+2 for putting puzzle anywhere outside the mat. Also clarify that F3 doesn't override it. #343

[Claster]

The change clarifies a penalty for a puzzle being put anywhere outside the mat (including in front of the timer).
Also now we have to clarify F3, otherwise it unintentionally overrides this effect for clock only.

Should we clarify that a DNF in F3 must be issued if the puzzle is not in a standing posiiton? If a competitor puts the puzzle lying, pins likely will be changed anyway, unless

1. all pins are in the same position already;
2. the puzzle has really hard to press pins.
   Do we care about these two cases?

[lgarron]

Also now we have to clarify F3, otherwise it unintentionally overrides this effect for clock only.

Another reason I prefer DNF. Barely anyone does it, and trying to be lenient just gives us complications. :-/

Do we care about these two cases?

I think that's fine, but as I just said above, I would prefer to avoid the potential for edge cases. We don't need more fodder for Regulations trivia. :-P

[Laura-O]

I don't have a good solution for this, but the cases you mentioned are difficult to notice by judges and I think they should concentrate on their core tasks, instead of trying to follow the pin state of the scramble in case someone wants to put his Clock flat on the table.

[Claster]

Indeed, having judges figured out whether all pins were in one state and whether lying on a table was legitimate or not is too overwhelming. PTAL.

@lgarron: I would prefer DNF also, but the case this issue was motivated by seems to be resolved as +2 only.

[lgarron]

How do other WRC members feel about DNF vs. +2?

It's possible to rule one way on the existing case (based on the ambiguity in the current Regulations) but then tighten up the Regulations to be more clear in the future.

[Laura-O]

I don't have a strong preference. +2 would be in accordance with the penalty for putting the puzzle on the timer, but you could also say that the timer is part of the stackmat, so the penalty for putting it not on the mat should be stricter.

[Claster]

So lets proceed with +2, according to the Board.

[viroulep]

What about not changing A3d, and changing A3d1 to :
"The puzzle must not rest outside the mat. Penalty: time penalty (+2 seconds)."
?

[Claster]

Well, that becomes a bit repetitive: first we say "the competitor places the puzzle on the mat" and then "The puzzle must not rest outside the mat".

[viroulep]

Hmm you're right, maybe just change "not on" to "outside" in your original proposition ?
The "not on" actually sounds weird, maybe that's just me :p

[Claster]

Well, I don't have strong preferences towards "not on" or "outside". What others think?

[Laura-O]

Avoiding "not" is always a good idea as it makes things clearer and people cannot say they skipped the "not". So I vote for "outside".

[Claster]

I changed "not on" to "outside" and reworded F3. I think that "Penalty: DNF" is not enough in F3, as it may be not clear that DNF is also for not standing position (the only word "must" in this regulation concerns changing of pins). So I kept "Penalty for blablabla or blablabla: DNF". PTAL.

[viroulep]

Sorry for being picky about this, but shouldn't we write "not doing something this way" instead of "doing something not this way" ?
I think "Penalty for not putting the puzzle in a standing position" would sound better, but I'm not sure.

[lgarron]

"Penalty for not putting the puzzle in a standing position" definitely sounds better to me.

[lgarron]

Alternatively, split up F3 into F3 (standing) and F3a (no pin changes)?

[viroulep]

This looks good :)
We just need to clear that small langage nitpick I commented on and I'm unsure about.

I'm going to make the same purely technical comment I made to Laura in #348 ;D
The commits history is starting to get a bit messy for a "small" resulting diff, would you mind squashing your 4 commits into one, and git push --force it to fix-issue-343 ?

[Claster]

I changed the order of "not".

Philippe, I wouldn't mind, but unfortunately I can squash it only on Sunday evening.

[Claster]

Wo-hoo, squash was successfull! Merge it?

[viroulep]

Nice :D

I would merge it, just to check : did you see Lucas' comment about alternatively splitting F3 into F3+F3a ?

[Claster]

Yes, I did. I don't have strong preference towards changing it (and Lucas seemingly doesn't, as he proposed it as an alternative). However, if anybody thinks that F3 is overloaded now, I could split.

[lgarron]

I believe simplicity is important, and each Regulation should be as clear as possible on its own. If no one feels strongly, I'd prefer to split.

[Claster]

All right, now it is simpler, as the condition for penalty is not written.

[Laura-O]

Yes, that looks good.

I just merged #350 where "beginning of the solve" was changed to "start of the solve", so this branch has conflicts now. We have to change this here as well and everything should be fine.