# Remove Rubik's Cube as an Official Event



## Noahaha (Sep 17, 2013)

Hey everyone! I've been reading the arguments for removing feet as an event, and an idea struck me:

Instead of feet, we should remove Rubik's Cube. I would not be making this argument if I did not hate Rubik's Cube as an event, but like the people who hate feet, I will not be making my arguments based on my hatred, but on facts.

Here are my reasons:
-Removing Rubik's cube would make room for 3-4 extra events at every competition.
-It is not an interesting event (does not add anything over 3x3 One-Handed or 3x3 with feet).
-You can pick up some serious germs by scrambling all the cubes of the little kids. I'd rather scramble one cube for feet than five for 3x3.
-If it gets removed, there will still be 16 other events for people to do.
-It is extremely inconvenient to run due to how long it takes to do one round of it.
-It gives the speedcubing community the wrong reputation. People often think Rubik's Cube is the only event, even though there are many events that are more interesting and fun to watch than boring old 3x3.
-It requires someone to have two hands, unlike feet and OH.
-It's a large enough puzzle to be boring to watch, but not large enough to be impressive.
-The people who are fastest at bigger cubes tend to be the fastest at 3x3, so it doesn't really add anything.
-The people who are really into Rubik's Cube can just switch to other events where their 3x3 speed will transfer, unlike people who are really into feet.
-The methods used are not very interesting, and most people use the most boring method.
-It's boring and it sucks.


Thanks for reading! Next time you find yourself wanting to remove feet, just ask yourself: shouldn't we be removing Rubik's Cube instead?

It is the worst event that takes up the most time!


----------



## KongShou (Sep 17, 2013)

seconded


----------



## Renslay (Sep 17, 2013)

Thanks, now you broke my sarcasm detector. Where can I buy a new one?


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Sep 17, 2013)

I say rename it 3x3 Cube. Because rubiks is a brand.


----------



## jdbryant (Sep 17, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> Hey everyone! I've been reading the arguments for removing feet as an event, and an idea struck me:
> 
> Instead of feet, we should remove Rubik's Cube. I would not be making this argument if I did not hate Rubik's Cube as an event, but like the people who hate feet, I will not be making my arguments based on my hatred, but on *facts*.
> 
> ...


Umm... Yeah.


> -You can pick up some serious germs by scrambling all the cubes of the little kids. I'd rather scramble one cube for feet than five for 3x3.





> -It requires someone to have two hands, unlike feet and OH.



That was funny though.


----------



## blackzabbathfan (Sep 17, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


> I say rename it 3x3 Cube. Because rubiks is a brand.



When I read the title of the thread that's what I figured it would be about.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Sep 17, 2013)

Why you no make poll?. If enough people vote for it to be removed then clearly it should be removed.


----------



## Goosly (Sep 17, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> -It requires someone to have two hands, unlike feet and OH.



We should remove anything that requires someone to have two hands or two feet. What about 5x5 with one foot and one hand?  That must be awesome to watch.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Sep 17, 2013)

This will make more time for real events like lunch, I'm sick of having so many of those silly rubikx things at competitions. I'm all for it.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Sep 17, 2013)

blackzabbathfan said:


> When I read the title of the thread that's what I figured it would be about.



Lol. When I saw the title I thought a n00b posted it. Then I looked. It was a BLDer. They are always hating on sighted cause they aren't very good at it. 

Noah, do/did you do debate. Cause you did a pretty good job. But I want a rebuttal now.


----------



## DrKorbin (Sep 17, 2013)

Goosly said:


> We should remove anything that requires someone to have two hands or two feet. What about 5x5 with one foot and one hand?  That must be awesome to watch.



Or we could replace Rubik's Cube with 3x3x3 for telekinesis people - it won't require having feet or hands at all.


----------



## PeelingStickers (Sep 17, 2013)

The lunch world record has been severely held back by all these silly events. Get rid of the seventeen and keep lunch. 12 rounds of it. Over two days.


----------



## Cubetastic (Sep 17, 2013)

At first i thought it was serious
(then i lol'd)


----------



## sneaklyfox (Sep 17, 2013)

PeelingStickers said:


> The lunch world record has been severely held back by all these silly events. Get rid of the seventeen and keep lunch. 12 rounds of it. Over two days.



Really? Because all these events just means I get faster at lunch. I'd probably be pretty good at it if it were an event.


----------



## ianliu64 (Sep 17, 2013)

Wow. Apparently no one cares about breakfast.
I am the WR holder for breakfast ya know.


----------



## PeelingStickers (Sep 17, 2013)

sneaklyfox said:


> Really? Because all these events just means I get faster at lunch. I'd probably be pretty good at it if it were an event.



True, ok maybe five rounds of feet will build up a good enough appetite to challenge for the WR


----------



## ryanj92 (Sep 17, 2013)

Rubiks doesn't even make the majority of the hardware anymore so the only reason we're keeping it is because its been there all along... I bet if we tried to add it today people would say no


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Sep 17, 2013)

"This can make room for more events"


OMG OMG OMG LIKE 15PUZZLE XD


----------



## rj (Sep 18, 2013)

strakerak said:


> "This can make room for more events"
> 
> 
> OMG OMG OMG LIKE 15PUZZLE XD



Yes! Florian modded 15 puzzles?


----------



## Noahaha (Sep 18, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


> Noah, do/did you do debate*?* Cause you did a pretty good job.



No. Just a lifetime of arguing.



Cubetastic said:


> At first i thought it was serious
> (then i lol'd)



This is serious.



jdbryant said:


> Umm... Yeah.



Twas a joke. Calm yourself.



sneaklyfox said:


> Why you no make poll?. If enough people vote for it to be removed then clearly it should be removed.



I'm worried that if I make a poll, people will vote for keeping Rubik's Cube, especially since it is extremely popular.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Sep 18, 2013)

rj said:


> Yes! Florian modded 15 puzzles?




They don't really need it as long as you put some lube in the contact points ( Or break it in with 1-200 solves)


----------



## BaconCuber (Sep 18, 2013)

I very much understand the points you made, and have experienced many of them myself. If you are ever looking for support to the WCA on this, I would be happy to back you up. +1


----------



## Mikel (Sep 18, 2013)

I like the idea. It would get people interested in other events.


----------



## Kit Clement (Sep 18, 2013)

I think this is a great post that highlights why "Remove X as an event" threads are just pointless. The WCA specifies no criterion for the events we run, other than this sentence on the about page:



> The World Cube Association governs competitions for all puzzles labelled as Rubik puzzles, and all other puzzles that are played by twisting the sides, so-called 'twisty puzzles'. Most famous of these puzzles is the Rubik's Cube, invented by professor Rubik from Hungary. A selection of these puzzles are chosen as official events of WCA.



Because of this, even a fact-based argument has no real basis, as the only criterion specified for WCA puzzles are generally well-known facts about the puzzles themselves and have no room for debate. Until the WCA describes certain goals for the organization and what events it should run, we are simply debating on what we personally find ideal in a WCA competition, which varies greatly. Some would like the ability to logistically run every event in one day, others would prefer to have a wide variety of events to choose from when hosting a competition, among many other reasons. We should really be discussing what goals we would like to see for the WCA going forward, not what events we'd like to see.


----------



## TMOY (Sep 18, 2013)

PeelingStickers said:


> True, ok maybe five rounds of feet will build up a good enough appetite to challenge for the WR



Or we could replace the normal and boring lunch event by a lunch WF event.


----------



## Ton (Sep 18, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> Hey everyone! I've been reading the arguments for removing feet as an event, and an idea struck me:
> 
> Instead of feet, we should remove Rubik's Cube. I would not be making this argument if I did not hate Rubik's Cube as an event, but like the people who hate feet, I will not be making my arguments based on my hatred, but on facts.



I suggest you organize a competition without the Rubik's cube event, and instead do a feet only competition e.g. one feet cube event, blind feetcubing, multiblind feetcubing.


----------



## stoic (Sep 18, 2013)

Kit Clement said:


> I think this is a great post that highlights why "Remove X as an event" threads are just pointless. The WCA specifies no criterion for the events we run, other than this sentence on the about page:
> 
> 
> > The World Cube Association governs competitions for all puzzles labelled as Rubik puzzles, and all other puzzles that are played by twisting the sides, so-called 'twisty puzzles'. Most famous of these puzzles is the Rubik's Cube, invented by professor Rubik from Hungary. A selection of these puzzles are chosen as official events of WCA.
> ...



I agree with this. The WCA's mission looks somewhat anachronistic, and could do with updating. 
Apart from 3x3 and Clock, we don't have any of the other "Rubik puzzles" e.g Magic, Rubik's 360. Without a coherent framework, discussions around what puzzles should be official are difficult to have.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 18, 2013)

Kit Clement said:


> I think this is a great post that highlights why "Remove X as an event" threads are just pointless. The WCA specifies no criterion for the events we run, other than this sentence on the about page:



Yeah we should never discuss removal of events ever in case people get offended.


----------



## BaMiao (Sep 18, 2013)

Kit Clement said:


> I think this is a great post that highlights why "Remove X as an event" threads are just pointless.



I honestly didn't expect anything to come of that feet debate, but I really have to disagree with this statement. Part of the mission of the wca should be to serve in the interests of the cubing community. They cannot, of course, give in to every demand, but discussions like that are an important way to gauge the position of the community at large.

And really, it was just a discussion. There's no need for anyone to take anything said so personally. This thread, especially, has not been productive at all. There's no need for all the snark and immaturity.

But I do agree with your other point- I do think the WCA needs to make it clear what guidelines they use in choosing events.

Honest question: What is the procedure for adding/removing events, and who gets to make these decisions?


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Sep 18, 2013)

IMO, we should change the name to 3x3 cube

Reasons:
Rubiks is a brand not a puzzle. 
All other cubic puzzles are counted by number.


----------



## jdbryant (Sep 18, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


> IMO, we should change the name to 3x3 cube
> 
> Reasons:
> Rubiks is a brand not a puzzle.
> All other cubic puzzles are counted by number.



Although I agree with you that it does not make sense for everything else to be 2x2, 4x4, etc., people called a 3x3 a "Rubik's Cube" before Rubik's was a brand. I guess the only reason the WCA keeps the name is because that's what it has always been called and also for easier recognition by non-cubers, maybe? They should still change it.


----------



## TimMc (Sep 18, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> -Removing Rubik's cube would make room for 3-4 extra events at every competition.



Organisers don't have to offer it. Use cut-offs and time limits.



Noahaha said:


> -It is not an interesting event (does not add anything over 3x3 One-Handed or 3x3 with feet).



It's a very popular event.



Noahaha said:


> -You can pick up some serious germs by scrambling all the cubes of the little kids. I'd rather scramble one cube for feet than five for 3x3.



Wear gloves.



Noahaha said:


> -If it gets removed, there will still be 16 other events for people to do.



It's the most popular event. Fewer people would turn up if it wasn't offered.



Noahaha said:


> -It is extremely inconvenient to run due to how long it takes to do one round of it.



It's easy to scramble for. Use cut-offs and time limits.



Noahaha said:


> -It gives the speedcubing community the wrong reputation. People often think Rubik's Cube is the only event, even though there are many events that are more interesting and fun to watch than boring old 3x3.



The general public don't understand what "cubing" means so it's easier to say "Rubik's Cube Tournament". If the point is to promote competitions in a way that the general public can understand then "speedcubing" might not be received well. A lot of people know what a Rubik's Cube is.



Noahaha said:


> -It requires someone to have two hands, unlike feet and OH.



You can use one hand.



Noahaha said:


> -It's a large enough puzzle to be boring to watch, but not large enough to be impressive.



You could use a giant cube if you want.



Noahaha said:


> -The people who are fastest at bigger cubes tend to be the fastest at 3x3, so it doesn't really add anything.



A marathon vs. sprinting?



Noahaha said:


> -The people who are really into Rubik's Cube can just switch to other events where their 3x3 speed will transfer, unlike people who are really into feet.



Try switching between left and right one-handed solving.



Noahaha said:


> -The methods used are not very interesting, and most people use the most boring method.



There are heaps of interesting methods!



Noahaha said:


> -It's boring and it sucks.



Play with a calculator instead?



Noahaha said:


> Thanks for reading! Next time you find yourself wanting to remove feet, just ask yourself: shouldn't we be removing Rubik's Cube instead?



I wouldn't want to remove the feet event. I just won't offer it unless someone can show that they're taking the event seriously. I had to enforce cut-offs for OH because some competitors figured "Oh, this event is being offered. I might as well enter it without practicing at all." and then take 3 minutes to solve it OH when they usually take 30 seconds with two. Practice!



Noahaha said:


> It is the worst event that takes up the most time!



Use cut-offs and time limits.

Tim.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 18, 2013)

Noah, that was great! 



ryanj92 said:


> Rubiks doesn't even make the majority of the hardware anymore so the only reason we're keeping it is because its been there all along... I bet if we tried to add it today people would say no



Great post! Loved it! 



Kit Clement said:


> I think this is a great post that highlights why "Remove X as an event" threads are just pointless. The WCA specifies no criterion for the events we run...
> 
> ...
> 
> Because of this, even a fact-based argument has no real basis, as the only criterion specified for WCA puzzles are generally well-known facts about the puzzles themselves and have no room for debate. Until the WCA describes certain goals for the organization and what events it should run, we are simply debating on what we personally find ideal in a WCA competition, which varies greatly. Some would like the ability to logistically run every event in one day, others would prefer to have a wide variety of events to choose from when hosting a competition, among many other reasons. *We should really be discussing what goals we would like to see for the WCA going forward, not what events we'd like to see.*



This is a very clear explanation of a growing pain the WCA has now that the number of competitors and the number of competitions has grown so much. It would be nice to have a clear explanation of what types of events are prefered in a competition to be used as a means of justifying why certain puzzles are official and others are not.



Kirjava said:


> Yeah we should never discuss removal of events ever in case people get offended.



Why should we continue to discuss the removal of events under the current setup of no guidelines from the WCA for their inclusion/removal? This leads to people having different ideas of what an "ideal" official event would be, as Kit puts it. If the WCA comes up with a set of guidelines for what makes an event official then discussions about adding or removing events would be easier as an event that should be removed would meet fewer of those guidelines than an event that should remain official.


----------



## scottishcuber (Sep 18, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


> IMO, we should change the name to 3x3 cube
> 
> Reasons:
> Rubiks is a brand not a puzzle.
> All other cubic puzzles are counted by number.



Honestly, I hate to present the whole "if-it's-not-broken-don't-fix-it" argument, but I have never heard anyone desperately want to remove Rubik's and replace it with 3x3. It's isn't a problem. 

We all know we aren't talking about the brand anymore because Rubik's has become the generic name. I also like to think that as long as we call it a Rubik's cube we are continuing Erno Rubik's legacy as the man who designed and created the cube which inspired speedcubing (or at least was essential for it's inception).

Also, I'm pretty sure it was called a Rubik's cube before anyone called it a 3x3x3 cube, so why can't it's generic name be Rubik's (without you thinking that it means a storebought Rubik's brand)?


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 18, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> Why should we continue to discuss the removal of events under the current setup of no guidelines from the WCA for their inclusion/removal? This leads to people having different ideas of what an "ideal" official event would be, as Kit puts it. If the WCA comes up with a set of guidelines for what makes an event official then discussions about adding or removing events would be easier as an event that should be removed would meet fewer of those guidelines than an event that should remain official.



The discussions of event removal have merit.

The Magic thread allowed the community to produce good reasons for having the event removed and give other input, shortly after the event was indeed removed.

The feet removal thread allowed us to reach the consensus that there is no good reason to remove the event. It showed that even though many want to do so we should not.

Discussion is not harmful. Are you suggesting we censor these threads?


----------



## KongShou (Sep 18, 2013)

Instead of solving the cube, we should replace it with scrambling. Time how long it take ppl to scramble


----------



## Yellowsnow98 (Sep 18, 2013)

KongShou said:


> Instead of solving the cube, we should replace it with scrambling. Time how long it take ppl to scramble



Yeah and we'd need solvers to solve the cubes before each scramble.


----------



## EMI (Sep 18, 2013)

I also think it should be removed. Another important reason: We've come to a limit where the Rubik's cube world record can't ever be broken again. It is just too fast.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 18, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> The discussions of event removal have merit.



They do, but if the WCA had guidelines about what made for "better" official events don't you think these discussion would have been much shorter and had less arguing than they do currently where the WCA does not have guidelines about what makes for a better official event? Right now these discussions involve lots of arguing/bickering to get to a final result.

Why spend energy discussing the removal of a _specific_ event or not when we can redirect that energy to discussing what makes for an "ideal" official event and in a sense be creating guidelines to present to the WCA for any future event addition/removal discussion? I personally like the idea of figuring out the guidelines first to make the discussion about any specific event's addition or removal much easier than they are now.



Kirjava said:


> The Magic thread allowed the community to produce good reasons for having the event removed and give other input, shortly after the event was indeed removed.
> 
> The feet removal thread allowed us to reach the consensus that there is no good reason to remove the event. It showed that even though many want to do so we should not.



Yep, agreed. With WCA guidelines I feel this would have been done more easily, but yes the current discussions, with little WCA guidance, did produce these results.



Kirjava said:


> Discussion is not harmful. Are you suggesting we censor these threads?



Discussion is not harmful, and I personally don't see any reason why they should be censored. What good could come from censoring such discussions?


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 18, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> They do, but if the WCA had guidelines about what made for "better" official events don't you think these discussion would have been much shorter and had less arguing than they do currently where the WCA does not have guidelines about what makes for a better official event?



Sure, but you asked why should discuss them at all if we don't have guidelines. 

I was explaining why.


----------



## DrKorbin (Sep 18, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> Why should we continue to discuss the removal of events under the current setup of no guidelines from the WCA for their inclusion/removal?



Probably because of historical reasons. There _was_ a regulation that said:
9e1) The decision to add or remove an event is made by the WCA Board, based on feedback by the community.
So here you are, a feedback by the community.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 18, 2013)

I feel like perhaps I am not putting my thoughts into words very well. Allow me to rephrase:

Would it be an improvement to the WCA to create guidelines about what constitutes an "ideal" official event against which we can compare any future event addition/removal request?


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 18, 2013)

I understood the point you were trying to make, it's just not something I wanted to comment on.


----------



## BaMiao (Sep 18, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> I feel like perhaps I am not putting my thoughts into words very well. Allow me to rephrase:
> 
> Would it be an improvement to the WCA to create guidelines about what constitutes an "ideal" official event against which we can compare any future event addition/removal request?



I agree with this sentiment, but wonder if it is possible, right now, to create such a set of guidelines without it immediately being interpreted in terms of existing discussion. For example, if someone wanted to add a guideline, "WCA events should all be unique in solve strategy", this would be immediately be interpreted as an attempt to get feet excluded. How can you decouple the fundamental discussion of "how do we choose events?" from the practical discussion of "which events should we choose?" In other words, I feel like a discussion of guidelines would just devolve into arguments like, "You can't include guideline X, because it would exclude event Y", which is backwards from what you and I want.


----------



## DrKorbin (Sep 18, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> Would it be an improvement to the WCA to create guidelines about what constitutes an "ideal" official event against which we can compare any future event addition/removal request?


Yeah, make it please


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 18, 2013)

Proposed Guidelines (Rough Draft):

Definitions:
A geometric sequential movement puzzle is a puzzle whose shape is a three dimensional convex solid. Each side of the puzzle must be colored consistently with the WCA regulations such that every face of the geomtric solid has a distinct color in the solved state. The puzzle must be such that there is one possible solved state out of all possible configurations obtainable by twisting the sides/movable parts of the puzzle. Obtaining the solution from a non-solved state requires repeated manipulation of the puzzle's mechanisms to get the puzzle to the pre-defined solved state.

Guidelines all official events must follow:
A) A geometric sequential movement puzzle must be used.
B) The solution of the puzzle must be timed (see WCA regulations for timing procedures)
C) Exactly one puzzle is to be solved while held in both hands, while the competitor is looking at it. Allowances are made, as per the WCA regulations, for competitors who do not have the use of both hands, or who have partial or no use of their sight.
D) The event must be able to be timed and judged, fairly, without the use of video equipment to review whether all WCA regulations were properly followed during a solve.
E) All official events must be held at a World Championship competition, over the span of 3 official competition days. If a 4th competition day is used only for staff members to compete, then all events must be able to be held for all staff members on the one day allotted for staff only competition. In addition, the total number of events cannot exceed 20 events. 

Guidlines official events may follow:
1) Guideline C may be varied. A variation may be exactly one of the following allowable:
1a) The competitor may solve exactly one puzzle with one hand, while looking at it.
1b) The competitor may solve exactly one puzzle with both feet, while looking at it.
1c) The competitor may solve exactly one puzzle with both hands, while not looking at it (after a timed study period)
1d) The competitor may solve multiple puzzles with both hands, while not looking at it (after a timed study period)

The WCA board has the final say in all matters regarding the inclusion or removal of an event. The board is limited to allowing events which are allowed by these regulations, and if an event is not approved by the regulations on this list then it is implicitly denied as a potential event.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have time to write more right now. So far the problems I see is that the variations are less "theoretical" and are written to allow for the current events. We could allow any portion of Guideline C to be varied (in effect allowing 4x4 multiBLD with feet), but allowing this event to be vetoed by the board for violating regulation E (it would take too long as an addition to the current events, unless multiple current events are removed and that is not likely to be enacted by the board).

I'm sure there are more problems too, but now we have a starting point for some Guidelines.


----------



## TMOY (Sep 18, 2013)

I think FMC should then be removed. It clearly violates guideline B). 
(and also guideline C) with current rules, but this could be fixed by allowing only one cube instead of three.)


----------



## DrKorbin (Sep 18, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> Proposed Guidelines (Rough Draft):



Wow!
1) Does this text mean that it is or will be used by WCA Board?
2) Regulation E is vague. It depends on organization skills of a limited group of people, it depends on a competitors count which is hardly predictable, and it can be checked only once in two years. And also you can make a strict time limits and qualifications and "deceive" this regulation. Though I agree some "total time" limit must be set somehow.



TMOY said:


> I think FMC should then be removed. It clearly violates guideline B).
> (and also guideline C) with current rules, but this could be fixed by allowing only one cube instead of three.)



Yeah, and clock.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 18, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> Wow!
> 1) Does this text mean that it is or will be used by WCA Board?



This text is in no way representative of the WCA board, their intentions, or their plans for what to do about adding or removing events.



DrKorbin said:


> 2) Regulation E is vague. It depends on organization skills of a limited group of people, it depends on a competitors count which is hardly predictable, and it can be checked only once in two years. And also you can make a strict time limits and qualifications and "deceive" this regulation. Though I agree some "total time" limit must be set somehow.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and clock.



I can see that there are a number of problems with the text, but I'm glad it is at least a start. Can other people help me edit it? I'm not going to have time to look at this more for another couple days.


----------



## Coolster01 (Sep 18, 2013)

I guess One Foot isn't becoming an event... 

waitasecond theres no reason to not have 2x2 OH lol !


----------



## BaMiao (Sep 18, 2013)

Here's an attempt to add to the guidelines. Nothing revolutionary, just getting stuff on the page:

-Events must have a "solve" aspect (i.e. not simply a practiced set of motions like magic or cup stacking)
-Events must be able to be judged based on a clear set of regulations.
-Puzzles should be scrambled and solved within a reasonable time frame.
-Puzzles must have an official scramble algorithm that generates random or quasi-random states.
-Events should have a sizeable user base of people who specifically perform the task with the goal of reduced solve time, and using methods that are tailored to that goal (exceptions- FMC, multiBLD).
-Puzzles should be mass produced and accessible to the general population.
-Event choice should encourage participants to push the boundary of what is generally thought to be humanly possible.


----------



## stoic (Sep 18, 2013)

BaMiao said:


> -Event choice should encourage participants to push the boundary of what is generally thought to be humanly possible.



I don't quite understand this one; could you elaborate?


----------



## BaMiao (Sep 18, 2013)

ellwd said:


> I don't quite understand this one; could you elaborate?



Hmmmm... Yeah, I don't like the wording. Maybe someone can help.

I basically put it there to give some leeway on the inclusion of difficult events, like 5-BLD or MBLD, which might not have a large base of participants. I'd say these events are important to include because they encourage people to attempt amazing things and are a great face to show to the general public, since they showcase what cubers are really capable of.

I also don't think we can include events simply because they are popular and people like to do them. It ideally should showcase some unique skill. Popularity should be a part of the criteria, but it can't be everything. I'm just not finding the words.


----------



## DaveyCow (Sep 18, 2013)

EMI said:


> I also think it should be removed. Another important reason: We've come to a limit where the Rubik's cube world record can't ever be broken again. It is just too fast.



This implies that we should only have an event in which the WR can be broken... but this is simply not the reason at all the wca has events.


----------



## stoic (Sep 18, 2013)

BaMiao said:


> Hmmmm... Yeah, I don't like the wording. Maybe someone can help.
> 
> I basically put it there to give some leeway on the inclusion of difficult events, like 5-BLD or MBLD, which might not have a large base of participants. I'd say these events are important to include because they encourage people to attempt amazing things and are a great face to show to the general public, since they showcase what cubers are really capable of.
> 
> I also don't think we can include events simply because they are popular and people like to do them. It ideally should showcase some unique skill. Popularity should be a part of the criteria, but it can't be everything. I'm just not finding the words.



Ok I see what you're getting at. 
How about something like:

"Events should cover a range of difficulty, from simpler puzzles (to encourage participation) to harder disciplines which showcase the limits of puzzle solving"

Edit at will - I'm not precious!


----------



## BaMiao (Sep 19, 2013)

ellwd said:


> "Events should cover a range of difficulty, from simpler puzzles (to encourage participation) to harder disciplines which showcase the limits of puzzle solving"



I like this wording. Pretty much exactly what I'm getting at. Thanks!


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 19, 2013)

lolthread got serious. gotta love this forum


----------



## Michael Womack (Sep 20, 2013)

WHAT?!?! Why would we remove the 3x3 event? I say keep it because all of the Cubing started off with Erno Rubik's 3x3 back in 1974.


----------



## BaMiao (Sep 20, 2013)

Michael Womack said:


> WHAT?!?! Why would we remove the 3x3 event? I say keep it because all of the Cubing started off with Erno Rubik's 3x3 back in 1974.



It's called satire. It was an empty argument that used absurdity to attempt to convince us all that we shouldn't talk about removing events.


----------



## ben1996123 (Sep 20, 2013)

Michael Womack said:


> WHAT?!?! Why would we remove the 3x3 event? I say keep it because all of the Cubing started off with Erno Rubik's 3x3 back in 1974.



we should remove rubik's cube because it is worst event


----------



## TimMc (Sep 20, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> Why should we continue to discuss the removal of events under the current setup of *no guidelines from the WCA for their inclusion/removal*?



I don't see the point. They can talk about cereal instead.

It's definitely worth discussing guidelines for adding and removing events. But perhaps we should focus on the future direction of the WCA more broadly first.

Tim.


----------



## Username (Sep 20, 2013)

I suggest removing everything but pyra


----------



## 1LastSolve (Sep 20, 2013)

I completely understand the reasoning behind it and why people would want to do it, but just think about it: More people would go mad if 3 x 3 was removed instead of foot cubing, because of the sheer numbers. I just think that they should come to a compromise and shorten some events, like making 4 x 4 - 7 x 7 Average of 3. The con, would be that if you screw up once, and its bad enough you're done at the competition.


----------



## XTowncuber (Sep 20, 2013)

1LastSolve said:


> I completely understand the reasoning behind it and why people would want to do it, but just think about it: More people would go mad if 3 x 3 was removed instead of foot cubing, because of the sheer numbers. I just think that they should come to a compromise and shorten some events, like making 4 x 4 - 7 x 7 Average of 3. The con, would be that if you screw up once, and its bad enough you're done at the competition.


It's a joke thread. No one here is seriously considering removing 3x3.


----------



## Tim Major (Sep 20, 2013)

Username said:


> I suggest removing everything but pyra


Then other people would practise Pyraminx more than we do, so all records would be lowered.


----------

