Zitat:Dear All,

As earlier discussed before here: http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=922, I would like to start the discussion again about removing the +2 rule entirely.

I do realize that it sounds a bit harsh for everyone at first, but I think WCA would benefit from it for many reasons:

It would be all DNF or solved state, nothing in between. Everyone would have 45° to miss on a cube puzzle, which in my opinion is enough "safety net" for finishing a puzzle.
This would result a much more simpler judging, score taking and score checking procedure.
It would solve the inconsistency between many puzzles, such as:
Clock does not have a +2 rule.
We give the same amount of penalty for a 2x2x2 solve as we give to a 7x7x7 or a 5x5x5 BLD solve.
People finally would start to finish the solves on feet. (Many of them +2 it directly, because one turn is more time for them than 2 seconds.)
Would solve the case of M2/R2 parity finish on BLD solves.
Also the idea of M2 should be +2 as well would be solved.
Finally, in my opinion people would start to take cubing a lot more seriously, as if I recall correctly there are no other physical sports/activites which have a similar rule to this. It's either you finish the task or do not.

+2 is coming handy in most of the time when people are too lazy to either get a proper cube or to finish a solve correcty. As Lars Vandenbergh demonstrated it brilliantly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDYZ7X0yJDc), it all comes back to the cuber willing to finish a solve or not. Personally I do not want to support laziness and people who don't care about there official solves.

Back then I tried to do a lot of averages with not using +2 (not that I make that mistake too often) and realized that:

It does not slow me down at all. (As per Lars' video.)
Not difficult to do, if you pay attantion.
Actually improved my averages, since I was paying attention a lot more than usual.

I know that cubers would start to protest against it immediately, but this forum is created in purpose to let us decide what the rules should be. When we removed the magic events it seemed harsh as well, but at the end everyone accepted that in peace. Just right now we added the new, solved state rule which relates to this topic strictly: cubers should care about there puzzles/solves or we do not care about their results.

Please consider this topic. Obviously it should not be done in a short time, but in a year or so, it could be easily built in to our regulation. Maybe we could give an announcement beforehead and then announce the next 1st of January officially. Just because it is an old rule, it doesn't mean that it should not be changed, just remember to the extra solve when POP occurs rule. WCA realized it was not fair/useful so removed it.

Kind Regards,
Olivér Perge

Zitat:Good summary Olivér, thank you.

There have been lot's of discussions about this in the past years and I've always been more for keeping it. Today I'm probably more torn between both sides then ever.

I think there is no need to argument for removing the rule anymore, as Olivér brought pretty much every point existing.

So I'd like to point out that there is one comparison he made, that simply doesn't work for us:

Zitat:Finally, in my opinion people would start to take cubing a lot more seriously, as if I recall correctly there are no other physical sports/activites which have a similar rule to this. It's either you finish the task or do not.

The crucial point is: Is there any other timed sport where the competitor is forced to time himself? In other sports the time just gets stopped for you when you have completed your task. in Speedcubing though, you need to make sure to stop the time yourself as fast as possible. Let me quote what Michael Gottlieb just wrote on Speedsolving:

Zitat:I'd also like to note that the whole concept of having to rapidly drop the cube on a surface and slam the hands down on the table only exists in competition and isn't a natural part of the solving process. Competition rules should acknowledge this and seek to minimize its importance in relation to the actual solve.

(14.01.2013, 23:38)Sébastien schrieb: The crucial point is: Is there any other timed sport where the competitor is forced to time himself? In other sports the time just gets stopped for you when you have completed your task. in Speedcubing though, you need to make sure to stop the time yourself as fast as possible. Let me quote what Michael Gottlieb just wrote on Speedsolving:

Zitat: It would solve the inconsistency between many puzzles, such as:
[...]
We give the same amount of penalty for a 2x2x2 solve as we give to a 7x7x7 or a 5x5x5 BLD solve.

Zitat: Also the idea of M2 should be +2 as well would be solved.

(15.01.2013, 16:56)Mr.Cube schrieb: Tut mir leid, aber da bin ich ganz anderer meinung, ich bin dafuer, dass alles unter 90° gar keine Stafe gibt, immerhin ist der cube dann fast gelöst, und es geht ja eigentlich ums lösen, und nicht darum, das ding am schluss perfekt da stehen zu haben.

(15.01.2013, 17:06)tim schrieb:

(15.01.2013, 16:56)Mr.Cube schrieb: Tut mir leid, aber da bin ich ganz anderer meinung, ich bin dafuer, dass alles unter 90° gar keine Stafe gibt, immerhin ist der cube dann fast gelöst, und es geht ja eigentlich ums lösen, und nicht darum, das ding am schluss perfekt da stehen zu haben.

R U ist auch "fast" gelöst.

(15.01.2013, 16:56)Mr.Cube schrieb: Tut mir leid, aber da bin ich ganz anderer meinung, ich bin dafuer, dass alles unter 90° gar keine Stafe gibt, immerhin ist der cube dann fast gelöst, und es geht ja eigentlich ums lösen, und nicht darum, das ding am schluss perfekt da stehen zu haben.
Wahrscheinlich ist das für viele leute schwachsinn, aber es sollte maximal ein +2 gegeben werden, ich will damit sagen, einen DNF average zu haben, nur wegen so etwas ist schwachwinn, es geht ja ums loesen...