-as-you-can-and-then-stop-the-timer', nor does anyone +2 on purpose, the penalty of +2 is already tough enough, DNF would be ridiculous, everyone can see you solved your puzzle or that it should be solved if you didn't lock/throw on the table and turn/whatever. This rules has been there for a long time and everyone likes the fact that you have a small safety net, if some people like to have DNF instead a +2 they should just tell the judge to write down DNF if they get a +2.