We can all agree that for things like misalignment, there must be some form of a time penalty to make up for it. However, +2 may not be the answer. On puzzles like 5x5 (and 6x6 and 7x7 if they become events), how much do you really think people will care about the penalty? On the other hand, on puzzles like pyraminx, magic, and 2x2, a +2 penalty can destroy an average. On Square-1 and clock, this especially important because since there is no way to remove a time from the average, a +2 will always have a big effect. I propose something like this: +.5 for 2x2, clock, pyraminx, and the magics +2 for 3x3, 3x3 OH and square-1 +4 for 4x4 and megaminx +6 for 5x5 +10 for 6x6 and 7x7 That is of course, just a model of what a system could look like. While I fully understand that making the penalty the same for all events helps to make it easier for judges, should that really have more importance than making a system that doesn't hurt some more than others? -Ethan Rosen

I like the idea of the new system, but I have another idea. How about a percentage of the solve's time is added if there is a penalty. For example, if the percentage is 5%, (The percentage is open to objection; I don't know what a good percentage would be) And someone with a 40.00 second solve gets a penalty, 2 seconds (5%) is added to their time. .5 seconds seems harsh for the magic penalty - the 7th - 100th ranked competitors in the magic are within .5 seconds. -edwardb

Well, with average of 5, the lowest always gets dropped. So if your mis-aligning two times during your average, then you're doing something wrong. And with Magic, if you're being sloppy enough to DNF twice, well, then you lose. I think the bigger issue is that a DNF on Megaminx, Square-1, and other mean of 3 give you a DNF. I think a "Mega-penalty" would be useful for these. Because that's one error in 3 and you're done, whereas for the other ones, it's 2 errors in 5 and you're done.

[quote="emr1028":205ibjjs]We can all agree that for things like misalignment, there must be some form of a time penalty to make up for it.[/quote:205ibjjs] Can we? How about misalignment = not solved = dnf? Since the choice of time penalty always will be somehow arbitrary, why not get rid of it completely, like we did with the pop rule?

[quote="anders":10sh0b8f]Since the choice of time penalty always will be somehow arbitrary, why not get rid of it completely, like we did with the pop rule?[/quote:10sh0b8f] Pops usually happen *during* the solve. Misalignments usually happen *after* the solve (when dropping the puzzle). Making a solving mistake is fundamentally different from a competition procedure mistake that in an ideal world (where we could measure the solve time without dropping the puzzle) wouldn't happen anyway.

[quote="StefanPochmann":3eez76vw][quote="anders":3eez76vw]Since the choice of time penalty always will be somehow arbitrary, why not get rid of it completely, like we did with the pop rule?[/quote:3eez76vw] Pops usually happen *during* the solve. Misalignments usually happen *after* the solve (when dropping the puzzle). Making a solving mistake is fundamentally different from a competition procedure mistake that in an ideal world (where we could measure the solve time without dropping the puzzle) wouldn't happen anyway.[/quote:3eez76vw] I would say that most misalignment do occur *during* the solve, at the very last step when the competitor decides how well (s)he wants to align the cube before dropping it and stopping the timer. Somtimes (most often?), there is a +2 s penalty misaligment alredy when the cube is dropped. Sometimes, a small misalignment results in a +2 s penalty misalignment when dropping the cube. (And to be complete, sometimes a +2 s penalty misalignment results in a non-penalised misaligment when dropping the cube, thus using the table for the last move...) If the cuber has a loose cube, (s)he should be aware of this and drop the cube more carefully at the end. I think that the comparison with the pop rule is valid. People have learned not to pop the cube; people can also learn to align the cube sufficiently at the end and drop it sufficiently carefully. I appreciate your comment about an ideal world. Do you think that we shouold have the +2 s rule also in the ideal world?

I think misalignments should be all right if the face is less than 10 degrees misaligned relative to the rest of the cube. I don't know how well this would work in practice, but ideally it would be nice. My two cents, Fractangle

[quote="Fractangle":3loeczbi]I think misalignments should be all right if the face is less than 10 degrees misaligned relative to the rest of the cube. I don't know how well this would work in practice, but ideally it would be nice. [/quote:3loeczbi] You realize that the current regulations allow up to a 45 degree misalignment, right? Or are you just trying to post to get your "free" cube referral link out as much as possible? Wasn't there some rule on the forum that people had to use their real name at some point?

[quote="anders":19n2pw5m][quote="emr1028":19n2pw5m]We can all agree that for things like misalignment, there must be some form of a time penalty to make up for it.[/quote:19n2pw5m] Can we? How about misalignment = not solved = dnf? Since the choice of time penalty always will be somehow arbitrary, why not get rid of it completely, like we did with the pop rule?[/quote:19n2pw5m] My vote.

I agree with making the time shorter for simpler puzzles, but larger puzzles shouldn't be that big of a penalty.

[quote="edwardb":3qx410m3]How about a percentage of the solve's time is added if there is a penalty.[/quote:3qx410m3] That just makes things too complicated. As for Ethan's idea, I dont really think this is necessary. The difference of +2 or +4 in 4x4 will not affect many people at all. I say just keep +2 as the universal penalty.

The spirit of the penalty for a misalignement is to not DNF a solve because the last move was not applied perfectly, or because the puzzle landed on the surface in a way the misalignement of a side increased. It's the same for all puzzle, whatever their size. (Another option would be to make the competitor finish the solve afterwards and add the extra time needed to fix the misalignement, but it would not be very easy to judge.) My point is, it is normal that a penalty for misalignement is the same for all puzzles. Why would you want to set a 10 second penalty for 6^3 ?!? Anders, I wonder why it seems we are the only ones who think we could do without this penalty? DNF would be fine in my opinion. For 6^3, don't tell me you can't afford to waste .3 second to make sure the cube is solved when you don't feel it well. For 2^3, if you get a penalty, the solve already is your worst in the average. And if you get a second penalty, you know you're not on the podium anyway. I know Ron thinks penalties are a good thing. He's probably right, given the lack of discipline in cube competitions. But I still can't understand why a guy who's a genius at solving puzzles and executing impossible fingertricks, could not follow the simple and strict rule that says a puzzle must be clearly solved before stopping the timer.

I am totally AGAINST the +0.5 on 2x2. The goal of the penalty is to force the competitor to solve the cube, and to make him being careful of the slice alignement at the end of the solve. With +0.5 on 2x2, I would not care anymore about alignement and stop the timer after the CLL. That has no sense. My opinion about that is that if you let the cube down and then take it back, do one move, and stop the timer, you will lose approx. 2 sec. That's quite the same for all the puzzles. Why do you want a penalty that does not give penalty ? If you can not solve correctly 2 cubes (2x2 or 3x3) out of 5, I don't see how you could deserve to be on the podium. Even if you are the best. The penalty must not consider which puzzle it is but just the time it would approx. take to correct the mistake. And I would even prefer stronger penalties. Like +4 on all the puzzles. Or even DNF.

I would not mind having a DNF instead of a penalty. You can learn how to put down your cube softly without loosing time, so you can avoid any extra unwanted turn, and maybe it would avoid people smashing the stackmat. Also it would make rules a little shorter. +2 is fine also.

The problem I can see about changing these penalty rules is that it creates an entirely different standard for times as compared to the simple +2 penalty. If we change the regulations for penalties now, then I think we should change the times of every solve in the past to reflect these penalty changes. The goal of the WCA is to connect cubers around the world so that cubers can see how they fare against the rest of the world, but I believe that changing these penalty rules removes some of that comparability. Rules and regulations have an impact upon how we solve the cube, in this case, how much care we put into avoiding misalignment, and if we change this now, then each event will require a slightly different approach.

[quote="Edouard Chambon":3rsjzx78]I am totally AGAINST the +0.5 on 2x2. The goal of the penalty is to force the competitor to solve the cube, and to make him being careful of the slice alignement at the end of the solve. With +0.5 on 2x2, I would not care anymore about alignement and stop the timer after the CLL. That has no sense. My opinion about that is that if you let the cube down and then take it back, do one move, and stop the timer, you will lose approx. 2 sec. That's quite the same for all the puzzles. Why do you want a penalty that does not give penalty ? If you can not solve correctly 2 cubes (2x2 or 3x3) out of 5, I don't see how you could deserve to be on the podium. Even if you are the best. The penalty must not consider which puzzle it is but just the time it would approx. take to correct the mistake. And I would even prefer stronger penalties. Like +4 on all the puzzles. Or even DNF.[/quote:3rsjzx78] Copy that, on 2x2 you just have to be very carefull with your last move, if you don't do that it's your own fault. It'd be bad to ecourage people not caring about the last move. Any penalty less than 2 sec is pointless. I'm sure the WCA would rather make all +2's DNF than to give people some slack.

I vote for that we should abandon the +2 s penalty and award dnf instead. This is consistent with a more strict (and in my opinion a more professional) ruling, and is a similar change in rules as removing the old pop rule that awarded the competitor a new trial if popped. /Anders

[quote="anders":rzpjt339]I vote for that we should abandon the +2 s penalty and award dnf instead. This is consistent with a more strict (and in my opinion a more professional) ruling, and is a similar change in rules as removing the old pop rule that awarded the competitor a new trial if popped. /Anders[/quote:rzpjt339] Why, though? I understand that you don't want people to leave a cube that is one move off, but I have *many* times had a cube land and misalign enough to get a +2 - when it was completely solved when it left my hand. In fact for my 2x2 it used to misalign almost every time I dropped it from more than 6 inches, so I had to carefully lay it down and then stop the timer afterwards. This didn't happen in practice because the puzzle only bounces that much on the mat, you see, and I usually practice on a desk. So it's not really my fault that the puzzle is getting misaligned, and I can't correct the way I put down the puzzle until it happens. I think it would be unfair to give me a DNF just because I didn't know that my cube would misalign when it hit a mat after I dropped it. Incidentally, I think an M slice off (or r on a big cube) should be +2, not DNF. The reasoning is the same. I think in all situations where a slice move is misaligned, it was executed as one move, so it should be treated as such.

Why? Well, I think that cube should be solved, and not almost solved. And I think that the same reasoning that gave the removal of the old pop rule also can be applied here. Some people were against that change with a similar reasoning as yours. But people learned not to pop. It is the same with misaliged cube. If dnf is awarded instead of +2 s, people with loose cubes will take more care at the end of the solve (as people today are more careful in general with pop-prone cubes). Another unfortunate situation: During one of my solves at WC 2007, a cubie popped when I dropped the cube and stopped the timer. The cube was unambigious solved (and well-aligned!) but was lacking an edge piece. Of course, I was correcly awarded an dnf. Even with a penalty, it would have been my best time [quote="qqwref":19e5n4gv]Incidentally, I think an M slice off (or r on a big cube) should be +2, not DNF. The reasoning is the same. I think in all situations where a slice move is misaligned, it was executed as one move, so it should be treated as such.[/quote:19e5n4gv] This was discussed last year when it was introduced. As a corners-first guy, I would be happy if a misaliged slice is awarded a penalty instead of dnf. This happens to me occasionally, in particular in OH-solving. On the other hand, I appreciate that we only have one definition of a move in the regulations. Since fewest moves use HTM, it is also approprate to use HTM when discussing the solved state of a cube in speedcubing. /Anders

I agree with you, Anders. No +2 anymore. Cube solved or cube not solved. ==> More Simple regulations. It's not that difficult to stop the timer while being sure the cube is solved. And for BLD, I know some cubers who know that unset up the last move would take more than 2 sec (to remember correctly) so they don't do it and stop the timer, knowing they will get a +2. That's very bad.

[quote="anders":2a6omy8m]As a corners-first guy, I would be happy if a misaliged slice is awarded a penalty instead of dnf. This happens to me occasionally, in particular in OH-solving. On the other hand, I appreciate that we only have one definition of a move in the regulations. Since fewest moves use HTM, it is also approprate to use HTM when discussing the solved state of a cube in speedcubing. [/quote:2a6omy8m] As another corners first guy I think it should be changed for both. A slice move is definitely only one move, counting it as two is ridiculous.

Currently the regulations allow for the face to be 45 degrees off. Are you all claiming that even 0.000000001 degree off is now a DNF? Who is going to judge that? We would need extremely expensive equipment to work that out. What a silly proposal.

[quote="Dene":2y9c827s]Are you all claiming that even 0.000000001 degree off is now a DNF?[/quote:2y9c827s] No.

Oops silly me I missed the point completely. Sorry.

[quote="qqwref":2rnzf7w9]Incidentally, I think an M slice off (or r on a big cube) should be +2, not DNF. The reasoning is the same. I think in all situations where a slice move is misaligned, it was executed as one move, so it should be treated as such.[/quote:2rnzf7w9] [b:2rnzf7w9][u:2rnzf7w9]The reasons for "Slice moves counted as 2 moves"[/u:2rnzf7w9][/b:2rnzf7w9] This question has been discussed a lot in the past years and it is a very legitimate question (I personnally "think slice" and often perform such moves physically as one move). Maybe it is necessary to explain again the reasons why slice moves are counted as 2 moves as if they do not exist. It is important to know what a move is for different purpose: 1) [u:2rnzf7w9]Solved state and penalties[/u:2rnzf7w9]. - Misalignement threshold of puzzle parts beyond which at least a move is considered. - Since we got "+2 penalty" for "1 move away from solved state" and "DNF" for "2 moves away or more", it is important to know what falls into the "1 move" category. 2) [u:2rnzf7w9]"Fewest moves"[/u:2rnzf7w9]. Using the "Half Turn Metric" ("Half turn"? What a bad name!) is an elegant solution to our problems. Take any twisty puzzle, it basically is: - [u:2rnzf7w9]a volume[/u:2rnzf7w9], - [u:2rnzf7w9]cut planes[/u:2rnzf7w9] that make parts of the volume free to move. This is my vision of twisty puzzles. WCA won't ask you to change your way of considering puzzles, but what's interesting for WCA is: - it is [u:2rnzf7w9]easier[/u:2rnzf7w9] to see when the puzzle is "one move away" from solved state, especially on big cubes, just focus on a cut plane, - it is [u:2rnzf7w9]generic[/u:2rnzf7w9] (same rule for any twisty puzzles, you only need to set specific limits in article 10f), - it is [u:2rnzf7w9]consistent[/u:2rnzf7w9] (same rule for penalties and "fewest moves"). I can understand you don't care about genericity and consistency (by the way, is UD' a slice move even on Megaminx?) because you focus on speed cubing and penalties. But [u:2rnzf7w9]if you want to count slice moves as 1 move only[/u:2rnzf7w9], I can show you pictures where the cube state is [u:2rnzf7w9]impossible to judge[/u:2rnzf7w9]. [size=85:2rnzf7w9]Take a 7x7x7 and apply an "E" move that rotates together layers 2-3-4-5-6. When looking at the resulting cube, if it was a clean move, you can visually say there's only 1 move applied. But penalty cases in such circumstances rarely are that clean. Firstly, you would have to make groups of compatible adjacent layers. Then, decide if there's only a group misaligned between two others that are aligned. If, on your 7x7x7, layers 2-3-4-5-6 are vaguely aligned, between layers 1-7 very loosely aligned, you can't decide if it's a slice move. It's easier to see on a 3x3x3 I admit, but I pretend you can only compare correctly two adjacent parallel layers.[/size:2rnzf7w9] ------------------------------ [b:2rnzf7w9][u:2rnzf7w9]No more penalties for misalignments![/u:2rnzf7w9][/b:2rnzf7w9] Now, we would not be talking about this if the penalty for misalignment did not exist. In my opinion, this penalty is a mistake and bloat, like the extra attempt for pop rule was. When you don't cleanly finish your solve, you deserve a DNF, just like when you stop the timer with a popped piece. With puzzles that take long, you can afford a check. On fast puzzles, well, it's part of the dexterity challenge! And if your 2x2x2 get misaligned everytime you drop it on the table, because it's too loose and you put too much lubricant inside, blame yourself. You may consider it would be a bit crual. I think cubers now are mature enough to accept it. Rules would be more simple, and easier for judges (Bilbao...). No more questions like: - Is it fair to have +2 for all puzzles? - Why don't you allow slice moves? - Why is U2 not DNF? It's not just a slight misalignement, the cube is clearly missing a full big move! - Why is a cube lacking (U/2)R2 (orthogonal slices) only a penalty case? And no need to define a metric for speed cubing anymore. The only metric is time, because it is speed cubing, not "fewest moves". [color=#FF0000:2rnzf7w9]I can't read the proposal for getting rid of this +2 penalty in the draft. Could WCA explain why it has been rejected?[/color:2rnzf7w9] Gilles.

I wouldn't mind getting rid of the +2 penalty altogether. The last turn is as much of a turn as every other turn. Sure, a puzzle that is U away is obviously solved, but so is a puzzle that is U D. And, one might argue, one that is U R (if you know how to resolve it, that is). And so on and so forth. Where do you draw the line? 1 move is arbitrary. 0 moves is absolute. I agree that in most cases a slice move is one move, and if the penalty remains I would like to see slice turns included under the +2 category. Still, a more effective penalty is DNF. Set your puzzle down accurately and there's no problem.

[quote="blade740":1hkmyoqn]The last turn is as much of a turn as every other turn.[/quote:1hkmyoqn] The regulation is not there to allow sloppiness, it's there to compensate for puzzles misaligning after they have been solved. If you make a wrong turn during a solve, you are holding it, and have a chance to see it and correct it. After you release a cube, it is beyond your control. At Nationals '08, my only +2 on 2x2x2 as on a solve where I released the cube quite accurately, and it bounced to do an L' turn. It was disappointing, but I had to accept that it was a turn off. A larger penalty might simply be annoying, but that solve was definitely not a "Did Not Finish." I would be in favor of disallowing a +2 for BLD, considering the accuracy nature of the event. However, for speedsolve, I think it is too big a change to remove the +2 after the first version of the 2009 regulations; there has not been time for discussion under the supposition that it might actually be removed.

[quote="Edouard Chambon":2rh554un]It's not that difficult to stop the timer while being sure the cube is solved. And for BLD, I know some cubers who know that unset up the last move would take more than 2 sec (to remember correctly) so they don't do it and stop the timer, knowing they will get a +2.[/quote:2rh554un] But I don't want +2 for people who don't do AUF on purpose, I want +2 for the misalignment. It is of course impossible to get a U2 by just dropping the cube (so maybe it should be qtm, round to the nearest face and if it is more than one quarter move off it is DNF), but getting one layer misaligned is quite possible, and even if you don't think so it is still easy to see how a layer could be more than 45 degrees misaligned. I think it is wrong to give out a DNF on a cube that was very clearly solved when the cuber released it.

[quote="qqwref":2q74cow0]It is of course impossible to get a U2 by just dropping the cube (so maybe it should be qtm, round to the nearest face and if it is more than one quarter move off it is DNF), but getting one layer misaligned is quite possible, and even if you don't think so it is still easy to see how a layer could be more than 45 degrees misaligned.[/quote:2q74cow0] Perhaps, then, a compromise (and transition to a more strict policy in which misalignments are disqualified?) could be something like the following: Regulation) More than 45 degrees is +2 (same as 2008), but more than 135 degrees is DNF It should not be possible (or at least very very unlikely) for the cube to misalign more than 135 degrees when hitting the surface.

[quote="Gilles":7k5g4c2m] [size=85:7k5g4c2m]Take a 7x7x7 and apply an "E" move that rotates together layers 2-3-4-5-6. When looking at the resulting cube, if it was a clean move, you can visually say there's only 1 move applied. But penalty cases in such circumstances rarely are that clean. Firstly, you would have to make groups of compatible adjacent layers. Then, decide if there's only a group misaligned between two others that are aligned. If, on your 7x7x7, layers 2-3-4-5-6 are vaguely aligned, between layers 1-7 very loosely aligned, you can't decide if it's a slice move. [/size:7k5g4c2m] [/quote:7k5g4c2m] Yes it is possible to decide. Count the number of "big slices" on the cube. A big slice is a group of layers where any two adjacent layers are misaligned by less than 45 degrees, and where any layer of the cube adjacent to one of them but outside the big slice is misaligned by more. Only one big slice: cube solved, OK Two big slices: cube off by one move, +2. Three big slices, and the layers of the two extreme ones which are closest to each other misaligned by less than 45 degrees: off by one slice move, +2. All other cases: DNF. I don't see any ambiguity in that. And the UD' slice move on megaminx is a non-problem. I've never seen anybody use such a move, not even people like me which use it intensively on the cube, and dodecahedrons off by UD' do not happen at all.

[quote="Bob":3cuyntt1]More than 45 degrees is +2 (same as 2008), but more than 135 degrees is DNF It should not be possible (or at least very very unlikely) for the cube to misalign more than 135 degrees when hitting the surface.[/quote:3cuyntt1] 90 degrees would be easier. 2xPi/N, with N=3, 4 or 5. (Would forbid the orthogonal slices problem too) [quote="TMOY":3cuyntt1] Yes it is possible to decide. ... Three big slices, and the layers of the two extreme ones which are closest to each other misaligned by less than 45 degrees: off by one slice move, +2. (*) ... And the UD' slice move on megaminx is a non-problem.(**)[/quote:3cuyntt1] I think you didn't get my points. Let's talk next time we meet. (*) That's the problem, you can't reliably compare distant parts. (**) You are being too practical. It's not a problem in competitions, but it shows that we can "think slice" with cubes because of the special and convenient nature of cube puzzles. It is not a generic feature.

[quote="Lucas":1nxr1e51]After you release a cube, it is beyond your control.[/quote:1nxr1e51] Well, then you're releasing it wrong.

[quote="BryanLogan":237yg49z][quote="Lucas":237yg49z]After you release a cube, it is beyond your control.[/quote:237yg49z] Well, then you're releasing it wrong.[/quote:237yg49z] I would like to see you release a cube "correctly," so that you still have control after you are no longer touching it. I am in favor of the "45-135" rule or even the "45-90" rule, as it discourages excessive sloppiness while maintaining the idea of practical forgiveness instead of a harsh boundary.

[quote="Lucas":6ouybwdp]I would like to see you release a cube "correctly," so that you still have control after you are no longer touching it. [/quote:6ouybwdp] I do it by placing it on the table, rather than dropping it. If you drop it, you take the risk of DNF. My Square-1 can actually get two turns away from the solved state if I drop it. People would still be allowed to drop it if they want to, but they're taking a risk.

[quote="BryanLogan":2ajfp6bx]I do it by placing it on the table, rather than dropping it.[/quote:2ajfp6bx] Yeah, but for the fast people the fraction of a second that this might cost them matters. We're speedsolvers, not speedreleasers. Ideally we'd measure the solve and nothing else. The +2 penalty let's us get closer to the ideal.

[quote="StefanPochmann":2cbh4q7r][quote="BryanLogan":2cbh4q7r]I do it by placing it on the table, rather than dropping it.[/quote:2cbh4q7r] Yeah, but for the fast people the fraction of a second that this might cost them matters. We're speedsolvers, not speedreleasers. Ideally we'd measure the solve and nothing else.[/quote:2cbh4q7r] Yes, that's ideal, but it's never going to happen. Again, this is about control. Just like having slopping turns could result in a pop (and a bad time), having a sloppy release could return in a turn and a bad time. When the "No extra solve for a pop" went into effect, do you think people tried to hone their turning skills to avoid pops, even though it cost them a fraction of a second? I'm guessing if you didn't have the +2 rule, that people would practice more on their release. But I'm guessing in reality, people will simply continue to drop, and if they get a DNF because of a turn, then simply be cautious on the remain solves.

[quote="BryanLogan":mnp74uw8]Just like having slopping turns could result in a pop (and a bad time)[/quote:mnp74uw8] Fault of the [u:mnp74uw8]cuber[/u:mnp74uw8]. [quote="BryanLogan":mnp74uw8]having a sloppy release could return in a turn and a bad time.[/quote:mnp74uw8] Fault of the [u:mnp74uw8]procedure[/u:mnp74uw8].

[quote="Gilles":3dzm5h8c][quote="Bob":3dzm5h8c]More than 45 degrees is +2 (same as 2008), but more than 135 degrees is DNF It should not be possible (or at least very very unlikely) for the cube to misalign more than 135 degrees when hitting the surface.[/quote:3dzm5h8c] 90 degrees would be easier. 2xPi/N, with N=3, 4 or 5. (Would forbid the orthogonal slices problem too)[/quote:3dzm5h8c] Such as < 90 = Ok, >90 = DNF? (for a cube, here. Of course I am speaking too generally and would apply the same logic to all twisty puzzles)

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. We also have to think about the case where it is a U' off and then something like 20 degrees of R. Normally this would be one move off so +2. But it is a "total" of 110 degrees off, so is it a DNF now? It's confusing. But I've never seen an accidental misalignment of significantly over 90 degrees. One radical proposal might be to check the puzzle when it was last touched by the competitor. This would require the judge to look very carefully, but it would (a) give no penalty for accidental misalignment, since you can visually verify that the puzzle was solved before it hit the table, and (b) give a penalty for people not doing AUF on purpose, since you can tell whether the misalignment was there before it hit the table or not. 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. 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.

[quote="StefanPochmann":jypd6asv][quote="BryanLogan":jypd6asv]Just like having slopping turns could result in a pop (and a bad time)[/quote:jypd6asv] Fault of the [u:jypd6asv]cuber[/u:jypd6asv]. [quote="BryanLogan":jypd6asv]having a sloppy release could return in a turn and a bad time.[/quote:jypd6asv] Fault of the [u:jypd6asv]procedure[/u:jypd6asv].[/quote:jypd6asv] Yes, but many sports measure things other then the "main" goal. Swimming is a combination of swimming fast, but also swimming in a straight line, turning around, and jumping off the blocks. I'm guessing the jumping would be similar to the dropping the cube. It's not the main goal of the sport, but it can cause you to DNF if you don't do it properly, and it also can mean the difference of precious time.

[quote="qqwref":1muloxak][b:1muloxak]Suppose you forget to do AUF[/b:1muloxak] 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.[/quote:1muloxak] Then you should get DNF. You "forgot" to finish the puzzle! [quote="qqwref":1muloxak]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.[/quote:1muloxak] 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. [quote="qqwref":1muloxak]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.[/quote:1muloxak] 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?

[quote="qqwref":e449sy1s]I still like the 135 degree idea because 90 degrees is too unreliable.[/quote:e449sy1s] [quote="qqwref":e449sy1s]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.[/quote:e449sy1s] 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. [quote="qqwref":e449sy1s]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.[/quote:e449sy1s] I'd vote for these solutions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3asSdngzLs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAsOfqCy4A0

[quote="StefanPochmann":iv7gnakj]We're speedsolvers, not speedreleasers. Ideally we'd measure the solve and nothing else.[/quote:iv7gnakj] 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.

[quote="Gilles":3sxx3o09] [color=#FF0000:3sxx3o09]I can't read the proposal for getting rid of this +2 penalty in the draft. Could WCA explain why it has been rejected?[/color:3sxx3o09][/quote:3sxx3o09] Could you at least post a comment? Thanks.

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

Up

[quote="Gilles":316iwv8q]Up[/quote:316iwv8q] If that means that we should get rid of the +2 penalty, then i totally agree! We should remove it at all.

Yes. [quote:2c2mzumy][i:2c2mzumy]10e) [b:2c2mzumy]A puzzle is solved[/b:2c2mzumy] when [b:2c2mzumy]all face colours are reconstructed[/b:2c2mzumy] and all the parts are [b:2c2mzumy]aligned within certain limits[/b:2c2mzumy]. [list:2c2mzumy]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) [b:2c2mzumy]If the puzzle is not solved, the solve is ruled DNF.[/b:2c2mzumy][/list:u:2c2mzumy][/i:2c2mzumy][/quote:2c2mzumy] 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)

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.

I also agree with removing the +2. [quote="qqwref":is94hju8]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.[/quote:is94hju8] 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.

[quote="Clement Gallet":2a79si9p]I'm convinced that the puzzle can always be put down [b:2a79si9p]slowly[/b:2a79si9p] without [b:2a79si9p]losing time[/b:2a79si9p].[/quote:2a79si9p] I'm sorry, I will have to disagree with you there.

[quote="Lucas":a748zgw9][quote="Clement Gallet":a748zgw9]I'm convinced that the puzzle can always be put down [b:a748zgw9]slowly[/b:a748zgw9] without [b:a748zgw9]losing time[/b:a748zgw9].[/quote:a748zgw9] I'm sorry, I will have to disagree with you there.[/quote:a748zgw9] 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.

[quote="Lucas":kvvo340c][quote="Clement Gallet":kvvo340c]I'm convinced that the puzzle can always be put down [b:kvvo340c]slowly[/b:kvvo340c] without [b:kvvo340c]losing time[/b:kvvo340c].[/quote:kvvo340c] I'm sorry, I will have to disagree with you there.[/quote:kvvo340c] I can start to put it down while still solving it.

Lars has made a [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDYZ7X0yJDc:ioji70yj]video[/url:ioji70yj] showing the difference in time between dropping the cube and putting it down.

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

[quote="deadalnix":3etpw0vb]Édouard is a good exemple. He's putting the cube on the table during the end of the solve.[/quote:3etpw0vb] Really? According to Rowe he has a tendency of "karate-chopping" his endings.

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.

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.

[quote="anders":1rw4cx4e]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.[/quote:1rw4cx4e] Very good example! I really think it would help the cubers to learn to finish the solves.

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.

I don't see a need to change this regulation. It has been in place for a long time and has worked so far. Perhaps if people found some way to abuse the +2 rule to gain an advantage then I could understand getting rid of it.

[quote="DavidWoner":2zfgbrif]I don't see a need to change this regulation. It has been in place for a long time and has worked so far. Perhaps if people found some way to abuse the +2 rule to gain an advantage then I could understand getting rid of it.[/quote:2zfgbrif] It could be faster to take the +2 than to trace back a setup move when doing BLD.

[quote="MadsMohr":3rzw4e55][quote="DavidWoner":3rzw4e55]I don't see a need to change this regulation. It has been in place for a long time and has worked so far. Perhaps if people found some way to abuse the +2 rule to gain an advantage then I could understand getting rid of it.[/quote:3rzw4e55] It could be faster to take the +2 than to trace back a setup move when doing BLD.[/quote:3rzw4e55] I have used it in feetsolving before. That's only because I suck at feetsolving though :p

[quote="DanCohen":yvjnya8j][quote="MadsMohr":yvjnya8j][quote="DavidWoner":yvjnya8j]I don't see a need to change this regulation. It has been in place for a long time and has worked so far. Perhaps if people found some way to abuse the +2 rule to gain an advantage then I could understand getting rid of it.[/quote:yvjnya8j] It could be faster to take the +2 than to trace back a setup move when doing BLD.[/quote:yvjnya8j] I have used it in feetsolving before. That's only because I suck at feetsolving though :p[/quote:yvjnya8j] Not really, Mads...if it's a one move setup, it's surely faster to just do the move...

[quote="Pedro_S":2ax203rz]Not really, Mads...if it's a one move setup, it's surely faster to just do the move...[/quote:2ax203rz] If you remember which move to make. If you have doubt then it might be faster to just stop the time in stead of performing backtracking.

[quote="MadsMohr":3il1uyeg][quote="Pedro_S":3il1uyeg]Not really, Mads...if it's a one move setup, it's surely faster to just do the move...[/quote:3il1uyeg] If you remember which move to make. If you have doubt then it might be faster to just stop the time in stead of performing backtracking.[/quote:3il1uyeg] I thought that was pretty obvious that's what you meant. Also Dan's feet example is good too. It's ridicolous that you can "finish" your cube with a move off on purpose and still get a legal time. For me the point is that if you have a move left, the cube is not solved literally. Look at a cube which has a U2 and a 44° turn left on the R side (for example). Does that look like a solved cube? In my opinion it doesn't. [quote="Erik":3il1uyeg]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. [/quote:3il1uyeg] Is it really that hard to stop the timer and place the cube with no problem? Every other +2 is mostly because of a rush on PLL. If you would finish it safer, you would lose 0.1-0.2 seconds approximately. If you +2 it, you lose 2 seconds. I think it worth stop it a bit more carefully. [quote="Erik":3il1uyeg]This rules has been there for a long time and everyone likes the fact that [b:3il1uyeg]you have a small safety net[/b:3il1uyeg], 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.[/quote:3il1uyeg] We would still have 45°.

[quote="MadsMohr":3huu9cou] If you remember which move to make. If you have doubt then it might be faster to just stop the time in stead of performing backtracking.[/quote:3huu9cou] At BLD I always remember which pieces I am currently solving. If the setup is only one move, then there's no possible ambiguity and it definitely takes me less than 2 seconds to perform it.

[quote="TMOY":hj95o1r5][quote="MadsMohr":hj95o1r5] If you remember which move to make. If you have doubt then it might be faster to just stop the time in stead of performing backtracking.[/quote:hj95o1r5] At BLD I always remember which pieces I am currently solving. If the setup is only one move, then there's no possible ambiguity and it definitely takes me less than 2 seconds to perform it.[/quote:hj95o1r5] For the M2 method, If you forgot if you are an M2 off or not, doing an R2 will result in a +2 regardless of where the slice is, instead of the solve being a DNF because its a slice move off.

[quote="DanCohen":3tky2qwg]For the M2 method, If you forgot if you are an M2 off or not, doing an R2 will result in a +2 regardless of where the slice is, instead of the solve being a DNF because its a slice move off.[/quote:3tky2qwg] Guillain is currently using this for multiblind.

[quote="Erik":1xg8zyeh]The punishment is too hard for something the competitor is not to blame for.[/quote:1xg8zyeh] Whose to blame them ? [quote="Erik":1xg8zyeh]Speedcubing is not 'place-your-cube-on-the-table-as-quick-and-careful-as-you-can-and-then-stop-the-timer'[/quote:1xg8zyeh] Nor it's 'take-your-puzzle-as-quickly-as-you-can', but magic solving is a good part of it. [quote="Erik":1xg8zyeh]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[/quote:1xg8zyeh] It could be also applied to (U R) from solved.

You are exaggerating with your RU Clement.

The more I think about removing the +2 penalty the more I'm in favor of it. Pro/con: [list:1at3m62f] [*:1at3m62f]More simple procedure for writing down scores.[/*:m:1at3m62f] [*:1at3m62f]More fair definition of what is considered a solved puzzle. (The M-slice debate)[/*:m:1at3m62f] [*:1at3m62f]No more gaming the rules in BLD.[/*:m:1at3m62f] [*:1at3m62f]Common rules, there is no +2 penalty for forgetting the last move in fewest moves.[/*:m:1at3m62f][/list:u:1at3m62f] [list:1at3m62f] [*:1at3m62f]More DNF averages/means.[/*:m:1at3m62f] [*:1at3m62f]More tough decisions for judges.[/*:m:1at3m62f][/list:u:1at3m62f]

[quote="MadsMohr":zhgd3zxk]Common rules, there is no +2 penalty for forgetting the last move in fewest moves.[/quote:zhgd3zxk] There is no +2 in FMC. As far as I know if you are one move off, that's a DNF.

[quote="Olivér Perge":28vfpuuo][quote="MadsMohr":28vfpuuo]Common rules, there is no +2 penalty for forgetting the last move in fewest moves.[/quote:28vfpuuo] There is no +2 in FMC. As far as I know if you are one move off, that's a DNF.[/quote:28vfpuuo] Yeah, that was the point i tried to make. The puzzle is just as solved as +2 during a speedsolve. But it's counted as a DNF. Removing the +2 then the puzzle is either solved or not solved in all events. Not "almost" solved with a penalty but only for certain events.

[quote="MadsMohr":27wyv9ss][quote="Olivér Perge":27wyv9ss][quote="MadsMohr":27wyv9ss]Common rules, there is no +2 penalty for forgetting the last move in fewest moves.[/quote:27wyv9ss] There is no +2 in FMC. As far as I know if you are one move off, that's a DNF.[/quote:27wyv9ss] Yeah, that was the point i tried to make. The puzzle is just as solved as +2 during a speedsolve. But it's counted as a DNF. Removing the +2 then the puzzle is either solved or not solved in all events. Not "almost" solved with a penalty but only for certain events.[/quote:27wyv9ss] Sorry, my bad! I misunderstood your post. Yes, nice point, in FMC we have solved cube or nothing.

[quote="MadsMohr":2cclbsc6]Common rules, there is no +2 penalty for forgetting the last move in fewest moves.[/quote:2cclbsc6] Even if the regulations curiously(*) say "E1) Regulations are as described in Article A (Speed Solving)", Fewest-Moves has absolutely nothing to do with Speedsolving. Stackmat... misalignement... penalties... solving protocol... objective... everything is different. In Fewest-Moves, there's no cube, just a solution written down on a paper. (*) Should be changed.

[quote="Ron":1tcwn0tw]I propose too seriously look into this for version 2010.[/quote:1tcwn0tw] Ok, see you in 2011.

[quote="MadsMohr":2bplny92] [*]Common rules, there is no +2 penalty for forgetting the last move in fewest moves.[/list] [/quote:2bplny92] If you compare a penalty for speedcubing to a penalty for fewest moves then you probably didn't understand why +2 was made in the first place... also the point that you get rid of the M2 discussion is a really weird argument, that discussion is only about what is considered to be a move or not, you can't just make blunt rules to make things more simple. I'm glad +2 isn't deleted in 2010 and I hope like in all years before that this small group of people who are in favor of deleting +2 will fail again and again and again. (sadly most of them are posting here, I know most people are in favor of keeping the +2 rule but sadly the members on this forum is a very bad representation of the 'average speedcuber') Off topic: @Gilles: how come you are not competing anymore in competitions? If you have time to post here you can also come to competitions? *hope* it's always cool to see you and (and during cubing) you using your cool method!

Off topic: Hi Erik, didn't you see I took my cube out of the dust last week end? http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/res ... ults=1#333 On topic: I had two +2 penalties for misalignment that should have been DNF!

Erik, I don't care why the penalty was introduced. I care about why we should keep or remove it. But I do like to know anyway. My argument about M2 is imho still valid. The main reason for redefining how many moves a M-slice move count as seemed to be that it punished M-slice users more. But if +2 is removed then there would be no bias. If it's 1 move away from being solved then it's not solved. I like that +2 gives an extra chance to get an average even if you are not turning that precise or forget to AUF. Mostly because I do mistakes like that. If +2 are removed then I just would have to practice my precision and that would really be good for me in the long run.