Hi! Now u are just being platonistic. I never said that i supported what u "suggest" now. If ppl pop every solve they won't ever be able to get 3/4/5 non-popping solves. Also i asked to hear any reason that current rule hasn't worked. My view here is more aristotelic ;-)
I already explained why popping is not (solely) the fault of the cuber. And why would i need to elaborate on that anyway. U feel that no-pop is the way to go and i feel it's wrong. U are on the WCA board and i'm not. I will accept whatever rules you come upp with as long as they are fair and not overly strict. No-popping is a borderline case where i do feel the current regulations are good. About twisting centers on larger cubes i feel the current rules/practice is not good. One does NOT have full control over the centers if they want to twist or not. Why be punished when all cubies are in place and the cube is solved? As i said earlier there is NO ambiguity whether the cube is solved with one on more twisted centers. One broken center also causes no ambiguity. Two or more broken centers will. I will define a broken center as when a center breaks into two or more pieces. Not if one center snaps half way only. Cheers! -Per > --- In [email protected], Tyson Mao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Per, > > Everyone adopts their own cubing style, so when we write rules, we > cannot consider the style at all. Obviously, this rule would affect > people who are prone to popping differently than people who never pop, > and so instead, we go and consider what ultimately cubing is about. In > my mind, and people may disagree, cubing is the art of solving the cube > by turning the faces and realigning the puzzle. I feel that > misalignment and forcibly turning the puzzle is not a part of the > puzzle solution, and so the pops the result from it are not condoned. > > If pops really aren't the fault of the cuber, then those people who > feel this way should have been spending time previously to get a rule > of 'infinite pops' added to the regulations. It would work the same > way, since we can agree that basically no one pops on purpose, > therefore if pops are not the fault of the cuber, you should get an > extra solve. If you pop five times, you keep solving until you have > five solves where you are happy, and then there's your average. Why > wasn't this advocated in the past? Based on the logic that no pop is > the fault of the competitor, I see it as the only fair way to run a > competition. > > Instead, we allowed one. We recognized, and everyone recognized by not > complaining, that the fault is somewhat the fault of the competitor. > How much, it remains to be debated. The argument for pops being > rewarded extra solves in a competition must address the following > issue: why is popping fundamentally unavoidable while solving a cube? > > Speed is definitely want, but not at the expense of accuracy. We want > to solve the cube as fast as possible, but it doesn't give us the > liberty to be sloppy about it. In Sport Stacking (Cup Stacking), if > you go faster, you fumble. If you fumble and not over the cups, you > have to fix it. They don't give you an extra attempt. You have to > choose what combination of speed and caution you want to use while > solving the cube, and it has always been this way. You could go too > fast and put in an F2L pair of the wrong color, but that doesn't award > you an extra solve. > > Can you explain why popping is not the fault of the cuber? I haven't > seen that question answered yet, and I really need it to be answered. > What is it about solving the cube that popping is unavoidable? Why is > exercising more caution during the solve against the principles of > solving a cube as fast as possible? How come accuracy is something > that should be left up to chance, instead of being mandated by the > competitor solving the cube? > > Tyson Mao > MSC #631 > California Institute of Technology > > On Dec 26, 2005, at 4:45 AM, Per Kristen Fredlund wrote: > > > Hi :-) > > > > That's because not all cubes are equal. And also different cubing > > styles. But noone willingly adopts a style where popping is > > frequent. Well, except that generally higher speed causes more > > popping, and speed is what we want. That's why we compete :-) > > > > -Per > > > >> --- In [email protected], Tyson Mao > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Per, > >> > >> But it is legal to pop, and still finish with a valid time. > >> > >> If popping is not the fault of the cuber, then why do some people > > pop > >> frequently, and others do not? What causes the popping that is > > not > >> controlled by the cuber? > >> > >> Accuracy in physical execution is mandated by our sport... just > > like > >> everything else. Cup stacking, playing music, etc. > >> > >> Tyson Mao > >> MSC #631 > >> California Institute of Technology > >> > >> On Dec 25, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Per Kristen Fredlund wrote: > >> > >>> Hi :-) > >>> > >>> Sorry, that analogy does not hold water ;-) It is actually LEGAL > > to > >>> tip over all the hurdles and get a valid time, as long as u > > follow > >>> the lane from start to finish :D (And if not creeping under all > > of > >>> them ...) I will still say that most pops are not the fault of > > the > >>> cuber, or at least not in a predictable way. That's the real > >>> difference. If u tip over a hurdle it's the fault of the runner, > > and > >>> the runner knows exactly why he tipped the hurdle over. > >>> > >>> Sorry, but i feel strongly about this. I can live with the new > > rule, > >>> but i strongly disagree with the reasons for not allowing a > > single > >>> pop anymore. I haven't seen convincing theoretical or practical > >>> reasons :-) > >>> > >>> -Per > >>> > >>>> --- In [email protected], "Stefan Pochmann" > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> --- In [email protected], "Per Kristen > >>> Fredlund" > >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I agree with Peter here. Not allowing ANY pop at all [...] > >>>> > >>>> Pops will still be allowed, just not rewarded anymore. > >>>> > >>>> Probably better analogy than Nascar: 100 meter hurdles. If you > >>>> fall/stumble crashing into a hurdle because you were too sloppy > >>> (e.g. > >>>> trying to jump more forwards than upwards) then you don't get a > >>>> replacement run. And why should you? > >>>> > >>>> Cheers! > >>>> Stefan > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/MXMplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
